The Chief’s Three Year Blueprint is Dead On Arrival

Good morning everyone. Nice to see all of you here in Sacramento.

Good morning.

This is a business meeting of the judicial Council of California January 23, 2014. The meeting is in session that we will adjourn later today, approximately 2:55 PM. For housekeeping matters, I remind you our meetings are audiocast live with real-time captioning on the California courts website. For the benefit of council members joining us by phone, welcome presiding judge Ellsworth and Angela Davis and our online audience. Please speak into your microphone and address each other by name so listeners and captioning readers can follow our discussion. Before we begin with [[…]] I want to comment on the significance of being here in January and February for Council meetings. Since I became chief in 2011 the judicial Council has met twice in Sacramento. Most recently in 2012 to discuss the government revised and this year we will have to meetings in Sacramento now our January meeting and next month, our February meeting. This will enable council members to conduct regular business and will advocate our sister branches of government with our necessary reinvestment in the judicial system. A number of productive and informative visits yesterday we had the opportunity to get the case there were issues around equal access to legislators, and their staff and we had many voices sharing the needs of our branch of the public we serve but importantly we had one vision for our branch and the need for a fully functioning judicial branch. I thank the members further suspicion uncovered, the office of governmental affairs for organizing the visit and I thank the administrative offices for arranging the judicial Council meetings in January and February in Sacramento. I look forward to continuing the dialogue and the legislature on our strategies and our needs. And the needs cannot continue in February but throughout the entire budget process culminating with the budget act in June. I believe that our case is clearly will continue the collaborative process with the trial and appellate courts, judicial branch agencies and are coequal branches of government.

The first item on our agenda is the approval of the minutes of our December 12 and 13th meeting. I know you had the opportunity to look at those. Is there a motion to adopt and a second? Moved for approval by Judge Walsh and second by Judge McCabe. Matter is approved.

Second is the regular report on the Council summarizing my encasements and outgoing outreach at the goodies since our last meeting in December. For this report I’m going to take the liberty of not reporting chronologically or by topic or audience and engagement and activity since occurred since December 13. I will focus on a key issue in spite of improvements in economic Outlook and the related forecast remains a key stumbling block to access for all court users and as you know, adequate funding for our courts and justice system.

It was appropriate this week that we celebrated Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. day with a day off which is a day to explore what the-what Dr. King’s legacy means to us individually and the community and we took this time as we prepared for this Council meeting to make the case prequel accessor adequate funding for all of our courts throughout the state. Dr. King is often quoted in one of his quotes is [[…]] injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. That statement rings true as we know because we see courts close and services curtailed and we hear reports from people in the courts and seeking protection to small business owners trying to resolve civil disputes and to access needs of Californians as outlined in my vision of access with 3D and to be responsive to requests from legislators to show them the numbers I launched a three-year blueprint for a judicial branch at a press conference in Sacramento and I announced a plan for a blue ribbon commission on the branch and this will be more on this charter and membership in the future judicial Council meeting. The blueprint which all have seen itemizes the reinvestment of 1.2 billion and needed over three years to deal with the ongoing budget cuts to the branch since 2008. I welcome as all of you do the reinvestment in the proposal to the branch, but we agree that more is needed this year especially as in the coming budget year.

I was grateful that many of our legislative colleagues could attend the press conference and speak, topics of access and judicial branch funding. Senate president pro tem Darrell Steinberg spoke as well as Sen. Noreen Evans also a judicial Council member a family member and I appreciated members support and assembly member and Richard Loomis comments on the funding made following the press conference. It was also important that we stood and that shoulder to shoulder with people that use the courts Marcy has previously spoken to counsel Ms. Knickerbocker and Travis Hauser, small business owners in Sacramento have spoken about how they have benefited from services and support the courts provide as well as many colleagues and judicial system partners at the press conference including administrative presiding judge Court of Appeals and Appellate District as well as a number of justices from the third DCA. Judge Robert Glassman is president of the California Judges Association and member of the judicial Council. Judge James Mize from the bench coalition, Mr. Luis Rodriguez president of the State Bar California. Mr. Allen Sarah Burke president and CEO of the California Chamber of Commerce, chief executive officer of the consumer attorney in California, cochair of the California open courts coalition, Michelle Orrick, National Federation of Independent business, Mr. Tom Scott, president of California citizens against lawsuit abuse. Ms. Kimberly Stone president of the civil Justice Association of California, Mr. Brian Allison representing the American Federation of State, County and municipal employees. Also Mr. Robbie Hunter president of the state building and construction trade. Council–Mr. BJ Sioux City, president Sacramento Bar Association and Ms. Mary burrows Executive Director of the Sacramento Bar Association and many bar leaders as well as judicial Council members, Justice Harry Paul and I believe others, judge David– David De Alba and others have those [[…]] of the committee came to the press conference and a San Diego judge present from that came to the press conference we had a number of other folks in the audience including retired Justice Art Scotland has been leading the charge in Sacramento has helped put together the book about the impact to the Sacramento legal communities as a result of cuts.

It was a great opportunity at the press conference to show the diverse group of interests and discipline and otherwise advocates against each other that support the common goal of the poor access to justice for all Californians. As you know and we know dearly, you cannot run the largest state court system in the nation on only one penny of every general fund dollar.

Yesterday I was pleased to attend the state of the state address with other constitutional officers and statewide officials including my colleague from the Supreme Court of California Dr. Marvin Baxter and Justice Goodwin I believe with Gov. Brown’s closing statement we will build for the future, but not steal from it. And I look forward to the opportunity to constructively help him shuffle his deck of financial playing cards because in a prior life, I know something about a deck of cards of [[…]]. Dr. King also said the time is always right to do what is right and the best way to solve any problem is to remove its cause, and I am optimistic that through your and my and all of our and ongoing advocacy efforts with the support and collaboration of our justice system partners and her sister branches of government we can continue to do the right thing and remove the cause of the problem with a reinvestment in a fully functioning judicial branch. That concludes my report and next we will hear from the administrative director report.

Good morning to all members of the Council. The regular written report of the administrative director is contained in your materials as always it contains a summary of the summary’s programs and services with the administrative offices has been engaged on behalf of this Council and our courts that I would like to bring a few items from the report to your particular attention.

Subject of language access, a meeting was held yesterday in San Francisco with certified Federation of interpreters representing court employee interpreters and that’s concluded the third of what are being turned listening sessions taking place this month with organizations representing independent interpreters and representatives of legal service organizations. The listening sessions are being convened to inform the development of the statewide language access plan for our courts as part of the effort to gather public input the chairs of the joint working group focusing on the plan, Justice Rivera focused on key statements and pen to paper on the plan. Two sessions were held in Burbank earlier this month and contract interpreters and legal service providers with their input on a range of issues with interpreters and language access with limited English proficient users of our courts. The final listening session will be with the presiding judges and court executive officers at the end of this month. In addition, there’ll be three larger public hearings on language access in February and in March. As you know the Council will receive a draft report in June and a final report from the working group in December.

On this very important and timely subject of language access with the use of the organizing skills of our chief operating officer Kurt child, as you are aware of the Chief Justice and members of the administrative office have met with representatives of the United States department of justice on the West Coast and in Washington DC in recent months. I am pleased to know that today we have special guest with us for the Council meeting and if I could ask Curt Child to make the introductions.

Thank you, judge. We have a couple of special guests with us and it is entirely appropriate as we have these issues on the Council’s agenda today. We have and the– Anna Madena from the US civil rights division from Washington DC and Richard Park from the US attorney’s office in Los Angeles. They have been the point persons have been working closely with us as we are having discussions, which I would describe and I hope they would share this view has good strong collaborative discussions as I think we all move forward and looking at improving language access in California and as Judge Steven Jahr mention the conversation of the chief was able to have with the department of justice officials in Washington last month I say further that collaborative atmosphere and it has been a candidate forthright discussion and I anticipate they will continue to be but again constructive. They have also agreed and will be spending some time with our chairs and other members of the language access plan this afternoon after the Council meeting and then they will also be spending some time with staff tomorrow morning in a meeting so I think we’re moving forward. Thank you very much for making the trip out and for coming up in spending time with us. [Applause].

Thank you and welcome. With respect to the subject of labor negotiations you will know from the written report that trial courts are continuing to seek the assistance from the administrative office regarding that subject. Our HR office has just finished assisting for trial courts in their concluded negotiations and is currently assisting 12 other courts in the process.

With respect to administrative office restructuring, internally, and related to the councils restructuring directives HR staff in offices across the organization are managing the rollout of the comprehensive classification and compensation study underway and the mandatory employee management process separate and apart from was also to begin this month because the job description are preparation process for the classification and compensation study are so intensive and involve a PDQ for every employee in the agency and eight responsibility on part of the supervisors and managers to review the PDQ, I signed it excessively burdensome to be engaged simultaneously of the performance evaluation review. Each needs to be done very well indeed. So I notified staff yesterday and advise you today that I have delayed until April 1 the beginning of the performance evaluation review process what that means is the initial review which is a one-year process triggered by an employee anniversary date and was originally envisioned to begin January 1 and be completed by December 31, 2014 which would give rise to recurring an ongoing annual reviews will begin on April 1 this year and that initial review process will be concluded on March 31, 2015. So we’re moving at one quarter to enable the preparation and processing by our class consultant of the PDQ in the next two months which are intensive months [Indiscernible] in a way that doesn’t disturb either of those processes or qualities of output.

Advisory activity and group activity is concerned the written report summarizes the [Indiscernible] of the standing advisory committee meetings that have occurred since the last Council meeting as everyone is aware there has been considerable activity in the governor’s office relative to the appointment of branch officers 17 judicial appointments were made in December and three were made effective this month initiating a series of outreach efforts from the administrative office involving the HR office relative to payroll and benefits concerning education offerings and requirements legal services office regarding litigation insurance our office of security services on the judicial privacy protection program and the chief and I and others welcomed a group of new judges participating in the new judge orientation program.

On a final note regarding SB 794 a written report makes reference to that bill, proposed and sponsored by the California Judges Association in order to simplify and reduce the number of challenges available and Chris-criminal misdemeanor cases and the public safety commitment committee on January 14 as most are aware and will be heard in the coming weeks on the Senate floor. I want to highlight the branches work in support of this bill is an example of the collaboration that regularly occurs between the courts and administrative offices on behalf of the Council so many issues. In response to a call to action coordinated by our office of governmental affairs, the courts responded quickly with letters to legislators and provided information on potential cost savings and the collective approach and swift action and branch wide focus and supporting advocacy efforts and an approach we will need to benefit from in the coming months. Justice Miller and I attended a meeting of the California board of the Judges Association in Los Angeles and once again being the component of this bill, [Indiscernible] enabled us to and I think it is noteworthy that their legislative advocate paid a special tribute to Corey and [Indiscernible] for their assistance relative to 794.

Thank you, Judge Jahr. As you can see from the agenda. We will hear from the internal chairs at our February meeting. Next is public comment. I believe we have five speakers however, none are speaking generally. The five how my understand, are speaking to items D and E. We will call those speakers to come forward before the presentation of the program Council.

Next is the consent agenda we have three items at syndicated and these are including reports to the legislature to report on expenditures revenues and balance constraints will that we have had no request from council members to remove any of the consent agenda items to the discussion agenda so I will entertain a motion to move the agenda in the second.

Thank you, Judge Jacobson. Second by David Yamasaki. We are ahead of schedule so we are not going to take that break at this time [Laughter] I think now with all parties present including the speakers who would like to speak to this issue, we can address discussion agenda item D. This is on your calendar as court interpreters expenditure of a new savings. I believe we have to speakers and I invite them up to the podium.

[Indiscernible]

They are not here. They will get a couple of minutes.

Okay. Thank you.

To have enough for the facilities update this is not an action item?

How about that break? [Laughter]

I think we can do H. This is either H. Not an action item there are no materials for this item we invite Mr. Curt Soderlund and Cory Jasperson and Mr. Slatko Theodorovic.

Welcome and thank you for being able to pinch-hit.

Absolutely. As you know the governor’s budget was released on January 9 a day early and a technical issue about getting that budget available and ready and folks had to scramble to get that out and we were caught off guard in trying a brief overview and a governor’s budget proposes $106 million of general expenditures under $54.9 billion, all funds of which $3.3 billion or for the branch $1.3 billion just to give you context which is a low point in terms of a general fund we are 1% of all general fund expending and 20% of our total budget came from the general fund with this proposed budget that includes, thankfully, some modest increases which raises are share general fund expenditures to 1.2% of the general fund and 33% of our total budget comes from the general fund so there has been some increases in the movement backwards and forwards in terms of the branch as far as a general fund share. As I mentioned the $105 million is set by this administration to recognize reductions that have been taken by the branch over the past several years. As a particular note, late breaking pieces of information and the share for the trial courts to be distributed [Indiscernible] methodology and is an important statement to recognize the value of our model and last Tuesday at the press conferences in Sacramento state level judiciary we laid out the components at 600,000 Supreme Court 2.9 million Court of Appeals trial courts $1.2 million 6002 the facility branch with over $200,000 that was at the trial courts were provided last year and the–the state-level entities were provided and just to put the budgeted context what is important to understand that recognizing the revenues that are being generated are concerning being ongoing versus one-time and that makes substantial paydown of this debt that is referred to as the last several years reducing the long-term debt and these upcoming budget by $11 billion in completely eliminating it by 17/18 and that includes repayment of loans that there is no change in terms of payback of construction loans and it is unfortunate that they were taken in the first place am part of the repayment of loans and that is related to opposition 98 where some of the budget solutions were taken and proposition 98 was reduced and resulted in–that money and future years and $6 billion deferred payments to schools.

Also another important aspect is a proposed $1.6 billion transfer to a rainy day fund, obviously these revenues are in part due to the proposition 30 passage which increased revenues and attempting to put a position in terms of trying to move towards the point where revenues are not there will be can do with the state to be prepared for that. And in particular, $200 million of retirement costs that have not been addressed has been concerned about the state of the retirement system being substantially underfunded so there is a concern about how to cover those files and the total state unfunded liabilities over $350 billion. There are concerns about making good progress but there is still a lot of cost that is being accumulated by the state over the past several years that need to be addressed.

An important priority for the administration, in the budget, is K-12 schools raising almost $70 billion in general fund expenditures going to schools and ready to billion dollars increases and their other major increases in higher education the UC of California and California State University there are lots of areas in the budget are seeing increases but an investment in one-time expenditures so the government doesn’t. The boom and bust approach of Bill programs up to the stable level with revenues in trying to turn around and cut them to the extent the revenues don’t come in as expected I think we discussed previously in the previous presentation was made prior Council meetings have become more reliant on revenues and so I think the governor is saying that message and taking it into a budget presentation the budget also though not specifically committing to does essentially a sound there is sufficient revenues to provide state employees with a 2% [Indiscernible] that is currently negotiated with them most of the collective bargaining units, but the final determination is it to be made until the May revision that we do expect that that is an aspect of the budget that will come to fruition. There are some other important budget proposals that didn’t happen that we are still pursuing and I think we wanted to bring them to your attention.

We have been advocated consistently and strongly for the reversal of the 1% fund balance policy and the Gov and his message does address that straightforward in saying that they continue to believe that state levels fund balance is more appropriate than fund balance at a local level outside of the 1% that is approved saying that to the Council to identify the needs of priorities of the branch in order to allocate funds for that so that it’s sort of a restatement of [[…]] from their May revision a couple of years ago they wanted to address it head-on by stating that they believe the 1% is the most effective means of managing branches from our perspective. There are some other items in terms of retiring and health benefit costs that are also extensively discussed in the governor’s message that we did submit and requested funding for the state level judiciary for health benefits and retiree costs and no specific funding was provided in the budget, but a lengthy discussion of the benefit issue in particular was discussed and we did include in a memo so basically that concerned that there are employees within the branch that do not pay either what is considered a full share or anything towards the retirement and we asked to look at those issues to be more efficient in their operations and select us to look at implementing the public employees pension Reform Act as soon as possible to generate savings have improve a consistency over the last couple of years and those have been declining and they are writing tickets there are some opportunity to see revenues flat mount for allocation [Indiscernible].

There are no new [Indiscernible] of construction and operating funds so that is good news for us. And just in case there are folks who are concerned about what was included in last year’s budget in terms of issues with $400 million restoration of one-time cuts, those are continuing in the budget and budget projections and some of that considers to be ongoing and we want to make sure folks were aware of that and the $62 million to his continued.

So as far as the budget goes we obviously have a lot of advocacy working through and is interested in exploring technology and the Department of Finance to develop a long-term funding plan their view is getting more of an improvement modernization fund as a source of those investments and general fund so we will see how that goes later on this afternoon the city will be bringing the BCP, budget change proposal, to submit to the Department of finance for their consideration to make a necessary investment in technology. Synergistic, to be optimistic about these things, there seems to be a different flavor in terms of dealing with the Department of finance and Judge Jahr may want to comment on this but in terms of our dealings with Michael, we have a feeling we can have a conversation with him about these particular issues and so far through the fiscal year, all of the revenues have exceeded what has been the projections and we hope that trend will continue optimistically and I think there is some sense among ourselves that drama.

Thank you. Council members were with us yesterday and that Councilman chief we did 51 or 52 visits and 45 were with Senators and members and we had positive buzz in the capital, thank you for that. It is early. Analysts will come out with their analysis of the budget in mid-to-late February we will share when it comes in.

We did conduct [[…]] statewide phone calls to spread the word said everybody is the same message and that is helpful that we got our memo out quickly and updated it immediately, but we found that additional information and I think we feel about doing these budget calls with state level judiciary gives folks the same information [[…]] are the questions we don’t have people going off and making assumptions about how their building budgets and they go forward and make this a presentation that was last week at the budget advisory meeting and we raised the issue of the governor’s direction in terms of the hundred million and how it should be allocated and the question was raised at the meeting if anybody had any objects is–objections or concerns and a recommendation at this point and this Council, which will happen at the end of this fiscal year. There is no concern or objection to that approach and suggested by the governor to use the [Indiscernible] method to allocate the hundred million dollars and before we come to the recommendations of the advisory committee we want to let you know that was discussed at some length.

Approximately a week ago we have the legislative analyst we are looking forward [Indiscernible] another area where they expressed explicit concerns [[…]] facilities management program and they feel it is underfunded even though there is 115 million being added from the [Indiscernible] trust fund. The senses they are aware of the additional $12 million from the general fund in support of the program that support provided more funding for facility management up and down the state it is underfunded at this point in time.

One more area of questions that they brought to us was this issue of 1% still concerned about the 1% and asking about cash flow in trying to understand what the needs are with the hundred and $60 million loan authority really working for us so they still have concerns. They have heard from their bosses and members of legislature and they’re asking us to help them turn the pages and figure out a better way to explain it so folks understand and cooperation will issues and to take some time to get folks to understand the nuances of what that means so we are working with trying to make that story something they can make an easy digestible fashion so they can get some relief from the current 1%.

Thank you. Judge Walsh.

Those are great reports. Thank you for that. Thank you for getting the word out statewide as quickly as you did with the governor’s budget came out and everyone had the same information at the same time early on. If I understand the governor’s budget correctly, it is based on his somewhat cautious view of what the revenues would be this year. The LAO has a higher estimate. Just like last year it is right to the governor is wrong is there anything that tells us how he would spend not access–access?

Just to refresh your memory last year is June the LAO came out and said we are going to have to read a half million more than what the governor assumed and the budget at that was enacted was based on the Department of Finance’s revenue projections so at this point, the LAO has not come out with an analysis of the revenue projections at this point and so we are not sure whether or not we could occur with the revenue projections. They’re generally supportive of the approach. But obviously if the revenue will be higher, they would be looking to their boxes as to how the legislature should allocate that in terms of the budget hearings and I won’t be until May that we here have the governor would look to address that. At this point this is the governor’s plan based on the revenues that are being projected and is a bit premature to get additional investments coming from and I think one of this you read some of the articles that have come out recently about the state of the state with concerns about the teachers retirement and there is no plan there. There are lots of needs and folks cut over the last five years and so just to try to suggest that one area of investment over the other, there is a lot of investment, not as much as everyone wanted and clearly we need more resources [Indiscernible] this morning. We are hopeful that our advocacy, which reflects all of the priorities of the Council from our August meeting in terms of budget change proposal. We are looking forward to those.

I have a question and an observation. The first is, there was talk, there was language in the governor’s budget about changing business as usual and personally I didn’t think branch business as usual, but I do ask what is clear is your discussions and Curt’s discussions and Cory’s discussions are what you are hearing and are you hearing anything specific about what direction they are looking for besides the business of mentioning yesterday even in the state of the state, the pension issue that you referenced earlier, anything beyond that we should be aiming for other than what we are already doing?

I think as a reminder, I think what will be important, the beginning of this fiscal year, there was a report that came from [Indiscernible] courts in terms of how the $60 million was going to be spent. There is a follow-up report due in April to the legislature and it will be very [[…]] for us to be articulate and convincing in terms of where the money went and how it was used so that will be an important factor. I don’t think that addressed your question specifically. Right now, the Department of Finance is a conservative talk, but my sense and Jodi and [Indiscernible] can chime in on this one, there is a feeling that there is a firewall that exists in terms of having these conversations so I think given the fact that we are only six months in terms of reporting into the fiscal year in terms of revenue, that as January, February and March roll through, the revenues remain high that represents opening of a door, not just for us obviously because everybody will want to chime in on this, but to get additional funds and discussions that we had with the Department of Finance they seem to be positive and optimistic.

The last line of the governor’s message [Indiscernible] the initial branch must continue to implement uniform standards, and compensation changes that relate to the benefits issue and operational efficiencies with the goal of increasing access. Now we know in May of 2011 we had the message from the governor saying we want to look at how you distribute funds how you administer your budget and what came of that, the funding workgroup and the great work that was culminated in [Indiscernible] but out of that group, was an issue that Judge Walsh is heading up in terms of looking at efficiencies in the trial court operations and a sense from the members of the administration on that committee that we need to continue to look at branch wide efficiencies not just individual trial court efficiencies.

And [Indiscernible] the announcement [Indiscernible] recognition and I know that [Indiscernible] formulation stage that I think the blue ribbon commission will address many of the concerns [Indiscernible] the last paragraph as well as other [Indiscernible].

[Indiscernible].

There is a push to go to the outer limits of distance education and while there is something specific there they have not given us the specifics just you need to continue to work on [Indiscernible] systemwide efficiencies and improvements and uniform standards and efficiencies. [Indiscernible] At least in our discussion with the Department of Finance and other branch wide efficiencies and standards that they are looking for versus [Indiscernible].

[Indiscernible] On the subject, I know that a year or so ago we had the trial court [Indiscernible] they put together that the subject of operational efficiencies such as that came up with some frequency and I know that during those discussions and other discussions that I have been involved with the [[…]] has always been an interest in as much detail as we could get as to what the phrase in the minds of the Department of Finance and the governor’s office and legislature what detail we could get as to where they felt we were off [[…]] an efficient and at least in my experience we [Indiscernible] guidance and that is not a criticism it is just the way it is and it could be I have not been privy to conversations with more detail but with that preface, again, yesterday during some of the legislative visits, some of the members made reference to the branch not spending its money wisely without detail into there seems to be an ongoing sense that we are not operationally efficient without saying here is what we mean. Is there any further information on that [Indiscernible]

A throwback on what was mentioned, that is a concern coming from the governor’s office and members of the legislature about efficiency in general and receiving any specifics and we would point out that last year in 2013 we had over 2000 efficiencies in the budget and the culmination of bills and I think we ended up with seven that made it through the process, tiny ones, the efficiencies we had that had opposition we were not successful in moving forward on and we continue to work on that. We have more sponsored legislation that was seeking offers for right now and also continue pushing that forward and I have also heard a concern that perhaps the efficiencies that we have achieved, we are not doing a good enough job communicating that to folks in the legislature and the governor’s office to step up those efforts. I also think there is a distinction between as you know, the 24 efficiencies that were approved for sponsorship by counsel are mostly pretty technical small changes and I think that the concerns we are hearing from the legislature as well as the administration they would like to see larger efficiencies but having received any specific areas of the efficiencies they would like to see so we continue keeping that pipeline full of coming up with ideas and communicating the savings and efficiencies that we have achieved.

Thank you very much. Judge Jahr.

This is Judge Ellsworth. Matt have a place as well?

After Judge Rosenberg.

The trial court funding working group at the end of our term working out those issues, we were working on preparing the report and in that session that we were together, we were going over a lot of the efficiencies that the court had achieved since the beginning of the [Indiscernible] trial court funding act and even those on the committee were surprised that a lot of the changes that the courts had achieved so I agree with Cory that the communication of what has been accomplished, we don’t toot our own horn, we just go about our day and do our business. We have not been so concerned with how others perceive us. We are worried about how I am going to get through my calendar and make a decision on this difficult case before me and I am not worried about the changes that I made in streamlining papers and documents that the court clerks use every single day and the numbers of 10,000s and hundreds of thousands that make it more efficient because we are all using the same fonts and we have been doing that for years.

So again, we are not used to having to put out there, look what I have done. In just the way that we operate and it is not our job and we might be lousy at communicating these things better doesn’t mean they haven’t been done and we haven’t been sitting on our hands for 10 years and so at the end the reign of the committee, we did lift quite a number of things that were asked of us. So I would like to hopefully–our next visit in February, have a list re-created from that report so they don’t have to read the report and they simply did not have time to do that and so maybe in February we can impress upon them and maybe the next visit for the governor’s office and things that have been done but they don’t know about that have allowed us to do more with less over the last many years

Judge Jahr and Judge Rosenberg.

Thank you. Should be plain to everybody that the business of efficiencies is a multi layered subject matter area efficiencies can only result in improving the world of practice and procedure and in California those are statutory as a consequence of which the political process has much to do with how we go about getting from point A to point B and I don’t think it is lost on the governor. The final meeting one of the most recent meetings with the governor and that subject came up and made a point of emphasizing the fact in California, unlike most states, practice and procedure rules are made by the legislature. And other folks of the executive branch and other folks in the legislative branch advised the key legislators appreciate that so we are not suggesting the framework of those rules many are outside of our control because of that fact. Going to the second layer, where we can affect efficiencies within the framework, I certainly we have force the points made by Judge O’Malley because I discovered it might 40 some odd visits to the trial court’s order the last three months of a were taking for granted and necessity being the mother of invention and they stretch the dollars to accommodate the court users and any number of anecdotes and a brilliant invention to do that and even as the dollars were reduced those kinds of anecdotes by survey and because of what Judge O’Malley said folks take for granted and they move on and they open court in the morning and they continue with their work and I suppose I underscore the point that Judge O’Malley made and remade those thoughtful efficiencies from constituents both for the sake of illustrating that their ongoing and offer the sake of ensuring cross-pollination will able enable others to adapt and adopt to efficiencies that happen without any delay.

I have spoken with Cory about the campaign of advocacy which is ongoing and we will step up in the next couple of months. As you know, last year the campaign of advocacy was focused and through that prism legislators best understand what the consequences are and those budget cuts on folks we serve in the state. This year we are going to continue that. It is after all the central point of support for the branch that we are going to augmented with those kinds of examples and efficiencies and improvements in process that — and I invite you to assist in acquiring that so we can put our best foot forward and the vague notion that we have been sitting on our hands and [Indiscernible] Thank you.

At one level you have looked at it and understand trial courts don’t control the [Indiscernible]. All of the cases have come to us are cases that have been filed by district attorneys and citizens and people that bring cases to the courts that, I guess, statistically, we can’t quantify it and look at the number of cases, how long it takes to process, how much money is allocated per judge and there are 49 other states that compare quantitative numbers and efficiency is also a two-edged sword and extending case to mediation and having self help centers and efficient process and you can delay things, but it might also affect quality of the result. So not just a quantitative issue but also a qualitative issue. The latter being very difficult to evaluate.

Thank you, Judge Rosenberg. Judge Ellsworth?

Thank you. In addition, to Judge Rosenberg’s comments and those before, I would like to add the following, they talk of uniformity of standards and efficiencies and access and those we have reacted in a most defensive manner of scrambling and working hard to communicate what we have been doing for years and also working hard to take a look inward Lee and–to take a look inwardly at making [Indiscernible] to each and every trial court. But ostensibly, and I use that in a double entendre, if you will, we stand without judges being funded up and down the state. So I think there still continues to be an issue of uniformity of standards, efficiencies and wonderful words we like to banter around for the Sacramento [Indiscernible] and yet we are underfunded in other ways and that is not having judges and with regard to the judges that need to be funded and added and I believe that has to be part of our copper station in a most aggressive manner because until we can start to be more equalized their then we will forever be treading water and losing and tiring ourselves so I think that is part of a conversation.

Thank you. Very good point. Judge Herman and then Mary Beth Todd.

Just following up first on Judge Rosenberg’s comments. Collectively the efficiencies that we have created have to be [Indiscernible] and that is part of for example a technology area the governor recognizes the need for tech knowledge he to support efficiencies and also those are targeted towards improving access to justice on another front in terms of our messaging to our brother and sister branches maybe this approach to think about for February that we leave with the idea we have heard the message here is the efficiency that we have achieved over a period of time and in terms of our [Indiscernible] here at the efficiencies that lead towards better access [Indiscernible] here is what we hope to achieve. With this additional funding with specifics we have done that to some degree with our talking points but in talking to the legislature yesterday, a number were very interested if we give you X in terms of refunding the justice on the state what specifically are you going to do with it? What houses are you going to open, etc. etc. and we gave you X last fiscal and what did you achieve with what you did and we documented that on a prospective basis and access projects court by a court and maybe that is a focus to leave with the next round. Here is what we have done.

Good idea. Mary Beth Todd, Judge McCabe, Judge Walsh and Judge Baxter.

I think we all understand the message that they want to see a united approach to efficiency in a statewide approach to efficiency. What I fear is getting lost in the comments, the fact that we have weathered a five-year storm better than any other state department. Our employees work harder. They are conscientious, they’re customer service based, they care about the services we provide and I hope that anybody listening to this meeting understands that we understand that, we recognize that, we recognize the judicial branch against any other department on how hard-working we are and the reason we have a hard time, it is so ingrained in our every day, it doesn’t stand out in our minds as something new or different it is something that we do every day and the task force with Judge Walsh in we are working on demonstrating where we have been efficient and we will continue to look at how we move forward and a statewide approach and I just have to make sure those out there working the social branch now that we understand how are there working and they should not be any reflection on them and all they have sacrificed and effort they have put in these last five years hanging in with us as we have gone through a very difficult time.

Thank you. Very well said, Mary Beth. We will hear from Judge McCabe and Judge Walsh and Justice Baxter and Judge Baker.

Thank you, chief. It appears to me that the battle is a battle with perception. We are fighting perception. I hear the comments and reading the budget and the budget talks about page 122 the disparity in how trial courts handle the reduction, highlighted the need for a comprehensive evaluation of the states process of achieving the goals. In essence it represents that the 58 trial courts are homogenous. They’re not. Alpine is not Los Angeles and everybody in between has unique variables that make them wholly distinctive and and and and and I am troubled by the generic reference without any specificity and I am inviting our leadership to have that conversation because I’m a simple mind and I need it spelled out for me. What is it you expect to have done because we are not homogenous. We can to do one thing and one county that we do in another, but some systemic level, sure, there are some things that can be done, but for the most part we have done them.

The budget on page 123 paragraph 3 talks about this expectation that the reserves afforded the trial courts the time to operationalize ongoing reductions. Inferring that we haven’t. Yet as we sit around listening we have. Again, dialogue. I am urging dialogue. It’s an invitation to the DOF to spell things out for us and I think the difficulty is the view is what I found troubling and our visit yesterday was comments about we haven’t felt it enough yet. And we are still fast on the [[…]] overfunded. This makes the hair on the back of your neck stand up because we are very efficient in this branch. We have done more with less. That is where–we are our worst enemies.

We cut and find innovative ways on a local level and different areas on the branch to get the job done and I agree with Judge O’Malley, we are terrible at PR and broadcasting what has been done. It is not that we are stubborn or obstinate, we are doing what we can, but strangely enough all advocates are the branch and I know we can do better, I know that we will do better and educating other two branches, I think we’re on the right path and I am hopeful and I firmly believe the message will finally be verified and crystallized so everybody understands the branch that is operating at a high-efficiency level. The last comment I have, we still have not been successful in conveying the fund balance issue and again,

I don’t know how we handle that hurdle because it seems to me, based on comments and conversations that they are of the mind that this is what we need to do, centralize the fund balances, if any. I think we should not abandon, and I don’t think we have — difficult talking to the hand because I think that is what we are receiving but there has to be a way of conveying to them the continued need for [[…]] balances, which allow the courts to adapt and be noble organizations in order to effectively provide a service to develop and right now we are not. If I might boldly say, probably this story said providing service to the communities, lines are longer, waiting is longer, and this is not in any way, shape or form a retribution or the court acting stubbornly, like a mule. It is a reality of a reduction in resources that is trickling down to labor and everything else, you can only do so much with what you have and I firmly believe every element of the judiciary being to provide effective quality service to the public in the end we need more funding. Thank you.

Thank you. Judge Walsh and Justice Baxter and Judge Baker.

Thank you. I read the governor’s message and has reference to greater trial court deficiencies. And the funding workgroup, done the same thing. To be clear, the branch is on us. We are aware of this. The chief has appointed the task force on fiscal accountability, and blessed me with being the chair of that group and given us a very short turnaround time and deadlines that we will meet and it is a big job. We will come back to this with a report at our April meeting by that time we expect to have something in place not an overall solution, but a beginning.

A couple of things I would like to stress. We are not just talking about deficiencies, we are looking at effectiveness and sometimes effectiveness doesn’t save money, sometimes it costs a dollar or two. And our goal is to find efficient and effective methods of delivery equal access to justice. So we keep this, how we can do this better and another thing to be clear on, we have not communicated our successes to a legislature and that is a good point and a long list of things we have done that we will remind you of that one way report. But we have also been an effective than this is a criticism. With communicating those successes to each other and [Indiscernible] something. They applied and they get back to work and Santa Clara does not necessarily know about it and Santa Clara is not having an incentive to adopt and we’re getting better at talking to each other and more of our goal will be finding some way to communicate between trial courts so that we will know each other’s efficiencies and quickly get to them and how to apply the in our own courts.

Our work can be overtaken and handed off to the blue ribbon commission which we are aware of it handle things like mandating and measuring and dealing with those sorts of things, but we do think that we can add some value to this and we want to do it and I hope the blue ribbon commission does that with the notion that we don’t want to turn our trial courts into DMV offices. That hurts everybody. Each trial court is not only a separate, Dave Rosenberg called it an experimental place, but it reflects separate community values of those must be preserved and the incentives and the creativity that-based on having incentives has only helped justice in California.

So I like to think of it more as 58 vineyards all growing slightly different varieties, but all looking to make great wine and a, some see a great light somewhere they tell a neighbor this is how to get rid of the blight on your grape stock would not turn into some huge factory where every line is the same. That is not our goal. Justice should be–throughout the states and this has to be preserved and we don’t plan to step on that in our work as a task force. Thank you.

Walsh’s grape juice. [Laughter] [[…]]

Judge Walsh, I would like to say the judicial branch and courts are like Starbucks. Justice Baxter, and then Justice Baker.

Judge Walsh said a lot of what I had in mind. I think efficiencies–you have to define the term and there are certain efficiencies that are properly addressed on a statewide basis. Properly addressed by the Council, exhibit number one, technology is exhibit number two on the other hand, what is efficient in Los Angeles and what is efficient in–and vice versa and there is a need picking up on what Judge Walsh indicated, there are two needs, three needs. [Laughter].

One is to provide initiative to the various trial courts, to come up with [Indiscernible]. And number two, when they do, properly recognize them and communicate that to the other trial courts. And number three, to utilize that process to communicate to the legislature and the governor, here is what we have done. Now unfortunately, we did have that in place and the awards went by the wayside because of the budget cuts. And what I am hearing today is the need to reinstate the eclipse awards. Maybe with a little bit of modification and input in terms of how that videotape or DVD or whatever it is going to be, can be better utilized to make available to the various legislators and their staff, the governor’s office, that would be the best evidence we could have as to what the trial courts and the Judicial Council has done to promote efficiencies. I would suggest the need to communicate within our family and to the legislatures who could-could most effectively be done by reinstating the awards was some odd occasion to bring ODA into it to make sure it is not something that is limited to the judicial family it is with the legislative family and also the executive branch.

Thank you, Justice Baxter, that is a terrific suggestion and we will look into the modification of the awards in a way we can share it and be more inclusive as well. Thank you. Judge Baker.

Thank you. These are all excellent comments and I agree wholeheartedly. I try very hard not to be redundant. I did take away from yesterday in the last couple of years the importance of communication as Judge Walsh mentioned and it is not something we typically have a lot of time to do [Indiscernible] we are in the business of handling [Indiscernible] that we need to rededicate ourselves to [Indiscernible] it is not in accordance with the legislature, but also with the public and the media and I want to share a quote out of this morning’s Sacramento editorial. Otherwise it is a positive editorial, but there is a paragraph that is scathing and I hate to make it part of our record by quoting it, but I think it really brings home to the Council the [Indiscernible] of some of the questions that are out there that we need to address. That paragraph reads as follows, discussing our budget issues with the legislature, and the editorial reads the judicial Council must set some responsibility before pulling the plug in 2012, a waste of hundreds of millions of dollars with a badly botched statewide computer system designed to bring courts into the 21st century. There is more work to do to make the courts more efficient.

Now, I think most of us in here at this table passionately disagree with these opinions expressed, but that is the editorial in the newspaper saying the newspaper that our legislators are reading and illustrates to me, and hopefully to all of us have poured in this is for us to communicate the efficiencies.

Thank you. Judge Baker. Judge Herman.

Just one final thought on this and this again goes back to Judge Rosenberg’s comment on efficiencies without accuracy. Being forced by disastrous economic climate it closed courtrooms and closed courthouses, to handle a core of our caseloads is efficiency and we have been forced to look at some efficiencies that are detrimental and [Indiscernible] that this branch does force us to be more efficient [Indiscernible]

In closing on the subject I want to say a few things and it is clear that we need to present a piece that serves as a communication and advocacy for the efficiency of the courts achieved, but also we must continue to provide a list of impacts, notwithstanding the efficiencies to understand this is an ongoing detriment in California. My second comment before we close and take a break and take up item D.

I want to sincerely with all of my heart thank the administrative office of the courts. Its leadership and especially a lot–the team and the PJM CEOs who are part of this and we need to do a blueprint grade I received shock and awe at the concerned that it could not be done with the leadership speaking to Judge Jahr and to reach out to the PJM CEO and dumping it all we have a blueprint that is in-depth and impressive and the truth is you and your team are the architect of this fine piece of work and I don’t want that to go unmentioned or unnoticed or take the glory for so thank you all of you.

[Applause]

We now will stand in recess for the morning break until 10:10 AM. Thank you.