Transparency matters.
The meetings of the Judicial Council are, generally speaking, meaningless. The really important decisions are made behind closed doors by the Council’s five standing internal committees or its other advisory committees. The Judicial Council just acts as a rubber stamp. Maria Dinzeo, who reports on the Judicial Council for Courthouse News Service, recently noted “a pattern where proposals coming out of the committees are generally ratified with perfunctory debate and without substantial opposition.” (See http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/11/25/63214.htm .) As we’ve pointed out before, during one ten-year stretch, all the Council’s votes except for six were unanimous.
The Legislature has expressed its disapproval of the Council’s lack of transparency. Earlier this year, the Legislature added Provision 15 to the 2013-14 budget passed in June. Provision 15 would have required the Judicial Council to open up its advisory committees to public view. The Chief Justice lobbied against it, and the Governor vetoed it.
In August, the Legislative Analyst’s Office required that the Judicial Council send a report to the Joint Budget Committee on its progress in implementing an open meeting rule. That report is due on January 1.
In late November, with the deadline just a month away, the heads of the internal committees hastily cranked out a draft proposal for an open meeting rule. They gave the public just six days to comment on it, then submitted it to the Judicial Council for its December 12-13 meeting. The draft proposal left much to be desired. It excludes a much broader range of material than does the Judicial Council’s own open-meeting rule. It features 17 exemptions, some of which are sweeping.
But even this draft rule, as weak and flawed as it is, was too bold a step for the Judicial Council. Justice Marvin Baxter compared the Council’s advisory committees to staff meetings in the governor’s office, which are closed. “I can recall that in the executive branch the senior staff would meet daily and make recommendations that ultimately went to the governor,” said Justice Baxter. “Those meetings weren’t public because they would chill the conversation.”
Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye also had reservations about open committee meetings: “Judges have a code of ethics that guides—really guides—their input, their membership, their communication because the law requires a judge to be neutral,” she said. “And so when this concept came up we were not opposed but we needed to draft this ourselves because we have different considerations.”
You can find Maria Dinzeo’s article about the meeting at http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/12/13/63749.htm.
We are baffled.
Justice Baxter’s analogy between Judicial Council committees and executive branch staff meetings fails. The meetings of the Council’s subsidiary committees are not mere staff meetings. These committees are primarily made up of judges, not staff. The committee members are not brainstorming ideas; they are actually deciding things.
We are at a loss to understand the ethics concerns voiced by the Chief Justice. If an issue arises that raises an ethical issue for a judge on a committee, he or she can simply decline to participate in the discussion. Or the committee can specify in its minutes that a certain portion of the meeting was closed, and can make clear at whose request.
We have another concern. During the meeting, a reference was made to “drilling” the issue down to the trial courts (perhaps a misquote from the electronic transcript). We are worried that in proposing a new rule, the Council will attempt to include and embroil the trial courts as a tactic to foster opposition. The trial courts do not make statewide policy. The Legislature directed its open meetings requirement to apply to the Judicial Council, the self-proclaimed “policy-making” body of the Judiciary.
Somewhere in the distant haze of memory, somebody came up with the misbegotten idea that became CCMS. Some committee must have voted on it. Maybe the Judicial Council itself approved it. We just don’t know. We only know that no recorded vote appears in the minutes. We don’t know who made the decision that brought the judiciary to the brink of bankruptcy, or how it got made. We don’t know if the people most responsible for the CCMS disaster are still in positions of authority.
The Legislature has said repeatedly that it wants open meetings. The Legislature is not happy with the way we do our business. Our budgets reflect that dissatisfaction. We should be bending over backward to prove that we’re committed to transparency. Instead, we quibble. We justify our secretive behavior by claiming that the executive branch and the legislative branch do the same thing—as though the notion of judges holding themselves to a higher standard of openness never occurred to us. We cite the Canons of Ethics but don’t specify which ones. We act as though our branch didn’t have a track record of fiscal irresponsibility and poor decision-making that justifies the Legislature’s skepticism. We behave as though we have nothing to prove to the Legislature when it comes to reform.
It should not be lost on the Council that the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Noreen Evans, has a different mindset than her Judicial Council colleagues when it comes to transparency: “In the last few years, what we’re seeing is a reduction in public trust of our institutions,” she said. “I believe that trust cannot be restored without some level of transparency. And as difficult as that is, in the long run it’s really worthwhile.”
The Chief Justice recently unveiled a new set of initiatives for the Branch. She calls it “Access 3-D.”
Wendy Darling
December 17, 2013
“During the meeting, a reference was made to “drilling” the issue down to the trial courts (perhaps a misquote from the electronic transcript). We are worried that in proposing a new rule, the Council will attempt to include and embroil the trial courts as a tactic to foster opposition.”
That is exactly what the Council intends to due. And just like they have done before.
And as for open doors, 455 Golden Gate Avenue will do everything possible to keep those doors firmly shut. Actual transparency is the last thing the Office of the Chief Justice and the Judicial Council are interested in.
Those with nothing to hide, hide nothing. Those with plenty to hide, do this.
Long live the ACJ.
Nathaniel Woodhull
December 17, 2013
I hope everyone out there really understands and appreciates the significant public service that JCW plays in the populous’ everyday lives. Without this forum, there is no way for the public to comment on the abuses of those in power within the Judicial Branch. Many of us commenting here are not heretics. We are not cracked-out whack-jobs who don’t know what we are talking about. The majority of the contributors here are on the front lines, actually providing legal services to members of the public.
I have tremendous respect for former Governor Pete Wilson. One blind-spot was his appointment of Ronald George as Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court. From the moment of his installation, a sea-change occurred. Suddenly the Judicial Council was no longer fulfilling their Constitutional mandate, “the policy recommending body”, Ronald George suddenly re-wrote the California Constitution and mandated that the Judicial Council was the “policy-making” body for the California courts. One of the few things that some of us were able to fend-off, much to his chagrin, was Ronald George’s repeated attempts to slide a Constitutional amendment through to grant the powers that he always stated he had.
We have seen the ongoing folly of this abuse of power. Time after time, the AOC and Judicial Council have maintained that they are the “policy-making body of the Judiciary.” Unfortunately, the California Constitution reads, in pertinent part: Article I, section 6(d) To improve the administration of justice the council shall survey judicial business and make recommendations to the courts, make recommendations annually to the Governor and Legislature, adopt rules for court administration, practice and procedure, and perform
other functions prescribed by statute. The rules adopted shall not be inconsistent with statute.
Ronald George repeatedly violated the California Constitution by way of his repeated statements that the Judicial Council “made policy” for the California Courts. I give the current Chief Justice a pass because I’m not sure she understands what all these big words mean.
The problem for those of us still working within the Branch are that those “in charge” in San Francisco aren’t getting the very basic messages being set by Sacramento. The Legislature has directed the Judicial Council to open up their process. Through “mental gymnastics” by people whom I have respected over the decades, including Justice Marvin Baxter, we are being told B.S. that there is some ethical prohibition to complying with that which the Legislature has requested.
The bottom-line: The members of the public who seek redress of their grievances in court are going to suffer. Employees within the 58-counties throughout California are going to suffer. The California Legislature and Governor Brown will continue to tighten the screws when it comes to the budget of the Third Branch of government. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Tani will talk about how she has “charts” and that the Department of Finance disagrees with her statistics and she and her minions disagree with the statistics of the Department of Finance. Hmm, in this situation who wins….the only one seemingly holding any cards is the Department of Finance and the Legislature.
Unless and until Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye “retires” and the Judicial Council democratizes, those of us working within the Branch will be in a world of hurt. In addition, it is ultimately the members of the public who suffer in this pissing contest.
Thanks JCW for being there…without you the public would be in a much worse situation than they are right now. One can only hope that the members of the Legislature stand up and address these very basic grievances that are repeatedly brought to your attention.
courtflea
December 17, 2013
Amen, N. Woodhull, amen.
Those who appreciate this site and post here are not ants, clowns, heratics, or whatever. But guess what? WE speak with ONE voice.
R. Campomadera
December 17, 2013
Those who presently are in charge of leading the State Judiciary cannot abide the idea that their decision-making process would, under any scenario, be open to public scrutiny. They are not stupid people. They know that by opening it to the light of day — the cleansing, sanitizing light of day — their years of fiscal and policy failures would be exposed for all to see. The moral bankruptcy of their past and present leadership could no longer be hidden from broad public view. They know the inevitable result would be to create more, not less call for reform.
Reform is the one thing they cannot possibly allow to occur. They must, therefore, fight against it with all their power and resources, which are immense by any measure. They know the longer they can fend off reform, the longer they can remain in charge. To fail in their fight to prevent reform, is to lose everything.
And what is the real character of these people? These are not public officials of whom we can be proud. They are petty political sycophants of the worst sort. They knew the right people at the right time to get appointed to high office. Having once reached such office, and thereby having achieved more than they could ever have imagined given their mediocre backgrounds, they have proceeded to highjack the third branch of our state government and treat it as if it were their own fiefdom. They will not give up their power without a fight.
Reform will not come from within. It will have to be imposed upon them by either the Legislature or the People.
Lando
December 17, 2013
I have a slightly different take on this. I have always respected Justice Baxter as he is a man of great intelligence and common sense. Judges need to ask themselves is it really a good idea to open every level of Judicial meeting. As Justice Baxter agues doing that could in fact chill and honest airing out of issues the branch confronts. The solution is not to fling open all Judicial meetings big or small, the solution is to restore balance to the judicial branch and restore the Judicial Council to the role the constitution prescribes as General Woodhull sets forth above. HRH-1 had no constitutional authority to give the Judicial Council the power to make and dictate policy for an entire branch of government. HRH-2 also has no power to do the same. The results of their highjacking the branch has been a disaster for the public. The only way out of this mess is to do the following : 1. Appoint a joint Legislative Committee to conduct a complete investigation and audit into the AOC’s budget and activities. 2. Create legislation to require the Judicial Council and AOC to answer all public requests for information and eliminate the loophole that allows Justice Hull to block legitimate requests for public information. 3. Send 95% of the branch budget to the trial courts directly and force the AOC and the Judicial Council through the budgetary process to return to their proper constitutional and limited role. If the above fails then we must act together to democratize the Judicial Council and recall the Chief Justice and Justice Hull.
R. Campomadera
December 18, 2013
Lando, I fully embrace your take on this, and just to clarify, I did not intend to impugn everyone who serves on Judicial Council committees. I do not know Justice Baxter, but he sounds like an upright person, fighting to do what is right for the Judiciary.
The OBT
December 17, 2013
As always great comments by everyone above. I vote for the last option. We need to recall the Chief Justice and Justice Hull and hope that Justice Goodwin Liu will be open and thoughtful enough to bring democracy back to our branch.
Wendy Darling
December 17, 2013
I’m with you, OBT. And I suspect I’m not alone.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
December 18, 2013
“The Legislature has said repeatedly that it wants open meetings. The Legislature is not happy with the way we do our business. Our budgets reflect that dissatisfaction”
They are bending us over a barrel as they write ever DECREASING checks to our branch.
The Budget Pen is mighty Tani & Co.
Never forget that.
😉
sharonkramer
December 18, 2013
I want to ask them about extrinsic fraud involving Judicial Council members and a Court CEO. On behalf of the people, I want to be able to ask them the policy on how this is addressed in the branch. I want to be able to ask this question, directly and orally, at a public meeting so that I can be sure all members are being informed of the problem and have the ability to ask questions/offer input. (Written communication has brought no response)
As a member of the public, how can I ask this policy question under the current rules? And if I can’t, then how do the (non) open meeting rules serve to keep ethics among those who are setting policies and serving as CEOs?
Am I going to have to sue the Judicial Council just to get an answer to a simple policy question of who is responsible to oversee/punish wayward CEOs?
Wendy Darling
December 18, 2013
Gosh, this sounds familiar. Published today, Wednesday, December 18, from the Metropolitan News Enterprise, by Jon Coupal:
IN MY OPINION
Follow the Money—Down the Drain
By JON COUPAL
What if you were told there is a corrupt dictatorship on the other side of the world where government officials are using US foreign aid to build palatial mansions for themselves, diverting money intended to feed poor children and spending billions with no oversight or accountability?
Unfortunately, these examples are not from a remote foreign land, but from right here in California. And you, California taxpayers, are footing the bill.
The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Foundation has just released “Follow the Money 2013,” a report chronicling some of the highest profile government waste, fraud and abuse uncovered this year. Added together, the examples in this document amount to tens of billions of dollars.
There seems to be no limit on the irresponsible behavior of some politicians and bureaucrats when it comes to spending OPM (Other People’s Money). “Follow the Money 2013” shows they are paying millions to drug rehab clinics with histories of questionable billing practices, giving elected officials bonuses just for being reelected, spending hundreds of millions of dollars on outside consultants, and much, much more.
While the report profiles numerous high profile scandals discovered in 2013, it also raises an even more compelling question: if these examples were all exposed in the course of the last year, how much additional waste is still hiding in the shadows? Could the billions that we know were squandered, just be the tip of an even larger iceberg of titanic waste?
Taxpayers can expect 2014 to bring new efforts by the Sacramento politicians to saddle our high-unemployment economy with billions in tax increases, including proposals to repeal portions of Prop. 13 to satisfy their insatiable hunger for more revenue.
They will say regular citizens need to sacrifice so that the state can afford to provide quality services we all care about, such as education and public safety. That’s why now is the right time to ask whether they’ve spent the money we’ve already given them responsibly.
In fact, over the last 40 years spending has doubled on a per capita, inflation adjusted basis. But 40 years ago, we had a thriving economy and some of the nation’s best schools and roads. People came to California from all over the country, drawn by warm weather, affordable homes and plentiful jobs.
Now, we’re spending more and getting less in return. Billions are being flushed down the drain, lost forever to waste, fraud and abuse. Misguided policies have hobbled the state’s economy, sent energy costs through the roof and prevented the construction of important infrastructure such as roads, refineries and ports.
It doesn’t have to be this way, but the first step to restoring a more fiscally responsible government and a more prosperous economy is to start a conversation about whether the current state of affairs is acceptable. We can and must do better.
http://www.metnews.com/
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
December 18, 2013
From the report “Follow The Money”:
The verdict is in: Court system’s computer upgrade is a $500 million disaster
The effort to build a $2 billion computer system linking the state’s 58 county courts has proven to be one of the biggest boondoggles in state history. The failed program had run so amok by the time the plug was pulled that one of the subcontracts had 102 change orders, pushing one bill alone from $33 million to $310 million.
Just imagine what they would find if they looked into the court construction contracts, projects, and land deals.
You just can’t make this stuff up. Really.
Long live the ACJ.
Guest
December 19, 2013
I would like to agree with the cj’s and AOC’s position on open meetings if their analogy in comparing themselves to counties and cities was correct. The MAJOR problem with their analogy is that the governing bodies in cities and counties which meet in open session when deciding policy ARE DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED! The Judicial Council, which meets on policy decisions for the Branch is hand selected by ONE PERSON. The committees and work groups which makes recommendations to the JC are hand selected by ONE PERSON. Since ONE PERSON dictates ALL policy decisions in the state judicial branch then ALL groups that meet, debate and make policy must be open to the public for transparency. If the cj wants to be treated like other governmental agencies under the PRA then she needs to allow the JC to be an independently elected policy making body. Only then can all her committees and work groups be exempt from open meeting laws. I am fully aware that these ideas are considered “an act of War” to the cj and AOC brown- nosers but let them be fully exposed under sunshine laws then.
courtflea
December 19, 2013
Hummm, if a new rule on open meetings was not acted upon by the JC what are they going to give the budget committee when the report is due on Jan 1? Not something approved by the JC obviously. Drill it down to the trial courts, pleeze. When trial courts make policy for the branch maybe then.
R. Campomadera
December 19, 2013
What will they give the budget committee? They’ll give ’em nothing but the usual B.S. smooth talk. They will make the usual paean to transparency and promise the matter is under continuing study and consideration. They have no intention of voluntarily changing anything.
Wendy Darling
December 19, 2013
Waiting, believing, expecting, or hoping that 455 Golden Gate Avenue will voluntarily engage in anything even remotely resembling “transparency” is an exercise in futility. It’s not going to happen. Let us not forget what happened the last time the State Legislature left it up to the Judicial Council to act responsibly: the Trial Courts Bill of Financial Management Rights, “to be approved no later than January 1, 1998.” That was almost sixteen years ago. It didn’t happen then, and it won’t happen now.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
sharonkramer
December 19, 2013
I’m sure you all know ALOT of stuff that I will never know about the JC and the AOC.
But I happen to know that there are a couple of JC members who have personal reasons to not want public questions to be able to be orally asked at JC meetings. One now chairs a JC committee. The scarey “clown” chaired another one for fourteen years.
It seems to me that it would be extreme conflict of interest and breach of administrative/policy writing ethics, if he had anything to do with writing the current (non) open meeting rules. My question that I have been unable to publicly ask, is of JC/AOC policy when extrinsic fraud by judicial branch/AOC employees, including JC members, occurs.
Guest
December 20, 2013
I think the simple explanation of why most of these JC and committee members don’t want open meetings is because they know their incompetence will be exposed and they would then be held accountable for their ignorant decisions. Then they wouldn’t get their Vickrey Awards. C’mon, have you heard the brilliant comments from the Yamasaki’s and Turner’s the cj appoints to all her committees? I think the public should hear them too since the cj thinks they are the best of the Branch and that is who she relies on when dictating branch wide policies.
sharonkramer
December 20, 2013
Guest, what you say may well be true. But’s that’s not my matter. They don’t want to talk about it publicly, because they know what a certain clown of a JC member has done is criminal, is causing the continuance of billions of dollars of fraud, and that the Chief Justice, CJP, many judges and a court CEO have been covering up for him and the former chairwoman of the CJP.
I just want them to answer the question of what is the policy when a Superior Court CEO is caught concealing deputy court clerk falsified documents. What superior in the court system is responsible for the acts of Superior Court CEOs?
R Campomadera
December 20, 2013
The judges of the Superior Court are the CEO’s appointing authority. I believe this has heretofore been asked and answered. Because a judge of a particular court may also sit on a Judicial Council committee does not make the committee or the Judicial Council itself responsible for that judge’s CEO.
sharonkramer
December 20, 2013
RC. That makes sense, but that’s not the situation. The CEO stepped in to offer a double-speak audit directly because I questioned the JC Council in 2011 regarding the rules when court documents are falsified and CCMS entries are then falsified to cover-up the document falsifications. The CEO’s acts were in direct response to correspondance I sent to the JC. At the time, there were several on the JC and its advisory committees who were hands on involved. In other words, much of the problem stems from administrative entanglements, of which policy needs to be set to stop the conflicts of interest in the future. Its quite similar to what the ACJ experiences when they try to get straight answers regarding questionable policies and practices which lead to opportunity for conflicts of interest in the leadership of the courts.
NewsViews
December 20, 2013
Reblogged this on News and Views Riverside Superior Court and National Family Law Abuse.
unionman575
December 20, 2013
Another Taj Majal from the JC construction experts…
http://www.losbanosenterprise.com/2013/12/20/218419/state-approves-los-banos-court.html
State approves Los Banos court drawings
By Corey Pride
cpride@losbanosenterprise.comDecember 20, 2013
Preliminary drawings for Los Banos’ new courthouse were approved by a state panel last week, increasing the likelihood that the project will be completed in 2016.
Keby Boyer, spokeswoman for the California Administrative Office of the Courts, said the California Public Works Board OK’d the architectural design. The project is now in the working drawings phase, which provides specifications from which the structure will be built. Barring setbacks, construction is scheduled to begin May 2015 and the courthouse will open the following year.
Boyer said Friday’s approval nearly ensures the courthouse will be constructed.
“Once it goes to working drawings, you’re so close,” she said. “Things can happen, but so much money is invested.”
In 2009, the state authorized $32.6 million, later reduced to $32.2 million, to be spent in Los Banos on construction of a court building with two courtrooms, with room to expand to four.
The Robert M. Falasco Justice Center, where court is held now, occupies about 5,370 square feet of its 15,000-square-foot building. The one-courtroom structure is owned by Merced County and is shared by the Sheriff’s Department, probation department, the county clerk and the public defender. The district attorney’s office is in a portable building at the rear of the permanent structure. A feasibility report identified numerous deficiencies at the facility, which was built in 1980.
Linda Romero-Soles, the court executive officer for Merced Superior Court, has repeatedly said Los Banos is in need of a new courthouse because of the increasing number of cases coming from the Westside.
“What a nice Christmas gift to get this news, Romero-Soles said in email. “The court is so thankful that the Public Works Board approved our preliminary plans for Los Banos and that our project is moving forward.”
The Los Banos courthouse is one of few such projects around the state given approval to
move forward.
In 2012, many courthouse projects were cut by state lawmakers, shifting about $600 million in Long Beach court expenses to the state’s courthouse construction budget. The projects that remained include new courthouses in Los Banos, Sonora and Modesto.
The new Los Banos court will be built near the intersection of G Street and Mercey Springs Road.
😉
Nathaniel Woodhull
December 20, 2013
I’ll be off to a secure remote location for a week. Before leaving, I wanted to wish everyone a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! 2013 has been challenging, yet it has been great to see so many people in support of cause of liberty which is so eloquently fostered by this site.
The freedoms that we all enjoy, and sadly at times take for granted, are only in existence because of the willingness of people such as yourselves to make sacrifices. As the old saying goes, freedom isn’t free.
Let us all hope and pray that 2014 will see the light of truth shined upon those “in charge” of the Judicial Branch. I see that Governor Brown is already slowly nominating his appointees to be Presiding Justices over the various Appellate District’s when an opening arises. That is the only avenue by which things will ultimately change. At some point we will have appointed a Chief Justice who’s focus is on the trial courts and not the Crystal Palace.
Until then…”God save us all”
Nat
wearyant
December 20, 2013
Nat! Best wishes! Think of your beleaguered fellow posters often! Happy decamping …
The OBT
December 21, 2013
Well my Huffman award for the most arrogant Judge of the year goes to Justice Bruiniers who can’t get off the stage and continues to co-chair the JC committee on Technology. Bruiniers was recently quoted as saying ” I’ve got no apologies to make for the work I did…CCMS wasn’t a technology failure it was a political failure ” As our good friend Wendy likes to say You can’t make this stuff up. Really.
Lando
December 21, 2013
Thanks General for the nice Holiday wishes . I hope everyone here has a Merry Christmas and safe and happy New Year. J Bruinears comment about CCMS is shocking. The ultimate 455 Golden Gate insider, Bruinears who fought the audit of CCMS and told everyone the system was ready to be deployed, lives in a world of complete denial. The reality is that Bruinears presided over a half billion dollar waste of taxpayer funds which in turn has led to courtroom closures, massive staff layoffs, reduced hours of service and delays for our citizens seeking justice in criminal and civil cases. How in the world he is still in charge of branch technology speaks to the total continuing failure of HRH-2’s administration of the crystal palace. We need to recall HRH-2, Justice Hull and Justice Bruinears so we can return common sense, fairness and democracy to our once proud and strong branch of government.
unionman575
December 21, 2013
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/12/20/63960.htm
Friday, December 20, 2013
Last Update: 12:40 AM PT
Tech Committee Elevation Brings Blast Aimed at Leaders and History
By MARIA DINZEO
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – Comments are due today on the proposed elevation of a key technology committee on the California Judicial Council despite sharp questions about its history of decisions involving a software fiasco that has plagued relations between the judiciary and the Legislature.
A proposed rule would put the Technology Committee on formal par with the four existing internal committees that decide the agenda for council meetings, court rules, the legislative positions taken by the judiciary and courthouse construction.
The Technology Committee was originally called the Court Case Management System Internal Committee, and changed its name only after the cumbersome, labor-intensive, crash-prone CCMS software was junked by the council last year. The software project ran up a taxpayer tab of a half-billion dollars.
Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye told reporters in a recent meeting, “If I knew then what I know now, probably I would have ended CCMS my first month in.”
Proposed Rule 10.16, with comments due today, would nevertheless elevate the Technology Committee and define its formal responsibilities to include “establishing an approach and vision for implementing technology.”
That move within the Judicial Council has brought a blast from trial court judges who bore the brunt of wrenching judiciary budget cuts exacerbated by the vast sums wasted on the CCMS project.
“It’s important at this point to start fresh,” said Judge Susan Lopez-Giss in Los Angeles. “It’s hard to believe they cannot find 12 people in the state — who are judges who have experience, who would be able to have some insight, who are critical thinkers — to bring something new to the table. There is no way that Judicial Council committee can do this.”
Judge Maryanne Gilliard in Sacramento amplified those concerns, questioning how anyone tied to the CCMS fiasco can continue to be involved in technology decisions for the courts and be involved in defending the related expenses in the Legislature. The two principal voices on technology within the leadership of California’s judiciary are Justice Terence Bruiniers and Judge James Herman.
“Anybody who had any involvement in CCMS have proven themselves to be incompetent,” said Gilliard.”So if you had any part before, during or after you should not be on any IT committee.”
“Justice Bruiniers and Judge Herman were two of the most vociferous cheerleaders for CCMS, and even after the State Auditor issued her scathing report they continued to defend the project,” she continued. “Why would you continue to use Justice Bruiniers or Judge Herman to be the face of the judiciary for court IT projects based on their track record?”
Bruiniers was appointed to the Technology Advisory Committee by former Chief Justice Ron George in 1999 and has for many years been either its co-chair or chair. The CCMS project was launched around 2002, with the advisory committee centrally involved.
The CCMS Internal Committee was created in 2011 by the then newly-appointed Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, with the old advisory committee answering to the new internal committee which, with the collapse of CCMS, changed its name in 2012 to the Technology Committee, minus the formal status of an “internal” committee.
The CCMS Internal Committee and the follow-on Technology Committee was and is chaired by Judge Herman. The Technology Committee set up a separate Technology Planning Task Force, also in 2012. Herman heads that task force and Bruiniers sits on it.
Defending the elevation of the Technology Committee to the rank of its predecessor committee as an internal committee, Bruiniers said, “The council itself doesn’t have subject matter expertise in these areas, so having a standing committee that’s going to focus on these issues is a good idea.”
Judge Herman said it was important that a council committee oversee statewide tech projects so as to avoid criticism.
“We felt that what was really important post CCMS was for a council committee to take ownership through oversight of statewide projects so we didn’t run into criticism, like we did with CCMS, that the council is asleep at the wheel,” said Herman. “A lesson learned from CCMS is the expectation from the other branches that there be oversight of branch level, as opposed to local court level, IT projects.”
He argued that among the lessons learned from the CCMS debacle was “the need for oversight of technology related advisory bodies” as well as oversight of the Information Technology Services office within the Administrative Office of the Courts, yet another group with a role in court technology.
Finally, said Herman, a key lesson of the CCMS episode was “the need for stable funding.”
But the critics of the old regime said a change is needed for the sake of both substance in decision-making and perception in the eyes of the Legislature where members have expressed exasperation with the spending habits of the judiciary’s leadership.
“The credibility of any IT system is in question because of CCMS. It would seem in picking a committee that perception is really important,” said Judge Lopez-Giss who sits on the technology committee for the Los Angeles trial courts. “It seems there should be a new group of eyes looking it.”
She added, “It’s not ill-will, it’s just perception. It’s needed for the credibility of the branch, with respect to going to the legislature. Because we’ve spent $500 million on something that doesn’t work. We need to change who is in charge.”
The elevation of the Technology Committee comes at a time when much of the power over the technology future of California’s courts appears to have shifted to the California Information Technology Managers Forum. The forum was borne out of the ashes of CCMS, with court tech staff forming the group just as the Judicial Council was pulling the plug on the ten-year-old project. It is comprised of IT staff from trial courts all around California, including Orange, Humboldt, Alameda, Mariposa, Riverside, Fresno, Kings, Kern, Merced, San Diego and San Mateo counties.
It is headed by tech directors from the Sacramento and Santa Clara courts.
The forum has decided on the terms of a master services agreement for trial courts looking to buy off-the-shelf software systems for millions of dollars, and it chose the three principal bidders for the system, Tyler Technologies which developed the Odyssey software, LT-Court Tech from Thomson-Reuters, formerly West Publishing, and Justice Systems based in New Mexico.
But power within California’s judicial system tends to flow upwards to the well-appointed hallways and offices of the building in downtown San Francisco where the Supreme Court, the Administrative of the Courts and the Judicial Council are based.
Judge Herman described the relations between his technology committee within the council and the forum of IT directors from the trial courts as one of collaboration.
“The forum generously offered to donate the subject matter expertise of its members to assist in the development of a new vision and road map for information technology at both the branch and local court level,” Herman said. “Although I came on as part of the CCMS rescue squad after the much criticized administrative decisions were made, as part of that rescue effort, those of us who were part of that rescue effort are in a very good position to implement the lessons learned.”
He described a “new era of partnership” with the trial courts and a “bottom up rather than top down strategy in serving the courts’ IT needs.”
But the move to formalize the power of the Technology Committee as one of five internal committees at the council — with a formal grant for providing the funding and the vision for the technological future of the courts — is seen with profound skepticism from within the trial courts. It has also stirred the pot of controversy cooked up by the CCMS project and the legacy of financial pain it inflicted on the trial courts.
In addition, it brought a reminder of a much more recent initiative by Bruiniers’s group in drafting and pushing a set of e-filing rules that brought a loud protest from the California Newspaper Publishers Association, which represents about 850 newspapers in California, along with Courthouse News, the Bay Area News Group and the Los Angeles Times.
The comment on behalf of the CNPA focused on what appeared to be an effort by the drafters of the e-filing rules to give individual court officials a justification for denying access to records until after they have been “processed, ” a set of tasks that takes days and, in some courts, weeks. As the media groups pointed out, delay obstructs news coverage of the public record.
Bruiniers then defended the passage of the rules in June, telling the Judicial Council that e-file courts provide faster press access than paper-file courts, a statement contrary to the experience of journalists covering the courts.
The two California e-filing courts in Orange County and San Diego — both of which installed, defended and now must rely on the defunct CCMS software — delay press access to new filings by one to three days.
In contrast, paper-file courts throughout California provide press access to new matters on the same day they arrive in the court, including the trial courts in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Kern, San Mateo, Fresno, Contra Costa, Alameda and Solano.
In her comments on the pending elevation of the Technology Committee, Judge Lopez-Giss noted the devastating report by the State Auditor that blasted the management of the CCMS project and the financial representations about its costs made the the Legislature. The judge then questioned how the leaders of the technology committee and the related advisory committee could continue as statewide influences on technology for the courts.
“The Chief Justice recently indicated that had she known about the issues with CCMS when she took office, she would have stopped it then,” said Lopez-Giss. “The audit of CCMS which was released a short time after the Chief Justice took office identified the exact problems that led to ultimate end of program. The issue now is that the people who were responsible for overseeing and supporting CCMS are now involved in the creation of a new IT system.”
“In view of the audit and the ultimate demise of the system,” she concluded, “the qualifications of the members of this committee do not invoke confidence.”
Answering the critics, Justice Bruiniers said, “I’ve got no apologies to make for the work that I did. I’ll continue to work on it as long as the chief wants me to. CCMS wasn’t a technology failure, it was a political failure. Those of us who were tasked with working on CCMS did what we were asked to do.”
😉
R. Campomadera
December 21, 2013
“Answering the critics, Justice Bruiniers said, “I’ve got no apologies to make for the work that I did. I’ll continue to work on it as long as the chief wants me to. CCMS wasn’t a technology failure, it was a political failure. Those of us who were tasked with working on CCMS did what we were asked to do.”
What is this idiot smoking? Did he ever try to use CCMS? Did he ever ask a judge if it was meeting expectations? Did he ever try to compile court data, laboriously entered into the system, but virtually impossible to get out? Did he ever attempt to use the inter-court functionality that was supposed to exist, but didn’t? Did he ever try to use in chambers to work up a calendar? Did he ever try to modify it to meet local conditions?
CCMS was an utter technology failure. It was the wrong design, at the wrong time, and could never have meet the Courts’ needs for a modern and flexible case management system.
He’s not just in a state of denial; he’s in a state of delusion. He’s also trying to escape responsibility for utterly wasting a half billion dollars of the taxpayers’ money.
unionman575
December 21, 2013
California Information Technology Managers Forum CITMF
😉
Calling Michael Paul…What is this?
http://www.linkedin.com/groups/California-CITMF-4099823/about
Private group. To request membership, click Join and your request will be reviewed by the group manager.
Forum discusses Information Technology issues related to the California State Court system. All Court CIO’s, CTOs, IT directors, IT Managers or IT Supervisors are permitted to join.
unionman575
December 21, 2013
http://www.saccourt.ca.gov/general/docs/pr-cms-rfp.pdf
MaxRebo5
December 23, 2013
Great link Unionman. Nice to see the trial courts picking up the pieces after the CCMS disaster and are moving on.
sharonkramer
December 21, 2013
Wonder how many people from the NSA will also be joining this private Linked In group?
wearyant
December 21, 2013
“CCMS wasn’t a technology failure, it was a political failure.”
The new and improved motto of the AOC for 2014.
sharonkramer
December 21, 2013
Wearyant,
Isn’t that a statement of acknowledgment that not only do they suck at technology, they know they also suck at politics? Is he saying they intend to solve the technology problems by trying to get better at the politics? Seems like getting better at understanding technology might be a wiser plan.
I forget. Is this the same judge who violating the org’s code of ethics by misusing the Cal Judge Assoc letterhead logo on a personal letter he sent to the CJ in support of CCMS? Doh!
wearyant
December 21, 2013
Hi Sharon! The judge who is letterhead-challenged is the other half of the judicial branch laurel-and-hardy team, Santa Barbara Superior Court Judge Herman. You’re close, but no cigar. I’m confused about the politics reference in Laurel — I mean J Bruinier’s remarks. I thought the judicial branch was all about staying out of politics … 😀
R. Campomadera
December 21, 2013
“CCMS wasn’t a technology failure, it was a political failure”.
Translation: it was all the trial court judges’ fault. If they had just embraced the system, everything would have been fine.
What a weasel. Not only does he refuse to accept his own responsibility for wasting $500 million, he now wants to shift blame to the group who finally said this system isn’t working and never will.
wearyant
December 21, 2013
This weasel judge comments are further proof he knows less than nothing about technology. He probably saw CCMS run on one, lone laptop, connected to no other laptop, website, server — nothing — and proclaims “it works!” Dumb and dumber. I heard of the court line workers who tried to enter info into CCMS and they had sorrow after sorrow, as they said there was no “back” ability. They would enter info, the system would jam, freeze, choke — whatever it would do — constantly and they would have to re-enter all the info again. This would happen again and again. It ended up taking many more “man” hours to enter and re-enter data. Then managers and supervisors would stand over them with five-inch thick notebooks on how to troubleshoot the sick program and make workers feel like they “better” learn CCMS “or else.” It did take a half a billion dollars later and FINALLY a stop was put to these AOC jerks … THEN the AOC wanted another eight million dollars to “shut it down.” Talk about weasels! Yeah, what hubris and idiocy. Thank God the legislature finally did something!
unionman575
December 21, 2013
http://www.courts.ca.gov/24557.htm
AOC On-Site Catering Sacramento RFP# CJER-122013-OSCS-CF
The AOC seeks to identify and retain a contractor with expertise in providing professional, day-to-day business meal catering services. The contractor will be required to prepare, deliver, set-up and tear-down catered meals, in a professional manner with the utmost attention to detail.
The AOC anticipates awarding a master agreement for these services for an initial 12-month term, with three additional consecutive one-year option terms for a potential maximum total of four years of catering services. The initial term of the master agreement is anticipated to commence on February 1, 2014 and run for 12 months. The three consecutive one-year option terms will then run 12-months each, and may only be exercised at the AOC’s sole discretion.
Questions should be directed to solicitations@jud.ca.gov by no later than 1:00 p.m. Pacific
Time, December 30, 2013.
Proposals must be received by 3:00 p.m. (Pacific Time) on January 8, 2014.
Hard copy proposals must be delivered to:
Judicial Council of California
Administrative Office of the Courts
Attn: Nadine McFadden, RFP #CJER-122013-OSCS-CF
455 Golden Gate Avenue, 6th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102-3688
😉
Elegant Taste – “Champagne & Caviar”…
wearyant
December 21, 2013
Those creeps have a helluva nerve! Why don’t they save some money and simply get a runner to pick up and deliver big macs?! 😦
Wendy Darling
December 21, 2013
But Ant, CCMS is finished and it works! But for “politics” (and another two or three billion dollars of public money) it would be a working “miracle”, the 8th Wonder of the World! Oh, and pass the Kool-Aid please.
You just can’t make this stuff up. Really.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
December 22, 2013
I’d suggest a better treat..they can brown bag it from home.
R Campomadera
December 22, 2013
Better yet, they could all stay home.
unionman575
December 21, 2013
https://careers.jud.ca.gov/psc/recruit1/EMPLOYEE/PSFT_HR/c/HRS_HRAM.HRS_CE.GBL?FolderPath=PORTAL_ROOT_OBJECT.HC_HRS_CE_GBL2&IsFolder=false&IgnoreParamTempl=FolderPath%2cIsFolder&
Job Description
Job Title:
Manager, Quality Control
Job ID:
3807
Location: San Francisco
Full-Time
Regular
________________________________________
________________________________________
Overview
The Administrative Office of the Courts is currently recruiting for a Quality Control Manager in it’s Judicial Branch Capital Programs Office. The Judicial Branch Capital Program Office has responsibility for business and planning, design and construction, and risk and quality management of the state’s courthouses.
The Judicial Branch Capital Program Quality Control Manager (QCM), which reports to the Senior Facilities Risk Manager, is responsible for managing and performing the daily quality assurance (QA) responsibilities of the AOC capital program and each courthouse construction and facility modification project where plan review and inspection services are required. The QCM role includes direct oversight and review of the entire documentation and physical inspection phase of the work flow process and working with other in-house personnel and external architects, contractors, and consultants to produce and document a quality product that is compliant with applicable building codes and standards. This position manages the work of four senior construction inspectors, and a health and safety analyst serving as the AOC fire prevention officer.
.
Responsibilities
• Design, develop and manage a comprehensive quality management program to ensure the quality of design, materials, construction process, and closeout of a capital project or facility modification once approved for design and construction.
• Develop and communicate policies, procedures and guidelines necessary to communicate the Capital Program quality program to AOC planners and project managers, architects, construction managers, general contractors and their subcontractors and external firms.
• Design, develop and manage a program to inspect construction work in progress, utilizing a combination of AOC staff resources and contracted project and special inspection firms, for both capital and facility modification projects that assures requirements of the Trial Court Facility Design Standards and the California Building Standards Codes are met.
• Ensure the availability, from AOC staff and consultants, of subject matter expertise in fire, accessibility, and general building code interpretation and compliance when needed.
• Establish and maintain formal liaison with the California Buildings Standards Commission, State Fire Marshal, State Architect, and the Board of State and Community Corrections to facilitate coordinated plan reviews, approvals, inspections, and certificates of occupancy as they affect judicial branch facilities.
• Assist in establishing facility safety management policies, procedures and guidelines.
• Organize, prioritize and coordinate multiple work activities to meet critical deadlines.
• Provide performance management, coaching of direct-report team members, motivation and recognition of team members.
• Assist in developing unit and projects related budgets and administer contracts to ensure performance and the prudent expenditure of contracted funds.
• Develop and maintain effective working relationships with staff and contracted resources.
• Effectively communicate program and project information and issues verbally and through various written materials.
WORKING CONDITIONS
• Work occasional evening and weekend hours.
• Weekly travel throughout the state will be required, primarily day trips; occasional overnight travel may be needed. Use of state vehicle, state-paid rental car or reimbursement of personal vehicle usage provided.
.
Qualifications
Equivalent to possession of a bachelor’s degree and six years of experience in a relevant field including a minimum of two years of increasingly responsible management experience or two years as Supervising Analyst, Supervising Attorney, or other supervisory-level professional class; or three years as a Senior Analyst, Senior Attorney or other senior-level professional class with the judicial branch.
PREFERED QUALIFICATIONS
Preferred certifications/licenses:
• Certified Construction Manager (CCM) from the Construction Management Association of America.
• Licensed architect or engineer.
Preferred experience is:
• Ten years construction quality management experience primarily in institutional building projects.
• Proficient in Microsoft Excel, Word, and Project, or other computer software used in the construction industry.
.
Other Information
Please Note:
• If you are selected for hire, the Administrative Office of the Courts will require verification of employment eligibility or authorization to legally work in the United States.
.
How To Apply
To ensure consideration of your application for the earliest round of interviews, please apply by January 17, 2014. This position requires the submission of our official application and a resume. To complete an online application, please click the APPLY NOW button below.
OR
To obtain a paper application, please download a copy from the Careers page of our website under the Special Access and Paper Application Help section. And mail it to:
Administrative Office of the Courts
455 Golden Gate Avenue, 5th Floor
San Francisco, California 94102-3688
415-865-4272 Telecommunications Device for the Deaf
.
😉
Pay and Benefits
Salary Range: $8,606 – $12,744 per month ($103,272 – $152,928 per year).
Some highlights of our benefits package include:
• Health/Dental/Vision benefits program
• 13 paid holidays per calendar year
• Choice of Annual Leave or Sick/Vacation Leave
• 1 personal holiday per year
• $120 transit pass subsidy per month
• CalPERS Retirement Plan
• 401(k) and 457 deferred compensation plans
• Employee Assistance Program
• Basic Life and AD&D Insurance
• FlexElect Program
• Long Term Disability Program (employee paid/optional)
• Group Legal Plan (employee paid/optional)
.
Equal Employment Opportunity
The Administrative Office of the Courts is an Equal Opportunity Employer.
________________________________________
Return to Previous Page
________________________________________
unionman575
December 21, 2013
unionman575
December 21, 2013
Another Friday night surprise…
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/oc13-Dec_20.pdf
😉
Wendy Darling
December 21, 2013
Bruiniers speaks and acts for the Chief Justice. If she didn’t agree with his statements or his actions, she would remove him. Instead, she reappoints him and “elevates” him. Once again, her actions speak louder than words.
As for the statement from Judge Susan Lopez-Giss that “there is no way that Judicial Council committee can do this”: they can, they have, and they will. The real question is what are you and the judges of this State going to do to stop them? [crickets chirping]
Here’s to 2014: Another year of Tani’s Follies, no ethics in judicial branch administration, laws being broken at 455 Golden Gate Avenue, lying to the State Legislature, hiring sprees, pay raises, and embezzling of public money at the AOC, and watching the trial courts gasp for breath on life support while branch “leadership” continues to swirl around in a putrid sewer of their own creation.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
December 21, 2013
Grab your ankles and prepare to say Happy New Year as Jerry Brown and the Legislature ram it up our a** again with the budget pen.
😉
sharonkramer
December 21, 2013
Are you all going to offer public comment as to the proposed open meeting rules prior to the February deadline? I know I am!!!
Maybe I should submit my comments by providing a link to a blog I own. The blog’s name is “Just Answer The Damn Question!”
Union man provided the link of how to do it:
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/oc13-Dec_20.pdf
sharonkramer
December 22, 2013
My suggested changes to the open meeting rule.
http://freepdfhosting.com/21a2e14344.pdf
I want them to have to answer the question of what is the branch policy when a Superior Court CEO is caught red handed, concealing material document falsifications of deputy clerks; when responding to questions posed prior to the JC. Who is responsible to mitigate the damage for the cover-up? And its MASSIVE from coast to coast.
unionman575
December 22, 2013
Nice work Sharon.
😉
sharonkramer
December 23, 2013
Thank you, Unionman. You are really good at knowing where to find relevant documents. Can you tell me who the members of the Judicial Council and its advisory committees were on September 11, 2011? Thanks.
And now, I’m going to predict the future: If a current or past JC member gets their hands on this case in which a $1.1B judgment was awarded against three lead based paint manufacturers, the judgement will be overturned.
http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/12/20/14039/lauded-public-health-researcher-also-worked-industry-revealing-entanglements
The way it works is, once you have sold your soul to the devil you can’t buy it back (unless you want the devil himself to expose just how corrupt you really are — a.k.a. blackmail you to expose your past indiscretions which helped you to obtain money, undue respectability, and power to control policies and procedures to your and your co-devil worshipers’ advantage)
unionman575
December 24, 2013
Let me dig that up for you Sharon and I’ll get back to you later in the week.
Just remember my IQ is the exact same as my shoe size 10 1/2.
😉
unionman575
December 25, 2013
Sharon here ya go…
http://www.courts.ca.gov/4565.htm
See: Archived Minutes and Agendas
Click on 2011 Judicial Council Minutes and Agendas
😉
wearyant
December 22, 2013
Good evening, all! Hubby brought home a miniature to ease my pain from recent dental work. It was so smooth — and it worked! I checked to see the brand and — it was GREY GOOSE! I had no idea Grey Goose was vodka. But this is my limit to flirting with empathy to AOC thugs. No caviar for me, no! (fish eyes. ugh!)
And a Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to all! 😀
U-man, you should have Grey Goose once in a while!
wearyant
December 22, 2013
rather, caviar is fish eggs, not eyes. Either way, I’m not engaging it.
GREY GOOSE rocks ! The AOC doesn’t …
Wendy Darling
December 22, 2013
Don’t forget the lobster, Ant.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
December 23, 2013
I have a 1.75 Grey Goose at home for medicinal purposes only.
😉
unionman575
December 24, 2013
A nice lobster and Grey Goose…I plead “guilty” to that one at home Wendy.
Lando
December 22, 2013
If Bruinears had any insight and decency he would have resigned from any and all insider Judicial Council AOC committees after presiding over one the the biggest public policy disasters in the country, CCMS. After his most recent comments blaming CCMS’s failure on politics ( code for the ACJ and legislature) , and rather than accepting responsibility for his own failings in overseeing the half billion wasted on a case management system that would never work, he like his mentor HRH- 1 will continue to blame anyone else they can for this mess. If your Bruinears or HRH-1 , you can never let the truth get in the way of a good story. Maybe Bruinears could do us all a favor and resign from the Court of Appeal and write his own autobiography, just like his mentor lol.
Wendy Darling
December 22, 2013
If you are Bruinears, you can never let the truth get in the way of a needed lie.
Long live the ACJ.
The OBT
December 22, 2013
I have a better idea than waiting for J Bruiniers to resign and /or accept responsibility for anything which will never happen. We need to organize a recall campaign that would include the CJ, J Hull and J Bruiniers. There is a tremendous number of arguments that could be set forth to make the case for the removal of all of them at the same time. Merry Christmas everyone and I hope all here have a happy and safe holiday.
wearyant
December 23, 2013
How infuriating that “politics” was meant to convey the ACJ and Legislature in Bruiniers comments. I wondered what he meant, bringing up politics in an obviously nonpartisan venue, the judicial branch. I just dash off another piddling check from my small pension to my favorite cause, the ACJ, wishing it were much, much more.
Still dreaming about the Grey Goose. And now I have insight into how the JC/AOC/CJ get others to come onto their dark side. They find out the weakness of their opponent, and being human, we have have ’em. “How about some Grey Goose, Wearyant, with your tonic?” “oh, don’t mind if I do, thank you.”
Just kidding. But I was disappointed when hubby didn’t bring more home. 😀
Long live the ACJ!
Recall the CJ, J Hull and J Bruiniers!
Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to all, good posters and evil trolls alike! May the Judicial Branch return to the 80s and early 90s when all California courts were open to the public and trial court line workers in the everyday trenches employed.
wearyant
December 23, 2013
From the Courthouse News Service via Maria Dinzeo:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/12/23/64009.htm
No surprise for the bloggers, posters and readers here at JCW. Coal for your Christmas stockings JC/AOC/CJ!!
Wendy Darling
December 23, 2013
In true form for 455 Golden Gate Avenue and judicial branch “leadership”: “transparency” =’s “more exceptions”.
In the almost three years that the current Chief Justice has held that office, can anyone name even one act of actual leadership from her that is worthy of following? Just one? [crickets chirping]
Yeah, that’s what I thought.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
wearyant
December 23, 2013
“The new language also attempts to explain the exemptions and provide examples. Under trade secrets, for instance, it says, the Technology Committee could meet in a closed session to discuss a proposal watch a vendor demonstration for a computer project.”
————————————————————————————————————-
The above from Maria Dinzeo’s article from Courthouse News, the link provided above.
And I ask, how does the fatheaded JC/AOC/CJ profess to have anything to do with TRADE SECRETS? Are they still of the mind that they actually are software designers? Their arrogance has no limits. Would the recall of Tani, Hull and Bruiniers convince them that they truly are small frogs in a large pond? Do they have to suffer more public embarrassment to be brought down?
Long live the ACJ!
unionman575
December 24, 2013
“for instance, it says, the Technology Committee could meet in a closed session to discuss a proposal watch a vendor demonstration for a computer project.”
I’d love to have Jerry Brown there front row center along with legislators and tax payer groups to “watch” the demo.
😉
Happy Holidays!
I remain very truly yours,
Union Man
Wendy Darling
December 24, 2013
To all who visit here, in the words of Tiny Tim: God bless us, every one. Merry Christmas to all!
Long live the ACJ.
Lando
December 25, 2013
Thanks Wendy. Merry Christmas to you and all the other great people here who believe in democracy, freedom, the First Amendment, common sense, ethics, public service, honesty and regard for responsible spending of taxpayer dollars.
unionman575
December 25, 2013
http://www.sfsuperiorcourt.org/sites/default/files/images/Civil%2520E-Filing%2520NOIA-2.pdf
unionman575
December 25, 2013
http://www.sfsuperiorcourt.org/sites/default/files/images/Copy%20of%20Civil%20E-File%20RFP%20Scores%20December%2019%202013.pdf
unionman575
December 25, 2013
http://www.siskiyou.courts.ca.gov/News.asp?NewsID=212
Notice to the Public
Notice to the Public With apologies to our justice partners and customers, if your experience with calling or emailing the Court is proving frustrating, unfortunately it is not uncommon. The Court’s budget allocation has been reduced by half this year, and the Court’s resources are severely limited. It is not possible to staff phone lines more than 2 hours daily, or to have staff respond to emails. We encourage you to thoroughly review the materials on this website, which give information about how cases are processed in Siskiyou County. If, after review, you do not find an answer to your question, you may direct your inquiry to: OfficeCEO@siskiyou.courts.ca.gov. If you do, please provide your name, case number and date of next court hearing along with contact email and phone number. Thank you.