“Transparency” is a word frequently utilized by the AOC and the Judicial Council. How does this terminology translate into practice when the AOC is involved?
Recently the Chief Justice authorized raises of 3.5% for those working at the AOC. She authorized this pay raise with her signature. With courthouses across the state closing, necessary courtroom employees being laid off, and court hours being restricted, Alliance Director Judge Kevin McCormick decided to inquire what process took place to determine that the raises for administrative staff were appropriate given the fiscal climate in which they were awarded.
Questions to the AOC which seemed logical and easily answered included:
(1) How many employees received the raise?
(2) What criteria were used to determine if the employees’ performance justified a raise?
(3) Did anyone receive a pay raise less than 3.5%?
(4) Was any eligible employee denied a pay increase?
(5) How many of the employees had a performance evaluation within the calendar year preceding their pay raise?
What this request developed was that no eligible employee was denied the increase, every AOC employee eligible to receive 3.5% got the maximum raise, that “Policy 4.3(c)” was used to evaluate the appropriateness of the raise, and that the AOC has no records they will provide indicating if any employee had a performance evaluation in the previous year to evaluate the appropriateness of their raise.
Providing this basic information took 23 days.
The answers, of course, created more questions – chief among them was, “What was this Policy 4.3(c)?”
Policy 4.3(c) Step Increases:
The step increase (formerly merit salary adjustment) rate, if applicable, is set on a fiscal year basis by the Chief Justice based on availability of funds.
Employees who have not reached the maximum salary for their classification are eligible for consideration to receive a step increase effective on their anniversary date. The step increase is awarded based on job performance and availability of funds. Hourly intermittent employees are eligible for a step increase after working 1,920 hours.
Where an employee’s job performance does not support the award of a step increase, the step increase may be deferred for a period of up to one year upon recommendation of the supervisor, with the approval of the division director and notice to the affected employee, at which time the supervisor will again review the employee’s eligibility and either grant or deny the step increase. When a step increase is deferred and then granted effective on a date other than the employee’s anniversary date, the anniversary date will change.
After reviewing this policy, Judge McCormick had a few more questions:
(1) In light of courthouses closing across the state, necessary courthouse employees being laid off due to the unavailability of funds, courthouse construction projects being delayed, downsized, or deferred and citizens’ access to justice being substantially restricted, please explain the methodology utilized by the Chief Justice to determine there was an “availability of funds” within the judicial branch budget to approve pay increases at the AOC?
(2) Since a step increase may only be awarded based on job performance and availability of funds, did each of the employees receiving a pay raise have a written performance evaluation to support the step increase?
(3) Since a deferral of the step increase may be sought for underperforming employees upon the recommendation of their supervisor and approval of the division director, has there ever been, in the history of the AOC, such a request to defer a step increase?
The AOC reply to each of these questions on October 3, 2013, was:
Response: Because your request calls for information not set forth in judicial administrative records, it is being referred to Justice Harry Hull, the Chief Justice’s designee for considering such requests, pursuant to AOC policy 2.8 (Responding to Requests for Judicial Administrative Records and Information).
True to form, no response to the items referred to Justice Hull more than two months ago has ever been received.
On October 15, 2013, the AOC clarified one answer by noting that records now reveal that since April of 1993 a total of 12 eligible employees have been denied a step increase. That is right, 12 employees in 20 years.
The failure to provide answers to basic questions about the operations of the AOC does not equate to the transparency those at the AOC and Judicial Council profess to promote. Justice Hull is a member of the Judicial Council that claims that transparency is a priority, yet he appears instrumental in the failure to provide it. Words without actions to implement those asserted objectives are meaningless.
The entire e-mail correspondence between Judge McCormick and AOC functionaries is set forth below, in reverse chronological order, for you to evaluate the “transparency” of the AOC and Judicial Council and whether in fact there has been any meaningful change in the operations of our state court administrators.
Directors, Alliance of California Judges
________________________________
From: Hershkowitz, Donna [mailto:Donna.Hershkowitz@jud.ca.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 1:15 PM
To: McCormick, Kevin
Cc: Pubinfo; Hull, Harry; Jahr, Steven
Subject: RE: Merit Salary Increase
Judge McCormick – First I want to apologize. With regard to item #4 below, you asked: Since a deferral of the Step increase may be sought for underperforming employees upon the recommendation of their supervisor and approval of the division director, has there ever been, in the history of the AOC, such a request to defer a Step increase? Since my response to you, we were able to run an inquiry on the database that we currently use and thus were able to get information in response to your request dating back to April 1993 when we began using that database. Since that date, 12 eligible individuals have been denied a step increase. Please recall that individuals are not eligible should they be at the top of their salary range, and no individuals are eligible if the Chief Justice does not authorize step increases in a given year. For anything prior to that time, as noted below, the AOC would have to review the employee file of each employee who was ever eligible for a step increase. Per California Rules of Court, rule 10.500(e)(1)(B) and the Judicial Council’s October 2011 directive to the AOC regarding responses to judicial administrative records, the AOC is not required to compile or assemble data in response to a request if it does not compile or assemble the data in the requested form for its own use or provision to other agencies.
With regard to your question numbered 1, below: between the periods July 1, 2013, to September 30, 2013, 75 employees received a step increase.
Thank you.
Donna S. Hershkowitz, Director
Office of Appellate Court Services and Court Operations Special Services Office
Judicial Council of California – Administrative Office of the Courts
2255 N. Ontario Street, Suite 220
Burbank, CA 91504
455 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102-3688
Phone 818-558-3068
Fax 415-865-4329
donna.hershkowitz@jud.ca.gov
“Serving the courts for the benefit of all Californians”
From: Hershkowitz, Donna
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 4:31 PM
To: Kevin McCormick
Cc: Pubinfo; Hull, Harry; Jahr, Steven
Subject: FW: Merit Salary Increase
Judge McCormick,
As Chad Finke mentioned to you, I have assumed the role of Director of the Court Operations Special Services Office and will be taking on the duties Chad previously filled.
Below please find our responses to your September 26, 2013 requests for judicial administrative records, which was a follow up to the responses provided to your August 30, 2013 request. Each request is repeated verbatim before its corresponding response for ease of reference.
1. As to item 1 you indicate 51 people received an increase in their pay “between July 1, 2013, through August 30, 2013”. I did not mean to limit the inquiry so narrowly. Please advise the number of people who received this merit salary increase, or are scheduled to receive it, as a result of the Chief Justice’s most recent authorization for Step increases to take place.
Response: I anticipate being able to provide to you, by October 15, the number of people who received a merit salary increase between August 30 and the date of this last request. We cannot provide the number of people “scheduled to receive it” because the determination of whether to provide a step increase to an individual employee is made near that employee’s anniversary date.
2. Please explain the methodology utilized by the Chief Justice to determine there was an “availability of funds” within the judicial branch budget to approve pay increases at the AOC.
Response: Because your request calls for information not set forth in judicial administrative records, it is being referred to Justice Harry Hull, the Chief Justice’s designee for considering such requests, pursuant to AOC policy 2.8 (Responding to Requests for Judicial Administrative Records and Information).
3. Since a Step increase may only be awarded based on job performance and availability of funds, did each of the employees receiving this pay raise receive a written performance evaluation to support the Step increase?
Response: Because your request calls for information not set forth in judicial administrative records, it is being referred to Justice Harry Hull, the Chief Justice’s designee for considering such requests, pursuant to AOC policy 2.8 (Responding to Requests for Judicial Administrative Records and Information).
4. Since a deferral of the Step increase may be sought for underperforming employees upon the recommendation of their supervisor and approval of the division director, has there ever been, in the history of the AOC, such a request to defer a Step increase?
Response: To respond to this request, the AOC would have to review the employee file of each employee who was ever eligible for a step increase. Per California Rules of Court, rule 10.500(e)(1)(B) and the Judicial Council’s October 2011 directive to the AOC regarding responses to judicial administrative records, the AOC is not required to compile or assemble data in response to a request if it does not compile or assemble the data in the requested form for its own use or provision to other agencies.
Donna S. Hershkowitz, Director
Office of Appellate Court Services and Court Operations Special Services Office
Judicial Council of California – Administrative Office of the Courts
2255 N. Ontario Street, Suite 220
Burbank, CA 91504
455 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102-3688
Phone 818-558-3068
Fax 415-865-4329
donna.hershkowitz@jud.ca.gov
“Serving the courts for the benefit of all Californians”
From: McCormick, Kevin
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 3:15 PM
To: Finke, Chad
Cc: Pubinfo; Jahr, Steven; Hull, Harry
Subject: RE: Merit Salary Increase
Mr. Finke,
I appreciate Justice Hull “authorizing” you to explain to me how an increase in one’s pay is not a pay raise, thank you for that clarification. I imagine those in the private sector along with members of our sister branches of government might struggle with that explanation.
As to item 1 you indicate 51 people received an increase in their pay “between July 1, 2013, through August 30, 2013”. I did not mean to limit the inquiry so narrowly. Please advise the number of people who received this merit salary increase, or are scheduled to receive it, as a result of the Chief Justice’s most recent authorization for Step increases to take place.
Your reply referenced Policy 4.3 so I have quoted the applicable section below related to Step increases.
“(C) Step Increases
The step increase (formerly merit salary adjustment) rate, if applicable, is set on a fiscal year basis by the Chief Justice based on availability of funds.
Employees who have not reached the maximum salary for their classification are eligible for consideration to receive a step increase effective on their anniversary date. The step increase is awarded based on job performance and availability of funds. Hourly intermittent employees are eligible for a step increase after working 1,920 hours.
Where an employee’s job performance does not support the award of a step increase, the step increase may be deferred for a period of up to one year upon recommendation of the supervisor, with the approval of the division director and notice to the affected employee, at which time the supervisor will again review the employee’s eligibility and either grant or deny the step increase. When a step increase is deferred and then granted effective on a date other than the employee’s anniversary date, the anniversary date will change.
Please explain the methodology utilized by the Chief Justice to determine there was an “availability of funds” within the judicial branch budget to approve pay increases at the AOC. With courthouses closing across the state, necessary courthouse employees being laid off due to the unavailability of funds, courthouse construction projects being delayed, downsized, or deferred and citizens access to justice being substantially restricted, such a conclusion seems illogical.
Since a Step increase may only be awarded based on job performance and availability of funds, did each of the employees receiving this pay raise receive a written performance evaluation to support the Step increase?
Since a deferral of the Step increase may be sought for underperforming employees upon the recommendation of their supervisor and approval of the division director, has there ever been, in the history of the AOC, such a request to defer a Step increase?
Mr. Finke, I want you to know that I appreciate your attempts to provide the information I have requested. You have always been very professional in our e-mail exchanges even where I was less than satisfied with the responses. I genuinely hope your new job brings you a great deal of satisfaction, professional growth, and personal enjoyment.
Finally, do you happen to know who will be taking your place in for these types of requests?
Very Truly,
The Honorable Kevin J. McCormick
Judge of the Superior Court, County of Sacramento
Gordon D. Schaber Sacramento County Courthouse
720 9th Street, Sacramento CA 95814
(916) xxx-xxxx
From: Finke, Chad [mailto:Chad.Finke@jud.ca.gov]
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 5:23 PM
To: McCormick, Kevin
Cc: Pubinfo; Jahr, Steven; Hull, Harry
Subject: FW: Merit Salary Increase
Judge McCormick,
Below please find our responses to your August 30, 2013, requests for judicial administrative records. Each request is repeated verbatim before its corresponding response for ease of reference. Before turning to the substantive responses, however, I have been authorized by Justice Hull to note that while your request can be read as suggesting that the step increases authorized by the Chief Justice for FY 2013-14 are “raises,” step increases are not in fact raises. Unlike raises, step increases are a mechanism to move employees through the salary range associated with their classification, and are common practice in both the judicial and executive branches for classifications with a salary range.
1. How many employees of the Administrative Office of the Courts received this “merit salary increases?”
51 employees received a step increase for the period July 1, 2013, through August 30, 2013, the date of your request. The data reflects step increases that have been processed by the State Controller’s Office.
2. What was the range of percentages of increased pay an employee was eligible to receive based on “merit?”
Employees are eligible to receive a step increase up to 3.5% of their current base salary. If a 3.5% increase would take an employee above the top of his/her range, they get whatever percentage would get them to the top of the range.
3. What criteria were used to evaluate the employees recent work history in order to determine or justify the appropriate percentage pay increase?
Determination of the of the amount of the pay increase is governed by Policy 4.3 (Salary Administration), subdivision (C) (Step Increases) of the AOC Personnel Policies and Procedures Manual, a copy of which is attached.
4. Who, if anyone, evaluated the employees to make a recommendation for a “merit” pay raise?
See Policy 4.3(C), attached.
5. Who, if anyone, reviewed or approved the individual evaluations to ensure office wide consistency in awarding “merit” pay raises?
See Policy 4.3(C), attached.
6. Did anyone who was awarded a “merit” pay raise receive any amount other than 3.5%?
Yes, employees received a lower step increase amount if the amount of step increase exceeded the maximum salary rate of their classification; an employee is only eligible for whatever percentage would get him/her to the top of the range, up to a maximum of 3.5%. No employee received a step increase of more than 3.5%.
7. How many employees of the AOC who were eligible for this “merit” pay increase were denied the increase?
AOC records indicate that no denial of a step increase has been processed for any employee who was eligible to receive a step increase between July 1, 2013, and August 30, 2013.
8. How many of the employees receiving a “merit” salary increase has had a performance evaluation of their work completed within the calendar year preceding their pay raise?”
The AOC does not have any one record that shows both the employees who received a step increase for the requested time period and the last performance evaluation of those employees. To respond to this request, the AOC would have to review the employee file of each person who received a step increase for the requested time period. Per California Rules of Court, rule 10.500(e)(1)(B) and the Judicial Council’s October 2011 directive to AOC regarding responses to judicial administrative records, the AOC is not required to compile or assemble data in response to a request if it does not compile or assemble the data in the requested form for its own use or provision to other agencies.
9. Did the Chief Justice consult with members of the Judicial Council prior to authorizing this “merit” salary increase?
Because your request calls for information not set forth in judicial administrative records, it is being referred to Justice Harry Hull, the Chief Justice’s designee for considering such requests, pursuant to AOC policy 2.8 (Responding to Requests for Judicial Administrative Records and Information).
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: Finke, Chad
Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 4:49 PM
To: ‘McCormick, Kevin’; Jahr, Steven
Cc: Pubinfo
Subject: RE: Merit Salary Increase
Judge McCormick,
We have identified judicial administrative records responsive to your request. We estimate making those available by approximately September 23, 2013.
-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: McCormick, Kevin
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 12:00 PM
To: Finke, Chad; Jahr, Steven
Subject: Merit Salary Increase
Judge Jahr and Mr. Finke,
A recent article from the Courthouse news service indicated the Chief Justice has authorized a 3.5 percent pay increase for employees of the Administrative Office of the Courts. The Chief Justice has justified the pay increase indicating it is not a raise, but is rather a “merit salary increase.”
The Strategic Evaluation Committee’s (SEC) final Report was presented to the Judicial Council on May 25, 2012. The report indicated, inter alia:
Just as the processes for evaluating organizational performance have been lacking, so too is the system of individual employee performance planning and appraisal. The evaluation of employee performance is a fundamental tool in human resources management, yet it has not been consistently utilized in the AOC. Almost universally, AOC divisions reported they do not provide annual or periodic reviews of employees.”
The report further reflected at page 11 “the AOC does not follow its own written personnel policies and procedures, which require formal annual reviews of employee performance. While the AOC personnel manual encompasses the personnel practices to be followed by the organization, the policies are not enforced — or are simply ignored.
The report continued at page 12 stating: “The failure to utilize individual performance appraisals and to implement other existing personnel policies have contributed to an environment that enables unsatisfactory employees to remain and impairs organizational performance.”
Additionally the SEC report noted:
The AOC’s personnel manual, the “Administrative Office of the Courts Personnel Policies and Procedures Manual,” sets forth the AOC’s “Performance Management Program” in section 3.9. Among other requirements, “supervisors are required to complete a formal performance review every 12 months” for all employees. Incredibly, despite this mandatory and unambiguous requirement, it has been disregarded almost universally within the AOC.
An attempt was made to identify and understand any clear reasons for the near-uniform failure to comply with this mandated personnel policy. The only conclusion is that AOC leadership simply has not considered individual employee performance planning and appraisal to be a management priority. The former HR Division Director described how the issue of the lack of employee performance evaluations was raised at executive directors’ meetings, but the subject “got lost.” As a result the AOC has an inconsistent —or nonexistent — employee performance appraisal system that has led to wide variances in performance, with no consistent method or process to assess and deal with performance issues.
(SEC report at Page 66)
In light of the identified deficiencies at the AOC related to evaluation of employees the SEC recommended the following:
Recommendation No. 7-37: The AOC’s existing policy calling for annual performance appraisals of all AOC employees (AOC personnel manual, section 3.9) must be implemented uniformly throughout the AOC as soon as possible.
Recommendation No. 7-38: A consistent employment discipline policy must accompany the employee performance appraisal system. Section 8.1B of the AOC personnel manual discusses disciplinary action, but is inadequate. A policy that provides for performance improvement plans and for the actual utilization of progressive discipline should be developed and implemented consistently across the entire AOC.
(SEC report at Page 126)
With the above background in mind, please answer the following questions:
1. How many employees of the Administrative Office of the Courts received this “merit salary increases?”
2. What was the range of percentages of increased pay an employee was eligible to receive based on “merit?”
3. What criteria were used to evaluate the employees recent work history in order to determine or justify the appropriate percentage pay increase?
4. Who, if anyone, evaluated the employees to make a recommendation for a “merit” pay raise?
5. Who, if anyone, reviewed or approved the individual evaluations to ensure office wide consistency in awarding “merit” pay raises?
6. Did anyone who was awarded a “merit” pay raise receive any amount other than 3.5%?
7. How many employees of the AOC who were eligible for this “merit” pay increase were denied the increase?
8. How many of the employees receiving a “merit” salary increase has had a performance evaluation of their work completed within the calendar year preceding their pay raise?”
9. Did the Chief Justice consult with members of the Judicial Council prior to authorizing this “merit” salary increase?
Very Truly,
The Honorable Kevin J. McCormick
Judge of the Superior Court, County of Sacramento
Gordon D. Schaber Sacramento County Courthouse
720 9th Street, Sacramento CA 95814
(916) xxx-xxxx
Related articles
- Is the new open meeting rule…… open? (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
- The issue: No one enforces the rules of court outside the courtroom (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
- JC Leadership: Years of incompetence and going strong (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
NewsViews
December 10, 2013
Reblogged this on News and Views Riverside Superior Court and National Family Law Abuse.
Nathaniel Woodhull
December 10, 2013
In response to any request made to anyone at the AOC by anyone on the outside seeking “clarification” of actions taken by anyone within the AOC, you must first carefully listen to the entire collection of Firesign Theatre so that you will be able to translate AOC responses from its frontier jibberish into mainstream modern Ingrish.
For example, from How Can You Be Two Places at Once When Your Not Anywhere At All it was said:
“You can sit here in the waiting room, or you can wait here in the sitting room.”
I Think We’re All Bozos On This Bus brought the lines:
“Here comes another one, just like the other one.” “Why does the porridge bird lay his egg in the air?” “Geez, I’m standing here like an idiot, talking to myself. Might as well stand on this line like an idiot, talking to myself.”
Notice the similarities between the responses crafted by the AOC minions and lines from Firesign Theatre? I wondered what happened to the descendents of Peter Bergman and the others at Radio Free Oz???
Remember, just like Firesign Theatre, you’re never going to get a straight answer out of anyone at 455 Golden Gate Avenue; that is anyone who is a spokesperson for the people at 455 Golden Gate Avenue, not some of the good employees who work there.
John Jay was elected President of the Continental Congress today in 1778.
Nathaniel Woodhull
December 10, 2013
Remember these comments made at the Judicial Council meeting last July…. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6xyV68KN5A
If that didn’t work, just think what Mr. Jahr-head would look like if he was a doctor:
wearyant
December 10, 2013
I made the mistake of consuming a huge breakfast, then checking out JCW and perusing what Judge McCormick is put through to get answers to simple inquiries. I’ve lost my sense of humor today, my dear Nat. Pass me an empty bucket, please.
R. Campomadera
December 10, 2013
Only someone with a lot to hide responds in such a fashion. In another, parallel universe (the good government/commonsense/cooperative universe) such obfuscations on the part of highly paid public servants would be cause for dismissal. But not in the JC/AOC universe. There, it is business as usual, no doubt with commendations forthcoming for a job well done.
For those of us who still live in the other universe, it makes us sick to see PJ McCormick given the usual one fingered salute in response to a legitimate inquiry.
Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, have you no shame? Why do you let your let your branch leadership get away with this? Unless, of course, you are a co-conspirator?
anonymous
December 10, 2013
The answer that they did not wish to reveal:
There are no employee evaluations that determine whether employees will get a merit salary adjustment. Exclusion is subjective, highly discriminatory and is not the result of an employee evaluation.
courtflea
December 10, 2013
Another term for this BS is doublespeak which is a language “that deliberetly disguises, distorts or reverses the meaning of words”. I believe that Mr. Vickrey was a master of doublespeak and of course it is taught to AOC staff.
Wendy Darling
December 10, 2013
And yet more doublespeak from Her Majesty Of Transparency herself. Published today, Tuesday, December 10, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
Chief Justice Meets With Reporters for Year-End Sum of Plans, Wishes
By MARIA DINZEO
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – At a year-end meeting with reporters, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye shared her support for the campaign to bring transparency to the inner workings of the Judicial Council, her regret over the cost of a failed court technology project and the fundamental differences that divide the judiciary and labor.
She also promoted a new long-term fiscal plan for the courts that she hopes will persuade the governor to restore $1 billion in funding to the judicial branch over five years.
While the chief lobbied against a bill requiring open meetings by Judicial Council committees, she said she always supported the idea but wanted the judiciary to have control over the language in the rule.
“I wanted to make sure we had an opportunity to draft it first,” said the Chief Justice. “Because I think there are different considerations with judges who are on the advisory committees that draft the proposals for council to consider. In the process of drafting those proposals and deciding if a proposal should even come to council, judges still in their judicial role speak about substantive issues of law.”
Cantil-Sakauye added that judges who sit on advisory groups and court benches serve dual roles.
“We have a concern about the code of judicial ethics and what judges can and cannot say in the process of a heated argument in the development of a proposal versus what they can and should be saying publicly,” said the Chief Justice.
The Legislature built the requirement into budget language this year, requiring the Judicial Council to throw open the doors to its plethora of committees, subcommittees, working groups, advisory groups and task forces, but the provision was vetoed by Governor Brown. Supplemental language was then added by the legislature requiring the Judicial Council to report on its progress toward writing its own open meetings rule by January 2014.
“So when the Governor vetoed the language, I still had my pledge to open up meetings,” Cantil-Sakauye said. “I think it will generate better understanding of what we do. I’m hoping it brings the heat down over some of the purported alleged acts of some of the Judicial Council advisory committees. Council has been anxious to do something like this because we feel sometimes that we’re not understood even by our own judges.”
Trial judges have criticized governance of the courts in California, saying decisions that adversely affect the trial courts are made behind closed doors, then ratified without debate by the full Judicial Council at its public meetings.
The draft open meetings rule will be taken up for discussion at this week’s Judicial Council meeting. In a preview, the chief said, “I’m pleased with the progress. I think we’re moving at a pretty fast clip, but as you can imagine, there is no unanimity.”
The council will also be reviewing the status of courts’ technology projects.
With the fall of a very costly statewide computer project, courts up and down the state have been making deals with private vendors to replace their aging case management systems. One reporter asked the chief why the state never got on board with PACER, [Public Access to Court Electronic Records], a successful federal system that celebrated its 25th anniversary on Tuesday, rather than trying to develop its own system.
“PACER was a great idea and we probably should have tried to get on board with it back when it was initiated. California seems to be behind the times in technology. We’re aware of that, and we’re trying to fix it in a way only California can because we’re also the largest and most complicated. Every court probably has a least four different case management systems,” she said.
The failed Court Case Management System was shelved in 2012, having cost the taxpayers more than $500 million with a total projected cost of $1.9 billion by completion. The chief told reporters Tuesday that in retrospect, it should have ended much sooner.
“If I knew then what I know now, probably I would have ended CCMS my first month in, financially. Just knew it would have never played out financially. But I didn’t understand it enough, a system that started when I was in superior court. I came to understand it and the feelings around it. I came to realize that if I knew then that we would still be in two and a half years of fiscal free fall, I would have just stanched the bleeding right there. Would have tied the tourniquet right there.”
Lawmakers have come down hard on the judiciary over spending on projects like CCMS, and while the state faces a surplus, Cantil-Sakauye has doubts about whether the governor will be generous with the branch in his January budget.
“I presume the governor is going to want to be fiscally conservative, parsimonious, in his January budget. But that doesn’t stop us from having regular meetings with Department of Finance, showing them charts, showing them our losses, our reductions, what we need and why we need it. We don’t agree and we refute their numbers and they refute our numbers. But its an honest, candid conversation. We’ve also had talks with the Governor and he’s been cordial and engaging and there have been no promises one way or another,” she said.
But she is hopes that a three to five year plan will convince the governor and lawmakers of the need to restore funding back to levels prior to 2008, adding $1 billion to the judiciary’s budget. This is conservative, she said, noting that the judicial branch consumes only one percent of the state’s overall budget.
“I highly doubt it will be what we get, but it’s an honest depiction of what the trial courts need, the Courts of Appeal, the Supreme Court, Habeas Corpus Resource Center, the library, and staff to the judicial council needs,” she said.
With money tight across the judiciary, trial judges and labor unions have questioned any expenditure that does not go toward keeping trial courts running. In a legislative hearing this year, court workers railed against court closures, staff furloughs and layoffs, all of which impact services to the public. The hearing ended with lawmakers voting to restore funds to the judiciary, on condition that it be used specifically on the trial courts.
“Frankly at a high level, I don’t philosophically understand why we disagree,” Cantil-Sakauye told reporters. “I agree across the board that our employees, whether they are organized or not, are underpaid, that they do extra work, with less resources and less time. I think we disagree because they believe we have more money than we do.”
But the core dispute over whether all possible funds should be directed to the trial courts remains resolved.
“I disagree with the premise that every spare cent needs to go to keeping the trial courts open. The Supreme court has to work, the Courts of Appeal have to work. All work is important. We are a symbiotic entity. We are not dismembered parts of each other. I don’t understand how one group can play the zero sum game and say every penny should belong to me,” the chief said.
“I completely agree that the judicial branch righteously devotes 80 percent to the trial courts. What we need is a bigger pie. What we don’t need is the 80 percent to usurp the two percent that is the supreme court. Or usurp five percent of the Administrative Office of the Courts and leave the Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal without administrative staff. We need to grow the pie, we don’t need to be swiping each other’s pieces.”
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/12/10/63621.htm
Long live the ACJ.
anonymous
December 10, 2013
Translation: the trial courts should get no more than 80% of the judicial branch budget and her outfit should get 200 million. No restoral of services before the boondoggles. Either fund the boondoggles and the courts or don’t fund anyone.
Curious
December 11, 2013
“…we don’t need to be swiping each other’s pieces.”
This, from a member of the Council that took the bulk of the $530 million for CCMS from the Trial Court Trust Fund. Lot of pie, that one. It’s interesting the way she acts as if she had nothing to do with all this. She voted for every cent spend from the moment she got on the Council several years ago. Selective memory is wonderful. As for not being aware of what was going on, she closed her ears to the complaints of those who DID understand the situation, and continues that practice today.
courtflea
December 10, 2013
All I can say to this is shut your pie hole lady.
unionman575
December 10, 2013
And shut that pie hole now.
😉
courtflea
December 10, 2013
pun intended 🙂
unionman575
December 10, 2013
http://www.courts.ca.gov/4675.htm
Distinguished Service Awards
unionman575
December 10, 2013
Here’s my favorite:
Ms. Kim Turner, Chief Executive Officer, Superior Court of Marin County (William C. Vickrey Leadership in Judicial Administration Award)
— selected for her many activities and contributions, both statewide and in the court she serves, that have contributed to statewide advances in the administration and service delivery of the superior courts.
wearyant
December 11, 2013
No doubt JusticeCalifornia’s fav too. Hope there’s plenty of empty buckets to go ’round.
anonymous
December 10, 2013
I remember her! She wanted to build a plexiglass in-court cell for juveniles and fended off state auditors while destroying court related records. A Vickrey award is becoming something of an in your face irony.
wearyant
December 10, 2013
Mini-Me: “I don’t understand how one group can play the zero sum game and say every penny should belong to me,”
————————————————————————————————————
You can’t make this stuff up. Really. Apologies to W.D. The irony is palpable.
Pass me another empty bucket, puhleez!
unionman575
December 11, 2013
wearyant
December 11, 2013
Thank you, U-man! Should be required viewing for the good folks at Golden Gate Avenue. But this guy uses the word “rational.” Words like this have to be explained to our good buddies in Frisco, God bless ’em!
Guest
December 11, 2013
I have to ask again: Just what does Steve Jahr do? Beyond the first embarrassment he brings to the branch that he is one if the dreaded “double-dippers”, just what does he bring to the table everyday? He has become a small scale CCMS where the branch is spending a lot of money on something that doesn’t work. Just eliminate the position and save the money used to pay his second salary and all his perks, benefits and limo drivers and let Jody “officially” run the AOC. That would be a MAJOR step towards your self proclaimed transparency, Chief.
wearyant
December 11, 2013
Good plan, Guest, but no go for those folks in Frisco. First of all, there was a nationwide, exhaustive search for this lil Mandarin he was the result of, so it is said. Second, any money saved from bouncing him would be lost in the AOC pit, never to be seen again and especially never, ever available to the trial courts or our unwashed, heaving taxpayer masses’ benefit. And, third, don’t even breathe those words or SUGGEST any perks, bennies, limo drivers or armed guards, etc., be taken from the exalted ones gracing Golden Gate Avenue! Oh, unimagined horror and doom! 😀
Wendy Darling
December 11, 2013
“Just what does Steve Jahr do?”
What he “does” is what Patel and the Chief Justice tell him to do, and does so without question. What he “brings to the table” is the title of “judge” in front of his name (albeit “former judge”) and his willingness to obey. He was selected under the presumption that being a former judge would give him, and in turn the Chief Justice and branch administration, automatic credibility with members of the state legislature and others. This presumption was based on another presumption: that members of state legislature and others are too stupid to figure out for themselves that Jahr is nothing more than the front man for Tani’s Follies.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
December 11, 2013
Well, at least in New York, the people who wear the robes still adhere to the law when it comes to the First Amendment. Published today, Wednesday, December 11, from Courthouse News Service, by Matt Reynolds. As noted at the end of the article, Courthouse News Service filed amici curiae in the case. (Wow, look at that: people who actually practice transparency instead of only preaching about it. Merry Christmas!)
Subpoena Quashed for Reporter Ordered to Reveal Sources in Colo. Mass Murder Case
By SAM REYNOLDS
NEW YORK (CN) – New York’s strong reporter shield laws protect Fox News journalist Jana Winter from having to reveal her sources at the mass murder trial of James Holmes, the state’s highest court ruled Tuesday.
The ruling by the New York Court of Appeals is a major triumph for the New York-based reporter, who has been under subpoena in Colorado for most of the year.
In January, a judge in Arapahoe County, Colo., where Holmes is being tried, found enough evidence to suggest Winter had violated a gag order by publishing quotes from unnamed law enforcement officials, and demanded that she testify.
Winter’s story, which was published shortly after Holmes allegedly killed 12 people in a movie theater in July 2012, claimed that Holmes had sent his psychiatrist a notebook that contained violent pictures.
After the subpoena was issued, it was first certified by a Manhattan Supreme Court judge, and the First Judicial Department of the Appellate Division affirmed its enforcement in a split decision in August.
But in a majority opinion that invokes the state’s long history of protecting a free press, Court of Appeals Associate Judge Victoria Graffeo called the possibility of a New York reporter being exposed in Colorado was an offense to her state’s laws.
“As we have explained, protection of the anonymity of confidential sources is a core – if not the central – concern underlying New York’s journalist privilege, with roots that can be traced back to the inception of the press in New York,” the opinion says.
“Although there are uncertainties concerning the application of the outer reaches of our statute, particularly the scope of the qualified privilege for nonconfidential news which must be determined on a case-by-case basis … there is no principle more fundamental or well-established than the right of a reporter to refuse to divulge a confidential source,” Graffeo continues. “And that concern is directly implicated here given that the only purpose for Winter’s testimony is to ascertain who leaked the information regarding the discovery of the notebook. Indeed, absent that information, there is no material or necessary testimony Winter could offer in connection with the Colorado proceeding.
“Moreover, as a New York reporter, Winter was aware of – and was entitled to rely on – the absolute protection embodied in our Shield Law when she made the promises of confidentiality that she now seeks to honor,” the ruling states.
“Given that this is the case, and in light of the significant disparity between New York and Colorado law, she was entitled to have the Shield Law issue adjudicated in New York before the subpoena was issued, even though it relates to testimony sought in the courts of another state. We therefore conclude that an order from a New York court directing a reporter to appear in another state where, as here, there is a substantial likelihood that she will be compelled to identify sources who have been promised confidentiality would offend our strong public policy – a common law, statutory and constitutional tradition that has played a significant role in this State becoming the media capital of the country if not the world.”
The majority portrayed Colorado’s reporter shield law as lax compared to New York’s sterling example.
“Colorado offered no privilege to reporters until 1990 and its current Shield Law grants only qualified, as opposed to absolute, protection – even in relation to the identity of sources of confidential news,” the opinion states.
“Essentially, the Colorado courts employ a balancing test to determine whether a reporter can be required to reveal an anonymous source – a procedure in stark contrast to the absolute privilege cloaking that information in New York,” the majority added.
In a dissenting opinion, Judge Robert Smith argued that because Winter was in Colorado when she spoke to her sources, the application of New York’s shield laws was “an excessive expansion of New York’s jurisdiction.”
The majority disagreed, finding Winter’s location irrelevant.
“New York journalists should not have to consult the law in the jurisdiction where a source is located or where a story ‘breaks’ (assuming either is ascertainable) in order to determine whether they can issue a binding promise of confidentiality,” the court wrote.
The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s decision to uphold the subpoena.
Nearly 50 media organizations, including Courthouse News, were listed as amici curiae on Winter’s behalf.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/12/11/63646.htm
Long live the First Amendment. And long live the ACJ.
anonymous
December 11, 2013
California judicial branch leadership desires to quash the first amendment any way they can – because they have lots of incompetence to cover up for. You can’t cover up unless you can terminate open meeting laws (ala new public meeting rules) and preventing the release of pertinent information by reclassification (like calling a public contract with deloitte a trade secret)
wearyant
December 11, 2013
I thought that was the JC/AOC/CJ defense, that, whoops, we made a mistake, perhaps through incompetence, as opposed to admitting their real goal is more power and more public funds generated through CCMS — or what they believed could be accomplished with their control up and down California by forcing CCMS on all trial courts. The JC/AOC/CJ appear to prefer mea culpa as opposed to their true mens rea. So far it’s working for them.
Wendy Darling
December 11, 2013
Speaking of Tani’s Follies, here’s the latest indication that Sacramento is no longer willing to blindly pay for the foolishness and mismanagement at 455 Golden Gate Avenue. Published today, Wednesday, December 11, from The Recorder, the on-line publication of CalLaw, by Cheryl Miller:
No Windfall for Courts in Democrats’ Budget Proposal
By Cheryl Miller
SACRAMENTO — Assembly Democrats unveiled a broad 2014-15 budget outline on Wednesday that, while calling for “modest restorations” to programs cut dramatically in the recession years, does not offer the significant judiciary spending increases sought by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye.
Assembly Speaker John Perez told reporters that his caucus will focus on expanding access to job training, child care, community college and the welfare program known as CalWORKs. The 27-page “budget blueprint” also proposes increased use of so-called collaborative or problem-solving courts focused on veterans, the homeless and mental health issues to reduce prison recidivism.
The plan does not include sticker prices for each item, and Perez insisted the wish list of funding targets is merely a starting point for budget negotiations that will start in earnest next month. That’s when the governor is scheduled to unveil his 2014-15 spending plan.
Democratic leaders’ ability to even talk about expanding programs and holding the line on university fee increases stands in stark contrast to recent years of dramatic cuts in state spending. That scenario has changed with an improving economy and increasing revenues, according to the legislative analyst’s office, which predicted that the state could end June 2015 with a $5.6 billion surplus if current spending policies continue.
Assembly Democrats’ plan would reduce that surplus, but it still projects an $8 billion reserve by mid-2017.
“What we think we see in this year’s revenues is again, a spike in the amount of revenues that are coming from high net-worth individuals,” Perez said. “The most important and responsible thing to do is to take those spikes and look at them as one-time and short-term funds and spend them accordingly.”
Cantil-Sakauye told reporters on Tuesday that the branch is crafting a three- to five-year budget plan that shows “what a fully funded judicial branch looks like.” The cost to reach that level? An extra $1 billion from the state, she said.
“I have faith that it’s an honest ask,” Cantil-Sakauye said. But she also conceded that it’s unlikely the judiciary would receive that much, noting that the governor’s Department of Finance doesn’t see eye-to-eye with the branch on budget needs.
“We refute their numbers, they refute our numbers,” she said.
http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202632140628&No_Windfall_for_Courts_in_Democrats_Budget_Proposal&slreturn=20131111224611
Long live the ACJ.
Note to Tani: the Governor’s Department of Finance has very good reason to refute your numbers.
wearyant
December 11, 2013
My dear Mini-Me, some people should not even dare to use the word “honest.” It appears our CJ believes in 110 percent public funding for her buddies first, then perhaps some trickle down to the beleaguered trial courts. Disgusting beyond buckets full.
A timeless 19th century quote that describes the JC/AOC/CJ in a nutshell from Charles Caleb Colton:
“Power, like the diamond, dazzles the beholder, and also the wearer; it dignifies meanness; it magnifies littleness; to what is contemptible, it gives authority; to what is low, exaltation.”
Lando
December 12, 2013
Did I read that right? HRH-2 is now saying if she knew what see knows now she would have put an end to CCMS right after taking over as CJ. I’m sorry but many of us were on to and concerned about CCMS when it was first proposed around 2003. You can’t tell me that HRH-2 had no knowledge or opinion about CCMS before she became Chief . She sat on the Judicial Council for years while issues were being raised about CCMS yet she had no opinion on it when she became the CJ ? I’m sorry but all this sounds made up. HRH-2 was told by the person who arranged her appointment , HRH-1 and others to stay the course and follow HRH-1’s lead and legacy. If HRH-2 really believed there was some failing to CCMS why did she continue allowing J Bruinears and J Herman and the other apologists for CCMS to continue to oversee branch technology programs? Indeed why does she continue to hand out William C Vickrey greatness in justice awards as he was one of the 2 people largely responsible for CCMS ?. The bottom line is that HRH-2 thinks she can fool everyone with her claims of transparency and reform. Sadly comments like HRH-2’s , only further reduce branch stature and credibility in the trial courts and in the legislature .
Wendy Darling
December 12, 2013
At 455 Golden Gate Avenue, they call it “revisionist history”, Lando. The rest of us just call it what it really is: lying.
You just can’t make this stuff up. Really.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
December 12, 2013
She is full of shit.
We ALL “assisted” her for years here on JCW crowing like roosters to end CCMS.