The Chief Justice recently released the AOC’s three year blueprint for California’s judicial branch. I say it is the AOC’s three year blueprint because the chief herself credits the AOC for all of the hard work they did in coming up with this plan. Incredibly short on specifics, the three year blueprint outlines the desire for an additional 1.2 billion dollars worth of judicial branch funding. Unfortunately, the blueprint does an incredibly poor job of telling you about how specific investments will be made if the money is granted and how the public will benefit.
In this CalChannel video that must have been produced by The Ministry Of Truth & Public Enlightenment our chief justice managed to cobble together a handful of legislators who all advocate for a better funded branch and regrettably, appear to have bought into this blueprint. Others include speakers are advocates for litigation reform and a cadre of legal aid non-profits that have their hand out every year to the Administrative Office of the Courts.
Despite years of gross mismanagement that would have sent those in private industry to the unemployment line or worse, prison, there remains zero acknowledgement of any problems or even the slightest hint at contrition.
After over three years, the Strategic Evaluation Committee report and the promised reforms are dead in the water, with the AOC now contracting with a private entity to derive a predetermined result that the AOC’s current structure is sound and that the management is woefully underpaid compared to Robert Rizzo who only had citywide responsibilities. These fine administrators are responsible for a whole state the report will say.
What it probably won’t say is that our state courts operated far better without a thousand bureaucrats running it into the ground while setting afire public funds. Unchecked embezzlements, over a half billion dollars wasted on a software program that was sold as “we own it” when we clearly didn’t own it and worse, it did not work as intended anywhere. We will spend well over two billion dollars to rent one courthouse. We hire unlicensed contractors and then file sham lawsuits against them so we can control the litigation because if they are found guilty of operating without licenses, then we are guilty of the crime of hiring them ignoring the fact that we were paying them substantially more than they should have been getting.
Yes, please Sacramento, please sign up my hard earned tax dollars to go to the muppets of the judicial council and be wasted by some of the least competent, least transparent and least accountable entity in all of state government.
Or do what I would do and target the reopening and staffing of courthouses so that the money actually goes to boots on the ground providing access to justice without having to drive three hours in one direction. Because when you analyze the three year blueprint without the beer goggles, not one courthouse or courtroom will be reopened. Not one position will be restored. There are no specifics about how additional money will serve the public and that my friends is where this “blueprint” is dead on arrival.
As for additional judgeships: While many judges might not appreciate the workloads they have, that workload is fed into the system and worked by non-existent staff. Someone needs to explain to us how funding any judgeships will result in a courthouse or courtroom being adequately staffed for business and reopened, not to mention that each judicial position comes with a permanent budget increase, ergo a permanent state investment. They’re not just funding a judicial position this year, they’re committing to funding it for years to come with absolutely no assurance that the position itself will solve any of the most vexing issues, like a lack of facilities and a lack of staff.
In the private world we might refer to the AOC blueprint as a poorly written business plan looking for angel investors to which we say if you can’t sell it on Sand Hill Road, don’t bother with trying to sell it to Sacramento.
And last but not least, we’re being primed for two additional impending trainwrecks. One is the branch technology blueprint by that fine bunch of people that brought us CCMS that will be released in a few months. The second impending trainwreck? A Blue Ribbon Commission comprised of all (or at least a majority) of the usual suspects that will study the impact of cuts and demand more money to do it.
Oy Vey.
Nathaniel Woodhull
January 16, 2014
Sadly, JCW is 110% accurate in the assessment that Tani’s Three Year Blueprint is a plan to nowhere. It all gets back to fundamentals. When your leaders are incompetent, the organization has little chance at success. Indeed, if this were private enterprise one of two things would have happened by now. 1) Tani would have been unceremoniously fired; or, 2) Tani would have been given a “golden parachute” and fired with a party saying what a wonderful job she had done.
Look at the substance of Mike Myatt’s treatise titled: “15 Ways To Identify Bad Leaders”
1. Leaders who can’t see it, probably won’t find it: That describes Tani & Company.
2. When leaders fail to lead themselves: That describes Tani.
3. Put-up or shut-up: Leaders who consistently fail are not leaders, no matter how much you wish they were. That’s Tani.
4. Beware the know-it-all. Mr. Bruin-ears, Tani, Jahr, etc., etc.
5. When there’s a failure to communicate. Show me a leader with poor communication skills and I’ll show you someone who will be short-lived in their position.
6. It’s all about them: An over abundance of ego, pride, and arrogance. Ditto.
7. Sing a little Kumbaya.
8. One size fits all leadership style. Started with HRH-1 and still continuing under HRH-2.
9. Lack of focus. Did anyone see my pretty charts????
10. Death by comfort zone. The best leaders know how to pull the future forward. Tani says “what”?
11. Not paying attention to the consumer. Ding, ding, ding!
12. Get invested. People don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care. Where’s my white wine and chocolate?
13. The “A” word. Real leaders are accountable. Uh, not Tani.
14. It’s the culture stupid. Don’t allow your culture to evolve by default, create it by design. Tani asks: “What does that mean?”
15. Show some chutzpa. Leadership absent courage is a farce. Hmm, don’t recall any parts of the SEC report being enacted by this Chief…do you????
Wendy Darling
January 16, 2014
It should be noted that leading the charge on behalf of State Legislature for Tani & Company is none other than Tani’s “friend” and termed-out legislator and Appellate Court Justice wannabe, Darrell Steinberg. Which in all likelihood has much to do with getting an appointment to the bench, than really caring about “access to justice.” If he really cared about access to justice, he would advise his “friend” to resign as Chief Justice.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
Carl
January 23, 2014
Somebody PLEASE tell Darrell Steinberg to SHUT UP!
Wendy Darling
January 16, 2014
The one thing 455 Golden Gate Avenue excels at: protecting their own and covering up the truth. Published today, Thursday, January 16, from the Metropolitan News Enterprise, by Kenneth Ofgang:
State Supreme Court Denies Publication of Ruling in Workplace Violence Case Brought by AOC
By KENNETH OFGANG, Staff Writer
The California Supreme Court yesterday denied publication of a First District Court of Appeal ruling that overturned a workplace violence restraining order obtained by the Administrative Office of the Courts on behalf of a commissioner who had ruled against the defendant in a child support case.
The justices, at their weekly conference in San Francisco, unanimously denied Norman Valdez Jr.’s petition for publication of the Oct. 25 ruling by Div. One. The panel had held that now-retired Sonoma Superior Court Judge Mark Tansil, who heard the case on assignment to Lake Superior Court, whose judges all recused themselves, exceeded his authority by conducting the hearing by telephone without Valdez’s consent.
Valdez is an Iraq War veteran who has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and had a long-running child support case before Lake Superior Court Commissioner Vincent Lechowick, who is a retired Mendocino Superior Court judge.
The AOC obtained a workplace violence restraining order against Valdez in 2009, based on testimony that he threatened to kill the jurist, who had declined to reduce the payments. The order barred him from coming within 50 yards of Lechowick, and from coming within 50 yards of the courthouse other than for scheduled court proceedings.
The Court of Appeal upheld the order in an unpublished 2010 opinion. It said the AOC’s evidence as to the need for the order was sufficient to overcome Valdez’s claims that he did not make a credible threat and that he posed no harm to the commissioner because he was undergoing treatment for PTSD.
As the three-year protective period was coming to a close, the AOC moved for an extension. Tansil, who issued the original restraining order, was again assigned to the case and conducted the hearing by phone.
Valdez, who did not know the judge and opposing counsel would not be physically present until he arrived at the courthouse, objected to the telephonic hearing. He said he had witnesses he wanted to call and that he did not think an evidentiary hearing could be held by phone.
The judge replied that he had a trial that day in Sonoma, that he could not take the time to drive to Lake County, and that there was no need to take witness testimony. He heard argument, took the case under submission, and subsequently granted the order.
Justice Sandra Margulies, writing for the Court of Appeal, said the judge erred because California law allows parties, but not judges, to appear telephonically in some types of civil proceedings.
Valdez, she went on to say, had the right to present testimony and have the judge assess his credibility at a live proceeding. She noted that the only evidence offered to support the AOC’s position that Valdez remained a threat was “double or triple hearsay” to the effect that he had gone to Mendocino County to look at the file of Lechowick’s divorce case.
Valdez denied having done so, saying his wife had gone there to collect evidence in support of a complaint against Lechowick that she intended to file with the Commission on Judicial Performance.
“While we are not prepared to say that a full-blown evidentiary hearing is always required in contested proceedings under [the workplace violence statute], we believe the right of the parties affected by the protective order to appear before the court, either personally or through counsel, is so fundamental that it cannot be abridged by a court‘s unilateral decision to hear the matter by telephone,” the justice wrote. “We will therefore remand the matter to the trial court for a proceeding in which both parties have the right to personally appear before the court.”
http://www.metnews.com/
Long live the ACJ.
sharonkramer
January 16, 2014
Yep. They are using the courts and AOC to retaliate when caught doing wrong. These kind of acts do not repeatedly happen w/o the court system being severely compromised at the highest level.
The statements made at that 1/14 press conference, which are repeatedly provable as directly opposite of what is really occurring, are beyond audacious. Seems like the press conference could be easily perceived as unlawful.
In the Pennsyvania federal court, Kids for Cash matter, a ruling was made last week that judiciaries who gave an interview to knowingly further monetary fraud in violation of civil rights, was not an act protected by judicial immunity.
Pg 10 Line 10
Ciavarella and Conahan also appeared on television on December 19, 2002 to discuss the need to shut down the River Street facility. (Ciavarella Test., 83:24-84:11, 88:5-13). Ciavarella later acknowledged that he “was not doing anything in [his] official capacity as a judge” when he gave the interview. (Id. at 86:18-19.)
Wendy Darling
January 16, 2014
“Blue Ribbon Commission” =’s another committee.
Because that’s just what 455 Golden Gate Avenue and judicial branch administration needs: another “committee.” Apparently the designation of it having a “blue ribbon” is supposed to give it credibility, without it actually having any.
Long live the ACJ.
courtflea
January 16, 2014
They also give blue ribbons to dogs and ponies. AOC blue ribbon committee = dog and pony show.
MaxRebo5
January 16, 2014
Sort of a “blue” theme going out from 455 Golden Gate these days. Looks like things are not all that golden but then they do say Karma Is a bitch.
So the AOC has come up with a “blueprint” for the next three years to the Legislature and Governor with Tani quite arrogantly telling them what is best (as usual) in terms of the budget. Then the AOC has another “blue ribbon” committee and this time it is on technology. That takes some serious balls and is really amazing given how bad they botched up CCMS and literally wasted $500 million taxpayer dollars for something even Tani herself in hindsight says she wishes she had pulled the plug on sooner had she known how badly it was mismanaged. This is the same CCMS her appointer, “The Great” Ron George, blamed entirely on the AOC director Bill Vickrey (I believe unfairly). So if Ron George blames Bill Vickrey for CCMS and Tani admits she wishes she pulled the plug on CCMS sooner, then why is there still a Bill Vickrey award for excellence in Judicial administration given out? Why is there a conference center for the Judicial Council named after Bill Vickrey if he alone wasted $500 million taxpayer dollars on CCMS and the legislature demanded just his resignation after and audit by the state auditor? I sense some serious cognitive dissonance going on here by our current and former Chief Justices.
I think the mixed messages by our Chiefs helps explain the whole blue theme going these days in the branch. It is quite clear they are lying and and are being unacountable. Pretty sure a majority of the legislature, the senior folks at Finance, DOJ, and many in the press aren’t buying it either as Wendy pointed out. As a result, Tani is gonna be singing the fiscal blues for many years to come.
My advice to the Chief is the same advice I’d give to anyone living a lie. Think of Lance Armstong before he told the truth….just come clean already. Everyone knows the branch failed on CCMS, the Judicial Council is totally undemocratic, the AOC wasted a fortune on the Long Beach Courthouse, and that you as Chief are OK with the trial courts being cut to shreds in order to maintain 100% control of your administration and preserve your friends at the AOC. That’s your real view. It’s completely indefensible and at odds with “access to justice” for the public but at least it would be honest. Given your history the other branches just watchyou actions now and see through the lies. The game is up Chief. Your actions are huge waste of taxpayer money, no repentence or humbleness, and the ongoing gall to keep asking for more money. You ought to be ashamed. For this arrogance the whole branch and the general public will be singling the blues with you. Quite sad indeed.
Wendy Darling
January 17, 2014
” So if Ron George blames Bill Vickrey for CCMS and Tani admits she wishes she pulled the plug on CCMS sooner, then why is there still a Bill Vickrey award for excellence in Judicial administration given out? Why is there a conference center for the Judicial Council named after Bill Vickrey if he alone wasted $500 million taxpayer dollars on CCMS and the legislature demanded just his resignation after and audit by the state auditor?”
Answer(s): Because she is a hypocrite and a liar, just like the Chief Justice before her.
(Not to mention that when the legislature demanded Vickrey’s resignation, Chief Tani not only praised him, but defended him, and essentially gave the legislature the middle finger salute in Vickrey’s defense.)
You just can’t make this stuff up. Really.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
January 16, 2014
It is DOA indeed.
😉
TooBigToFail
January 16, 2014
I can’t wait to read the branch technology blueprint. I was recently contacted by a technical recruiter who is looking for someone with court case management experience to work as a project manager on a 3-year consulting gig with the AOC. After walking away from the CCMS debacle, I’m not interested, and I can only hope that this need does not exist because of an attempt to resurrect CCMS.
Michael Paul
January 16, 2014
It’s still alive and works, it just lacks political will dontchaknow.
unionman575
January 21, 2014
Here you go Too Big To Fail…
Nothing like a tech update from the Tech Masters at the Death Star…
Judicial Branch Technology: Technology Planning Task Force Update
That was part 1 and now here is part 2…
Nothing like a tech BCP…
Judicial Branch Technology: Budget Change Proposal Update
😉
Bottom line: The Trial Courts continue to get croaked financially and the Death Star reigns Supreme (no pun intended Tani…or was it???).
unionman575
January 21, 2014
Make no mistake folks this will be the birth of another CLUSTER FUCK Tech failure…the Legislature needs to nip this in the bud NOW
The OBT
January 16, 2014
So true Michael. J Bruiners should be promoted to oversee the all new Blue Ribbon PR stunt as who has more credibility than him ?
sharonkramer
January 17, 2014
Wonder if the names of the Bloopers for Just Us Blue Ribbon Panel will be announced at a Judicial Council “open-meeting”; with the public, judges and court employees able to comment on the appointments under the “new and improved” transparency rules?
Michael Paul
January 17, 2014
Blue-ribbon panel (sometimes called a blue ribbon commission) is an informal term generally used to describe a group of exceptional persons (stop laughing dammit) appointed to investigate or study or analyze a given question. The term generally connotes a degree of independence from political influence or other authority, and such panels usually have no direct authority of their own. Their value comes from their ability to use their expertise to issue findings or recommendations which can then be used by those with decision-making power to act. (or in the case of TCS, do nothing and revel in your lack of accomplishment)
A blue-ribbon panel is often appointed by a government body or executive to report on a matter of controversy. (Elkins Task force? SEC?) It might be composed of independent scientific experts or academics with no direct government ties to study a particular issue or question, or it might be composed of citizens well known for their general intelligence, experience and non-partisan interests to study a matter of political reform.
The “blue-ribbon” aspect comes from the presentation of the panel as the “best and brightest” for the task, ( I said STOP LAUGHING dammit) and the appointment of such a panel, ad hoc, is meant to signal its perspective as outsiders of the usual process for study and decisions.
The designation “blue-ribbon” is often made by the appointing authority, and may be disputed by others who might see the panel as less independent, or as most of us see judicial council committees, as a way for an authority to dodge responsibility.
sharonkramer
January 17, 2014
So do you think that the Blue Ribbon Panel the CJ appoints will recommend a forensic audit of the branch’s and it’s administrative offices’ expenditures as a precurser to recommending allocation of more funds to be overseen by the Judicial Council? (stop laughing, damnit)
Nathaniel Woodhull
January 17, 2014
Stop it, stop it. I haven’t laughed hard since I first saw the original Three Stooges, (Ron, Bill, and Tonto.)
Mr. Bruin-ears is the best expert that the JC has on hand. Remember, CCMS was a political failure, not a technology failure. We own it and are going to recoup that $580 Million we spent any day now. Mr. Bruin-ears authorized the $50k to verify all that we owned out of that project with Mr. Robinson.
I’m waiting for his report (crickets chirping)…
wearyant
January 18, 2014
Do not drink milk whilst reading JCW; it tends to burst forth from thy nostrils …
Lando
January 17, 2014
Well Max Rebo the last paragraph of your post above is one of the most powerful insights I have read about Queen Tani and her failings as CJ. General Woodhull wrote a great piece about leadership or in this case the complete failure of Queen Tani’s leadership and Wendy consistently writes about the lack of ethics that pervade the CJ’s office.Those writings combined with her dismal performance yesterday all are exhibits in the ever growing case to launch a Recall campaign.
Guest
January 17, 2014
The cj is the walking, talking definition of insanity. She does the same thing over and over again and expects a different result. So she will pull together her crack team of Jahr the double-dipper, Patel and her dog spot Soderlund, State cast off Curt Childs, so pretty to look at David Yamasaki and a cast of judges to walk the halls of the Capitol to “educate” and get more money for the branch? She has tried this for the last 3 years and what has happened? Well NOT more money for the branch. Did the cj not read the Gov’s budget message? He does not like or respect the cj’s people as they have been incompetent in running the branch. How did she get this position? How did she pass law school? College? She obviously cannot read and absorb the message.
Wendy Darling
January 17, 2014
“The cj is the walking, talking definition of insanity. She does the same thing over and over again and expects a different result.”
She doesn’t just expect a different result, she’s actually convinced herself that she is getting a different result . . . she believes things are just “great” in the judicial branch.
The people flying the airplane at 455 Golden Gate Avenue have been wandering around the halls for the past couple of days, muttering about what “great strides” the cj and branch administration are making in Sacramento with respect to the judicial branch budget, and how the press conference this week was a “great success”, with “overwhelming support” from the State Legislature, and more delusional blather.
It’s so disturbing to hear these delusional representations (again) from the “leadership” that more than one person working at the AOC has commented that it’s like working in a state mental hospital where the criminally insane have been put in charge, and are trying to bring you into their “alternate reality”.
But things are “great” in the branch. Just “great”.
You just can’t make this stuff up. Really.
Long live the ACJ.
wearyant
January 17, 2014
EXCELLENT post, JCW, with excellent comments, all!
wearyant
January 17, 2014
From Cal Watchdog:
http://calwatchdog.com/2014/01/16/bill-would-strengthen-publics-right-to-comment-before-votes/
I’ve started to wonder if there is any importance to WHEN public comments are allowed at the JC meetings. But I’m so convinced the JC/AOC/CJ are evil, I’d see a conspiracy in almost every part of their conduct now. “When” as in what time during the meeting agenda, not whether they will be allowed before the august body …
Nathaniel Woodhull
January 17, 2014
Someone on the staff at the AOC gave me this “secret” tape of a new product that the Judicial Council is seeking to market to help defray costs and raise money for the Judicial Branch. I learned that Tani just signed off on it and you can expect to see it any day at the next technology conference for Fortune 500 companies in Las Vegas.
🙂
sharonkramer
January 17, 2014
In all seriousness, the public typically is allowed input into the membership of government agency Blue Ribbon Panels. I’ve seen the National Academy of Sciences and EPA Scientific Advisory Boards (SAB) change members/chairs upon public complaint for conflicts of interest.
On a federal level, it appears that legislators can order audits of how panels were formed. (AOC is a state AGENCY)
The GAO did a report on how to form a “Blue Ribbon Panel” to avoid conflicts of interest. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d01536.pdf
Lando
January 18, 2014
Here is a Blueprint for restoring justice and access to the courts. 1. Reduce the size of the AOC by 90%. 2. Move the Judicial Council, AOC and CJP to Sacramento. This would allow for the Crystal Palace to be closed and sold off, the funds to be used for trial court operations. . 3.Allocate branch funds directly to the trial courts and eliminate the pass through the AOC. 4.Allow each trial court to collect fines directly for their own technology and courthouse construction needs.This eliminates all AOC oversight and bloated staffing over technology and courthouse construction . 5. Democratize the Judicial Council and return it to a policy advisory body only. This Blueprint is consistent with the California constitution and would restore power to the local trial courts who are accountable directly to the citizens they represent. Implementing this Blueprint has huge upsides including thanking and excusing Miller Hull Bruiners and all the other arrogant insiders at 455 Golden Gate.
wearyant
January 18, 2014
Excellent, as always, Lando. If (1) through (5) were implemented, inclusive, we would see the huge ship start to turn on that dime and experience meaningful, healthful reform for the judicial branch. We’ll thank and excuse Tani …
sharonkramer
January 18, 2014
Great writing by Glenn Greenwald. Does the tactic describe sound familiar?
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/17/obama-nsa-reforms-bulk-surveillance-remains
The crux of this tactic is that US political leaders pretend to validate and even channel public anger by acknowledging that there are “serious questions that have been raised”. They vow changes to fix the system and ensure these problems never happen again. And they then set out, with their actions, to do exactly the opposite: to make the system prettier and more politically palatable with empty, cosmetic “reforms” so as to
placate public anger while leaving the system fundamentally unchanged, even more immune than before to serious challenge…
This scam has been so frequently used that it is now easily recognizable…..
As a result, the committees, ostensibly intended to serve an overseer function, have far more often acted as the [ ] in-house PR firm. The heralded [ ] reforms did more to make Americans believe there was
reform than actually providing any, thus shielding it from real reforms….
“Individual freedom is the wellspring of human progress,” he gushed with an impressively straight face. “One thing I’m certain of, this debate will make us stronger,” he pronounced, while still seeking to imprison for decades the whistleblower who enabled that debate. The bottom line, he said, is this: “I believe we need a new approach.”
But those pretty rhetorical flourishes were accompanied by a series of plainly cosmetic “reforms”….
He prettifies the ugly; he drapes the banner of change over systematic status quo perpetuation; he makes Americans feel better about policies they find repellent without the need to change any of them in meaningful ways. He’s not an agent of change but the soothing branding packaging for it.
As is always the case, those who want genuine changes should not look to politicians,[ ] to wait for it to be gifted.
NewsViews
January 18, 2014
Reblogged this on News and Views Riverside Superior Court and National Family Law Abuse.
Peppermint Pattie
January 18, 2014
To State Auditor Elaine Howle: Could someone please conduct an independent audit of ghost employees at the AOC? Thank you.
courtflea
January 19, 2014
Ghost employees, are they on the payroll but MIA at work?
R. Campomadera
January 19, 2014
Maybe they are in Switzerland.
unionman575
January 21, 2014
http://www.dailybreeze.com/general-news/20140116/shuttered-courthouse-inspires-ideas-for-something-new-in-downtown-san-pedro
Shuttered courthouse inspires ideas for something new in downtown San Pedro
By Donna Littlejohn, The Daily Breeze
Posted: 01/16/14, 6:03 PM PST | Updated: 3 days ago
Situated on a prime piece of property near the hub of San Pedro’s historic shopping district, the county courthouse has drawn no shortage of speculation about new uses since it was shut down seven months ago.
But for now, the 1.75-acre property remains in the state’s hands with no immediate plans to put it up for sale as surplus.
Although the courthouse closed in June — along with nearly a dozen others in a budget-slashing move — it is still used for court storage space, according to Keby Boyer, a communications representative for the courts administration office in San Francisco.
“The courthouse is still a viable property and is not deemed as surplus,” Boyer wrote in an email responding to questions. “The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) is exploring different options at this point regarding the best use of the property.”
Located at 505 S. Centre St. — on the northwest corner of Sixth Street and Centre — the courthouse handled criminal, civil, small claims and traffic matters in its six courtrooms. Harbor Area matters now are handled at the new Long Beach courthouse.
The two-story concrete-and-steel building opened in 1969, replacing older courtrooms on the upper floors of the San Pedro Municipal Building. An adjacent parking lot, with metered parking for 70 cars, continues to be used for local restaurants.
Before the courthouse was built, the property was owned by Union Distributing Co. and Harbor Area businessman Ira Kaye. Five locations were considered for the courthouse project before the parcel spanning between Fifth and Sixth streets at Centre was chosen.
An alternate site was within the area bounded generally by Sixth Street, Harbor Boulevard,
10th Street and Palos Verdes Street.
The courthouse project was among several bond measures — including one for the South Coast Botanic Garden — that appeared on the 1964 ballot. The courthouse also was envisioned to serve as a new San Pedro Civic Center.
“The two-story, $1.25 million structure facility is an attractive building as well as a unique one,” according to an article in Daily Breeze that was published on Feb. 27, 1969, under a headline that read “Justice has beauty side in San Pedro.”
“It will be a definite contribution in the beautification of the downtown San Pedro area,” the article stated.
When the courthouse closed, it rendered a blow to downtown restaurants and shops.
“We need something there,” said Michael Koth of the Off the Vine wine shop at Sixth and Pacific Avenue. “Shutting that down really hurt the lunch business in town.”
Ideas for how the parcel might be used in the future, should it become available, run the gamut: a parking structure, movie theater, town square or park space, facilities for California Marymount University, a San Pedro history museum, a middle school, and some kind of arts-entertainment-dining venue.
“There’s a lot of discussion about it,” said Alan Johnson of the Jerico Development Co. in San Pedro, who is pushing a plan to make Sixth Street one-way with outdoor dining spaces.
“It’s such an incredibly valuable and centrally located piece of property, a lot of wonderful things could happen there. It’s a key spot.”
Preserving the building — or at least a portion of the facade — also could find support, Johnson said, adding that the building is considered “architecturally significant” in some circles. “It’s mid-century modern, which is very cool these days.”
Boyer said in an email that under state law Los Angeles County “has the right to reacquire the property from the AOC at fair market value.” The AOC did offer the building to the county, but the county declined.
😉
“Currently, the AOC is moving forward as expeditiously as possible in making a decision about what is the best use for the property.”
unionman575
January 21, 2014
I feel like another raise is coming soon to an AOC shack near you…
See Page 6…
AOC Classification and Compensation:
• In November 2013, Fox Lawson & Associates http://www.foxlawson.com/govSector/
was awarded the contract to conduct the AOC classification and compensation study. Four meetings were held with firm representatives and members of the Executive Office and the Human Resources Services Office to establish the specifics of the study, including methodology, timeline, and review of the current classification and compensation system at the AOC.
• In December 2013, communications were sent to all AOC staff on the study requirements
including completing employee Position Description Questionnaires due in February 2014.
• Informational sessions were conducted by HR at each AOC office to answer employees’
questions regarding the study.
unionman575
January 21, 2014
Say hello to the San Diego White Elephant being built for my boy Hot Rod
😉
New San Diego Central Courthouse
Mrs. Kramer
January 21, 2014
Page 3 at the bottom: “Construction work will be performed under the terms of the existing agreement between the AOC and Rudolph & Sletten for construction management at risk services with the PLA, as well as a guaranteed maximum price for construction.”
Wendy Darling
January 21, 2014
There’s an article by Dan Walters in today’s Sacramento Bee, which states if one were to identify California’s 10 most influential political offices, “the list would, or course, begin with the governor. The two top leaders of the Legislature would follow, along with the attorney general.
http://www.sacbee.com/capitolandcalifornia/#storylink=cpy
Tani & Company didn’t even make the list.
But things are just “great” in the branch.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
January 22, 2014
http://www.championnewspapers.com/articles/2014/01/18/opinion/doc52d97cf7dfe77922869993.txt
Courts falling behind
Published: Saturday, January 18, 2014 6:05 AM PST
If there is a major concern about the balance of powers, administrative, legislative and judicial, which is the safety net for our democratic system, it is the financing.
The legislature can approve its own spending. And while the administration depends on legislative action, it has leverage through its ability to approve or veto bills.
But the judicial, which depends on the administration’s budget and the legislature’s approval, is at a decided disadvantage, particularly in tight times, as now.
In California, the court system is being squeezed to where it no longer serves the public as it should. Chino Valley residents have experienced the effects of its superior court closure, a move that adds costly hours or days to participants, whether they are plaintiffs, defendants, witnesses or jurors.
Police departments have to decide whether pursuing charges, both criminal and traffic, is worth the time, or is it better to accept compromises (plea bargains) or, in the case of minor infractions, look the other way. Code enforcers have less incentive to tackle problems that take up too much time for the results yielded.
San Bernardino County, largest in the state, where people have to travel the farthest for justice, is short 50 judges as well as other support staff such as prosecutors, public defenders and probation officers. Multiply that several times to picture what is happening in Los Angeles County.
😉
A bi-partisan bill to increase funds for the state courts got bottled up in the legislature this past week, and that was just a drop in the bucket measure. The court system is millions of dollars under-financed, causing delays that make a farce of the judicial system.
The nature of our system, in which judges operate virtually independent of each other in their opinions and sentencing practices, is somewhat contrary to good management, and decisions based on legal technicalities rather than common sense sometimes frustrate true justice, but failure to even consider a case in a timely fashion is a disservice, and leads people to despise the system when they need it.
There is apparently $100 million in the governor’s new budget for courts, maybe enough to halt the bleeding but hardly enough to make up for justice envisioned by our constitutional system.
We have advocated before that the courts return to the less expensive locally-based system to handle up to 90 percent of the matters such as traffic, small claims and custody orders which now clog the superior court system. This would be one step in restoring a sense of justice to the people.
😉
sharonkramer
January 22, 2014
“In California, the court system is being squeezed to where it no longer serves the public as it should.”
Surely, one of these days someone in the legislature or the governor’s office is going to get fed up enough with the whining and blaming others for the branch’s problems that they lay Tani out.
(Southern term when one has had enought of another and intends to blast them. “I’m fixin ta lay you out”)
unionman575
January 22, 2014
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fix
fix a•ble adj.
Regional Note: Fixing to ranks with y’all as one of the best known markers of Southern dialects, although it occasionally appears in the informal speech and writing of non-Southerners as well. Fixing to means “to be on the verge of or in preparation for (doing a given thing),” but like the modal auxiliaries, it has only a single invariant form and is not fully inflected like other verbs. Its form is always the present participle followed by the infinitive marker to: They were fixing to leave without me. Semantically, fixing to can refer only to events that immediately follow the speaker’s point of reference. One cannot say, “We’re fixing to have a baby in a couple of years.” The use of fixing to as an immediate or proximate future is very common in African American Vernacular English, and is one of many features that this variety of English shares with Southern dialects.
sharonkramer
January 22, 2014
Union Man, No “g” in “fixin” if it is Southern dialect.
As in “Aum fixin ta file me a big ole complaint ta lay out Tani, Ronnie, Bonnie and Judy”
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-campaign-charges-20140121,0,2469685.story#axzz2rBCvhHAF
Nathaniel Woodhull
January 22, 2014
Gee, here’s an idea. Why don’t we return to a system of local government management. As history has demonstrated, the closer the government is to the people, the more effective it is. With each layer of bureaucracy, the efficiencies of government services are reduced and the immediacy of service deliveries are reduced.
The entire point of Trial Court Funding was to ensure that there was adequate and stable funding for the trial courts. As part of this idea, it was decided that the State should acquire all courthouses throughout the State of California to ensure that they were all going to be “properly maintained.” (How’s that been working out for everyone?) It was also argued that a statewide system of justice would ensure consistency and equality of treatment. What resulted was a completely bloated system where simple 4-page harassment order forms became over 13-pages in length and contain more 8 point type than anyone can read. Forms are “amended” every 6-months so that the costs of reprinting them is astronomical. But it does keep bureaucrats within the Crystal Palace employed.
What was not intended by the Trial Court Funding Act was a complete takeover of the Judicial Branch of California by one person, HRH-1 Ronald George. Since the enactment of Trial Court Funding, the only ones who have benefited have been the “insiders” within the Crystal Palace and those who have suffered have been all the worker bees and members of the public seeking justice within each of the 58 Counties of California.
I completely agree that Traffic Court could be split away from the Trial Court system. In some Counties before the cuts that started in 2009, as much as 34% of staffing resources were devoted to traffic courts while the trial courts received zero dollars for performing this function. Traffic Court could become a semi-administrative process run by the Counties.
I disagree with splitting off small claims and family court operations, because that will only create more and more bureaucratic empires throughout the State of California.
In my decades of services I could care less about being able to read a docket from another court 300 miles away. There is absolutely no need to create a Statewide computer system that is going to bankrupt our system. Things have worked just fine without one and despite the fact that George and Tani wanted new toys, that doesn’t mean that they are necessary. Local courts have been thwarted over the last decade in any efforts to advance technology. Simple efficiencies have been unable to be implemented due to the one-size fits all mentality of such mental giants as Mr. Bruin-ears who insists that CCMS is in fact operational and the only system that anyone should be allowed to pursue. I have been shown systems that would substantially improve our lot for just a few hundred thousand dollars, yet they cannot be pursued because we must speak with one voice, that being HRH-2’s.
The abuses of HRH-1 and HRH-2 and their cronies have caused the Executive and Legislative Branches to be highly suspect of the Judicial Branch. Since those Branches hold the purse strings, we aren’t likely to see relief while Governor Brown is in office.
Let’s get back to basics folks. The best government is local government. Put the power back into the hands of the local courts, close down the Crystal Palace and move whatever type of Administrative Office of the Courts is truly necessary to Sacramento. The AOC is supposed to be there to “support” the trial courts, not dictate policies and procedures to the trial courts.
The OBT
January 22, 2014
Absolutely brilliant comment General. The then stated purpose of trial court funding was to stabilize funding to the trial courts. As we all now know that didn’t work out too terribly well. HRH-1 however used that legislation to hijack the court system and he made himself a self appointed dictator. Without constitutional authority he converted the Judicial Council and the AOC from advisory bodies to entities that mandated and forced the trial courts to adhere to his rule. As the General points out above, none of this is consistent with the fact that under our constitution, trial Judges are elected by the citizens they represent and are accountable to. HRH-1 achieved his goals in part by intimidation, and by seeking the support of cronies or insiders he would reward, including ultimately HRH-2. Any act in opposition to HRH-1 was labeled tantamount to a declaration of war. Any one standing up to HRH-1 and his handpicked insiders were labeled as clowns, incompetent judicial officers, tea party supporters and no doubt far worse behind the closed doors of the crystal palace.The big lie that HRH-1 created and which is still spun by HRH-2 was that before he saved the court system, the trial courts were a collection of incompetent incoherent fiefdoms that prevented access to justice. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The local trial courts served their citizens positively and effectively for decades. I can say that having been around long before HRH-1 showed up to save us all. Before HRH 1’s and HRH 2’s royal crownings there was no waste of half a billion on a failed computer system, no massive reduction of courthouse hours,employee furloughs and layoffs, courthouse closures, Swiss telecommuting employees or billion dollar courthouses. The General couldn’t have said it better. Let’s get back to basics and restore power to the local trial courts , close the crystal palace, reduce the AOC budget by 95% and close the door on both HRH-1 and HRH-2’s unconstitutional dictatorship.
Wendy Darling
January 22, 2014
Today’s episode of Tani’s Follies. Published today, Wednesday, January 22, from the Sacramento Bee.:
California Chief Justice Says Courts Need More Money
By Richard Chang
California Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye today said Gov. Jerry Brown’s proposed budget shortchanges the judicial branch.
During a visit to The Sacramento Bee’s Editorial Board, the top judge noted that $266.5 million is required to maintain current court service levels. Brown’s budget proposal, however, provides only an additional $100 million in General Fund support for the court system.
Without more money, Cantil-Sakauye said, courts across the state will be forced to make drastic cutbacks, including layoffs, court closures and furloughs.
“All these programs are all good and well…but they’re unenforceable unless there’s a justice system,” Cantil-Sakauye said.
She pointed out that cuts during the recession have hampered the courts’ ability to efficiently handle cases. “Prior to the state’s fiscal free fall, we were functioning well in my view,” she said.
http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2014/01/california-chief-justice-says-courts-need-more-money.html
Note to the Office of the Chief Justice: More money isn’t going to fix what is really wrong in the California Judicial Branch, and everyone that matters at the State Capitol knows this.
Long live the ACJ.
R. Campomadera
January 23, 2014
Absolutely correct, WD. The Bee should have called for a top-to-bottom review of the JC/AOC before calling for more of the taxpayers’ hard earned money to be thrown at the problem. They also should be demanding accountability before any increase in funding.
The fact that the Bee mentioned the CCMS debacle and a bloated bureaucracy makes their judgement double bad.
Shame on the Bee.
Wendy Darling
January 23, 2014
I sincerely doubt that Tani wagging her finger at Governor Brown and the State Legislature through the vehicle of the Sacramento Bee is going to get her any traction in Sacramento.
Long live the ACJ.
Lando
January 23, 2014
Thanks General and OBT for being accurate and complete historians. The one thing you both left out was that King George knew that he didn’t have the authority to do what he did as he sought on multiple occasions to amend the state constitution to give him the very power he took from locally elected trial courts. He failed on that and failed in his quest to have the Judicial Council select local court Presiding Judges and Court CEO’s (his last ploy to take control over every aspect of the branch). I am hoping members of the legislature and Governor’s office who read these posts reflect on what the General and OBT are saying. Hopefully in this way, they will act to end the tyranny at 455 Golden Gate and restore to the trial courts the power our state constitution invested in them. It would be a win for everyone if the legislature and Governor funded the trial courts directly without a pass through to the AOC and defunded the Judicial Council/ AOC in the process. One bonus benefit if they took this action would be that Queen Tani and her arrogant insiders, Miller , Hull and Bruiners would have no further power to make the incredibly poor policy decisions they make over and over again day in and day out.
Wendy Darling
January 23, 2014
Published today, Thursday, January 23, from Courthouse News Service, by Matt Reynolds:
1,600 Judges Sue California for Benefits
By MATT REYNOLDS
LOS ANGELES (CN) – More than 1,600 state judges sued California in a class action, demanding that the state retroactively pay them salaries owed and retirement benefits.
Lead plaintiff Robert Mallano, presiding judge of the Second District Court of Appeal, claims the state refused to pay judges full salaries and benefits subject to annual increases – calculated by the average percentage increase to state employees’ pay.
At least 1,800 people who are judicial beneficiaries of state pension benefits, including retired judges and surviving family members, also missed out on full payments, according to the lawsuit in Superior Court.
Under Article III, Section Four of the California Constitution, the Legislature has authority to increase judges’ salaries throughout the period of their terms. The judges claim another statute – Section 68203 of the California Government Code – creates a mandatory provision to increase salaries for each fiscal year, which begins on July 1 in California.
California and its officials “have no discretion regarding the duty to pay salary increases provided in Section 68203,” the 9-page lawsuit states.
Five years ago, Mallano says, he decided to help the state tackle California’s ballooning budget deficit by taking a 4.62 percent salary cut.
Despite that sacrifice, he claims that from fiscal year 2008-09 until fiscal year 2012-13 judges did not receive a single increase in pay or benefits.
Without consulting with the judiciary, the state announced in November 2013 that it would increase salaries and retirement benefits by 1.4 percent retroactively to July 1, 2013 but would not pay the salaries and benefits for the previous four years.
“Prior to November 2013, plaintiff did not have notice that active justices and judges, retired justices and judges, and judicial pension beneficiaries and survivors would not be paid their full salaries and pension benefits,” the lawsuit states.
Mallano says that he wrote to the lead defendant, California Controller John Chiang, on Dec. 10 and told him the court is obliged to pay judges and their pension beneficiaries retroactive salaries and benefits.
Chiang never replied.
Mallano seeks a declaration that California owes the class the unpaid salaries and benefits for the fiscal years at issue.
He is represented by Raoul Kennedy with Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom of Palo Alto.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/01/23/64763.htm
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
January 23, 2014
courtflea
January 24, 2014
All this broohaa when employees are taking pay cuts and furloughs, for a measly 1.4%? shame on Justice Mallano, et al.
Judicial Council Watcher
January 24, 2014
We’re conflicted with this action. On one hand (the hand most visible) the branch has lost thousands of employees and closed courts and courtrooms statewide. We’re of the belief that the action creates an employee morale disaster while other employees are still facing the real possibility of layoffs, more closed courtrooms and court closures. While Justice Mallano might get his wish for more money, judicial salaries are part of the branch budget. In this case it would appear that the amount in arrears alone totals 24 million dollars.
On the other hand, nearly a thousand AOC employees have had several raises in the same time period where judges have had no raises. Even legislators got raises. Justice Mallano further underscores how the central politburo has no legal right to negotiate away his salary increases that are written into law and on that point he is correct.
It all serves to underscore how the central politburo (and by extension that would mean the CJA, the AOC and the council themselves) largely looks after and lobbies for themselves and ignores the will of the constituencies they purport to represent.
Delilah
January 23, 2014
Submitted for JCW readers’ information and consideration, and with no further editorial comment from me. I am almost out of hope for the Judicial branch’s survival and the continued employment of all trial court workers, not to mention hapless members of the public in need of court services via access to justice. When I finally “check out” completely is when I will stop visiting JCW on a daily basis, only to fade into the distant past and memory, as have my lost coworkers and the CA court system as we all once knew it. In the meantime, I thank god for JCW and everyone here.
License Plates Are Next Privacy Fight. Plus: Behind Evans’ Ouster, Chief’s Big Ask
Cheryl Miller, The Recorder
January 17, 2014, 04:19 PM
SACRAMENTO — The next privacy battle in the Legislature is brewing … over license plates.
~snip~
Speaking of legislative skirmishes, the state Senate Rules Committee on Jan. 15 officially stripped Sen. Noreen Evans, D-Santa Rosa, of her Judiciary Committee chairmanship. The ouster had been in the works—and talked about in Capitol halls—for weeks in a rare show of intra-party animosity.
A teary Evans closed her last meeting as Judiciary chair on Jan. 14 by saying she was “heartbroken” by what was ultimately Senate President pro Tempore Darrell Steinberg’s decision. Evans’ allies say Steinberg was angry at her for failing to endorse Democratic consultant and fundraiser Chris Lehman in the race to succeed her. (Lehman announced on Jan. 13 that he was dropping out of the race). Steinberg called those claims “delusional.”
The Senate president told reporters Evans’ ouster was simply the result of his desire to place newly elected Sen. Holly Mitchell, D-Los Angeles, on the powerful Rules Committee. To make room for Mitchell, Steinberg said he needed to remove Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara, from Rules. Given that Evans is leaving the Senate at the end of the year and Jackson still has a possible seven years left in the upper house, Steinberg said it just made sense to make Jackson the Judiciary chair now.
“I made these changes for the good of the Senate and for the good of the state,” Steinberg said. “It wasn’t intended to be a negative toward [Evans] or anyone. I just wanted to put Sen. Mitchell on the Rules Committee.”
Evans, who has made no secret of her interest in obtaining a judgeship, will continue serving as a member on the Judiciary Committee.Evans and Steinberg, two of the biggest legislative cheerleaders for the judicial branch, appeared (though not together) at the Jan. 14 unveiling of Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye’s “Blueprint for a Fully Functioning Judicial Branch” in Sacramento.
In calling for an additional $1.1 billion in funding for the judiciary over the next three years, Cantil-Sakauye was flanked by lawmakers, judges, business leaders and a few members of the public identified as “court users.” But some key people were noticeably missing from the made-for-press event: Assembly Speaker John Perez and representatives of the courts’ employee labor unions.
The relationship between Perez and Cantil-Sakauye is not exactly warm and fuzzy. And labor groups still have qualms with, among other things, the branch’s new trial court funding methodology. Securing additional money for the judiciary this year without support from those two camps would be a tough task for the chief justice.
And it’s not as if securing another $1.1 billion is an easy task to begin with. In fact, a lot of people around the Capitol just shake their head or chuckle or do both when queried about Cantil-Sakauye’s big ask. Which begs the question: What’s the point? Maybe, suggested one jurist, it’s to show judges that branch leaders are putting up a fight in Sacramento after enduring years of miserable budget cuts.
“Among trial court judges, they’re like, ‘Yeah, finally,’ ” said one judge who’s familiar with the annual state budget dance. “I think what they want to hear is that things are going to get better.”
Of course, if the chief justice fails to secure a sizable chunk of that $1.1 billion after three years, she runs the risk of critics deriding her as feckless.
Read more: http://www.therecorder.com/id=1202639088530/License-Plates-Are-Next-Privacy-Fight.-Plus%3A-Behind-Evans%27-Ouster%2C-Chief%27s-Big-Ask#ixzz2r34dMw8V
Wendy Darling
January 23, 2014
“Evans, who has made no secret of her interest in obtaining a judgeship, will continue serving as a member on the Judiciary Committee.”
Ah, yes, Senator Evans, one of the biggest CCMS cheerleaders in the State Legislature. Because the most important qualification these days for being a judge is the ability to blindly suck up to the Chief Justice, no matter what the cost. Ethics? Not so much. Very inconvenient.
As for Tani running the risk of being considered feckless . . gosh, I think we’re already there, and have been for quite some time.
Always good to hear from you, Delilah.
Long live the ACJ.
Judicial Council Watcher
January 24, 2014
Feckless. The shoe already fits.
Wendy Darling
January 24, 2014
And it is NOT a glass slipper!
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
January 23, 2014
AOC HR METRICS BY OFFICE
😉
DATA AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2013
unionman575
January 23, 2014
MASTER AGREEMENT COVERSHEET For Temporary Staffing Services
😉
MASTER AGREEMENT NUMBER 1027013
This Master Agreement becomes effective as June 24, 2013 (the “Effective Date”) and expires on June 23, 2014.
unionman575
January 24, 2014
Master Agreement signed by the illustrious Grant Walker.
unionman575
January 23, 2014
STANDARD AMENDMENT COVERSHEET
MASTER AGREEMENT NUMBER 1027013
AMENDMENT NUMBER 1
😉
unionman575
January 23, 2014
http://compuforce.tempositions.com/site/aboutus.aspx
😉
unionman575
January 24, 2014
My, my, my, and I thought the AOC was cutting back on contractors/Temporary Staffing Services.
Lando
January 24, 2014
Steinberg dumping Evans. A sad comment on both who can’t get enough of supporting “feckless” Queen Tani. You can’t make any of this up. Really. I think I hear the O’Jays’s great tune “Backstabbers” rocking out the crystal palace lol.
Wendy Darling
January 24, 2014
Hey, Unionman — how about a music video of the O’Jay’s “Backstabbers”?
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
January 24, 2014
O’Jay’s “Backstabbers”
😉
Wendy Darling
January 24, 2014
Thanks, Unionman! 🙂
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
January 24, 2014
“Steinberg dumping Evans. A sad comment on both who can’t get enough of supporting “feckless” Queen Tani.”
I shed not a tear for any of them, Lando. There’s that old saying: when you chose to lie down with dogs . . .
We all know the rest.
Long live the ACJ.
sharonkramer
January 24, 2014
Could it be because Evans needed to be punished for breaking the Speak With One Voice Code of (Un)Ethics; and suggested that more transparency is needed in the “Open-meeting” rule in order to reinstill public trust?
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/12/13/63749.htm
December 13, 2013 “Senator Noreen Evans (D-Santa Rosa), who sits on the council through her role as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, encouraged the judges to open up committee meetings, despite their fears and reservations. ‘In the last few years, what we’re seeing is a reduction in public trust of our institutions,’ said Evans. ‘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.”
Nathaniel Woodhull
January 24, 2014
One of the things I love the most about JCW and this site is the simple, basic, honesty. The direct manner of speech of those who leave comments, and most importantly, the lack of monitoring or push toward political correctness. In the words of Spiro T. Agnew (oftentimes the words of Bill Safire or Pat Buchanan), those “pusillanimous pussyfoooters”, or those “nattering nabobs of negativism” and even those “hopeless, hysterical hypochondriacs of history” are welcome here. (Obviously Cheryl Miller went to the big dictionary to find “feckless”, but that’s okay.)
The point really is that all of us are working toward, hoping and praying that the sun will shine in and that things within the Judicial Branch will improve. I know that even I have thought about pulling the pin and giving up the fight; since the problems appear to be almost insurmountable. Then I reflect upon those who have suffered far more than all of us blogging here; yet they still get up each and every morning, facing insurmountable hurdles, yet fight the good fight. A perfect example of this is Justice Tom Hollenhorst who is in desperate need of a kidney transplant; yet he still fights for all of us each and every day.
Noreen Evans’ plight demonstrates what happens when you have such an imbalanced system of government that when one party “prevails”; at some point they eat their young. Ms. Evans should not be surprised by the fact that she was stripped of her Committee posts by the Senate President. She had served her purpose and clearly there is of no further benefit to the “Party” leaders to keep her in these spots. Ms. Evans positions are often in direct contradiction to those of Jerry Brown, who is clearly “in-control” of the State’s Democratic Party. I’m sure this move was also another not too subtle effort to let people know not to voice their opinions too strongly when they conflict with those of the Governor, especially when it relates to the need to further fund the Judicial Branch.
While Darryl Steinberg “appeared with” Tani, former Judge Terry B. Friedman, James Mize and the other usual suspects during the recent “statement” on the Capitol steps, it should be noted who was absent. Speaker John A. Perez was not there and every comment he has made on the Governor’s proposed 2014-15 Budget has given no indication he remotely is interested in providing more money to the Judicial Branch, especially given that he is terming out. Darryl Steinberg has done little to provide any substantive evidence he will increase judicial funding either. If I were to bet, I see the Judicial Branch getting another $100 Million on top of that originally proposed by Governor Brown. That won’t even keep us afloat at the current austerity, yet Darryl can say he got “something” for the Trial Courts.
The focus has to be on that already stated on this site. Dismantle the AOC, democratize the Judicial Council, and focus funding directly to the Trial Courts while providing them with autonomy. Close the AOC, move what’s left of the Crystal Palace to Sacramento, and shrink-wrap Tani so that she can focus simply on her job as Chief Justice.
TooBigToFail
January 24, 2014
As the recipient of an unexpected kidney transplant 18 months ago, my thoughts and prayers are with Justice Hollenhorst.
unionman575
January 24, 2014
“Close the AOC, move what’s left of the Crystal Palace to Sacramento, and shrink-wrap Tani so that she can focus simply on her job as Chief Justice.”
Bingo!
Wendy Darling
January 24, 2014
“One of the things I love the most about JCW and this site is the simple, basic, honesty.”
Sad, isn’t it though, General Woodhull, that JCW is the only place one can speak honestly about the state of affairs in the California Judicial Branch and not be punished for telling the truth?
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
January 25, 2014
“If I were to bet, I see the Judicial Branch getting another $100 Million on top of that originally proposed by Governor Brown.”
Hmmm. The last time the Governor (Schwarzenegger) needed the intervention of the State Supreme Court and the Chief Justice (George) wanted more money, the Governor got an appeal, authorized personally by the Chief Justice, even though the time for filing an appeal had legally expired, and the same day the Chief Justice got an extra $100 million in branch funding. Of course, this was all just a magical coincidence.
What might the going price be this time around? Another $100 million? $266 million?
Published Friday, January 24, from the Sacramento Bee, by David SIders:
Jerry Brown asks California Supreme Court to intervene on high-speed rail
By David Siders
The Brown administration, which previously downplayed the significance of court rulings against California’s $68 billion high-speed rail project, asked the California Supreme Court to intervene Friday, saying the rulings “imperil” the project.
The request comes after a Sacramento Superior Court judge in November ordered the state to rescind its original funding plan for the project. The lower court ruled that the California High-Speed Rail Authority failed to comply with provisions of Proposition 1A, the voter-approved 2008 initiative that included initial funding for the project.
In a request for expedited review, state officials said “the trial court’s approach to these issues cripples government’s ability to function.” It said the rulings threaten state and federal funding for high-speed rail and could have implications for other infrastructure projects.
The request, filed late Friday afternoon, comes after state and federal officials assured lawmakers in Washington that the rail project would go forward despite its legal difficulties. Following delays, rail officials plan to start construction in the Central Valley this year.
“We are going to be building high-speed rail in California,” the rail authority board chairman, Dan Richard, said at a hearing earlier this month. “We believe we have the funds in hand.”
Gov. Jerry Brown has made high-speed rail a priority of his administration, and officials expressed significant concerns Friday.
“If left to stand, these lower court rulings would not only prevent the state from proceeding quickly to build high-speed rail as the Legislature and voters intended,” Department of Finance spokesman H.D. Palmer said in an email. “They could also inject unwarranted uncertainty into the state’s ability to sell voter-approved bonds in a timely manner to finance public works projects.”
Rail officials argued in their filing that a normal appeals process could take years to resolve and is “not a real choice.”
“Since the project’s inception, opponents of high-speed rail have tried to block its construction,” the filing said. “Now, two rulings of the Sacramento Superior Court – which are otherwise unreviewable as a practical matter – imperil the project by erecting obstacles found nowhere in the voter-approved bond act.”
Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, one of the litigants in the case, said the state’s filing “is an acknowledgment that this is not merely a bump in the road.”
He added, “The administration has made clear they don’t care what anyone else thinks, or what the courts rule, they’re going to try to appeal this, try to get this done.”
http://www.sacbee.com/2014/01/24/6099861/jerry-brown-asks-california-supreme.html
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
January 25, 2014
“After securing the Legislature’s authorization for initial construction of the rail project in the Central Valley in 2012, Brown’s problems have mainly shifted to Congress and the courts.”
😉
http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2014/01/24/2890554/why-jerry-brown-skirted-high-speed.html
Why Jerry Brown skirted high-speed rail and water plan in California State of the State address
By David Siders and Jeremy B. White
dsiders@sacbee.comJanuary 24, 2014
Gov. Jerry Brown, delivers his annual State of the State address before a joint session of the Legislature at the Capitol in Sacramento, Calif., Wednesday, Jan. 22, 2014. Brown delivered a dual message to lawmakers, that a California resurgence is well underway but is threatened by economic and environmental uncertainties.
Gov. Jerry Brown has pursued two multibillion-dollar water and high-speed rail projects so aggressively in recent months that it loomed conspicuously how carefully he stepped to avoid the projects in his biggest speech of the year.
Brown mentioned the $68 billion rail program only once in his State of the State address this week, saying “we’re building the nation’s only high-speed rail.” He gave equally little air to his plan to build two tunnels to divert water around the Delta.
The absence of a forceful defense of either project was a departure from previous speeches, suggesting Brown’s wariness of controversy in an election year. Public opinion has turned against high-speed rail since voters approved it in 2008, and Brown acknowledged days before his address that an ongoing drought has accentuated regional tensions over water.
But Brown’s skirting of the tunnels and rail projects, two priorities of his administration, also highlights the shifting field on which the Democratic governor is seeking to push his public works agenda. After securing the Legislature’s authorization for initial construction of the rail project in the Central Valley in 2012, Brown’s problems have mainly shifted to Congress and the courts.
His water plan is to be financed by water users and permitted administratively by state and federal officials. Needing no public vote on the projects – and with his re-election campaign on the horizon – Brown could see little reason to engage.
“If he had his way, he wouldn’t have given the speech at all,” said Tony Quinn, a political analyst and former Republican legislative aide. “He wants this to be a nothing election. He’s running up against two people who nobody’s ever heard of. There is no sign of any political fever in California at all.”
Brown’s speech to a joint session of the Legislature, lasting 17 minutes, was shorter than his offering last year. Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara, said “Certainly the governor didn’t languish on the podium,” and lawmakers took note of all he left out.
Brown, who is preparing for a likely re-election bid this year, focused his speech on fiscal restraint, and Sen. Andy Vidak, R-Hanford, said “That’s hard to talk about when you have a train that may be costing 10 times what the voters approved.”
The Legislature has proved a similarly difficult audience for Brown on water policy. Last year, a handful of lawmakers, including some Democrats, issued terse statements critical of the water project after Brown heralded the plan in plain terms.
“My proposed plan is two tunnels 30 miles long and 40 feet wide, designed to improve the ecology of the Delta, with almost 100 square miles of habitat restoration,” Brown said at the time. “Yes, that’s big. But so is the problem.”
A year later, Brown referred to the project only by its technical name, calling for “further progress on the Bay Delta Conservation Plan.”
Nor did Brown state a position on an $11.1 billion water bond scheduled for the November ballot.
The bond, which the Legislature has twice deferred, is likely to be rewritten to reduce its cost, if not put off again. Brown has been noncommittal, voicing only general support for “expanded storage and serious groundwater management,” among other water infrastructure improvements.
Negotiations over the bond are potentially perilous for Brown. While a governor preaching moderation might view a multibillion-dollar debt measure as unwelcome company on his re-election ballot, the drought has heightened calls for dams and other infrastructure.
Larry Gerston, a political science professor at San Jose State University, said that three months ago, before Brown’s declaration of a drought emergency, “I would say, yeah, he wants to hold off.”
Now, Gerston said, “The environment may dictate otherwise. This state has a critical problem. I think the sense is that we can’t sit back and let nature take its course.”
Brown said Thursday that “I certainly am going to deal with the water and the tunnels and the high-speed rail,” but he acknowledged the purpose of downplaying them in his speech.
“I didn’t want to detract from the simple message that we’ve had a decade of deficits, and going forward the most important thing to do is to live within our means,” he told reporters in Salinas. “You can only say too many things. And when you write your stories I didn’t want you to say, ‘Today Brown said 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.’ No, I only wanted you to say one thing: ‘Brown said live within your means.’ ”
Brown will soon be forced to re-engage on water and rail.
He has said the state may consider mandatory water restrictions if the drought persists, while legal challenges continue to beleaguer high-speed rail. A Sacramento Superior Court judge ordered the California High-Speed Rail Authority in November to rescind its original funding plan, ruling officials failed to comply with provisions of Proposition 1A, the initiative in which voters approved initial funding for the project.
Brown is seeking lawmakers’ approval to use $250 million in fees paid by carbon producers to help finance the rail project, and Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg said, “There are some real important questions that need to be asked and will be asked this legislative session” about the project’s funding.
In his State of the State address last year, Brown acknowledged adversity facing the rail initiative and likened it to “The Little Engine That Could.”
“I think I can, I think I can, I think I can,” he said. “And over the mountain the little engine went. We’re going to get over that mountain.”
Following his speech this week, Assembly Republican leader Connie Conway of Tulare said, “There was no mention of the little engine from last year.”
Call David Siders, Bee Capitol Bureau, (916) 321-1215. Follow him on Twitter @davidsiders. Laurel Rosenhall of The Bee Capitol Bureau contributed to this report.
unionman575
January 25, 2014
Thought Of The Day
“ Always forgive your enemies, nothing annoys them so much. ”
— Oscar Wilde
unionman575
January 25, 2014
There is a lot of mineral money along that proposed rail route. Now you know why it’s proposed route does NOT run along Interstate 5. Jerry and Co. can’t resist the oil and gas $$$. The oil and gas industry loves Jerry for now.
30 USC Ch. 5: LEASE OF OIL AND GAS DEPOSITS IN OR UNDER RAILROADS AND OTHER RIGHTS-OF-WAY
From Title 30—MINERAL LANDS AND MINING
CHAPTER 5—LEASE OF OIL AND GAS DEPOSITS IN OR UNDER RAILROADS AND OTHER RIGHTS-OF-WAY
http://uscodebeta.house.gov/view.xhtml;jsessionid=DE3DAA68B2CEE791E7B61F77B69E2B41?req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title30-chapter5&saved=%7CZ3JhbnVsZWlkOlVTQy1wcmVsaW0tdGl0bGUzMC1zZWN0aW9uMzA2%7C%7C%7C0%7Cfalse%7Cprelim&edition=prelim
But the “business relationship” will only last so long…And then you will see the industry fight Jerry on this: http://www.sos.ca.gov/admin/press-releases/2013/pdf/db13-016.pdf
😉
Just follow the money…
Lando
January 25, 2014
So true Wendy. We owe a big thanks to JCW and all those that speak the truth here so that the public we serve can also see the complete truth about the California Judicial branch. Sadly as we approach a new election season, California is losing many great Judges to retirement, who predated the arrival of King George at 455 Golden Gate. Good luck to all those great public servants who worked hard every day for decades, in the trenches of the trial courts.
The OBT
January 25, 2014
Queen Feckless. That pretty much says it all for HRH-2. By the way I couldn’t believe how Queen Feckless staged that publicity stunt when she rolled out her Blueprint for the future. It was a classic . Most impressive was the return of Jim Mize who as CJA President worked for HRH-1 and Vickrey, rather than the trial Judges he was elected to represent. Always good to see that the insiders never go away, are always ready willing and able to self promote, get lots of face time and be loyal to those who have undermined and pretty much destroyed a once effective, independent and strong branch of government.
sharonkramer
January 25, 2014
Brown has bigger things to worry about than Tani’s pouting and throwing tantrums because she can’t have a bigger allowance until she cleans up her room.
This drought is serious business.
Dana Goodyear: The Valley-Fever Menace : The New Yorker
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/01/20/140120fa_fact_goodyear
Every year, there are some hundred and fifty thousand cases. Only forty per cent of people infected are symptomatic, and the signs—fever, cough, exhaustion—can be hard to distinguish from the flu. A small subset of patients will suffer long-term health problems; in fewer still, cocci will disseminate from the lungs into other tissue—skin, bones, and, often fatally, the meninges of the brain. For those with cocci meningitis, the treatment can be brutal. Three times a week, in the hospital, patients are administered an anti-fungal called amphotericin B—“amphoterrible” is how doctors refer to it—with a needle to the base of the skull….
Not long after her diagnosis, the doctors told her mother to make funeral arrangements. Now they tell her she will be on anti-fungals, funnelled through a shunt in her brain, for the rest of her life.
Cocci is endemic to the desert Southwest—California, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Texas—and to the semi-arid parts of Central and South America. Digging—building, drilling, tilling, clearing—stirs it up, and dry, hot, windy conditions, a regional feature intensified by climate change, disperse it. In recent years, infections have risen dramatically. According to the Centers for Disease Control, from 1998 to 2011 there was a tenfold increase in reported cases; officials there call it a “silent epidemic,” far more destructive than had been previously recognized. Its circuscribed range has made it easy for policymakers to ignore. Though it sickens many times more people than West Nile virus, which affects much of the country, including the Northeast, it has received only a small fraction of the funding for research. “The impact of valley fever on its endemic populations is equal to the impact of polio or chicken pox before the vaccines,” John Galgiani, an infectious-disease physician who directs the Valley Fever Center for Excellence, at the University of Arizona in Tucson, says.
wearyant
January 25, 2014
I would offer this a rough version of the rough draft that was captioned of the recent judicial council meeting — the beginning portion up to the break. This is offered with the following caveats. The [[…]] I put in where the rough draft appeared to be in error. There were [indiscernible] put in by the real-time captioners where I believe there were noises in the judicial council meeting room that obliterated the spoken words. I am under the impression that the real-time captioners are offsite. I worked in superior court for almost 30 years, and I believe these real-time captioners to be excellent, very talented writers. It is extremely difficult to do this job, especially offsite, with a multitude of unseen speakers and “heavy” dialog, symbols, numbers and specialty terms.
I offer this rough draft for JCW’s readers to review because it appears to me that the members of this council are still clueless, in denial, are tone-deaf or — something else. And I don’t want to just say, hey, these people are “out there,” they’re “off” and still clinging to their cake and wanting to eat it. Just skim through this draft and see if you can discern their mind-set. After seeing what these judicial council people are expressing, how can we help the third branch? There have been notable suggestions that should be done on JCW, e.g., move the AOC to Sacto, audit the AOC top to bottom and report, democratize the judicial council, all of which should be done immediately. But how? Why does the Gov and the Legislators pussy-foot around on this? They have been dropping hints, but the “leaders” of the judicial branch still don’t get it or have to be smacked on the back of their heads to wake up and smell the coffee! If any of the JCW readers have the time, just skim this dialog and see if you agree or can come up with a solution to this mad train wreck we’ve all been witness to since King George’s reign and what has followed. 🙂
Wendy Darling
January 25, 2014
“it appears to me that the members of this council are still clueless, in denial, are tone-deaf or — something else.”
It’s not your imagination, Ant. They just won’t stop drinking the Kool-Aid.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
wearyant
January 26, 2014
Here’s some colloquy that occurred after the break regarding the [indiscernibles] in the rough draft transcript:
========================================================
We are reconvening. Before we approach discussion agenda item D. Judge Jahr has a matter.
Very quickly on a technical audio matter, we have had a lot of background noise which has been associated with the dragging of microphones. In the February meeting we will have [[… …]] which are used at the speaker table to ameliorate the problem. So for the balance of the meeting and for the sake of the obvious, and as you’re going to be addressing the Council, lift the full [Laughter].
Thank you.
We have looked around the room, these are so sensitive that people are kicking them inadvertently at the table underneath and it is picking it up and nobody is touching their mic, but you can hear it in the background.
Stop it. [Laughter]. Stop that right now.
We are going to work these kinks out. We will. So I don’t — I’m going to turn it over to Justice Miller and invite our speakers up.
wearyant
January 25, 2014
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.
TooBigToFail
January 25, 2014
Judge Baker states that “most of us in here at this table passionately disagree with these opinions expressed” referencing a newspaper editorial that states that hundreds of millions of dollars were wasted on a badly botched statewide computer system for the trial courts and that there is more work to do to make the trial courts more efficient. What is there to “passionately disagree” about? Yes, the CCMS project was grossly mismanaged and allowed to continue to waste taxpayer money long after it was obvious to me in 2006 that this project was never going to meet its objectives. And yes, from 2001-2012 when approximately $580 million went to the CCMS project, technology improvements such as eFiling and electronic document management could have been implemented with a more effective and efficient CMS solution. Now, our great state is a decade behind other states in implementing technologies like these because of people in positions of influence and power with the beliefs of Judge Baker. I hope legislators continue to read the Sacramento editorials as well as this blog and think long and hard about handing over more money to the AOC for future technology boondoggles at taxpayer expense.
sharonkramer
January 25, 2014
That is truly bizarre. It seems like maybe they are stuck in that they can’t move forward without admitting some egregious past errors; and they can’t admit past errors without increasing the liability for the damages of those errors.
“Thank you, chief. It appears to me that the battle is a battle with perception. We are fighting perception.”
CJ
“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.”
Its like The Twilight Zone classic, “Its A Good Life”
Wendy Darling
January 25, 2014
“I would like to say the judicial branch and courts are like Starbucks.”
You just can’t make this stuff up. Really.
Thanks for posting this Ant. Disturbing as it is.
Long live the ACJ.
Michael Paul
January 25, 2014
wearyant
January 26, 2014
LOL!
Wendy Darling
January 25, 2014
They’re orbiting in a parallel universe that no one else has discovered yet, Michael.
And no one else ever will.
Long live the ACJ.
The OBT
January 25, 2014
Wow that transcript of the JC meeting raises more troubling questions about the totally insular, anti-democratic and out of touch branch ” leadership” at 455 Golden Gate. If accurate, Judge Baker’s comments on CCMS are astounding. The Starbucks quote makes absolutely no sense whatever it means. Throughout the JC meeting Queen Feckless appears to be in total denial about “budget” as she refers to it and her embracing and lauding the AOC at the end of the session for their empty suit ” blueprint” is just embarrassing. The dynamic of Groupthink first identified by Professor Irving Janis has taken over at the crystal palace and all of us are paying the price for it every day.
wearyant
January 26, 2014
Tani is now crowned “Queen Feckless” with a slap upside the back of her head … we don’t do swords here.
Wendy Darling
January 25, 2014
What OBT said.
Long live the ACJ.
Lando
January 25, 2014
Groupthink includes the following ” Loyalty to the group requires individuals to avoid raising controversial issues or alternative solutions and there is a loss of individual creativity, uniqueness and independent thinking. The dysfunctional group dynamics of the ” in-group” produces an “illusion of invulnerability “… Thus the “in-group” significantly overrates their own abilities in decision-making and significantly underrates the abilities of their opponents ( the out-group) . Sound familiar anyone ?
Wendy Darling
January 25, 2014
Sounds like the Master Blueprint for 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Lando.
Long live the ACJ.
The OBT
January 25, 2014
Many thanks Wendy. You are awesome.Your courage, common sense , concern for ethics and tremendous insights into the failings of this CJ , the former CJ and their respective entourages help motivate us all to work to restore a once proud, strong , democratic, ethically sound , fiscally responsible and independent branch of government .
Wendy Darling
January 25, 2014
You’re pretty awesome yourself, OBT.
It’s all of us together, or none of us at all.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
January 26, 2014
Aye
wearyant
January 26, 2014
UMan seconds, and the motion carries, is passed. 😀
wearyant
January 26, 2014
Here’s a rough draft of the rough draft captioned of the JC Meeting regarding the court and civil interpreters, our hard-working employees with boots on in the justice trenches. I believe our good buddies in the AOC have been playing hide-the-ball with the interpreters’ allocations, I could be mistaken, but for *some* reason the feds have sniffin’ around and here’s the discussion from the other day … I do selfishly hope the interpreters check in on JCW regularly and help with the ongoing challenges made to the California judicial branch.
=================================================================
We are reconvening. Before we approach discussion agenda item D. Judge Jahr has a matter.
Very quickly on a technical audio matter, we have had a lot of background noise which has been associated with the dragging of microphones. In the February meeting we will have [[… …]] which are used at the speaker table to ameliorate the problem. So for the balance of the meeting and for the sake of the obvious, and as you’re going to be addressing the Council, lift the full [Laughter].
Thank you.
We have looked around the room, these are so sensitive that people are kicking them inadvertently at the table underneath and it is picking it up and nobody is touching their mic, but you can hear it in the background.
Stop it. [Laughter]. Stop that right now.
We are going to work these kinks out. We will. So I don’t — I’m going to turn it over to Justice Miller and invite our speakers up.
We have two speakers so that if I could have Ariel Tarone please and just to remind you, you each have 5 min. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Good morning. I am Ariel Tarone the president of the new California Federation of interpreters. This will mark my 25th year serving the Los Angeles Superior Court. It has been my privilege and is an honor to be in front of you. As you see I am just starting but I am very encouraged by the new relationship that seems to be developing and we are — we were at a meaningful meeting yesterday with the CFS part of the language access plan on San Francisco. Of course there are issues and concerns that we have, we are encouraged by the exchange that is developing and I am here as a friend to you and I hope you see me as a resource and and I am for providing language access for everyone that uses the court system so thank you very much. It is a pleasure.
Thank you [Applause] The second speaker Mr. Hernandes.
Good morning. I am a friend contrary to what some of my friends may want to say. I actually want to address two items in the time that I have, both D and E. The first item is to provide $13 million for civil interpreters and let me be clear, on behalf of CFI, I’m the legislative advocate, we have been pushing for this allocation of money for the carryover fund for a time and we are encouraged by that very we think it is a good step forward. We think it should be approved today and move forward today we will increase access this is not the entire answer. We are not convinced that the only cases that can’t be provided are those where there is some with a fee waiver we think there is a problem with fee waivers and we have to make sure they are translated in a proper language and needs to be handled better and identify individuals who need interpretive services that we think the money may not be expended first year and our concern is that is not expended that somehow this money will go away and look at the track history of carryover money and the interpretive fund, that is what has happened in years past similar to ask that today’s action item limit is adopted, to make clear that the money is expended in an efficient matter in a way which the California Federation of Interpreters is involved in identifying how to spend the money and also to collect data so we know how many cases are being affected, how many more interpreters how many more cases need to be addressed.
We sponsored a bill this past year which unfortunately the Council opposed but we included in the data collection, we included ways in which we can ensure that rolling out of interpreters throughout the state and civil cases and want to make sure the action today is not deficient if it doesn’t have these recording requirements and opportunities for professionals to weigh in on how interpretive services are being provided. So let me state that for the record. We see this as a step forward. In regards to the item related to sponsored legislation and the government code section which there is overlap between these two items, let me say that we agree and disagree and our disagreement is not without significant impact on how this proposed bill goes forward. The proposal to change government code section to clarify interpreters can be provided in all cases regardless of income of parties is problematic potentially problematic and that is the US Department of Justice has come out and made it clear that there is no statutory impediment. It is in the letter attached to the item there is no impediment to providing interpreters in spot-civil cases. So while we support potentially clarifying or changing the government code section we have to make clear it is only that it is a technical fix it as a clarification. It cannot be construed as an existing prohibition on providing interpreters in civil cases. If it is, the legislature sees it as such and two things will happen.
One, they will tag a fiscal cost to the bill. Well beyond the $50,000 threshold to place a bill on suspense with the Appropriations Committee and there is a potential it will not get out of the Appropriations Committee and if it dies and if we have spun this as eliminating a prohibition, not only has it been inconsistent with what the DOJ has argued in inconsistent with federal law we have set up ourselves for failure because of the bill is held because of millions of dollars attached to it than what happens to those individuals who need interpretive services in civil cases. When we come back and we say we need to provide interpreters in these cases the Council will be stuck to say we sponsored a bill that says we can’t unless this government code section has changed since the code section was not changed, our hands are tied.
I want to avoid that conclusion. I want to avoid that occurrence so we urge you and we think you have a very strong legal footing to say this code section 6 is important but it is not because the existing law prohibits interpreters in civil cases. It is because we want to clarify and ensure that nobody looks — looks at this government code section is being a prohibition let me state to other things. The US DOJ, look at the letter to the council, that articulates there is no statutory prohibition it is in the budget language I have worked on that. There is no distinction between civil and criminal in the budget act that is adopted by the Legislature and the governor so we can provide interpreters in civil cases number one.
Number two, there is a legal memo that the AOC has provided stating the government code section 6 is necessary and somehow civil interpreters cannot be provided unless someone is indigent. That moment-that memo fails to reference the Federal Civil Rights Act which is the legal basis for the DOJ coming in and say failure to provide interpreters is a violation of the federal civil rights activist discriminatory against individuals based on national origin and it is very interesting this is Martin Luther King week and we have heard a lot about his work and of course the civil rights act byproduct, one of the byproducts of this life work. So this branch has an opportunity to stand by the Federal Civil Rights Act, title VI and to say yes, we will clarify government code section, but there is no prohibition on providing civil interpreters there is no statutory prohibition.
So we as California Federation of Interpreters are in a difficult place. We support providing interpreters not based on income but based on their language need that is the basis for national origin discrimination there are two separate categories based on economic status and based on national origin server the purpose of satisfying needs under the national origin we have to be able to say this code section 6 goes forward but it is not an existing prohibition. And if you can do that, we are more than likely going to be able to not only support the bill, but help it move to the legislature. We cannot take a chance that this bill dies with the understanding that its failure means that limited English proficient Californians will have to go another day, another month, another year without interpreters in civil cases.
I know that protocol is to provide comments before the presentation, but I hope that members of the Council will discuss the memo and item and how this code section is being framed and we will call this back up and ask us questions so we can come up and have a discussion, normally a legislature [Indiscernible] which is allowing public comment after the presentation so I’m hoping he will call us that we can clarify this and be unified and going forward affixing the government code section without the rest of the legislature will defeat the bill and in that we will lose the opportunity to comply with Federal Civil Rights Act. Thank you.
[Captioners transitioning]
We invite Steven Austin to address the working group and also Donna Hershkowitz.
Thanks for the opportunity to be here today. To present the recommendations from the Ad Hoc Joint Working Group to address court interpreter issues. Last [[…]] I was asked by Justice Miller and Curt Child to chair the group I was happy to see that the task with a different one from the task all of us have become all too familiar with over the last five years. Figuring out ways to cut and downsize. This task figuring out ways to spend money and spend money for good programs that can change people’s lives by given access to courts to people who have been shut out because they don’t speak English very well. I remember thinking the task was going to be fun. How hard could it be to figure out how to spend down the accumulated 45.45 fund surplus when the need for language access is so great in our state. While it turns out it was much more difficult than anyone anticipated. In order to fully understand the recommendations we came up with I am going to begin by going over the process and some of the hurdles we face a long way. The ad hoc group consisted of a broad group of members appointed from a large number of advisory committees to the Council. It consisted of members to the court interpreter’s advisory committee, the trial court presiding judges devising a medic the court executive advising committee, access and fairness devising committee, civil in small claims. Family and juvenile, probate and mental health. So purpose of the litigant task force and the policy coordination liaison committee. In fact I many faces from my ad hoc group sitting before me today.
As all of you know the 45.45 program is a dedicated funding source for all of the court interpreter services provided by the courts. Over the last four years, the Legislature has allocated consistent $92.7 million to the program. It has been spent primarily on criminal cases and juvenile cases. During those same years the program has generated a surplus each year. The amount of the surplus has varied from year-to-year, but until last year it has averaged around $3 million, maybe a little more than that during that period of time. Last year, fiscal 2012-2013 the surplus went up to nearly $5 million. Interestingly, the reason it went up last year was a $1.5 million decrease in reimbursements to the trial court for interpreter coordinators, earlier you were able to get reimbursements for that, that in that year the Legislature added a requirement to qualify that — to qualify for reimbursement coordinators must be either certified or registered interpreters. There aren’t very many of those so the $1.5 million did not get reimbursed the court.
At the end of fiscal 2012-2012-2013 the total accumulated surplus was approximately $12.9 million. The first order of business when we had our initial meeting was to figure out whether these accumulated surplus funds should be spent entirely on language access services or whether some or all should be allocated to the general budget hardship faced by the trial courts after years of cuts. Both of — [[…]] of our group came to be good conclusion all funds should be used exclusively for increasingly which access services primarily in civil and family law cases.
For a number of reasons, all of us agreed it was the right thing to do and that was the primary among all other reasons we came up with that recommendation. Also, it was consistent with the Chief’s strong leadership in this area which made language access a top [[…]] of our court system and also kept us within parameters of the 45.45 program is designed by the legislature. And — when we reach the decision we were having our first meeting, about the time the Department of Justice letter came out with recommendations consistent with their recommendations at the time.
We next move to a discussion of innovative pilot projects and flexible new programs that could be funded at the trial court level and civil, landlord, tenant, family law, guardianship [[…]] probate. We are all set to head down that path when we received the opinion from OGC, in your packet regarding legal restrictions placed on the courts by government code section 680.90. That law requires litigants pay the cost of interpreter services in civil matters.
This had the effect of prohibiting many innovative ways we were considering for expanding language access services through the use of [[…]] related surplus. It really stopped us in our tracks, just as we were getting going. The judges and justice on our ad hoc group felt strongly they could not in good conscience make any recommendations to the Council and violate existing state law. We turned back to the OGC memo began crafting the recommendations you have today. All are countable these new language services are permitted under existing state law and we are excited about the different these services will make in the lives of real people using the courts throughout our state.
We started by addressing the elimination of ongoing yearly surplus that now in the last year has reached nearly $5 million. Part of the ongoing surplus will be reduced in the current and future fiscal years, this fiscal year and next fiscal year. And going into the future. By increased expenses resulting from the new labor agreements negotiated in region 2 and 3. The Fiscal Services Office calculates those agreements will result in approximately 800,000 dollars increase in spending from the 45.45 fund spread over the next two fiscal years, this year and next year. About 550 this year and 250 in the following fiscal year more of the ongoing surplus will be limited by your action to approve an allegation — allocation of $1.73 million for the domestic violence Family Law Interpreter Program to shift the funding source for the state trial court improvement modernization fund to the 45.45 appropriation. New expenses we will be dealing with out of 45.45 next year.
That still won’t be enough to completely eliminate the remaining ongoing surplus though. To do that we recommend you approve lifting the $1.73 million on the domestic violence Family Law Interpreter Program. That program provides interpreters and domestic violence cases, ancillary family law proceedings when domestic violence is an issue in the case [[…]], an elder and dependent adult abuse cases [[…]] what is impossible to note that actual added costs that will result from the section our best estimate based on total request from courts from fiscal 2013-2014 is about one and a half million dollars. By lifting the [[…]] should be able to spend our entire appropriation of annual 45.45 fund while increasing needed services to vulnerable victims of domestic violence and abuse. There is an outside chance that this new expense could take us lightly over the $92.7 million 45.45 expenditure authority so we have also recommended if that happens you allow these expenses to be reimbursed from the ongoing accumulated surplus. The $12.9 million in cumulative surplus.
Now that the ongoing surplus has been a limited we need to address any down the $12.9 million in cumulative surplus. We recommend that you do that by reimbursement from 45.45 appropriation and from the queue related surplus for expenditures for indigent parties in civil cases. Flexibility will be provided by allowing each court to determine how best to implement providing interpreters in civil matters based on varying court and community needs, resource limitations due to the availability of funds, availability of interpreters and other court operational needs. We’ve also recommended that a court alike did to implement only in some case tie suggesting those should include family law, civil harassment, unlawful retainer, probate conservatorship and guardianship. The ad hoc group identified these as areas of the greatest need. According to the OJC opinion letter, these expenditures are not prohibitive by government code section 680.92 they are also in line with the recommendations that have been made by the DOJ. When implemented they will have a profound effect on the lives and safety of countless people who speak limited or new English throughout the state. I will turn it over to Donna to address the remaining recommendations, most of which involves implementation of these changes.
Thank you very much. One clarification very quickly on the two augmentations that Judge Austin just walked you through is this would apply to all expenditures in these categories throughout the current fiscal year, not just expenditures from the decision forward so we wanted to make sure that was clear in the action.
Most of the remainder of the recommendation to deal with more nitty-gritty implementation as Judge Austin mentioned the first of those would be that directed the administrative office of the court to provide guidance to the courts what are the newly reimbursable accreditors so there is clear understanding in trial courts on the action of the Council and what types of services they can provide that they will be reimbursed for. This would be prepared by the Fiscal Services Office in anticipation of a positive outcome today. Have gone a long way towards completing a draft that will be able to be delivered to the courts in fairly short order. Also, in order to help implement this, there is some question I think from courts on how — whether they have the ability to easily understand somebody who is requesting interpreter services in a civil matter is indigent and what we recommend that you direct the civil and small claims advisory committee to adopt a new form that would allow — for parties to request interpreters in civil matters indicating whether or not they already qualified for a fee waiver or concurrently applying for a fee waiver with the submission of the form this would allow courts to be able to track the information, could provide courts a useful tool in scheduling and setting up operational procedures in order to calendar these cases as well. It would be a tool for courts to use, they certainly would not need to wait for the development of the form to begin providing interpreters in civil matters, encouraged absolutely not to wait for the development of this form, but be a useful tool.
The group had considered recommending that instead of creating a new form civil and small [[…]] advisory committee simply amend the fee waiver form for additional cost and we were counseled that that was an unwise choice. And really what we need is a form that is about it request for interpreters not about fee waivers and to the extent that the next item you have to this has to do with, as you know, proposing legislation to be able to provide interpreters for all civil cases regardless of income. This form could be used in those instances as well whereas if we attach the request for an interpreter to a fee waiver form we have to create a new format that point, which would actually address that as well. The ad hoc working group also wanted to recommend you direct staff from — to assist courts — to assist courts in determining how the new form may be used to assist them in calendaring of cases in scheduling of interpreters.
Also importantly there was some concern that so $.9 million is in all likelihood not anywhere near enough to provide interpreters for several cases in which parties are indigent and the courts did not have confidence that the interpreters they provide would receive reimbursement for that maybe they would not engage additional interpreters they would not be spending the resources because they don’t have additional resources right now, no guarantee is going to be reimbursed. Recommendation six on the recommendation has recommends you direct the committee to come back to you in April. Having performed a recommended allocation. How would that $12.9 million of the unused surplus be allocated amongst the courts. So courts can have some confidence that if I were to hire X number of new interpreters to provide the services this amount will be reimbursed. The quick amendment to that recommendation actually if you take a look at it, it references the allocation formula the budget committee developed would be identifying the amount eligible to receive [[…]] eligible to receive reimbursement in unused savings pursuant to recognization — recognition number two before which should read number 1 and and 2 above as Judge Austin mentioned there is a chance that eliminating the cap for the cases will require some of that funding, will exceed the $92 million appropriation, will require some funding to come from the surplus.
And the final recommendation is consistent actually with Mr. Fernandez was talking about directing the usage of interpreters in civil managers and report the information to be ministered of office of the court this will help us in the future as we move forward and try to seek additional funding to provide these interpreters on an ongoing basis in these cases and in civil cases to all parties regardless of income without the data it will be harder for us to explain what the ultimate needs and the necessary funding.
Later in the agenda you have an item having to do with allocations for the $1.73 million that has been allocated for the domestic violence fund. If you agree with our recommendations, that cap is not going to be there anymore so that allocation item is — it is not going to be necessary that you handle that. I’ve been asked to let everybody know that. A little complicated, it was put on in case you don’t approve this, if you don’t approve this yet to figure out how to do the allocation of that money but if you do approve this you don’t have to figure it out because we are taking cap on it.
Thank you.
I want to make sure that was clear. With a little inconsistent —
Incentive?
I was putting that in as a sales pitch. Shorten your meeting. No. No. We also realized that this is just a temporary solution for our ongoing problem. All of this money will be spent within the next couple of years. We know that when we spend all of the surplus funds we will be able to sustain this without more funding. It is something we have to do. We don’t exhaust the surplus our efforts to get more 45.45 funding to expand language access in order to implement the language access plan which is going to be in place by the end of this year so this would be beginning next year to get more funds in order to gradually implement the plan it will be much more difficult if we have a significant surplus remaining with the 45.45 funds. Everyone will just point to the surplus to justify no new funding.
Every judge in the state who has presided over civil, family or probate cases has experienced the terrible feeling when we know that we cannot do what is right, what is just, what is required because the party before us cannot tell us their side of the case. This is the first step to address this issue and begin this process of expanding access to our courts. Before I stop talking I want to thank, special thank yous Curt Child, Donna and Chad, who is not with us anymore but still with our court system, they are amazing, talented people who each worked long and hard to bring these recommendations together. We are lucky to have them working with us in our court system. Thanks.
Thank you, Judge Austin. Thank you, Donna — Justice Miller?
I just have a couple questions. About the carryover. If the funds aren’t completely spent as it indicates in the recommendation number six within 2014-2015. Will the money carryover like it has been the last few years?
(multiple speakers).
What we wanted to do because it was important for us to get that money out as soon as possible is say it is going to be spent by the end of that year we are trying to do that there’s a possibility that it won’t all be spent by that time it will take a while to get the program up and running there is some indicia of the court level and we anticipate that if that should happen a small amount left will get rolled over into the next year and used for the same purposes.
Justice Miller, if I may add the Council has taken action several years ago money left over in 45.45 would remain monies used for interpreters although the recommendation certainly anticipates the fund would be exhausted at the end of 2014 — to those of [[…]] certainly some could be left over we would certainly anticipate those would remain funds able to be used for interpreters.
The second question is the issue raised by Mr. Fernandez about 140 that is taking care of an item number seven. You’re going to track this and report that.
I think that is a very important aspect because we are going to be able to have some record and data about how this money is spent and some way to take to the legislature to show the need is. So hopeful we will have that information so when we go for the next fiscal year is the implement — a limitation we will able to secure additional funding one thing I [[…]] this is dedicated funding for interpreter services, it is not going to be in some other type of allocation, pretty easy to point us to this something I think is popular with the citizens of the state and also with the legislature as well.
We’re also just beginning the 2015 language need an interpreter you study that the Council does every five years as part of that we have asked the vendor to work with us to begin assessing the need for interpreters in civil as well we have identified a number of courts will help us voluntarily track individuals who come to the courtroom who need an interpreter so we have another methodology going at the same time to assist in tracking the need in civil, ultimately we will be able to present that to the legislature.
Lastly I want to personally command Judge Austin and your ad hoc committee and your staff you had a very short timeframe to accomplish this, you did a great job and you all should be commended. It is a great service to the public and thank you.
[applause]
Would like to make a motion to approve the recommendations 137.
So moved. I heard a second by Judge Brandlin, Judge Jacobson, Judge McCabe and I think you would like to be heard?
This is from the amendment includes amendments to that.
Add 1 and 2.
That’s fine.
Thank you. I don’t hear any further discussion. All in favor please say aye.
Nay [[…]].
I know access, fairness and ad hoc wanted to move affirmatively in this direction and that this took a lot of work and a lot of discussion sitting down at the table and this really is an unprecedented step in language access in the country. I know the California language access plan committee is also working towards that. My words of gratitude toward the committees that came before all of us would have the foresight to know this is coming and put in plan the studies about California and reporting and your good work on such a short period of time to make sure those who need to understand our branch and in court have meaningful access. Thank you.
Thank you.
Item E. We invite judge Austin and Judge Ken So, Donna Hershkowitz and Alan Herzfeld for presentation on item E.
Madam Chief Justice, members of the Council good morning. The Ad Hoc Joint Working Group to address interpreter issues and policy coordination and liaison committee recommend counsel sponsorship of legislation to amend the government code to explicitly allow courts to provide interpreters to all civil cases at no cost to the parties. This proposal would provide each court with the flexibility that Judge Austin and the ad hoc group recommend. Other benefits of this change would be uniform and increased access to interpreter services for court users statewide. Streamlined access to 45.45 funds including to the accumulative surplus in the account which is intended specifically to pay for interpreter services and to aid the administrative office and superior court of LA County in their ongoing discussions with the Federal Department of Justice online which access issues. As noted in the report to the Council on this proposal the federal DOJ has expressed support for clarifying the courts’ authority and ability to provide these services at no cost to the parties. Regarding questions of whether preemption of federal law apply, regardless of that, there is an absolute benefit in clarifying in California law that courts have the authority and we recommend sponsorship by the Council of this proposal. I am prepared to answer any questions and have Judge So and Judge Austin answer questions as well.
Thank you. Judge Rosenberg?
Thank you. The obvious question is a concern raised while I certainly support the bill the concern raised by one of the speakers is what if the bill fails? What message does that send? And so my question is, how can we present this in such a way that we may clear our belief we can do this anyway but we just want to clarify?
I believe with the support of the Department of Justice and and with as part of — as a companion to — I don’t believe we will run into [[…]] I believe we will be able to move this to the legislative process given that — as I mentioned at the very tail and —
(multiple speakers).
[Indiscernible–low volume]
I would not want to do that in a room full of judges.
[laughter]
I do believe while we characterize this as clarifying the authority taking care of the [indiscernible] that exist in the law we should be able to move it to the legislature.
Commissioner Alexander?
What about the concern it would be seen as [indiscernible] federations — appropriations from the $12 we had left over that is expected to be used in a year it would not cover all the cost I don’t know if that — how the process works enough to know the realities of that and what would happen.
Office of government affairs I think a key distinction is that clearly visibility will be key fiscal, it doesn’t have an appropriation when this goes to the Appropriations Committee the key distinction that not an official nickel would be spent by this bill the $92 million line item, the $92 million line item will be no different in under the current statutory scheme if local trial court submit reimbursement requests for more than the $92 million, that is it, $92 million. This would simply allow the surplus accumulated to be spent on interpreter services, not an additional expense. A key distinction between cost pressure as opposed to requiring the additional appropriation of funds which this would not do.
It would basically be a budget issue the next year to ask for more money?
Clearly I think the Department of Finance would see the cost pressure no different than the pilot program that has been deliberated in the legislature three or four times now it is not a new appropriation of funds.
Thank you. Seeing no hands raised, entertain a motion?
Motion approved.
Judge Brandlin? Motion? Justice Miller and Judge Ellsworth, second. No further discussion from council. All in favor please say aye? Any opposed? Thank you. Approved. Thank you.
Sharon Kramer
January 26, 2014
Darn Wearyant. I was hoping I was going to read, “And our first speaker is Michael Paul, followed by five presentations from the Alliance for California Judges. After that we have ten members of the public to speak on a policy matter regarding who in the Hell oversees the actions of Michael Roddy, Judith McConnell and Richard Huffman.”
unionman575
January 27, 2014
The Feds were recently sniffing around Interpreter Services at CCB and there were some management “adjustments” shortly after they left.
😉
Lando
January 27, 2014
In yet another interview as part of her failed PR campaign, Queen Feckless claims that the Justice she most admires is Rose Bird. She stated Bird served at a time of acrimony and was misunderstood while at the same time saying Bird’s opinions had an agenda. Honestly her answer shows how little history she really knows. Bird didn’t serve at a time of acrimony and actually she wasn’t misunderstood . One would also have to wonder why she would admire a Justice with an agenda . What a great irony indeed. Queen Feckless who deserves to be recalled admires one of the few that ever was. If we are lucky, lighting could strike twice and Justice Liu a man of intellect and integrity would hopefully replace our misunderstood Queen and get our branch moving forward again.
Wendy Darling
January 27, 2014
Maybe Queen Feckless was overdosed on Starbucks during her interview, Lando.
Long live the ACJ.
Guest
January 27, 2014
A couple of observations after reading the minutes of the JC meeting. Why is Jahr keep getting called “judge” Jahr? He is no longer a judge. He is retired and double dipping as director. He is “judge” only in the cj’s attempt to deflect criticism in the post Vickrey AOC. Frankly calling Steven Jahr “Judge” is an embarrassment to real judges. Second, Mr Yamasaki “seconding” a motion is the best summary of the “value” he brings to the table. What an empty shell taking oxygen from the room. Third, poor Judge Walsh apparently being sucked in by Mr Yamasaki’s pretty package. Comments that add no value. Finally, I don’t know Mary Beth Todd but her comments were dead on. So why isn’t the cj and her “A” team of Patel, Childs,Sodelund, Yamasaki, Jahr et al echoing Todd’s comments while they storm the halls of the Capitol on their begging quest?
courtflea
January 27, 2014
Guest, Mary Beth Todd is CEO of Sutter Superior Court. She worked her way up from an entry level clerk to become CEO, in Amador and Calaveras before Sutter. She is a woman of great integrity.
Ditto on the “judge” Jahr comments. He will always be Jahr head to me.
Wendy Darling
January 27, 2014
Mary Beth Todd is as honest as they come, and she will not be intimidated from telling the truth. She has more integrity in the tip of her little finger than in the entire members of the judicial council combined.
Long live the ACJ.
Guest
January 27, 2014
So Mary Beth Todd is the complete opposite of David Yamasaki then. Good to hear that not all CEO’s are incompetent lightweights like David.
Wendy Darling
January 27, 2014
The top five reasons 455 Golden Gate Avenue is not like Starbucks:
5. Starbucks practices complete transparency: You can watch them make your coffee from start to finish. They will even tell you where the coffee beans were sourced from.
4. If you have a complaint, Starbucks will try and fix it on the spot. You will not be banished for life, your career ruined, be figuratively executed, or otherwise punished for making a complaint.
3. If Starbucks makes a mistake with your coffee, they remake it until you are happy with it; they do not tell you the mistake was really your fault or blame the mistake on the State Legislature or the Governor.
2. If you have a question, Starbucks will answer it. You are not required to make an Information Request, or send a letter by snail mail to someone in San Francisco who will then never answer your question with a direct answer.
And the number one reason 455 Golden Gate Avenue is not like Starbucks:
1. A cup of coffee at Starbucks does not cost a half a billion dollars.
Long live the ACJ.
Judicial Council Watcher
January 27, 2014
It’s just amazing that the AOC is lauded for producing this brilliant piece of work known as the three year plan and everyone else is joining us in asking one fundamental question:
Even the council begins to recognize there might be an issue here yet the plan remains brilliant and well thought out.
If I were a legislator I would be contemplating additional cuts after this dog and pony show.