| In the aftermath of the CCMS debacle — a $500 million waste of taxpayer money that ranks among the costliest IT failures in American history — how should the judicial branch go about restoring its credibility with the Legislature and the Governor? One way would be to acknowledge the CCMS failure immediately; hold accountable those who foisted CCMS on the branch and rabidly defended it despite mounting evidence of its critical flaws; bring new faces into the technology leadership circle; open up the decision-making process on any future technology projects; and welcome legislative oversight.
In the alternative, one could deny the overwhelming evidence that the program was a dud and claim — as Justice Bruiniers did — that it failed because of a lack of political will; slap a new name on the old CCMS Internal Committee and start calling it the Technology Committee, but keep the same old CCMS cheerleaders in charge of it; allow that committee and its feeder task force to meet behind closed doors; and applaud that committee when it cranks out a “technology roadmap” full of jargon, baffling flow charts, and platitudes.
Apparently, branch leadership is going with Option B.
We link to an article from Courthouse News that summarizes the Technology Committee’s new Judicial Branch Technology Governance, Strategy, and Funding Proposal, released last week, a year behind schedule. The document itself — available at http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/jc-20140123-itemI.pdf — is a tough slog, chock full of nuggets such as, “The approach centers on working as an information technology (IT) community that can form consortia to leverage and optimize resources to achieve its goals and overall branch objectives.”
From the article, we bring to your attention the words of Justice Judith Ashmann-Gerst: “We have to rebuild our credibility, with the Department of Finance, with the Legislature, with the executive branch, for managing tech projects so that we can build the case for restoring funding for technology.”
She’s right, but she’s forgetting somebody: us. The Judicial Council and the AOC also have to rebuild their credibility with the judges they claim to serve. Step One would be to submit the entire AOC operation to a comprehensive audit.
Directors, Alliance of California Judges |
unionman575
February 3, 2014
More nice work ACJ and JCW.
😉
Wendy Darling
February 3, 2014
“She’s right, but she’s forgetting somebody: us. The Judicial Council and the AOC also have to rebuild their credibility with the judges they claim to serve.”
Based upon personal experience and observation, 455 Golden Gate Avenue didn’t so much “forget” about this, it’s more that they just don’t think it matters. Because it’s really not about rebuilding credibility; it’s really just about the money.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Califorians.
Long live the ACJ.
NewsViews
February 3, 2014
Reblogged this on News and Views Riverside Superior Court and National Family Law Abuse.
wearyant
February 3, 2014
Some numb nuts should be grateful that they’re not serving time at Lompoc fed club med. Instead they grouse about how they’re misunderstood and that’s leading to their inability to get more millions for their haphazard projects that they plan in secret meetings. What a wonderfully weird world we all exist in! 😀
Wendy Darling
February 3, 2014
Didn’t you get the memo, Ant? Things are “great” in the branch.
Just “great”.
Long live the ACJ.
courtflea
February 3, 2014
so where is our great leader Jahr head to respond to all of this controversy? 🙂
Wendy Darling
February 4, 2014
He’s probably at Starbucks, Flea.
Long live the ACJ.
R. Campomadera
February 4, 2014
Perhaps the Dead Parrot Pet Shop, trying to peddle dead parrot automation systems.
Lando
February 4, 2014
Yes Wendy, at Starbucks working out the details of his new retirement plan, thanks to Queen Feckless and her minions.So much for finding the most qualified person to run the AOC right in their own backyard.Isn’t that what chief minion Harry Hull said?
The OBT
February 4, 2014
And who better to bring back CCMS than one of the ultimate insiders who defended it right to the end, Terry B. Friedman. Friedman despite leaving the bench somehow has remained on the Judicial Council , always serving his interests and those that run 455 Golden Gate at the expense of the trial courts. Pretty much like he did in his disgraceful tenure as President of CJA. Look for J Hull to pronounce he’s the latest best candidate in the entire country to run the AOC. You can’t make any of this stuff up. Really.
Lando
February 4, 2014
Terry Friedman, the next head of the AOC. Say a prayer for the Pretender. Who started out so young and strong only to surrender. Jackson Browne. 1976.
Judicial Council Watcher
February 4, 2014
Judicial Branch Technology Governance, Strategy, and Funding Proposal = 91 pages of conflicting repetitive gibberish. Nothing is being mandated upon any court UNLESS the leadership calls it a branchwide initiative. Then it is mandated upon every court.
You have internal politicians who don’t know technology if it jumped up and bit them in the ass leading the charge and serving as a gauntlet to any competent technology idea. If anyone bothers to simulate an idea running through one of these flow charts it’s more likely to be killed in the beginning by the same people who will be giving it their blessing in the end. Only really dumb ideas foisted by the insiders (like CCMS) have any chance of not ending up on the insiders cutting room floor and in turn would be imposed upon the trial courts.
Technology should be led by technology professionals all the way through the entire process from concept to final delivery. The council themselves should just be standing back and providing oversight. Instead, nonprofessionals have interjected themselves into the process at every stage.
We generally don’t recommend reading gobbledygook put out by the council and the AOC because it’s usually just long enough to make your head explode. However, this document is relatively brief in comparison, repeating concepts the requisite minimum of three times in an effort to reinforce that it should make sense.
It doesn’t. It doesn’t make any sense that the same people who foisted ccms upon us will be the same people that provide a a quasi tollgate to both start and end the process. It doesn’t make sense that technology professional participation is less than 5%.
Wendy Darling
February 4, 2014
“Judicial Branch Technology Governance, Strategy, and Funding Proposal = 91 pages of conflicting repetitive gibberish.”
There’s actually a name for this at 455 Golden Gate Avenue; they call it “wordsmithing.”
As in: “You need to wordsmith this document to give the appearance that the issue is being addressed, but without creating an obligation to actually do anything about it.” Almost an exact quote.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
courtflea
February 4, 2014
Oh Wendy, you gave me a really bad flash back! whoa! after all of these years of being in recovery! 🙂
Wendy Darling
February 4, 2014
Get some Starbucks, Flea. That might help. 🙂
Long live the ACJ.
Nathaniel Woodhull
February 4, 2014
Because this group of fools does not and cannot acknowledge that there is anything wrong with their administration of the Judicial Branch, nothing is going to change until they are removed and/or depart on their own. If it weren’t so sad, I’d laugh at just how inept they all are. Their primary technology “expert” (Mr. Bruin-ears) couldn’t find it with both hands if he had to. JCW is absolutely right, read their jibber-jabber. It makes about as much sense as Gabby Johnson in Blazing Saddles.
Michael Paul
February 4, 2014
“The approach centers on working as an information technology (IT) community that can form consortia to leverage and optimize resources to achieve its goals and overall branch objectives.”
Nuggets indeed. This approach does nothing of the sort. This approach centers on judicial council internal committees controlling the entire process from cradle to grave, piecemealing out tasks and issuing them to a limited slice of the court it community.
Michael Paul
February 4, 2014
This document is a product of too many lawyers……
Wendy Darling
February 4, 2014
Yep. Exactly right, Michael Paul. And I bet there isn’t an ounce of actual IT expertise between all of them.
Long live the ACJ.
courtflea
February 4, 2014
all of this = trial courts get something they likely will not want or need shoved down their throats, that costs a fortune. sound familiar?
R. Campomadera
February 4, 2014
Yep…sounds like CCMS 2.
I think they do understand that CCMS is a fatally damaged brand, but believe that by rebranding it, without making any fundamental changes, all will be fine (as in: “It was a political failure, not a technical failure). Per this line of thinking, all that’s needed is a 91 page report full of jargon and buzz words (e.g. “The approach centers on working as an information technology (IT) community that can form consortia to leverage and optimize resources to achieve its goals and overall branch objectives.”) (barf) and, of course, to put the hounds off the scent, a new name.
In that vein, I offer “DPMS”, as all good bureaucratic initiatives need a catchy acronym. It can either stand for “Data Processing Management System” (official name) or “Dead Parrot Management System”, which, with apologies to Monty Python, is what they’re trying to do: sell dead parrots.
R. Campomadera
February 4, 2014
Nuggets, as in bupkis.
Mrs. Kramer
February 4, 2014
Its a very sad and telling statement that one out of four CA judges are calling for a forensic audit of the JC/AOC to assure proper usage of branch funds; and NOT ONE legislator has the kahonies to make it happen.
Kind of makes one wonder what kind of political favors have been done in the House that George built.
unionman575
February 4, 2014
http://www.courts.ca.gov/25014.htm
Request For Information – Disposition Of The San Diego County Courthouse Site,
RFI# OREFM-2014-02-BR
The AOC will soon begin construction of a new court building (the San Diego Central Courthouse) on a new site in San Diego, California. The Office of Real Estate and Facilities Management, a Division of the Administrative Office of the Courts, is issuing this Request for Information to elicit ideas and explore potential strategies that may foster private-sector development of the land to be vacated by the county courthouse facility locally known as County Courthouse located at 220 West Broadway, San Diego, California.
Written submittals must be received no later than 3 P.M., PDT on Thursday, March 20, 2014.
Questions and requests for clarifications must be submitted to capitalprogramsolicitations@jud.ca.gov by no later than 3 P.M., PST on Friday, February 28, 2014.
Hard copy submittals must be delivered to:
Judicial Council of California
Administrative Office of the Courts
Attn: Nadine McFadden – #OREFM-2014-02-BR
455 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102
unionman575
February 4, 2014
unionman575
February 4, 2014
http://www.courts.ca.gov/24957.htm
2014 Judicial Council June Off-Site Meeting, RFP# CRS SP 071
The Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts, Conference Services Unit seeks proposals from hotels for sleeping rooms, June 24-27, 2014 in Santa Rosa or Sonoma, California.
sharonkramer
February 5, 2014
May I suggest these rooms.
What is particularly nice about these accomodations is that attendees can look online to see when other attendees have arrived and are checked in.
Plus, I hear the Right Inner Courtyard for Occupants (RICO) is fabulous, and that all guest are provided comfortable attire to wear for the duration of their stay.
http://www.jailexchange.com/CountyJails/California/Sonoma/Sonoma_County_Main_Adult_Detention.aspx
wearyant
February 5, 2014
Okay, I’ve been out of the bizness for awhile … but what’s up with this term “sleeping rooms”? As opposed to what? Card playin’? Rooms to rent by the hour? A quick place to shower? I feel so out-of-it …
unionman575
February 4, 2014
‘As construction crews bustled around the large structure last week to add walls and fire safety features, Flener said the five-courtroom building is geared to serve Chico and the north county for 100 years.’
http://www.chicoer.com/news/ci_25045433/new-chico-courthouse-beginning-take-form
unionman575
February 4, 2014
With all this new construction I wonder how the PPP payments for Long Beach are coming along.
😉
wearyant
February 5, 2014
Yeah …
wearyant
February 5, 2014
http://calbarjournal.com/February2014/TopHeadlines/TH1.aspx?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CaliforniaCourtsNewsLinks+%28California+Courts+NewsLinks+RSS+Feed%29
By Amy Yarbrough
TooBigToFail
February 5, 2014
Justice Judith Ashmann-Gerst’s comments leave out not only CA trial court judges but also state taxpayers who fund the Judicial Council/AOC technology projects. Isn’t it important to restore credibility with the folks who pay the bills? As far as the Judicial Branch Technology Governance, Strategy, and Funding Proposal goes, while I worked on the CCMS project for 18 months, I saw many PowerPoint presentations, charts, graphs, and project schedules/timelines that looked impressive to people unfamiliar with the professional management of technology projects but that were, in fact, gross misrepresentations of the real status of the CCMS project (one of the many reasons I left the project). Now, after reading this document and being contacted several weeks ago by a technical recruiter looking for a senior project manager with case management experience for a 3-year consulting engagement with the AOC, it seems like the AOC might be up to its old tricks again. As others on the blog have observed, judicial council committees continue to control the process, and more than a few of the committee members are the same people who so vigorously supported CCMS. One must ask the question: Why should anyone expect different results? Earlier today, I read an NSCS article about the “NoCal Collaboration Project” where 6 CA trial courts have formed a consortium and entered into an MSA with Tyler Technologies for CMS services. If the AOC is not funding this project and not managing this project, this is good news. Based on the successful work I did with 9 trial courts and their CMS vendor prior to my involvement with CCMS, I believe the model that will most likely be successful is one where trial courts of similar sizes and needs work together with a CMS vendor to implement solutions. Where funding is needed for these implementations, I strongly recommend that it be provided directly by the State to the courts and that project oversight be provided by experienced project managers who are either State employees or independent consultants whose services are retained by the State. With this approach, existing State project management processes and disciplines could be utilized, and the AOC would not be in a position to “spin” the project status.
unionman575
February 6, 2014
I’m am also in agreement with both your conclusions and recommendations.
😉
courtflea
February 6, 2014
What is interesting about this consortium is that now Orange County wants to join in. Yes, that Orange County that was one of the biggest supporters of CCMS.
Michael Paul
February 5, 2014
I’m in agreement with both your conclusions and recommendations. This is a project that both the AOC and the judicial council need to step away from and let the trial courts do their thing with oversight and project management provided by the state DOIT.
You might have not noticed that in the courts they recommended for a case management system upgrade was one that really stood out. Mainly because it stood to gain a majority of the money.San Diego is looking for – and the council is all too happy to reinvest in – an upgrade to CCMS in San Diego.
unionman575
February 6, 2014
Helping their AOC favorite down there in San Diego: Hot Rod.
😉
sharonkramer
February 6, 2014
Eewwwwww. I can’t believe that they are getting away with putting more money into CCMS in San Diego – and no one does a damn thing to stop them.
The plot thinkens at JC/AOC’s Southern Headquarters.
02.05.13 Message to CJP: http://freepdfhosting.com/77c88e0bf9.pdf
02.03.13 San Diego County Board of Supervisors say: http://freepdfhosting.com/19475f520a.pdf
09.11.11 How CCMS was used cover up case fixing over a a multi $B matter impacting public health –and the CJ & JC KNOW it. http://wp.me/plYPz-3aV
R. Campomadera
February 5, 2014
I suggest further oversight could and should be provided by an advisory group comprised of acknowledged IT experts from the private sector and non-State of California entities who have experience with large court automation projects, for example, the federal courts, where comprehensive case management systems, electronic case files, and e-filing have been commonplace for more than a decade.
Without such outside assistance, its almost a certainty the JC/AOC will simply continue to squander millions of the taxpayers’ dollars, with the result being that the trial courts will be no closer to an effective solution to their IT requirements.
unionman575
February 6, 2014
With Michael Paul as chair.
Scratch that…Michael Paul for AOC Director…shut that AOC f***er down Michael.
😉
R. Campomadera
February 6, 2014
I second the motion. Michael would be a great choice. There should also be representatives from the Governor’s Office and the Legislature, as well as the ACJ. The committee should be entirely independent of the JC/AOC. The governor and Legislature should make it clear to the JC/AOC that as a condition of receiving any further IT funding, the advice and counsel of the committee is followed without any interference on their part, in other words, the committee calls the shots, not the people who have already proven their incompetence beyond any shadow of a doubt in wasting $500 million on CCMS and who, despite prior legislative directives, seem hell bent for leather to do it all over again.
sharonkramer
February 7, 2014
Senator Paul, Chair of the Judiciary Committee and orderer of key BSA audit.
Nathaniel Woodhull
February 7, 2014
Speaking of retreads, here is a list of “salaries” for Judicial Council “employees” posted by the Sacramento Bee for 2013. Remember that during this time a Superior Court Judge’s salary was $178,780 per year. But these people are here to “support” the trial courts….Last time I looked they don’t pay for retirement benefits either…
J CLARK Kelso FEDERAL COURT CONSULTANT JUDICIAL COUNCIL $280,003.92
Steven E Jahr ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR OF THE COURTS JUDICIAL COUNCIL $216,699.60
Jyotiben D Patel CHIEF OF STAFF JUDICIAL COUNCIL $209,288.15
Christopher N Wu SUPERVISING ATTORNEY JUDICIAL COUNCIL $208,490.14
Curtis L Child CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER JUDICIAL COUNCIL $202,337.64
J SHARON Reilly SENIOR ATTORNEY JUDICIAL COUNCIL $197,357.91
Curtis W Soderlund CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER JUDICIAL COUNCIL $193,196.09
Diane E Cowdrey DIVISION DIRECTOR JUDICIAL COUNCIL $178,011.85
Diane Nunn DIVISION DIRECTOR JUDICIAL COUNCIL $178,011.85
Mark W Dusman DIVISION DIRECTOR JUDICIAL COUNCIL $177,716.17
Margie Borjon-miller ASSISTANT DIVISION DIRECTOR JUDICIAL COUNCIL $176,953.74
Mary M Roberts GENERAL COUNSEL/DIVISION DIRECTOR JUDICIAL COUNCIL $173,080.32
Kenneth R Couch DIVISION DIRECTOR JUDICIAL COUNCIL $171,231.49
Cory T Jasperson DIVISION DIRECTOR JUDICIAL COUNCIL $170,481.57
Robert D Lowney SENIOR MANAGER JUDICIAL COUNCIL $165,953.87
Zlatko R Theodorovic DIVISION DIRECTOR JUDICIAL COUNCIL $164,011.95
William L Kasley ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL JUDICIAL COUNCIL $163,099.80
Donna P Clay-conti SENIOR ATTORNEY JUDICIAL COUNCIL $162,467.48
Virginia Sanders-hinds SENIOR MANAGER JUDICIAL COUNCIL $161,517.25
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/statepay/#storylink=cpy
wearyant
February 7, 2014
CRUEL post, General! Now I’ll have to partake of my Grey Goose to ease the pain — that I bought with MY money, unlike those who earn the big bucks! Isn’t it ironic that the tax payers foot the bill for these bozos’ retirement! Methinks the bozos should budget their own retirements into their own spending categories ….
Wendy Darling
February 7, 2014
A number of the people on that list, Ant, are getting those big bucks for nothing else than being a highly-paid bully on behalf of the AOC and judicial branch “leadership.”
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
February 7, 2014
Doing the Grey Goose here at home as well.
:;)
Wendy Darling
February 7, 2014
More waste of public money – for every single one of them.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
sharonkramer
February 7, 2014
K. Do I have this correct? J CLARK Kelso FEDERAL COURT CONSULTANT JUDICIAL COUNCIL receives a salary of $280,003.92. In his capacity as a federal consultant for the Judicial Council, he is the Receiver of the Prisons. He helps to force Brown to have to privatize California prisons under threat of being in contempt of federal courts.
http://www.cphcs.ca.gov/about_bios.aspx
JC employee, Receiver Kelso, has each of California’s 33 prisons’ chief executive officers (CEO) for health care reports to the Receiver. The CEO is the highest-ranking health care authoritsnrnia Deparmsnkent of Corrections and Rehabilitation adult institution. A CEO is responsible for all aspects of delivering health care at their respective institution(s).
The CEO is also responsible for planning, organizing and coordinating health care programs at one or two institutions and delivering an efficient health care system that features a range of medical, dental, mental health, specialized care, pharmacy and medication management, and clinic services.
Serving as the Receiver’s advisor for institution-specific health care policies and procedures, the CEO manages the institution’s health care needs by ensuring that appropriate resources are requested to support health care functions, including adequate clinical staff, administrative support, procurement, staffing and information systems support.
http://www.corizonhealth.com/Corizon-News/connections/california-dreaming-for-corizon
And Brave New Films makes a short documentary of the multi-billion dollar prison health care system, that fleeces the taxpayer. http://www.bravenewfilms.org/_meet_the_medical_company_profiteering_off_prisons
sharonkramer
February 7, 2014
I’m trying to figure out what the federal connection is, that makes the JC/AOC untouchable by California politicians.
MaxRebo5
February 7, 2014
I’m not aware of any federal connection and honestly don’t think there is one. At the state level though I do believe the branches do play politics with checks and balances to get what they want. For example, the Chief Justice wants more money for the judicial branch. She needs the Governor to get that done for her. The Governor needs a panel of appellate court judges to approve his bullet train plan. He needs her to get that done for him. That’s politics and things like that can be settled at a private meeting 100% off the record. Least, that’s my outside opinion. This is why there is no need to panic at the AOC. They know for the most part they are very safe politically whenever the other branches want to get something done (bridges, water tunnels, you name it). They are the pork needed to greese the wheels.
I think another factor on why the Legislature does not do more to audit the branch is some of them think becoming a judge is a good safe landing after they term out. Why make enemies with a potential future employer? Many here have mentioned Steinberg could be headed to be a part of the branch or look at Calderon now seeking to be an LA Judge.
http://www.metnews.com/articles/2014/elec020714.htm
Don’t Legislators only make like $95,000 a year so a judgeship is $178,000 and that’s not a tough choice especially if they can’t stay in their seats due to term limits.
It is Friday (which is hopeful) so I will end with a joke I read. It’s sorta cynical and you may have heard it but it was new to me. A sense of humor helps when waiting patiently for the world to change:
An attorney passed on and found himself in Heaven, but not at all happy with his accommodations. He complained to St. Peter, who told him that his only recourse was to appeal his assignment. The attorney immediately advised that he intended to appeal, but was then told that he would be waiting at least three years before his appeal could be heard. The attorney protested that a three-year wait was unconscionable, but his words fell on deaf ears. The lawyer was then approached by the devil, who told him that he would be able to arrange an appeal to be heard in a few days, if the attorney was willing to change venue to Hell. When the attorney asked why appeals could be heard so much sooner in Hell, he was told, “We have all of the judges.”
I think it’s an old joke so likely doesn’t apply to ACJ members. Thanks JCW for the forum.
wearyant
February 7, 2014
“A sense of humor helps when waiting patiently for the world to change”
Thank you for that wise comment, MaxRebo5! LOL!
sharon kramer
February 7, 2014
Max, I know you are right with your evaluation of this being a state problem. But I also know there IS a connection which stops federal intervention. (I can prove that in five acts which occurred between Oct 2006 and Feb 2007 on a state and national level)
I get the state money and power grab part. Just looking for that missing piece of the federal motivation to allow this to continue. I think it has to do with making money in the state and on a national level from frauds in various aspects of health care; and the JC/AOC being the linch pin.
And loved your joke!
Wendy Darling
February 7, 2014
“This is why there is no need to panic at the AOC. They know for the most part they are very safe politically.”
You truthfully see the landscape for what it is, Max Rebo 5. In fact, AOC “leadership” openly brags about this reality, stating time and time again “We can do whatever we want”
And as for members of the Legislature looking for a soft landing in the judicial branch after they term out, don’t forget to add the ultimate Legislative brown-noser for Queen Feckless & Company, Noreen Evans, to the list of judge wannabes when she terms out. Evans has made no secret that she is expecting to be placed on the bench after she leaves the State Legislature. And getting on the bench is attractive for another reason – of coarse, having to do with money – it keeps them in the State retirement system.
I’m certain that none of the judges in the ACJ are going to hell, but I am equally certain that many of their colleagues from 455 Golden Gate Avenue already came from there.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
February 7, 2014
Oh my, can we all say “audit”? Published today, Friday, February 7, from The Recorder, the on-line publication of CalLaw, by Cheryl Miller:
Quote of the day: “”Until we know what the assembly member is exactly interested in, it’s hard to know how to respond,” Jasperson said.
Note to Cory Jasperson: The assembly member is interested in knowing where all the money disappeared to. Start there.
Lawmakers Want Data Protections … and Maybe an AOC Audit
Cheryl Miller
SACRAMENTO – State lawmakers are diving into the data-breach controversy. The Assembly judiciary and banking committees have announced a joint hearing Feb. 18 at the Capitol to discuss consumer data security after the recent high-profile attacks on Target and Nieman Marcus.
“The hearing will aim to uncover how the recent invasive data breaches occurred and how we can proactively protect Californians from attacks on their personal information,” Banking Committee Chairman Roger Dikinson, D-Sacramento, said in a prepared statement. “We must find a reasonable way to increase consumer privacy, ensure appropriate fraud and identity theft protection, and safeguard against the exploitation of personal information,”
Federal Trade Commission Chairwoman Edith Ramirez recently called on Congress to pass legislation that would allow the FTC to seek civil penalties from companies that don’t do enough to protect customers’ personal information.
For months, the Alliance of California Judges has been clamoring for an audit of the state Administrative Office of the Courts. It looks like the organization of dissident jurists may get its wish.
An aide to Assemblyman Reggie Jones-Sawyer confirmed on Thursday that the Los Angeles Democrat is considering submitting a request—aimed at the judicial branch—to the legislative committee that authorizes audits. The deadline to do so is Tuesday.
The Jones-Sawyer aide said the assemblyman hadn’t decided what area the audit should focus on. But the ACJ has publicly suggested a review of “all funds administered by the AOC” as well as the branch’s construction program to “restore the judiciary’s credibility.”
Cory Jasperson, the Judicial Council’s chief lobbyist, confirmed that he and administrative director Steven Jahr recently met with Jones-Sawyer to talk about the audit request but left the meeting unclear about what information the assemblyman is seeking.
“Until we know what the assembly member is exactly interested in, it’s hard to know how to respond,” Jasperson said.
Jasperson noted that the AOC and the trial courts are regularly scrutinized by the Department of Finance, the state controller and the Legislature on both financial controls and spending allocations.
Any audit request must be approved by a majority of members on the Joint Committee on Legislative Audit. The last judiciary-related audit authorized by the panel targeted the now-defunct Court Case Management System. Then-Chief Justice Ronald George unsuccessfully lobbied lawmakers not to approve the audit. But they did, and the resulting scathing report dealt a death blow to the troubled computer system.
Jones-Sawyer chairs the budget subcommittee that oversees the judiciary. Whether or not he decides to pursue an audit, his interest in one suggests that the upcoming round of budget hearings this spring may not be smooth sailing for the courts.
The JLAC is scheduled to consider new audit requests on March 4.
Former assemblyman Charles “Chuck” Calderon confirmed Thursday that he’s running for a spot on the Los Angeles County Superior Court bench. Calderon, now working as a mediator, has filed for judicial office No. 48, which is being vacated by Judge Ronald Sohigan. L.A. Deputy District Attorney Efrain Aceves has also announced his candidacy for the office. Songhai Miguda-Armstead, an assistant supervising deputy city attorney in L.A., has pulled papers to run for the same office although she had not submitted them to the elections department by midday Friday.
Calderon has a long history in state politics. The Whittier resident served in the Assembly from 1982 to 1990, when he was elected to two terms in the state Senate. He returned to the Assembly in 2006, ultimately rising to the position of majority leader before terming out in 2012.
“Having dedicated myself to public service, I’m not ready to stop,” Calderon said Friday about his decision to pursue a judgeship. “I’m not ready to retire.”
It was as majority leader that Calderon introduced legislation, AB 1208, to shift significant decision-making authority from the centralized judicial administration in San Francisco to individual trial courts. The bill launched a contentious battle with Calderon and some trial court judges on one side and Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye and branch leaders on the other. The bill passed the Assembly in 2012 but was ultimately scuttled by Senate President pro Tempore Darrell Steinberg.
Calderon said he’s still interested in judicial administration and funding issues but only “to the extent that I want a court system that is available to the state of California. … That won’t be the main reason I’m running for the bench.”
As to why he did not seek an appointment from the governor, Calderon called the process slow and noted that his brother, state Sen. Ron Calderon, D-Montebello, is embroiled in a federal investigation focused on his alleged acceptance of thousands of dollars from an undercover FBI agent seeking votes and favors. Charles Calderon has not been implicated.
“I didn’t want to put the governor in that position, and I decided to put the question directly to the people,” he said.
Calderon added that he’s not afraid potential voters will tar him with the accusations made against his brother.
“We’ve been around enough in the community for people to know who we are,” he said.
Charles Calderon’s son Ian was elected to the state Assembly in 2012.
Filing for Judicial Office No. 48 closes on Monday.
http://www.therecorder.com/home/id=1202642175612/Lawmakers+Want+Data+Protections+hellip+and+Maybe+an+AOC+Audit%3Fmcode=1202617072607&curindex=0
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
February 7, 2014
A banner news day for Queen Feckless and 455 Golden Gate Avenue. Published today, Friday, February 7, from Courthouse News Service, by Bill Girdner:
Press Corps Blasts Judicial Council Rule for Open Committee Meetings
By BILL GIRDNER
California press groups on Friday blasted the Judicial Council’s proposed open-committee rule as so riddled with broad exceptions that they swallow the rule and allow most meetings to remain closed.
As with other recent rule proposals coming out of the Judicial Council, the press focused on definitions and details that work against transparency.
“The presumption of closure instead of openness guarantees little or no public access,” wrote Jim Ewert, general counsel for the California Newspaper Publishers Association, pointing to a provision that cloaks all rule committees.
“The lack of any standard in this provision allows a chair to use his or her discretion on a whim,” he wrote in public comments submitted Friday. “The lack of standards combined with a complete absence of an enforcement mechanism threatens to make the proposed rules meaningless.”
He emphasized how far the Judicial Council’s proposed rule 10.75 departs from California’s existing laws requiring open meetings by governmental bodies.
The history of the council’s open committee rule is embedded in the sometimes contentious relationship between the Legislature and a Judicial Council that sits atop the flow of billions of public dollars.
In passing the budget that goes into effect in July, the Legislature directed the council to adopt a rule “regarding open meeting requirements” for committees. Governor Jerry Brown then vetoed it, but urged the council to give “greater access” to committees.
The Legislature came back with a supplemental report that accompanied the budget package, saying the Judicial Council was required to submit a report on the implementation of an open meetings rule by the beginning of this year.
The Legislature was specific, saying, “The rule shall apply to any committee, subcommittee, advisory group, working group, task force, or similar multimember body that reviews issues and reports to the Judicial Council.”
“Regrettably, proposed Rule 10.75 falls well short of what was clearly envisioned by this language,” wrote Rachel Matteo-Boehm with Bryan Cave said on behalf of Courthouse News. “Indeed, its current form, except for `budget meetings,’ most meetings of the Judicial Council’s advisory bodies would remain closed.”
Like the open committee rule, a recent series of proposed rules and laws coming out of the Judicial Council have lead to sharp objections from press groups and open government advocates, saying they worked against transparency and public access.
In the fall, the council pushed through a set of e-filing rules that provide court administrators with an excuse to delay access to newly filed public records, dismissing objections from newspaper groups and open government advocates.
A council committee then proposed another measure that would have charged journalists and all members of the public a $10 fee for every file they asked for, which would have made research of court records prohibitively expensive. The Legislature killed the fee proposal late last year, as part of the same budget process that required the council to open committee meetings.
The council came back with the current proposed rule that would keep most committee meetings behind closed doors.
“The exemptions allowing closed meetings threaten to swallow the rule,” wrote Matteo-Boehm for Courthouse News, in public comments submitted Friday. “Except for budget meetings, it is hard to imagine how any meeting would not qualify for at least one of the closed session exemptions.”
Among the rule definitions that would shield the council’s committees from observation and reporting is one saying that only committees created by “formal Judicial Council action” should be open.
Some of the most powerful advisory committees are created not by council action but through appointment by the chief justice. For example, an advisory committee that last month set out a “technology road map” for the courts was created by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, not by formal council action.
So the technology advisory group would remain closed to the press and public, under the proposed rule.
And yet the most controversial series of decisions of the last few years in the administration of California’s courts involve technology, in particular a software project that bled $500 million from public coffers before being shut down last year.
Within the thicket of the rule’s exemptions, the press groups also focused on provision that would allow “circulated proposals” among committee members to stay in the dark.
“This bypass mechanism comes into play whenever an advisory body has considered a proposal ‘but concluded more information was needed’ or whenever the chair decides that ‘prompt action is needed,'” said Matteo-Boehm.
Another provision would allow committees to remain closed where they discuss matters that are not reported to the council. Yet another exemption automatically closes roughly one third of all the committees and advisory bodies.
Another provision prohibits in-person attendance at meetings by journalists and members of the public, making it difficult, at times impossible, to match speakers with names.
The council’s rule would allow any committee to close its doors if it claimed to discuss trade secrets or proprietary information. That excuse has been advanced in the past to hide technology contracts signed by individual trial courts, and to hold back a range of documents and information of public nature.
In addition, the proposed rule would allow closed meetings to discuss non-final audit reports.
“This exception would permit an advisory body to fully participate in the analysis and conclusions of the audit report as it evolved outside of public view,” wrote Ewert for California’s newspapers. “This would defeat the purposes of an independent audit.”
Another exception would allow any discussion of draft reports and rough data to be closed.
“A closed session that permits an advisory body to discuss, deliberate, or act upon draft reports or unverified information would allow unfettered discussion on any subject without limitation and consensus to be reached wholly outside of public view,” said the newspaper publishers association. “This is another example an exception swallowing the rule.”
Finally, in case the many exceptions did not cover a particular committee meeting, there is a catch-all exception.
“Catch-All Exception – California Newspaper Publishers Association believes this section has the potential to swallow the rule that establishes open access to the meetings of these bodies,” said Ewert on behalf of the press corps. “As currently written, there is no outer boundary to this exception and it invites the potential abuse of discretion.”
As the press groups pointed out, even if a meeting failed to qualify for an exception — but was closed anyway — nothing that could be done about it.
The rule has no enforcement mechanism.
Without major changes, said Matteo-Boehm, “Rule 10.75 would do little to alter the status quo. Many, if not most, meetings of the Judicial Council’s advisory bodies will continue to occur behind closed doors, contrary to what was clearly envisioned in the Legislature’s Supplemental Report.”
http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/02/07/65204.htm
In other words, the new “transparency” rule for 455 Golden Gate Avenue is about as transparent as a black hole.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
February 7, 2014
“In other words, the new “transparency” rule for 455 Golden Gate Avenue is about as transparent as a black hole.”
As I pour myself another Vodka Tonic here ya go folks…a Friday Night Freebie…
unionman575
February 7, 2014
Ya gotta love this…woo wee….
😉
http://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/article/20140206/NEWS01/302060006/Budget-woes-threaten-Porterville-Courthouse
Budget woes threaten Porterville Courthouse
Courthouse opened in October
Feb. 6, 2014 |
Written by
Eric Woomer
The doors of the Porterville Courthouse just opened. And now, three months after the first gavel dropped, court officials say a strained budget could close those new glass doors indefinitely.
The state budgets more than $3 billion a year to California courts and Gov. Jerry Brown is proposing an increase this year of more than $100 million. But, with deep cuts in the last five years, court administrators say any more cuts would cripple the court system in Tulare County.
“We are short-handed everywhere you look. We have cut and cut some more,” said Lloyd Hicks, the county’s presiding judge. “If we are cut another $2 million, we would be faced with closing the new courthouse. It’s not something we want to do.”
To be clear, Hicks says the courthouse isn’t closing today or even this year, but with the governor’s budget far from passed in the legislature, the what-ifs are causing great concerns for Hicks and administrators.
“We can’t blindly go in and not plan for the potential of bad,” Hicks said.
While Hicks applauds the $100 million in proposed increases for trial courts, he says far too often the courts have been the first cut before a final budget has passed. Tulare County could get about $950,000 of that $100 million.
The increase, however, doesn’t come close to the state chief justice’s suggested $612 million increase. State Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye says it would take a $266 million increase just to tread water.
The county’s 2013-14 cuts equal more than $1.9 million in revenue reductions, compared to 2008-09, when the cuts began. State courts have been handed $1.2 billion in budget cuts over the past five years.
“We have had five years of cuts. We have tried mightily to mitigate,” Cantil-Sakauye said during a press conference last month. “What has happened, in fact, is we haven’t had enough to mitigate to backfill the impact of the cuts.”
Sakauye proposes in her three-year blueprint for the courts, increases upward of $1.2 billion in the next three years.
Assemblywoman Connie Conway plans on meeting with Sakauye today to discuss options for the courts and further increases in funding, which Conway says she supports.
Furthermore, the $100 million increase comes with strings attached. The state once allowed counties to keep a reserve fund for emergencies. The governor’s proposal, though, takes all but 1 percent of that away from the individual courts and creates a general reserve.
For Tulare County, with a budget of approximately $24 million, that would leave about $240,000 in the bank to deal with an emergency, said Kerrie Stainbrook, the chief financial officer for Tulare County courts.
Not enough, according to court officials.
“An organized society has to have a court system and the state has cut our courts year after year,” said Judge Glade Roper, who handles cases in the new Porterville Justice Center. “You have to have enough to function. They’ve cut 35 employees. That’s not getting rid of the fat, that’s cutting down to the bones and muscles.”
There are currently 31 people employed at the Porterville Courthouse.
It would be devastating to see the Porterville Courthouse close, a project he sat on from the beginning, more than six years ago, Roper said. He spoke at the grand opening in October.
The $93.4 million courthouse features nine courtrooms and many amenities that make heading to the courthouse a little more pleasurable than before.
Currently, there are four courtrooms used, three for criminal and one for civil. Roper says the courthouse has made a huge impact for victims of domestic violence, who no longer have to travel to Visalia to file paperwork.
“I am hearing a lot of domestic violence restraining orders. More than I thought I would,” he said. “If this location wasn’t open, a lot of these wouldn’t be filed. These people would suffer from abuse because they can’t always make it to Visalia.”
There’s no magic number that would cause officials to close the courthouse, Hicks said. But, a $2 million cut would leave the administrators with no choice. The same budget woes caused officials to close the Tulare Courthouse in the summer of 2012.
LaRayne Cleek, the court’s executive officer, said clerks are adapting to the closure and dealing with the increase in customers in Visalia. However, both courthouses have seen budget concerns result in reduction in services, operating times and furloughs.
The courts increased the number of unpaid days from 10 to 12 for the 2013-14 fiscal year. It’s not known if those will continue for the 2014-15 fiscal year. The employees haven’t had a raise in five years.
Hicks and Cleek say with the number of cuts and how deep they’ve been, the courts would have suffered even more without the increased support from law enforcement partners and
AB 109, the state’s prison realignment.
AB109 provides $511,707 to the courts. Additionally, nearly $500,000 comes from law enforcement partners and is used for court services. The AB109 money is used to keep the county’s Pretrial Facility open, which makes it possible to keep the doors open in Visalia and Porterville.
“It’s made a huge difference,” Cleek said.
The county would be in worse shape if that money wasn’t coming in, Hicks says.
“If we did not have that, we would be in real trouble,” he said. “It would be dire straits.”
The one thing Roper and Hicks hope not to see is fee increases. The court collects money from everything from traffic tickets to criminal assessment fees. Those fees, which range from $10 to hundreds of dollars for traffic citations, were increased just last year. But Hicks says the reality is that many can’t afford to pay.
“These fines are so high, people can’t afford to pay them now,” Hicks said.
unionman575
February 7, 2014
And now on the heels of that—there is more here:
http://www.insidebayarea.com/bay-area-news/ci_25070205/dublin-new-alameda-county-courthouse-getting-closer-reality
katy
February 7, 2014
Judicial Deceit
http://www.judicialdeceit.com/
A Book by Chief Justice Elizabeth A. Weaver (retired) and David B. Schock, Ph.D.
In an unprecedented retelling of modern judicial history, a retired chief justice gives us a glimpse inside the way things have worked at the Michigan Supreme Court.
The book reveals much that has hitherto been hidden from public knowledge. But even at 770 pages, the justice says the tome is “only a little more than the tip of the iceberg.”
The story is told through court documents, internal communications, and detailed interviews. The book also compiles media accounts and other interviews that put the history in context. Through it all is the narrative of the justice who—at great personal cost—led the struggle to let the people of Michigan know what had been going on.
Nathaniel Woodhull
February 8, 2014
“We have had five years of cuts. We have tried mightily to mitigate,” Cantil-Sakauye said during a press conference last month. “What has happened, in fact, is we haven’t had enough to mitigate to backfill the impact of the cuts.”
Ignoratio elenchi, also known as irrelevant conclusion, is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may or may not be logically valid, but fails nonetheless to address the issue in question. (Thanks to John Stuart Mill) I must say that I don’t give Tani credit for making the above statement intentionally; she just likes to butcher the English language, I’m sure another reason why she was eminently well qualified to be Chief Justice).
For those relatively new to the JCW, the J. Clark Kelso “employment” through the Judicial Council was something “arranged” by HRH-1, King George I. In 2008, Kelso was hand-picked to become the receiver for state prisons in a back room deal with Federal Judge Thelton Henderson (this arose from a lawsuit in 2005). Kelso needed to have his “pay” funneled through some entity, so HRH-1 decided it would be the Judicial Council. In this way, Kelso not only gets his exorbitant salary for this job (he is also a professor at McGeorge Law School) but he gets his 100% free benefits and retirement through the Council. Figuring the multiplier for benefits, it is costing us somewhere around $140-160k for his “benefits”. It is remarkable how Kelso lands jobs in Sacramento; appointed interim Insurance Commissioner, Chief Information Officer by Gray Davis and Schwarzenkennedy.
🙂
Lando
February 8, 2014
The Kelso deal is really one of the most remarkable gifts of public funds in branch history. If the Federal District court decided it was right to appoint him to oversee the CDC’s medical care system so be it. I have no problem with that, however they should have paid him with their funds. Even if we accept they pay Mr Kelso’s salary as a pass through, why are we as California taxpayers paying for his retirement? Moreover as the General reports above, he’s getting 100% free benefits. Honestly who but a handpicked group of Crystal Palace insiders at 455 Golden Gate get that ? What authority did King George have and what authority does Queen Feckless have to continue what is essentially a gift of public funds? Only a full and complete audit of the JC/AOC will get to the bottom of this.
Wendy Darling
February 8, 2014
“The Kelso deal is really one of the most remarkable gifts of public funds in branch history.”
Not that it matters, Lando. Gifts of public funds, outright theft, fraud, corruption, an abandonment of ethics, deceiving the State Legislature . . . none of these things matter. Branch “leadership” has far more important things on their mind, like whether or not a judge is a member of the Boy Scouts:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/02/07/65198.htm
You just can’t make this stuff up. Really.
Long live the ACJ.
The OBT
February 9, 2014
Hmm , let us imagine I am a Presiding Judge and the county comes to me and says we want to appoint a recently retired 455 Golden Gate insider as Chief County Administrative Officer. The only thing though is that said insider wants to have a State retirement program as that is the system he has been in all along. I then agree that the County can pay his salary but our state funded court will issue the paycheck so our insider can continue in the state retirement system. In addition I tell the County I won’t require our insider to pay anything to his retirement, ” it will all be taken care of “. Now if I did something like all that, wouldn’t I be “gifting public funds, ” a violation of the Penal Code Section 422 ? Am I missing anything here? How is the Clark Kelso situation any different? Oh I understand the difference is the current give away was sanctioned by HRH-1 and HRH-2. Speaking of gifting money, sounds like the O’Jays classic , For the Love of Money ” Lol.
Wendy Darling
February 9, 2014
“How is the Clark Kelso situation any different?”
Answer: Kelso had/has friends in high places in the judicial branch, who were/are more than willing to ignore the law on his behalf. After all, the rules don’t apply to them, they can do whatever they want, and no one will hold them accountable.
And so far they’ve been right, because that is exactly what has happened.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
February 9, 2014
For the love of money- The O’Jays
😉
wearyant
February 9, 2014
“For the Love of Money”! Great song. Catchy lyrics — and easy to remember! LOL! Nice for singing (under one’s breath) in the hallways of the crystal palace.
Ol’ Kelso almost got a prison built in Camarillo a while back. He finally got run outta town by the angry well-heeled folks who didn’t want that facility in their oasis … but he almost got it done. Touch and go for awhile there.
sharonkramer
February 9, 2014
There is a ton of money in various aspects of privatizing prisons. Associates of the Kock Brothers are playing a big role in it. Kelso played a major role in putting Brown in the position of increasing privatized prisons. Kelso, in the role of Receiver, is now apparently the final decision maker of what private company get the health care contracts.
This wikipedia on ALEC gives a pretty good overview:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Legislative_Exchange_Council
The questions in my mind are:
Why was he being paid by the Judicial Council to perform this federal job?
Who on the JC determined that he would be paid with CA tax dollars to perform this federal job?
What current or past Judicial Council members have profitted from Kelso’s actions as Federal Receiver?
Have there been any timely personal or pension fund stock purchases in the private prison industries?
Exactly why did Brown send a “Big FU” message to Tani in that budget?
sharonkramer
February 9, 2014
I don’t understand this. Where does the $1B in income from the CALIFORNIA PRISON HEALTHCARE RECEIVERSHIP CORP that is headed by Kelso, go?
Brief history on Receiver Kelso and the CALIFORNIA PRISON HEALTHCARE RECEIVERSHIP CORP:
http://blogs.sacbee.com/the_state_worker/2013/09/judge-federal-prison-receiver-can-get-state-pension.html
“The decision by Judge Michael Kenny sides with CalPERS, which said it had vetted an unusual deal between the federal judge who appointed Kelso and the state Administrative Office of the Courts that allowed him to stay in the state pension system. In essence, Kelso is working as a state-courts employee on loan to the federally established California Prison Healthcare Receivership Corp. charged with overseeing the medical care of inmates.”
Its a misnomer that Kelso is employed by the federal government while receiving state pension. Kelso is not “on loan” to a federal agency. He’s working for a corporation that appears to be a pseudo-government entity. CPHRC contracts with private sector corporations to provide health care to prisoners — such as Corizon, another $1B corporation (with stockholders) .
Company Overview: “CALIFORNIA PRISON HEALTHCARE RECEIVERSHIP CORP is in the General Government, NEC industry in SACRAMENTO, CA. This company currently has approximately Over 300,000 employees and annual sales of Over $1,000,000,000.” [THAT’S ONE BILLION] http://start.cortera.com/company/research/k4j1kzs5o/california-prison-healthcare-receivership-corp/
As I understand it, this is a “9199 General Government, Not Elsewhere Classified” corporation. “Government establishments primarily engaged in providing general support for government, which include personnel, auditing, procurement services, and building management services, and other general government establishments which cannot be classified in other industries.”
https://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/sic_manual.display?id=236&tab=description
Where does CPHRC’s $1B go? Who actually owns this corporation?
wearyant
February 9, 2014
If you’re into “silly” today, here’s a link to the latest real estate acquisition by the JC/AOC/CJ.
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/02/08/dumb-starbucks-store-in-los-feliz-providing-a-latte-laughs-for-neighborhood/
Wendy Darling
February 9, 2014
“Dumb Starbucks” & the JC/AOC/CJ: How perfect.
Long live the ACJ.
Delilah
February 10, 2014
Lawmakers Want Data Protections … and Maybe an AOC Audit
Cheryl Miller, The Recorder
February 07, 2014, 03:00 PM
SACRAMENTO –
~snip~
For months, the Alliance of California Judges has been clamoring for an audit of the state Administrative Office of the Courts. It looks like the organization of dissident jurists may get its wish.
An aide to Assemblyman Reggie Jones-Sawyer confirmed on Thursday that the Los Angeles Democrat is considering submitting a request—aimed at the judicial branch—to the legislative committee that authorizes audits. The deadline to do so is Tuesday.
The Jones-Sawyer aide said the assemblyman hadn’t decided what area the audit should focus on. But the ACJ has publicly suggested a review of “all funds administered by the AOC” as well as the branch’s construction program to “restore the judiciary’s credibility.”
Cory Jasperson, the Judicial Council’s chief lobbyist, confirmed that he and administrative director Steven Jahr recently met with Jones-Sawyer to talk about the audit request but left the meeting unclear about what information the assemblyman is seeking.
“Until we know what the assembly member is exactly interested in, it’s hard to know how to respond,” Jasperson said.
Jasperson noted that the AOC and the trial courts are regularly scrutinized by the Department of Finance, the state controller and the Legislature on both financial controls and spending allocations.
Any audit request must be approved by a majority of members on the Joint Committee on Legislative Audit. The last judiciary-related audit authorized by the panel targeted the now-defunct Court Case Management System. Then-Chief Justice Ronald George unsuccessfully lobbied lawmakers not to approve the audit. But they did, and the resulting scathing report dealt a death blow to the troubled computer system.
Jones-Sawyer chairs the budget subcommittee that oversees the judiciary. Whether or not he decides to pursue an audit, his interest in one suggests that the upcoming round of budget hearings this spring may not be smooth sailing for the courts.
The JLAC is scheduled to consider new audit requests on March 4.
Read more: http://www.therecorder.com/id=1202642175612/Lawmakers-Want-Data-Protections-%26hellip%3B-and-Maybe-an-AOC-Audit#ixzz2swh3H4Dk
The OBT
February 10, 2014
Here is a perfect way to end a long day of work. Grab the drink of your choice and type Mark Pulliam and King George into Google. The first entry that comes up will take you to Mr Pullliam’s review of King George’s self important bio about himself. While reasonable people will disagree about some of the political side of the analysis, Pulliam nails it when he evaluates the type of person HRH-1 is and the wreckage he left behind for our branch of government.
unionman575
February 11, 2014
Grey Goose and Tonic
wearyant
February 12, 2014
Here’s a beta website that also noted Mark Pulliam’s article …
http://californiacourtsmonitor.com/
Lando
February 10, 2014
” Illustartion of judicial hubris” , ” how power breeds arrogance”, deeply polarizing chief justice”, “self appointed czar of the courts” and “mean spirited”. I would say this guy Pulliam captured the essence of King George perfectly, right down to his moniker. You can’t make any of this stuff up. Really.
Wendy Darling
February 10, 2014
“Chief is George’s effort to write his place in history.”
Gosh, all these years and I thought that if what you were doing was really important and of real significance, history would write your place in it on its own. I didn’t know that all you had to do was just make it up, assign it your own degree of significance, and – voila – you have written your place in history.
And I just about died laughing at King George trumpeting “his” decision in the 2008 In re Marriage Cases. Even as Ron George was penning the decision in this case, which he would later use to tout himself as a defender of equality and anti-discrimination, his anointed leadership in the AOC was routinely referring to line staff employees by such descriptive terms as “little f*ggots”, “stupid (fill in the ethnic slur) bitch”, various derogatory terms for those who were jewish, muslim, pregnant, and a whole slew of other offensive behavior. All of which Ron George was informed of, did nothing to stop, and saw to it that those who reported this behavior were swiftly punished.
The biggest hypocrite who ever served as Chief Justice for the State of California. But there is still time for the current one, and she is catching up fast.
You just can’t make this stuff up. Really.
Long live the ACJ.
sharon kramer
February 11, 2014
Wow. I would love to see these documents come to light:
“his anointed leadership in the AOC was routinely referring to line staff employees by such descriptive terms as “little f*ggots”, “stupid (fill in the ethnic slur) bitch”, various derogatory terms for those who were jewish, muslim, pregnant, and a whole slew of other offensive behavior. All of which Ron George was informed of, did nothing to stop, and saw to it that those who reported this behavior were swiftly punished.”
Wendy Darling
February 11, 2014
These documents have been filed with many agencies, including in court(s), the State Attorney General’s Office, the State Department of Fair Employment and Housing, the EEOC, and others. Not one of them has done anything with them or about them, and likely never will.
Long live the ACJ.
wearyant
February 11, 2014
I just couldn’t slog through 800 pages of Q and A of the King’s wind. Would anyone tell me, was any mention of his dealing with Angelo Buono memorialized?
katy
February 11, 2014
Haven’t read George’s historical rewrite, but do know this:
“The legal case against Buono was based largely upon Bianchi’s testimony. The case’s original prosecutors from Los Angeles County District Attorney John Van de Kamp’s office moved to dismiss all charges against Buono and set him free.
The presiding judge, Ronald M. George (future Chief Justice of California), denied the motion to dismiss. He refused to release Buono, and he reassigned the case to California Attorney General George Deukmejian’s office.
Buono’s trial would become the longest in American legal history, lasting from November 1981 until November 1983. The trial lasted so long that Deukmejian was elected Governor and Van de Kamp was elected to succeed Deukmejian as Attorney General, so the Van de Kamp-led Attorney General’s office won the case that the Van de Kamp-led District Attorney’s office had declared unwinnable. During the trial, Bianchi, in exchange for a lighter sentence, testified against Buono. The jury convicted Buono on nine counts of murder.
The jury sentenced Buono to life imprisonment, with George commenting that he felt a death sentence would have been the appropriate punishment.
Prison sentence and death
In 1986, Buono married Christine Kizuka, a mother of three and a supervisor at the California State Employment Development Department.
Buono was found dead on September 21, 2002 at Calipatria State Prison. Buono, who was alone in his cell at the time of his death, died of a heart attack.
wearyant
February 12, 2014
Thank you, Katy, for this.
Mrs. Kramer
February 11, 2014
More nonsense from the CJP
February 6, 2014, Letter from CJP stating the matters “were closed in the December 2010 and March 2013 meetings”. http://freepdfhosting.com/d7f607242f.pdf
Oh contraire!
March 5, 2013 Letter from CJP, “Your complaint regarding a separate judicial officer is under consideration. You will be contacted in writing once the commission reaches a decision in that matter.” http://freepdfhosting.com/34124a7eb6.pdf
[I received no notice that a decision was reached by the CJP concerning my complaint of court officers doing a coram non judice CYA for criminal acts of McConnell and Huffman]
February 5, 2014 fax from me which triggered the February 6, 2014 CJP letter. Read the website link they verbally asked for on February 4, 2014 via phone call, and were provided in writing on February 5, 2014. It is regarding CJP members already being sued, personally, for RICO in another matter and their roles in this nine year long debacle involving concealment of falsified material court documents by Huffman, McConnell, Roddy, CJP members, JC members, et. al. http://freepdfhosting.com/77e7a36437.pdf
They asked for it, so I gave it to them! And I’m going to keep giving it to them until they get off their political asses and remove compromised souls from the helm of the judicial branch.
Don’t believe me that I can do it? I don’t really care. I KNOW I can!
Wendy Darling
February 11, 2014
I have always respected her. Published today, Tuesday, Feb. 11, from The Recorder, the on-line publication of CalLaw, by Scott Graham.
After 25 Years, Kennard to Step Down From High Court
Scott Graham
SAN FRANCISCO — Joyce Kennard will retire from the California Supreme Court on April 5, 25 years to the day she began making the improbable seem ordinary.
Kennard was only the second woman to join California’s highest court and its first of Asian descent. Today the court boasts a majority of both, including a chief justice who shares each characteristic.
“Any success I achieved could have happened only in America, a land that encourages impossible dreams,” Kennard wrote in her letter of resignation to Gov. Jerry Brown.
In an interview Tuesday, Kennard, who was raised in an Indonesian internment camp and then the jungles of New Guinea, added, “All that I wanted more than anything else was an education, which I didn’t have.”
Now the longest-serving member of the court, Kennard has educated many a lawyer who’s appeared before her. She quickly developed and maintained a reputation as one of the closest questioners on the court, seldom letting a case go by without several disquisitive inquiries.
Kennard also was known for going her own way. Asked about her legacy Tuesday, she spoke with pride about dissents that prompted legislative action or were later adopted by federal courts. But she also was an essential piece of one of the court’s most famous majorities in its history, the 2008 Marriage Cases decision that gave same-sex couples the right to marry in California, kicking off a wave of similar actions around the country.
Kennard told The Recorder in 2008 that after the decision came down she was touched by letters from people who’d been waiting for the opportunity to marry. But, she predicted then, “With time, people will say, ‘What’s the big deal?’ It’s the same thing today with interracial marriages.”
The 72-year-old justice said she began thinking about retiring after losing some friends to illness over the last few years. She thought “there but for the grace of God go I,” and decided “perhaps it’s time to say good-bye to a terrific court,” staff and colleagues, and spend more time with “long-neglected friends.”
She added that two longtime attorneys on her staff, Pamela Victorine and John Murphy, have just recently decided to step down as well. “It’s hard to replace people I’ve worked with so long and for whom I’ve developed so much respect,” she said.
Kennard’s departure will hand Brown his second opportunity during this administration—and ninth over three terms—to add a justice to the high court. Brown is famously hard to predict on such matters. His 2011 pick of Justice Goodwin Liu was largely unanticipated. Latino groups were disappointed that Brown left the court without an Hispanic justice, and no African-American has served on the court for the last nine years.
The Sacramento Bee reported in 2011 that Brown had considered several Latinos for the seat that ultimately went to Liu, including UCLA Law School Dean Rachel Moran, UC Davis Law School Dean Kevin R. Johnson, and Christopher Cameron, a Southwestern Law School professor. Moran had just accepted the UCLA deanship less than a year earlier.
Nor has the court ever seated an openly gay jurist, though Brown’s first and only appointee to the First District Court of Appeal, James Humes, fit that bill, and Brown has recently vetted him for a presiding justice role on the court.
Kennard served in the attorney general’s office and as a research attorney at the Second District Court of Appeal before her appointment to Los Angeles municipal court in 1986. Within three years Gov. George Deukmejian had elevated her to superior court, the Second District Court of Appeal and then the Supreme Court.
During her early years, Kennard often found herself to the left of a majority led by Chief Justice Malcolm Lucas. She was a particularly frequent dissenter in death penalty cases, occasionally finding vindication at the Ninth Circuit.
Kennard also wrote notable majority decisions recognizing a right of action for age discrimination, holding a city vicariously liable for a rape committed by an off-duty policeman, and ruling that Nike’s advertising about its labor practices is commercial speech subject to regulation.
Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar described Kennard as hard-working, conscientious and deserving of some quality time with friends. “She will be greatly missed,” she said.
Kennard said she might do some traveling in retirement. But there’s one thing she knows she won’t do. “It’s pretty safe to say I will not be a rent-a-judge,” she said.
http://www.therecorder.com/id=1202642649174/After+25+Years+Kennard+to+Step+Down+From+High+Court%3Fmcode=0&curindex=0&curpage=ALL
Long live the ACJ.
Judicial Council Watcher
February 11, 2014
Congratulations to Justice Kennard! Enjoy your retirement.
As to our friends in the death star…. we have a developing story………
Delilah
February 12, 2014
Wednesday, February 12, 2014
Courthouse News Service
Legislator Calls for Audit of Court Administrative Office and Council
By MARIA DINZEO
Assembly member Reginald Jones-Sawyer on Tuesday asked the Legislature to audit the 800-strong, San Francisco-based bureaucracy of California’s courts as well as the agency’s boss, the Judicial Council.
“I have a myriad of things that I want an outside audit to look at so we can stop rearranging the chairs on the Titanic,” said Jones-Sawyer in an interview.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/02/12/65326.htm
wearyant
February 12, 2014
Yay! Long live the JCW and ACJ!
I’d like a tee shirt with the deck chairs rearranged on the Titanic …
Lando
February 11, 2014
So Wendy you are absolutely right Justice Kennard is a class act and a Justice who was intelligent. independent, honest and fair. While she isn’t aligned often with Justice Marvin Baxter, it was Baxter who as the Governor’s Appointments Secretary vetted J Kennard. J Baxter also deserves credit for being dedicated to fairness, honesty and principles. Sadly the qualities that have made J.Kennard and J Baxter great Justices have eluded Queen Feckless and King George. I have full confidence that Governor Brown will do the right thing and actually carefully weigh and evaluate a number of excellent candidates to fill J Kennard’s position, something former Governor Arnold failed to do when he let King George dictate the appointment of HRH-2 , Queen Feckless. With any luck our branch Queen will eventually accept responsibility for her massive failings, resign or retire and allow Governor Brown to elevate another smart and independent Justice, Goodwin Liu to the Chief’s position.
The OBT
February 11, 2014
I greatly admire Justice Kennard and will miss her. She is a person of integrity , intelligence and independence. I hope I live long enough to see a California Chief Justice with those same qualities.
Wendy Darling
February 12, 2014
What OBT said.
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
February 12, 2014
Justice Joyce Kennard: a reminder of what the California Judicial Branch once was. And what it might be yet again.
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
February 12, 2014
Justice Kennard also was, and is, a jurist of impeccable ethics, Lando.. Another quality that eludes Queen Feckless and many of her blindly obedient colleagues, as well as the appointed “leadership” of the AOC.
I’m just hoping we don’t get “Justice” Steinberg to fill Kennard’s seat.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
Lando
February 12, 2014
I trust Governor Brown to avoid appointing a hack to the Supreme Court. His appointment of a thoughtful, smart Justice like J Liu is a good sign for the future. Steinberg, a legend in his own mind, hasn’t any of the qualifications for Justice Kennard’s position, unless of course you ask him lol. Thanks to the poor job Queen Feckless has done , I would be confident in predicting none of her entourage, including Steinberg, Evans, Miller or Hull, has a chance to move forward.
Nathaniel Woodhull
February 12, 2014
Members of the bench should come in all shapes and sizes. The last thing that is needed is to have an assembly line cranking out “judicial clones.” A colleague of mine once told me that they looked for three things in a judicial appointment: 1) Someone who shows up; 2) someone who works hard; and, 3) someone with common sense. Politics, for the sake of politics, should stay out of the judiciary. We want someone who listens carefully, then acts thoughtfully.
I may not have always agreed with every decision that Justice Kennard, but she proved herself to be a very good justice. Her background is extremely unique; being of Indonesian, Dutch and Chinese ancestry. Born in Java, she soon lost her father in a concentration camp. She lost part of one leg to cancer. Her mother worked demanding physical jobs for low wages. The two moved to the United States in 1961 so that J. Kennard could pursue her education. She worked her way through Pasadena City College, then USC, obtaining her B.A., M.B.A., and J.D., while maintaining a GPA between 3.94 and 4.0. J. Kennard’s employment history was brief, a couple of years with the Attorney General’s Office followed by four years as a research attorney for the Second District Court of Appeals. Her rise from obscurity to the Supreme Court was nothing short of meteoric and, at the time she was nominated, many eyebrows were raised. She was a Muni judge for about year, then Superior Court Judge for about a year, a brief stint on the Court of Appeals and then onto the Supreme Court. Her rise took all place between 1986-1989, not bad for someone who didn’t graduate from law school until 1974.
For a Supreme Court thought to be almost always “cohesive”, J. Kennard has often been the leading voice of dissent, regardless the issue at bar. She is an intense questioner, demonstrating that she has mastery over the subject matter before her. Whatever the position that she has taken, she demonstrates by her writing that her positions are thoughtful and came about only after a deep personal reflection. In 1990, J. Kennard dissented about 6% of the time, by 1992 that had risen to 25% of the time. At the time, a UC Berkeley law professor described the Supreme Court as “… too monolithic and sheep-like.” One exception to that description was J. Kennard.
I value differences of opinion, if they are reasoned. Joyce Luther Kennard has consistently demonstrated that there is reason behind her opinions. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the content of the opinion, one should respect it, for it is the cornerstone of what makes our representative democracy great.
Whomever Governor Brown chooses to nominate to replace J. Kennard, I hope that he picks someone of equal courage and ability. A person chosen on the basis of merit and their abilities, not that they “look good” on paper, or that they “fit the profile.
Enjoy your retirement Justice Kennard, you deserve it!
Tony Maino
February 12, 2014
In his book, The Nature of the Judicial Process, Benjamin N. Cardozo remarks that in the long run there is no guaranty of justice except the personality of the judge.
How about this personality:
Lacks empathy for others.
Takes advantage of others.
Inflated sense of one’s own worth.
Feels superior to others.
Exaggerates achievements or talents.
Expects constant praise and admiration.
Expresses disdain toward those who are considered inferior.
Becomes angry when others question him or his accomplishments.
The traits above are some descriptive factors in the Narcissistic Personality Disorder. This sort of a disorder was rather common when we were under the rule of Kings, such as the Georges, but, I submit they are a disaster in a modern judicial system.
Let us all help the Governor make sure that this sort of person does not become a Justice of the Supreme Court.
Lando’s and Woodhull’s comments are spot on.
Nathaniel Woodhull
February 12, 2014
Speaking of “spot on”, Tony is 100% correct in the assessment of King George using the criteria under the DSM-V. Looks like HRH-1 also meets the criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder under the World Health Organization’s Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (10th Ed.)
ICD-10’s criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder says the disease is characterized by at least 3 of the following:
1. Callous unconcern for the feelings of others (YUP);
2. Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules, and obligations (YUP);
3. Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, though having no difficulty in establishing them (YUP, throw them under the bus before the focus is on him);
4. Very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including violence (Well, we are all ants on the trail aren’t we???);
5. Incapacity to experience guilt or to profit from experience, particularly punishment (Never made a mistake in his life);
6. Marked readiness to blame others or to offer plausible rationalizations for the behavior that has brought the person into conflict with society. (Did HRH-1 ever blame anyone for anything??? Didn’t he always accept 100% of the responsibility for whatever went wrong with things like let’s say… CCMS?)
Sounds to me like HRH-1 needed to spend a little more time on the couch before he went out to play with other children on the playground. Of course in Switzerland he may not have experienced any actual playgrounds during recesses; and those mean streets of Beverly Hills in the ’50’s, well they speak for themselves. I can just picture Ronnie-Boy, wearing pegged-pants (dry-cleaned and pressed) behind the wheel of his DeSoto Adventurer, lookin’ to rumble. Perfecting the art of becoming a back-stabbing weasel before the others in his class. Do you think he went for the crew cut, or was he more “dangerous” with that greaser comb back look?
Wendy Darling
February 12, 2014
How many narcissists does it take to change a light bulb?
(a) Just one — but he has to wait for the whole world to revolve around him.
(b) None at all — he hires menials for work that’s beneath him.
Additional traits of the narcissist:
Amoral/conscienceless; contemptuous; cruel; cares only about appearances; dishonest; feels entitled; retaliatory; secretive; controlling;
http://www.halcyon.com/jmashmun/npd/traits.html
“Now We Are Six”
http://www.halcyon.com/jmashmun/npd/six.html
“It’s interesting to compare these traits with characteristics of six-year-olds. Narcissists have normal, even superior, intellectual development while remaining emotionally and morally immature. Dealing with them can give you the sense of trying to have a reasonable discussion with a very clever six-year-old — this is an age when normal children are grandiose and exhibitionistic, when they are very resistant to taking the blame for their own misbehavior, while they understand what the rules are (e.g., that lying,
cheating, and stealing are prohibited) they don’t apply those rules to themselves.
If you’re like me, you get into disputes with narcissists over their casual dishonesty and cruelty to other people. Trying to reform narcissists by reasoning with them or by appealing to their better nature is about as effective as spitting in the ocean. What you see is what you get: they have no better nature.”
It explains so much. Really.
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
February 12, 2014
Dear Governor Brown:
Please do not appoint another six-year old to the California Supreme Court. Thank you.
Wendy Darling
Wendy Darling
February 12, 2014
With a tip of the hat to Delilah: Published today, Wednesday, February 12, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
Quote of the day: “ “I have a myriad of things that I want an outside audit to look at so we can stop rearranging the chairs on the Titanic,” said Jones-Sawyer in an interview.”
Legislator Calls for Audit of Court Administrative Office and Council
By MARIA DINZEO
(CN) – Assembly member Reginald Jones-Sawyer on Tuesday asked the Legislature to audit the 800-strong, San Francisco-based bureaucracy of California’s courts as well as the agency’s boss, the Judicial Council.
“I have a myriad of things that I want an outside audit to look at so we can stop rearranging the chairs on the Titanic,” said Jones-Sawyer in an interview.
Jones-Sawyer, a Los Angeles Democrat, heads the budget subcommittee on public safety that recommends the overall budget for California’s courts, a budget that has been subject to massive cuts in recent years. Los Angeles Superior Court, the largest court in the nation, has been forced into an extensive reorganization while the staff has been cut from about 6,000 to roughly 4,000 employees.
The assembly member requested an audit of the Administrative Office of the Courts, the controversial and powerful bureaucracy that sits over the local courts, by filing a letter with the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. Prior to sending the letter, Jones-Sawyer had been receiving visits and boxes of information from administrative office officials.
He said the first ever independent and outside audit will be aimed at the budgets of the Administrative Office of the Courts and the governing Judicial Council to make sure the agency and its leadership are making the most of every dollar.
“This is not a punitive or ‘I got you’ audit. There are a lot of people that have a lot of beliefs and an independent audit will put to bed what is really happening,” Jones-Sawyer said. “The audit will help me find out a better way of spending the money. It’s not about people making assumptions, it’s about answering questions.”
The audit was welcome news for state trial judges who have been meeting with Jones-Sawyer since budget hearings concluded last year.
“This all comes down to transparency,” said Judge Susan Lopez-Giss in Los Angeles. “This is what we want to see, if in fact the money that is being allocated is being used in the appropriate way and maximized so that courthouses can stay open.”
Judge Steve White in Sacramento said the priority for the use of public money should be the funding of the courts themselves that resolve the disputes and perform the many legal functions that affect the lives of Californians.
“If there ever as an operation that screamed out for an audit, it’s the continued current level of funding for the administrative operations of the branch, the AOC and the Judicial Council,” said White. “Neither the legislature or the Department of Finance has any clear understanding of how the AOC administers its funding internally.
If the legislative audit committee accepts Jones-Sawyer’s request, the audit will be conducted by State Auditor Elaine Howle, who three years ago found extensive fault with the AOC’s mismanagement of a massive statewide software project for the courts, called the Court Case Management System.
Trial judges for years had attacked the enormous amounts of public funds — totaling more than a half-billion dollars — being spent on the software project, while the courts were in the middle of a financial crisis. The Judicial Council pulled the plug on the CCMS project in 2012.
But the administrative office and the Judicial Council that worked with the bureaucracy had developed a spendthrift reputation with the Legislature based on a series of policies.
The administrative office had ballooned from a small corps of support staff for judges to a 1,000-strong behemoth that seemed to have its own agenda, high salaries, recurrent raises, well-appointed offices, an insular and opaque process and what trial judges characterized as an arrogant attitude towards the local courts.
Among the policies that brought censure from the Legislature was a pension system that rewarded the top 30 employees with a 22% pension contribution from public funds with no match on top of already bloated salaries, criticized in a report by an evaluating committee of judges.
While the courts were in financial crisis and laying off staff, a large majority of administrative office employees were given a 3.5 percent pay raise in 2010 and another 3.5 percent raise in 2013.
The staff size has been trimmed in the last couple years but, according to statements at a Judicial Council meeting in 2012, still numbered more than 800.
The Legislature also criticized the lack of transparency at the administrative agency and the council evidenced by an attempt last year to impose a $10-per-file fee on any member of the public or press who wanted to research court records, as well as the secrecy with which the council conducts committee meetings that make policy recommendations.
Jones-Sawyer says the AOC so far has largely cooperated with his requests for financial documentation and internal audits.
“I’m looking at eight binders of Judicial Council audits and legislative reports,” he said. “They’ve been really helpful in giving me all the audits that have been done on a regular basis. From what I can tell they’ve been hitting the mark on being in full compliance so far, based on a criteria they are supposed to meet.”
He said a decision by the Legislature in 1997 unifying California’s trial courts under one statewide-funded system may be a fundamental part of the problem.
“We’re locked into these state governmental bureaucracies. Is that inhibiting then from doing their best work? Do we need to look at the structure of the AOC and the Judicial Council, is there a better way of managing it? If you look at how we put this together, the courts were put at a disadvantage,” Jones-Sawyer said.
“We consolidated all these courts and brought them up to the state level,” he concluded. “We did it overnight and I don’t think we thought it all the way through.”
Lopez-Giss in Los Angeles pointed out that Jones-Sawyer’s district in South Los Angeles had suffered directly from the budget cuts and his constituents have a great interest in how the courts are funded.
“We have enormous respect for his desire to keep courts open,” the judge said. “His district has been hit hard. All the funds that could be available to every county should be available and he understands that. We have confidence he’s going to time this and do this in an appropriate way.”
In Sacramento, White said the court bureaucracy’s budget has been anything but transparent and is highly deserving of a careful audit.
“The budgets for the AOC and the Judicial Council are rather conclusory and general by way of title and it’s unclear on what money is being spent on and what the priorities are,” said White who is president of the Alliance of California Judges. “Even if there wasn’t evidence of bad practices and mismanagement in the AOC, which there has been, this would be a smart thing to do at this time.”
He added that many of the legislators, when they confer with the leadership in both houses, express concern with funding for the trial courts. “Getting resources to the courts, not the AOC, not the Judicial Council, is on their top three list. It’s way up there. One way to address that would be to get an audit.”
On behalf of the Alliance, White sent a letter last month to Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, urging her to support an audit. While he did not hear back from the chief justice, she did meet with Jones-Sawyer.
“I had some initial discussion with the chief justice,” said the assembly member who applauds her three-year plan to restore $1.2 billion to the judiciary. “I love her three-year plan, it’s a great beginning.”
But he also said the audit will determine whether the judiciary actually needs a full $1.2 billion or if money can be saved by looking at the administrative office budget.
“Part of it is accountability, most of it is transparency,” Jones Sawyer said. “We just can’t throw money at it. We have to use this money wisely and efficiently so we get the most bang for our buck.”
“If it’s status quo, and you’re just rearranging the chairs on the Titanic, you’re not making it better,” he continued. “Whatever we give you, what efficiencies will you get from that? The only way both the legislature and the governor’s office will buy into that is if they come back with specific, tangible results as to what that money will actually be used for.”
White said the absence of an independent audit of the AOC is unusual for a state agency, but that lean financial times demand a departure from the status quo.
“State departments generally would never get away with the superficial and non-transparent accounting of expenditures like the Judicial Council and AOC does,” said the Sacramento judge. “The reason why it has been different is we are a separate branch of government. And in flush times, before the recession, nobody much cared because there was money to appropriate.”
“But when it became clear there wasn’t enough money to run the courts, then it mattered,” White concluded. “I would say it always mattered, but it matters in a compelling way when you have people driving four to five hours to get to a courthouse because of closures.”
http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/02/12/65326.htm
Karma is a bitch.
Long live the ACJ.
wearyant
February 12, 2014
Gee, I wonder where Jones-Sawyer picked up the expression of rearranging the chairs on the Titanic? 😀 😀
There’s a spring in my step today …
unionman575
February 13, 2014
Us here on JCW.
😉
wearyant
February 12, 2014
“Well, we are all ants on the trail aren’t we???”
————————————————————-
Crunch, Crunch, go the boot heels on the trail. Problem solved. 😀
katy
February 12, 2014
Bravo for Legislator Jones-Sawyer! Wonder who the first person will be to get thrown over-board from the Titanic as the sacrificial excuse for the root of the problem?
Judicial Council Watcher
February 12, 2014
Regrettably it doesn’t work that way at the judicial council. Whatever you would expect to happen, turn 180 degrees and that’s what will happen.
The incompetent are showered with conference centers and office complexes named after them and promoted to management ranks.
Delilah
February 12, 2014
>>Regrettably it doesn’t work that way at the judicial council. Whatever you would expect to happen, turn 180 degrees and that’s what will happen.
The incompetent are showered with conference centers and office complexes named after them and promoted to management ranks.<<
Amen to that, JCW. Night=day, down=up, obfuscation=transparency, lies=truth, incompetence= leadership, criticism=accolades, on and on ad nauseam. Truly to the point of nausea. I don't even need a bucket anymore. I have the dry heaves.
Wendy Darling
February 12, 2014
“Outside audit” by the Bureau of State Audits = an independent investigation.
In another note, the shredders were awfully busy today, more so than usual, at 455 Golden Gate Avenue, especially on the 5th floor and in accounting. But I’m sure that’s just another one of those magical coincidences.
Long live the ACJ.
Lando
February 12, 2014
My guess is that this well thought out audit proposal has the insiders at the Crystal Palace in a state of panic. They are going to have a lot of explaining to do in areas pertaining to pensions, courthouse construction, ever changing staffing numbers , use of consultants, $ paid to the Center for State Courts, perks of all kinds, the Shapiro fund, Mr Kelso’s retirement fund for work having no relationship to the trial courts, the failure to move to Sacramento, the Long Beach courthouse lease deal, and lots more we have no idea about yet. Expect Queen Feckless and her minions to do what HRH-1 did regarding the CCMS audit proposal, fight it at every turn. Everyone here needs to please contact their legislators and respectfully urge them to support this reasonable proposal to let some light into the dark and dank hallways of 455 Golden Gate. It is the only way any real branch reform may ultimately occur.
The OBT
February 12, 2014
How ironic is it that Queen Feckless and chief minion J Miller always claim how they have reformed and made more transparent the Judicial Council and AOC. If they truly believe that mantra, then they should be the first to agree to a full audit of their operations at both the Judicial Council and AOC. If they have made the reforms they claim wouldn’t an independent audit support their contentions ?. Yet for some reason they have failed to join in and support an audit. I’m pretty sure we know what those reasons are. In fact I am also pretty sure they will personally roam the halls of the Capitol to derail any proposed audit claiming like Kevin Bacon in Animal House that ” All is well”. As my Mom used to say ” the chickens always come home to roost”. After a full and complete audit, those chickens will be roosting right over the roof of Queen Feckless’s Crystal Palace and real reform and transparency will finally follow.
wearyant
February 12, 2014
Oh, The OBJ, did you make a typo on the above post? Shouldn’t it be, “The chickens always come home to ROAST”? 😀
Wendy Darling
February 12, 2014
Oh, dinner! Does Grey Goose go with roast chicken?
Long live the ACJ>
Wendy Darling
February 12, 2014
No worries, OBT. Haven’t you heard? Things are “great” in the branch.
Just “great”.
Long live the ACJ.
The OBT
February 12, 2014
So true Wendy. All is great since Queen Feckless, J Miler and J Hull ” reformed” and made more ” transparent” everything. Lol. All legends in their own minds. The reality is they have “never failed to fail because it’s the easiest thing to do “.
sharonkramer
February 13, 2014
“Everyone here needs to please contact their legislators and respectfully urge them to support this reasonable proposal to let some light into the dark and dank hallways of 455 Golden Gate. It is the only way any real branch reform may ultimately occur.” Excellent suggestion, Lando.
According to the article, “The assembly member requested an audit of the Administrative Office of the Courts, the controversial and powerful bureaucracy that sits over the local courts, by filing a letter with the Joint Legislative Audit Committee.”
Here is the contact info for this committee:
http://legaudit.assembly.ca.gov/
unionman575
February 13, 2014
http://www.pe.com/local-news/riverside-county/riverside/riverside-headlines-index/20140212-courts-chief-justice-urges-inland-attorneys-to-fight-for-funding.ece
COURTS: Chief justice urges Inland attorneys to fight for funding
BY RICHARD K. De ATLEY
STAFF WRITER
Published: February 12, 2014; 09:53 PM
California Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye urged Inland attorneys to lobby local legislators for funding to bring the area more judges, and pushed back on criticisms that the state court system is solely responsible for its financial straits.
The Inland counties, where populations grew past 2 million each in the past decade, have the worst shortage of judges in California.
“Here in the Inland Empire, San Bernardino and Riverside, you need more judges. There is just no possible way to continue this caseload without more judges; more judges means more staff; it means more funding,” Cantil-Sakauye said Wednesday, Feb. 12, to a gathering of attorneys and judges at the Mission Inn in downtown Riverside.
A 2012 assessment says Riverside County has 76 judges, but needs 138. San Bernardino County has 84, but needs 156. The assessment was based on analysis of three years’ worth of filings and workloads in California’s 58 counties.
Cantil-Sakauye told the audience of attorneys and judges that the Inland area legal community is “one of the hardest-working communities I have ever known; you’re innovative with what you do with less.”
She said one of the challenges in the fight to restore funding is one of perception.
“There is a presumption, somehow, in the capitol in Sacramento that the judicial branch is where it is now, with courtrooms closed and less services … because somehow, somehow, we mismanaged ourselves into the situation,” Cantil-Sakauye said.
“I have to remind them, ‘You took $1.5 billion from us,’ that’s how we’re here … If you ask me, we have done a remarkable, miraculous job of keeping the doors open when you took $1.5 billion from the judicial branch,” she said to applause in the room.
The chief justice did not specify the source of the criticism, but in 2012 the California Judicial Council voted to halt development of a statewide court computer system that some critics claimed consumed $500 million during years of tinkering that brought it no closer to operation.
Though the project started years before Cantil-Sakauye was nominated and elected chief justice in 2010 — and it was her administration that ended it — the failed program has been a lingering criticism, even as cuts during the Great Recession far outdistanced the amount spent on the computer program.
Gov. Jerry Brown has proposed a $3.3 billion court budget for fiscal 2014. Cantil-Sakauye has said that Brown’s proposed budget for the state court system is $266 million short of what is needed for the system to stay even. The system needs an additional $612 million in fiscal 2014 and an additional $1.2 billion over the next three years to restore it to full functionality.
She said when she visits lawmakers with Riverside-based Associate Justice Douglas Miller of the 4th District Court of Appeal, who is also chair of the California Judicial Council’s Executive and Planning Committee, “We know full well that in their minds they are thinking about people who need wheelchairs and people who need dental work and children who need better education,” she said, noting, “I am not here to disparage any single cause.”
“But the argument we try to drive home … is that the judicial branch is not another partner; we are not another entity, we are the predicate for democracy in California, and that all the rights and things you give to all these worthy causes would mean nothing if there is no justice,” she said.
The chief justice addressed a gathering of the Inland chapter of the Leo A. Deegan American Inn of Court. Her comments came as part of question-and-answer exchange conducted by Riverside County Superior Court Judge Jackson Lucky. The questions came in the form of notes from the audience.
sharonkramer
February 13, 2014
“There is a presumption, somehow, in the capitol in Sacramento that the judicial branch is where it is now, with courtrooms closed and less services … because somehow, somehow, we mismanaged ourselves into the situation,’ Cantil-Sakauye said. ‘But the argument we try to drive home … is that the judicial branch is not another partner; we are not another entity, we are the predicate for democracy in California, and that all the rights and things you give to all these worthy causes would mean nothing if there is no justice,’ she said.”
What does she not understand that those who have averted justice and trashed democracy, are not going to be given more money to continue to do the same?
“Predicate for democracy”. What a slap in the face of the people of California.
wearyant
February 13, 2014
Yeah, Sharon. “… the predicate for democracy …” The quote of the week! What irony! Does the queen need a smart slap upside the back of her head to see it? ;-).
MaxRebo5
February 13, 2014
But the argument we try to drive home … is that the judicial branch is not another partner; we are not another entity, we are the predicate for democracy in California, and that all the rights and things you give to all these worthy causes would mean nothing if there is no justice,” she said.
If the judicial branch is the predicate for democracy how come the Chief’s policy making body for the branch (The Judicial Council) is not democratically elected by the judges in the state? Aparently Tani does not trust the trial court judges to put in their own people? Doesn’t seem very democratic to me. She talks the talk on “democracy” and “access to justice” but is not walking the walk. The Alliance see this and so are the other branches now.
If she is such a fan of democracy how come the leadership is all hand picked by one person and that person is the Chief Justice? How come our Cheir is not reforming the body which she controls 100% before seeking more money? After all, that body wasted quite a bit of taxpayer money.
Oh, and on the issue of the money. It was the Judicial Council’s position to push for more bond funding (5 billion dollars) and the branch got it. The undemocratically appointed judicial council of Ron George wanted and received money for courthouses and for a massive computer system. Most of that money on the computer system was wasted ($500 million) before the other branches shut it down (very different from shut down from within).
The Judicial Council wanted new courthouses for $5 billion, a computer system for $2 billion, 150 new judgships over 3 years, and of course all the money for the 1,000 AOC staff to the Judicial Council in San Francisco. The recession came and this was simply imposible
for the taxpayers to maintain. It was not sustainable in the boom years let alone in the years when the tax base contracts as they should have known right after the dot com boom bust.
The Judicial Council then let the trial courts get cut to shreds with over 2,000 employees laid off. They were not willing to trade the money for new courthouses to save their own workers. I got one of those pink slips. That’s why the Judicial Council is such a poor policy making body. It is a group of cheerleaders who never push back when the Chief Justice wants to do irresponsible stuff. They never said to Ron George if you go this route what about employee jobs, raises, or pension funding. We can’t let you do this. All the votes were unanimous. That is not democracy!
They act like the other branches have to come up with the money as everything the branch wants is vital. It’s very childish and I don’t blame the other branches for checking the judiciary as it had to learn this is real money you are playing with.
But the Chief is fake in her victim like plea for the other branches to be taking money from the courts. That’s their right. They should do just that especially when the Chief is not humble about mistakes but was/is outright defiant. Recall she gives out an award in the name of Bill Vickrey who Ron George just said was responsible for the CCMS failure in his memoirs. I don’t think it is right for people who are forced to resign by their sister branches to be receiving awards for excellence in judicial administration named after them let alone a judicial council conference center in Vickrey’s honor.
Lastly on the money. The branch wasted a lot of the construction money too with the very expensive Long Beach courthouse which was also criticized by the other branches. So maybe come clean about the mismanagement. This victim message of the other branches taking from you is weak. You deserved to be cut. Admit the mistakes of the past, clean house, shut down the AOC and redirect the money to local courts, and then you’d be right to say the branch has done all it can and needs more money. Till then everyone can see you are just playing politics.
wearyant
February 13, 2014
It had to be said and MaxRebo5 said it all very well. Also, didy’all notice the queen’s real push for mo’ money for the branch didn’t really get underway until her cheerleaders and sycophants were well taken care of?
sharonkramer
February 13, 2014
K. I faxed my letters in support of the need for forensic audit of the JC/AOC
February 13, 2014
California Joint Legislative Audit Committee
Assembly Member Adam C. Gray, Chair
Committee Members
Fax (916) 319-2352
RE: Need for forensic audit of the Administrative Offices of the Courts (AOC) and the
Judicial Council (JC)
Honorable Chairman Gray and Committee Members,
I write to you today to urge your support of an independent forensic audit of the AOC and JC by State Auditor Elaine Howle. As I understand it, Assembly member Reginald Jones-Sawyer, who chairs the Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Public Safety, has recommended the overall audit of California’s courts on behalf of the citizens of California.
Such an audit is needed to assure that the AOC and JC are making the most of every dollar. I have recently read that the AOC has “ballooned from a small corps of support staff for judges to a 1,000-strong behemoth that seemed to have its own agenda, high salaries, recurrent raises, well-appointed offices, an insular and opaque process and what trial judges characterized as an arrogant attitude towards the local courts. The audit will determine whether the judiciary actually needs a full $1.2 billion or if money can be saved by looking at the administrative office budget.”
There is a presumption, somehow, in the capitol in Sacramento that the judicial branch is where it is now, with courtrooms closed and less services … because somehow, they have mismanaged themselves into the situation. An independent forensic audit could help to establish if this presumption is correct. And if so, could assist the JC, AOC and the trial courts to cohesively better manage the judicial branch funds to give the people better access to justice.
While there are many worthy causes demanding the attention of state legislators in the best interest of California citizens, the judicial branch is the predicate for democracy. If there is no equal access to justice in California because of mismanagement of judicial branch funds, all other worthy causes can be adversely impacted.
As such, please grant Assembly member Jones-Sawyer’s request for the Joint Legislative Audit Committee to order a State Audit of the AOC and JC on behalf of the citizens of California. Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Sharon Noonan Kramer
fc: Assembly member Jones-Sawyer [(916) 319-2199 at Assembly Public Safety Committee]
The OBT
February 13, 2014
Amen Max Rebo. You said it all.
Lando
February 13, 2014
I’m not one to criticize the way people speak, but what in the world is Queen Feckless saying about the court system being the predicate to democracy? What does that mean? Since nothing about her management of the California judicial system resembles anything close to a democracy, I sit here puzzled and amazed by her latest comments.
Wendy Darling
February 13, 2014
“What does that mean?”
Answer: Can you say hypocrite, Lando?
Still serving herself to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
sharon kramer
February 13, 2014
The predicate to the courts becoming the predicate for democracy, is a forensic audit. I used her words in my letter to legislators in support of that concept.
“While there are many worthy causes demanding the attention of state legislators in the best interest of California citizens, the judicial branch is the predicate for democracy. If there is no equal access to justice in California because of mismanagement of judicial branch funds, all other worthy causes can be adversely impacted.”
unionman575
February 19, 2014
“hypocrite”
😉
The OBT
February 13, 2014
As the great Jackson Browne wrote: ” Doctor, my eyes have seen the years And the slow parade of fears without crying Now I want to understand I have done all that I could To see the evil and the good without hiding You must help me if you can Doctor , my eyes Tell me what is wrong Was I unwise to leave them open for so long …” Someone please help me understand what is HRH-2 saying in her Riverside speech? ” The courts being the ” predicate of democracy ” Huh what? “Somehow we mismanaged ourselves into this situation ” ? We mismanaged ? How about HRH-2 and her any-democratic hand picked Judicial Council and AOC minions ” mismanaged the branch into this situation.” I think I have been unwise to leave my eyes open for so long. It is painful to watch the continued arrogance of power and denial that is the hallmark of HRH-2 and her out of touch reign that is destroying our once strong and proud branch of government.
Nathaniel Woodhull
February 14, 2014
One of my favorite lines from Being John Malkovich (1999) sums up Tani perfectly:
“Dr. Lester: She’s got her doctorate in speech impedimentology from Case Western.”
Tani’s speeches should all be preserved and cataloged for future generations of study.
Hopefully, the results of the AOC audit will clearly demonstrate the necessity of democratizing the Judicial Council and will result in a grass-roots movement to pursue such a Constitutional Amendment.
Wendy Darling
February 14, 2014
Published Thursday, February 13, from the Daily Journal, by Paul Jones:
AOC could undergo a new audit
Paul Jones, San Francisco Daily Journal, Thursday, February 13, 2014
SACRAMENTO – Another year, another review of the California judicial branch’s beleaguered bureaucracy. Or rather, it will be if lawmakers approve a new push to audit the Administrative Office of the Courts.
Assemblyman Reginald Jones-Sawyer, D-South Los Angeles, who chairs the Assembly’s budget subcommittee on public safety, called for the audit Tuesday. He said the goal of the review would be to examine the office in order to determine how it – and ultimately the entire judicial branch – operates. The request will be considered by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee on March 4.
If approved, the audit would be the branch’s fourth in three years, according to the chief justice.
The latest push to review the office comes after advocacy by the Alliance of California Judges, a group of judges who have long been critical of the administrative office over its alleged inefficiency and lack of oversight by the judiciary. The group has for months been circulating press releases calling for an audit of the office.
Michelle Castro, a lobbyist for the Service Employees International Union, which represents local court workers throughout the state, said the Alliance had approached both her group and Jones-Sawyer.
“The approached us and asked us what our thoughts are,” she said. “We feel there’s a desperate need to reinvest in the trial courts, but the legislators have serious trust issues in the judicial branch. If this audit leads to increased trust and reinvestment, we’re supportive of that.”
Sacramento Judge Steve White, an Alliance leader, said the group hopes an audit would justify shifting funds from the office to the courts. “What an audit would show, and is necessary to show, is which AOC functions are more important than keeping courts open and which are not.”
Jones-Sawyer said the overall point of the audit would be to focus on how to make the office more efficient, not to determine whether the branch is following spending rules. He said he believes the administrative office is in compliance.
“We should work to have the most efficient and effective court system in the U.S.,” Jones-Sawyer said. “The best way to get the ball rolling is to start with the AOC.”
The Administrative Office of the Courts handles everything from court construction projects to implementation of branch policies, but it has drawn criticism from some over the years regarding its allegedly imperious and unaccountable behavior toward local courts. The office suffered a public embarrassment in 2012 when a roughly $600 million case-management technology project was canceled after years of development, a failure that many say sapped legislators’ trust in the office and the branch’s leadership alike.
Later that year, a special committee of judges tasked by Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye to review the office criticized it for inefficiency, bloat and unaccountability.
Jones-Sawyer said legislators feel broadly that courts are underfunded – the branch weathered more than $1 billion in cuts during the recession. But Jones-Sawyer said he wanted to investigate the branch’s stated goal of ultimately securing $1.2 billion in restored funding. The audit request letter asks several questions, including whether the branch is complying with reforms from the 2012 budget that limited how funds could be spent. The audit would also look at what funding currently allocated to the AOC might be redirected to local courts.
Separately, the audit would look at whether a new, 1-percent cap on courts’ reserve funds is “adequate to support trial court operations.” Many judges and other court leaders oppose the cap.
“What we were trying to get is accountability and transparency,” Jones-Sawyer said. “We’re the caretakers of the taxpayers’ money.”
Jones-Sawyer backed an attempt last year to funnel $100 million in new funding to the courts, which resulted in the first budget increaser for the branch in years. But he also pressed the branch to show how the money would be spent on local court operations. Gov. Jerry Brown later reduced the proposed increase to $60 million.
Cantil-Sakauye on Tuesday stopped short of opposing the audit, but she indicated that she and other branch leaders feel the administrative office’s reform is on track and another review would be duplicative.
“A fourth audit in three years? If that’s what the Legislature wants, we will provide it,” she said via email. However, she added, “Our staff – the Administrative Office of the Courts – has been independently evaluated or audited twice in the last three years. . . . this year, the AOC will undergo another independent external financial audit . . . by the Department of Finance.”
Cantil-Sakauye said the Legislature has also been given more than 4,500 pages of audits and reports, including 22 AOC-related audits and 30 reports.
Branch leaders met earlier this year with Jones-Sawyer to voice concerns about the audit request.
Certain details in Jones-Sawyer’s audit-request letter could ruffle branch leaders’ feathers. The letter says the office’s budget grew while court funding shrank. According to the branch, that is the result of an accounting change in how funds are allotted to be spent on services to local courts. The office’s staff has shrunk over the last few years from roughly 1,200 employees to around 795 currently.
Jones-Sawyer said previous audits of the branch weren’t comprehensive enough to allow the review he wanted. He also suggested past audits by the branch itself weren’t sufficiently independent.
“I need someone to step to the side and look at this, and give me what their true feeling is,” he said.
https://www.dailyjournal.com/public/pubmain.cfm?logout=&seloption=&eid=&vid=&CFID=5458964&CFTOKEN=63809008
Long live the ACJ.
wearyant
February 14, 2014
It is disingenuous to say the AOC has been audited three times in the past three years. Shame on the queen for saying this. Perhaps she was misheard over the roar of multiple shredders running …
katy
February 14, 2014
I would like to know who is directing this document shredding fury and how do they know which documents need to be shredded before audit?
I would also hope that any comprehensive investigation/audit of the judicial branch includes the “independent state agency”, the CJP. I think it is pretty much common knowledge that this is the agency which has been used to retaliate against judges who have sounded the alarm of ethics problems in the leadership of the courts.
Also, when you see “Katy”, its Sharon Kramer. I don’t want to log out of wordpress and log back in under my real name because I’m working on a Katy Exposure Blog on wordpress. Katy is a town in Texas. Not a person.
wearyant
February 14, 2014
“Also, when you see “Katy”, its Sharon Kramer. I don’t want to log out of wordpress and log back in under my real name because I’m working on a Katy Exposure Blog on wordpress. Katy is a town in Texas. Not a person.”
===========================================================
Thanks for mentioning this. I thought “Katy” posting here was Katy Grimes.
wearyant
February 14, 2014
AND any shredding that’s been goin’ down at the crystal palace should be found illegal and consequences paid … it is public funds they’re fooling around with. I don’t think the favored few at the top “get” this yet.
Wendy Darling
February 14, 2014
Even if one was to assume that the AOC has been “audited” three times in the past three years, every one of those “audits” have identified serious problems and deficiencies in how the things are being done at 455 Golden Gate Avenue. And yet, nothing has materially or meaningfully changed. It anything, in many ways, things have just gotten worse.
Maybe a fourth “audit” will be the charm.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
courtflea
February 14, 2014
righto Wendy, even with audits no one holds the AOC accountable for anything.
katy
February 14, 2014
Audits typically just say, “You did x,y and z wrong. Don’t do it again.” The audited party promises not to as they make superficial changes and continue on their merry way.
BUT…this audit could be different. The CJ has already received a vote of no confidence via the budget. If she doesn’t clean up the fraud, waste and abuse; she’s going to get the same vote again.
So while no person will be punished for misconduct from the audit (they never are); seems there could be huge monetary consequences with this one if the directives are not adhered to. (assuming its going to happen)
wearyant
February 15, 2014
Oh — and, Katy, shredding went on furiously before, during and after the CCMS audit, too (my understanding, I’m happy to be corrected, if wrong) and the JC/AOC/CJ apparently chose the route of “oh, no such report, document, paper exists,” if inquiries were made of the *missing* papers, documents, papyrus, whatever. It looks like the shredding worked for them. The AOC pleaded ignorance; that works for them. They have gone with, “run with it, apologize later,” and it has worked for them. Someday perhaps the infractions, misdemeanors, and felonies will start stacking up so high, they won’t be able to dodge, weave, bamboozle, feign or disambiguate any longer. 😀
Look at the so-called CCMS contract; with all the blackouts and line-outs that the JC/AOC/CJ have put in, it’s incomprehensible. That makes the contract just so much more iinteresting and enticing! And this contract was paid for with public funds!! Someday we’ll all get to see it in its pure form. Some fine day.
Wendy Darling
February 15, 2014
I believe the phrase used in the BSA audit report regarding CCMS was “incomplete or missing records”, and variations thereof.
Long live the ACJ.
wearyant
February 15, 2014
http://www.mintpressnews.com/after-years-of-budget-cuts-access-to-california-courts-in-doubt/179297/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CaliforniaCourtsNewsLinks+%28California+Courts+NewsLinks+RSS+Feed%29
——————————————————————————
A scary string ! But there’s a nice picture of Judge Ito working in a closed courtroom at counsel bench with paperwork all spread out in semi-darkness … I wonder if he ever bought one of those CCMS tee shirts with Titanic overtones. I want one!
katy
February 16, 2014
Disgusting statements in that article. The CJ needs to quit whining about not being given more money to waste and start figuring out how to get rid of the rift-raft in the inner-circle that got us into this mess and keeps us here. 2.13.14 “Notice of Intent to Sue Commissioners on Judicial Performance for Racketeering with McConnell and Huffman” http://wp.me/plYPz-3Ia
unionman575
February 16, 2014
http://www.courts.ca.gov/25093.htm
A JC meeting notice on a Friday before a 3 day weekend – nice!
I do appreciate the advance notice of a meeting at a unique time: 10:00 a.m. to 2:20 p.m.
😉
February 14, 2014
Council to Consider Enhancements to Funding Methodology for the Trial Courts
SACRAMENTO—At its public meeting on February 20 in Sacramento, the Judicial Council will consider recommendations from its Trial Court Budget Advisory Committee to make several revisions to the Workload-Based Allocation and Funding Methodology that was originally approved by the council last year at its April business meeting.
The proposed changes would include establishing an absolute funding floor to address unrealistically low funding for rural courts with fewer than 50 employees.
The council’s public business meeting is scheduled for February 20, from 10:00 a.m. to 2:20 p.m., at the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), 2860 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 400, in Sacramento. The council is holding its business meeting in Sacramento, rather than San Francisco, because the meeting will be preceded by a day of council legislative visits at the state Capitol.
unionman575
February 16, 2014
Hmm this different link states: Thursday, February 20, 2014 • 9:00 a.m.–2:20 p.m.
So is the meeting at 9:00 a.m. or 10:00 a.m.
Hello Jahr – have an answer?
😉
JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA MEETINGS
Open to the Public Unless Indicated as Closed (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 10.6(a))
Administrative Office of the Courts • Sacramento Offices
2860 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 400 • Sacramento, California 95833
Thursday, February 20, 2014 • 9:00 a.m.–2:20 p.m.
Wendy Darling
February 16, 2014
Jahr can’t answer. He’s at Starbucks. Correction. He’s at Dumb Starbucks.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
February 16, 2014
Grab your ankles and prepare for CCMS II
Scroll down and see this IT nugget on Page 10:
“A superior court director of information technology suggested that the JCTC membership should include two or three trial court information technology representatives elected by their peers or by the Court Information Technology Management Forum. The committees did not make this change because the JCTC, as a council internal committee, is made up of council members who are appointed by the Chief Justice. “
MaxRebo5
February 16, 2014
All these meetings in Sacramento for the Judicial Council (Chief’s. Cheerleaders) to roam the halls of the Capitol. Seems like a bad use of judge time right there. I suggest getting these judges/justices back in the courtrooms resolving cases if CA Courts are so short on judgeships. The Judicial Council already authorized the creation of a very well financed Office of Governmental Affairs in the AOC that taxpayers are paying big bucks to lobby for the branch. If the public is paying judges to directly lobby then why must taxpayers also pay for professional lobbyist? Seems duplicative and wasteful. We pay for their travel, meals, and hotels to do this lobbying and the time away also prevents them from legal matters or from debating policy issues. Please add this to your audit agenda of the Judicial Council Ms. Elaine Howe. Happy President’s weekend all!
The OBT
February 16, 2014
Counting flowers on the wall, that don’t bother me at all…Smoking cigarettes and watching Queen Tani undermine her rule, Don’t tell me I’ve got nothing to do. Flowers On the Wall Statler Brothers 1969.
Lando
February 16, 2014
Let’s send this one out to Queen Feckless, Jigsaw Sky High, “You’ve Blown It all Sky High, By telling me a Lie” ( Really only one? ) The reality is that they can drag all the people they want to the Capitol and they can roam the hallways all day long but they can never explain away the Shapiro Fund, CCMS. post CCMS denial,( J Bruiners it was a political failure) , Long Beach, massive raises and pension give aways, courthouse closures, Clark Kelso being on the payroll, the rent at the crystal palace, the refusal to adopt anything meaningful in the SEC report, Hull’s blockade of legitimate public information requests , Millers refusal to open 455 Golden Gate to the light of day, the continual hiring of temp workers, use of consultants, and why are over 800 people working at 455 Golden Gate to begin with. These and many more questions can never be answered by the Queen and her entourage.
unionman575
February 17, 2014
Flowers On the Wall Statler Brothers 1969
😉
unionman575
February 17, 2014
And so the budget sword will swing once again when we see the May Revise with no additional $$$ for the Queen and her entourage of liars and thieves.
sharonkramer
February 17, 2014
Add to that list of wrongs: the number of people in this state, who were either employees of the branch/ancillary agencies, attorneys, or litigants; who have been retaliated against when they balked at the various frauds endorsed and/or concealed by Judicial Council members, Commission on Judicial Performance members, and the State Bar — with the AOC having their fingers in ALOT of them. If the AOC is about providing clerical services to the branch, then why do they employ so many lawyers? What do those lawyers really do?
The CJ is publicly promoting that the branch would become an efficient, well oiled machine if she just had access to more tax dollars. In reality it is a slimy, well greased machine that shoud be dismantled and rebuilt for the good of the people — and she has to KNOW it!
wearyant
February 19, 2014
This one is for Hot Rod:
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/Feb/10/courthouse-state-downtown-SOM/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CaliforniaCourtsNewsLinks+%28California+Courts+NewsLinks+RSS+Feed%29#article-copy
Who can argue with “terrorists,” “asbestos” and the threat of an earthquake under the old courthouse? 😉
I know, one small step at a time, first and foremost an AUDIT, full, thorough and exhaustive, by the BSA of the evil empire. But on its heels, get those same people OUT of the building and construction industries!
sharonkramer
February 19, 2014
Gee. Wonder why they don’t mention the four letter word “mold” as being a problem for them? Could it be because they have been committing criminal acts to conceal that mold can cause serious harm to the employees in that court house? This includes Roddy. He is the piece de resistance in the case fixings. I’m saving him for last to show how he took direct measures to conceal material documents falsified by deputy clerks of the court, to cover up that MCCONNEL, HUFFMAN, et al, were making dishonest rulings w/o subject matter jurisdiction while knowing they were aiding naysaying scientific fraud in all U.S. courts.
Report by Michael Roddy, August 12, 2012 to Court Facilities Working Group Judicial Council of California
Administrative Office of the Courts
“Mold Growth. Mold growing in the facility’s six courtrooms was a problem in 2003-2006.
It is currently under control, but the underlying cause has never been determined.”
This is the same time frame that RODDY moved NUGENT to a different court after NUGENT jailed me, coram non judice, for refusing to sign a false confession of libel for the words, “altered his under oath statements” in my 2005 writing of how it became a fraud in policy that it was proven moldy buildings do not cause harm. Skuttle butt among the North County judges was that NUGENT was pissed that he lost his courtroom and was moved to San Diego — after he did the corrupt bidding for RODDY et.al. These people have no business having control of so much taxpayer dollars.
unionman575
February 19, 2014
Tani & Co. make a note to yourselves…There is NO NEW BRANCH FUNDING COMING YOUR WAY…NOT NOW, PERHAPS NEVER…
Time for a new fact check…
http://www.courts.ca.gov/25095.htm?print=1
Judicial Branch Accountability: Audits and Legislative Reports
The Judicial Council and its staff arm, the Administrative Office of the Courts, comply with numerous auditing and reporting requirements.
Since January 1, 2013, the Judicial Council and AOC have provided to the Legislature more than 4,500 pages of audits and reports, enough to fill eight large binders.
External Audits
Judicial branch entities regularly undergo external audits by the California State Auditor, the State Controller’s Office, and the Department of Finance’s Office of State Audits and Evaluations (OSAE).
The Department of Finance: In 2014, the AOC will undergo an independent financial audit by OSAE, in compliance with legislation passed in 2012. This will be the second such independent audit by OSAE in the last three years.
The previous audit, performed at the AOC’s request, assessed the AOC’s fiscal processes, internal controls, procedures, and financial statements. The audit report issued in May 2011 concluded that the AOC’s fiscal controls generally were adequate, and expenditures properly recorded.
The California State Auditor assesses the financial and operational activities and federal compliance by state government entities, including the judicial branch.
Among other things, the State Auditor audits judicial branch entities on implementation of the Judicial Branch Contract Law, passed in 2011. This law contained a number of new requirements for judicial branch procurement and contracting. For example, it requires any judicial branch entity entering a contract costing more than $1 million to notify the State Auditor.
The first audit of trial court compliance with the new judicial contract law was conducted in 2013. The audit evaluated six trial courts and found they generally demonstrated good contracting practices and complied with the law. The contract law requires an audit of every trial court at least once every four years.
The State Auditor is also required to audit the appellate courts, the AOC, and the Habeas Corpus Resource Center on their compliance with the new contract law. The first round of audits has been completed. The AOC is scheduled to be audited biennially starting in fiscal year 2014-2015.
Examples of other recent California State Auditor reports on judicial branch entities:
• Armed Persons With Mental Illness (October 2013)
• Sacramento and Marin Superior Courts (January 2011)
The State Controller’s Office regularly audits court collections remitted to the State Treasurer and their distributions. These audit reports are conducted for each county.
California Technology Agency Reviews
Contracts for information technology projects with total costs over $5 million are subject to review by the California Technology Agency (CTA). Recently, the Superior Court of Orange County informed CTA of a systems development project meeting criteria for CTA review.
Case management system development projects at three superior courts are also currently undergoing CTA review. These reviews involve regular reporting to the Judicial Council’s Technology Oversight Advisory Committee.
Legislative Reports
Beyond audits, the Judicial Council and AOC also report regularly to the Legislature. In 2013, the agency sent the legislature approximately 30 required reports, totaling hundreds of pages. Some reports are due annually, biennially, or quarterly.
All reports to the Legislature are posted on the California Courts website.
Example reports:
• In October 2013, the council reported on all approved allocations and reimbursements to the trial courts. Full report
• In August 2013, the Judicial Council reported on plans by each of the 58 local trial courts to use the $60 million they received in the Budget Act of 2013 to improve public access. The report will be followed up with a final report in May 2014.
• The comprehensive report detailing all judicial branch contracts, submitted twice annually, regularly reaches at least 700 pages. The most recent such report is from February 2014.
Internal Audits
The Trial Court Funding Act of 1997 made the Judicial Council responsible for financial oversight of the trial courts. This law led to establishment of the AOC’s Office of Internal Audit Services.
All internal audit reports are posted to the California Courts website.
Internal AOC unit audits: The Office of Internal Audit Services performs internal audits of AOC units, such as its September 2012 audit of the AOC Facilities Management Unit.
Court revenue audits: By law, all superior courts are audited at least once every four years. These audits ensure compliance with governing statutes, rules, regulations, and policies relating to revenues, expenditures, and fund balances.
Court Construction Program audits: The AOC in 2012 contracted with Pegasus Global Holdings, Inc. to audit the policies and processes used to manage its multi-billion-dollar court construction program. The first audit report was issued in August 2012, and the capital program office is implementing all recommendations. The audit will encompass a multi-year review.
Strategic Evaluation Committee: In March 2011, Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye appointed the Strategic Evaluation Committee (SEC) to conduct an in-depth review of the AOC with a view toward promoting transparency, accountability, and efficiency. The committee’s final report recommended significant changes to restructure and realign the AOC.
In August 2012, the Judicial Council adopted the SEC’s recommendations, creating 151 directives. These directives reaffirmed Judicial Council authority over the AOC, restructured the AOC, and established a plan for monthly monitoring of implementation by the Judicial Council’s Executive and Planning Committee. To date, more than 100 directives have been completed.
February 2014
😉
unionman575
February 19, 2014
😉
wearyant
February 19, 2014
Sounds like a lot of boo-hoo, oh, poor me, so misunderstood are we, at the courts ca gov website. Is that the best the team of one thousand strong can do? Oh, boo-hoo-hoo. Pass me a bucket, please.
unionman575
February 19, 2014
Here ya go Ant:
wearyant
February 19, 2014
Thank you, UMan! Although I thought I might get “Cry me a river” … 😀