The Alliance of California Judges has learned that the AOC is now projecting a dramatic shortfall in the Trial Court Trust Fund for the current fiscal year. Apparently, revenues from fees will fall far short of the AOC’s expectations. According to the latest figures, the AOC’s original revenue predictions were off by $70 million.
This massive shortfall will eat away the bulk of the additional $100 million that the Governor has proposed for the judicial branch, and will require an even greater infusion of money from the state’s general fund just to maintain the status quo.
These bleak budget numbers only confirm the wisdom of the recently authorized audit of the AOC’s operations. Now more than ever, we need to wring every last dollar out of nonessential operations and redirect that money to the trial courts.
The Alliance will keep you apprised of any developments as we learn of them.
Directors, Alliance of California Judges
sharonkramer
March 18, 2014
Seems like erred projection tied to fees would be a simple place to start an audit.
For simplicity, assume all fee errors were tied to the number of traffic tickets and all traffic tickets are for the same amount.
Example: Past tickets of 1,000,000 @ $70 = $70M
Projected tickets of 1,000,000 @ $140 = $140M
Projected increase in revenue = $70M
If the number of tickets decreased by 50%, then net increase in income would be $0.
What was the actual downward change in the number of tickets issued at the higher fees?
Does that add up to a $70M shortfall if one was projecting no downward change in the number of tickets issued?
If it doesn’t, are there other factors that contributed to the shortfall of projected available revenue besides miscalculation of income from fees? Were expenditures also miscalculated?
wearyant
March 18, 2014
“Now more than ever, we need to wring every last dollar out of nonessential operations and redirect that money to the trial courts.”
Couldn’t agree more, ACJ.
JC/AOC/CJ – still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ!
Delilah
March 18, 2014
Oh, but this! Don’t be so critical and glum. Be proud!
http://www.dailycal.org/2014/03/12/california-supreme-court-chief-justice-gives-insight-state-government-students/
California Supreme Court chief justice gives insight on state government to students
Michael Ball/Staff
The Daily Californian
By Jean Lee | Staff
Comment0
Related Posts
other_pizza Need credit? 3 last ditch ways to get your final unit
California Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye spoke to about 600 students on campus Wednesday evening to give insight on her role in state government.
Haas School of Business professor Alan Ross invited Cantil-Sakauye as a guest speaker for his course, Political Science 179, a weekly symposium on local, state and national politics. Ross introduced Cantil-Sakauye — who was also his former UC Davis law school classmate — by sharing how former governor Arnold Schwarzenegger described the chief justice as a “living example of the American dream.”
She was nominated as chief justice in July 2010 by Schwarzenegger and sworn into office in January 2011 — becoming the first Filipina American and second woman to serve as chief justice in the California Supreme Court.
Cantil-Sakauye said before her presentation that she accepted the invitation from Ross to speak at UC Berkeley because she is a “huge fan of civics education.”
“What (civics education) really means is understanding how decisions are made in government, whether it’s local government, state government or national government, so that you can make a difference in your community,” Cantil-Sakauye said.
Cantil-Sakauye then focused on explaining her roles as chief justice in the state Supreme Court and as chair of the Judicial Council of California. She emphasized how she and her colleagues work to ensure that everyone has a fair chance to seek justice.
She brought up one of the programs the Judicial Council created to foster such access, the JusticeCorps, which also involves UC Berkeley students. The Judicial Council created the program to train college students in helping their community members through the legal process.
“We train them, they come and they volunteer in the courts to help people fill out the forms so when they come to court — these folks that may or not be educated — they can have a meaningful day, a real day to fix their problem in front of the judge,” Cantil-Sakauye said. She noted that most of the volunteers in the program are bilingual, a helpful aspect considering that 40 percent of California’s population speaks a second language in addition to English. Twenty-four UC Berkeley students volunteered in the program last year.
After the lecture, UC Berkeley senior Christophe LaBelle said he appreciated her presentation about the basic facts of her position and how the judiciary works in California.
“I was also interested how she talked about the politics of her position but also the challenges of the judiciary (and) what it faces,” LaBelle said.
Ross said he was “thrilled” to give students the opportunity to hear the Chief Justice speak.
“She was everything I could hope for in a speaker — to really captivate the audience the way she did,” Ross said.
unionman575
March 18, 2014
http://publicpay.ca.gov/Reports/State/StateEntity.aspx?entityid=3794&fiscalyear=2012
😉
wearyant
March 19, 2014
WOW! [choke]
Lando
March 18, 2014
In her state of the judiciary address, Queen Feckless pronounced …”we have a strong and admired judicial branch that is only 17 years young “. I guess by our Queen’s reasoning, a highly functioning public service oriented California judiciary, responsive to local needs which existed for hundreds of years, means nothing. The arrogance of this statement is remarkable and astounding. It is almost as if Ron George himself wrote her speech. Her quote from Alexander Hamilton was impressive but getting back to this century when will Queen Tani address how her Judicial Council and AOC made a 70 million dollar revenue mistake?
wearyant
March 19, 2014
We were so much better off two decades ago. All the courts were open and functioning. Oh, bring back the good ol’ days! Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
March 19, 2014
Probably at about the same time she and her Judicial Council and AOC own up to wasting over a half billion dollars on the biggest failure of a public works IT project in the history of California, Lando. Which will probably be about . . . Never.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
sharonkramer
March 19, 2014
It seems disingenuous that they did not disclose the $70M projection error until after the legislators voted to audit. If the vote had been “no” would they have disclosed it as poor planning — or would fuzzy math have been used to attribute the shortfall to unforeseen circumstances?
CJ’s speech: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly”
Translation: We sure as Hell don’t want it known that injustice in our network of mutuality continues to be a threat to justice everywhere. We’re concerned that whatever affects one of us directly may end up affecting us all directly; and that the our inescapable destiny is to be tied by shackles while all are wearing a uniform, single garment.
Wonder how much of that $70M discrepancy is from understatement of expenditures? Seems like it should be pretty simple for an auditor to back out the numbers to find out.
Alan Ernesto Phillips
March 19, 2014
Please pardon my submission of a recent crock-o-whine in the BeeSac from the “Ministry of Disinformation” herein:
http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2014/03/california-chief-justice-warns-of-civil-rights-crisis.html#disqus_thread
[Today, is DAY 1105…]
wearyant
March 19, 2014
Meanwhile, as Lando put it so well, back in this century and in the beleaguered Los Angeles county:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/03/19/66280.htm
By the way, not being a lawyer, I thought a demurrer was a reasonable motion in most cases. It must be horrible in the “front lines” of the trial courts these days.
MaxRebo5
March 19, 2014
Chief says we cherish fairness, we respect fairness, and the judicial branch is dedicated to fairness in her speech. More talk. Now for the walk:
Is it fair for trial courts to have to laid off thousands of workers when the AOC has laid off just 10?
Is it fair that there are no re-hire lists for court employees let go due to the budget through no fault of their own? Shouldn’t those let go in the recession have first chance to get back to work as vacancies occur in the branch over time?
Are you “respecting fairness” when the 500+ judicial officers in opposition of your views are forced to speak in the public comment section at judicial council meetings?
Is it fair that the judicial council is hand picked by one person (the Chief Justice) to make policy for the branch?
Is it fair to still have 800+ staff at the AOC when that money to fund the AOC could be redirected to the trial courts where there is a great need?
Was it fair when you created an award in the name of William Vickrey for excellence in Judicial Administration after the legislature demanded he resign for mismanging the CCMS project to the tune of $500 million dollars?
Is it fair to have an AOC “fact check” funded by taxpayers that is really one sided on any topic be it CCMS, the AOC audits, or courthouse construction?
Is it fair that some counties will not get their needed courthouses because of the incredibly expensive Long Beach Courthouse?
Is it fair to be spending $5 billion on new courthouses when there is not the funding to staff the existing courthouses?
Was it fair to have an AOC employee telecommuting from Switzerland?
Is it fair for top AOC administrators to contribute nothing to their pensions?
Is it fair to crush all disssent in an effort to speak with one voice?
Was it fair for AOC staff to get step increases (raises) when trial court staff were being laid off?
Is it fair to be spending billion on computers and buildings when, as the Governor pointed out, there is 3 billion in unfunded pensions for judges? Plus much more for branch line staff?
Was it fair for Dennis Jones to be paid by the AOC when he was the court executive for Sacramento County so that he could double dip and get both a Sacramento County Pension and a State of California Pension?
Is it fair how friends promote friends in CA Courts and there are no education standards to be a court manager or court executive?
Furthermore, the CA Courts are not 17 years young. They have existed for far longer and they were doing quite well before Ron George and Bill Vickrey went on a crusade to save them. Consolidation of the Muni and Superior Courts did bring some admin efficiencies at the local levels but that has been more than offset by the growth of the Judicial Council’s “staff” agency to over 1,200 employees at one point. Consolidation also added ongoing expenses for the state namely the muni judges all got raises to Superior Court pay levels so pay for trial court judges would be “fair”.
Taxpayers now fund a Superior Court judge to handle a traffic offense that was once resolved more cheaply by a muni court judge who also had a less expensive pension to fund. What’s done is done but I would say perhaps it has been 17 years since the branch went off course fiscally. Boondoogles like CCMS and Long Beach Courthouse don’t help build confidence that there is great expertise at the top in the AOC either. Maybe this “17 years young” was just 17 years of juveniles running the administration of CA Courts? Could it be it was their “leadership” and not just the recession that has left the branch asking for more money, raising fines, raising fees (even on the press), and in the 20th century on technology? To me their legacy is shameful leadership and hardly excellence in judicial administration worthy of awards and honors.
At 18 a child grows up. I think CA Court Judges have grown up from the Ron George and Bill Vickrey experience and are ready to take charge of the direction of policy making on the Judicial Council. They deserve to be treated fairly and have their dissenting views cherished after enduring 17 years of Chief domination of all policy making in CA Courts. An Audit of the AOC is a good start but the Judicial Council must be reformed as well for better policy to come from that body. What is in place now is simply not working for the people of California.
Lastly, by crushing dissent in an effort to speak with one voice Ron George’s effectively created the Alliance of California Judges. They rightfully refused to be silent when he called for courthouses to be closed one day a month and spoke out just as you admire on civil rights spoke out in the 1960’s. Those judges speaking up despite the risks to their carreers took guts, bravery, and I for one respect them for not being silient as expected by the Chief Justice at the time. Walking the walk when in comes to “cherishing fairness” in judicial administration is allowing all views to not only be expressed but also to fully participate in making policy making votes. The Judicial Council needs to be democratized.
Thanks for the forum JCW!
Michael Paul
March 19, 2014
Do as the chief justice says…. not as the chief justice does….. brilliant summation Max
R. Campomadera
March 19, 2014
Ditto that, Max.
Wendy Darling
March 19, 2014
“Do as the Chief Justice says . . . not as the Chief Justice does.”
Mirror, mirror on the wall.
Who is the biggest hypocrite of them all?
Why, that would be you, Queen Feckless. You would be the biggest hypocrite of them all.
Still serving herself to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
wearyant
March 19, 2014
Great post, Max! You’re so right.
Nathaniel Woodhull
March 19, 2014
I’m sorry, but as a public servant who started before Watergate, I think I have a pretty good understanding of how our representative democracy is supposed to work.
Unfortunately, some of these basic tenants were usurped by the megalomaniac Ronald George, aka: King George I.
People at the trial court level and even those within the appellate court were subjected to a “new reality” in 1996″. A person with a privileged background decided “He” was the head of a Branch of State Government and only “He” should speak on behalf of that Branch. As bad as “He” was, and as much as “He caused damage to the Judicial Branch, at least he had a
brain. Because Ronald George was only concerned about his place in history, he caused to have appointed our current Chief Justice.
By all accounts, Tani is a nice person, concerned about her family and other things. That said, it doesn’t mean that HRH-2 is remotely qualified for her current position.
Max is 110% correct in his assessment.
I truly don’t believe that the current Chief Justice is malicious in her statements or position statements. No one I know gives her enough credit to believe that she has the intellectual horsepower to be malicious.
The best thing that Tani could could do for herself, her family, and the People of California is to “retire” as soon as possible. As the old story goes, never show up to a gun fight without a gun. Tani’s entering into that with the Governor and Legislature and she is completely ill-equipped for that battle. Please Tani, just declare “victory” and retire graciously. Let others with the require intellectual prowess continue the fight on behalf of the Branch.
Here’s my assessment of those in charge at the AOC and Judicial Council.
Wendy Darling
March 19, 2014
And now a word from the members of the California Judicial Branch who are not hypocrites. Published today, Wednesday, March 19, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
Alliance Conference Concludes With Reflection on Legislative Victory and Growing Strength
By MARIA DINZEO
LOS ANGELES (CN) – The second annual conference of the 500-member Alliance of California Judges that concluded Tuesday reflected contrasting themes about the trial courts’ financial woes and the tide of change sweeping the judiciary.
The conference was enlivened with at-times feverish energy, bolstered by a legislative committee’s recent approval of a financial audit examining the Administrative Office of the Courts and how it spends public money. Alliance members had lobbied for the audit, a campaign born out of the AOC’s ability to insulate a large staff and give the staff raises while trial courts were making draconian budget cuts, laying off workers and closing courtrooms.
In his closing remarks on Tuesday, Judge David Lampe of Kern County, founding director of the Alliance, said the legislative victory was cause for reflection.
“We exist because we want the local trial courts to be independent and be equal partners in the funding decisions that affect us,” Lampe said. “These decisions must be rooted in our communities. As we’ve talked about here, it’s the people of those communities that elect us, we are directly responsible for those people. That’s the reason we exist.”
He added, “I’m encouraged because I see many new judges joining our organization. New judges, I think, get this. They do have a bit of an independent streak.”
The two-day conference on law and economics was in partnership with the George Mason University School of Law. Speakers from out of state were taken aback when California judges described the depths of the funding crisis in the state.
“A saying we’re all familiar with is justice delayed is justice denied. How are you doing in California?” asked Henry Butler, a George Mason University law professor. A chorus replied, “It depends!” and “Ask L.A.!”
“What would the people from L.A. say?” asked University of Virginia law professor Jason Johnston.
“It’s getting worse,” answered Judge Robert Dukes from Los Angeles.
“We’ve closed ten courthouses in Los Angeles County,” added Judge Dan Oki.
“I hear a lot about court congestion in California,” Butler said.
“Well there have been dramatic budget cuts in the last two-three years to the court system in California.” Johnston said.”People who talk about access to justice, traditionally they talk about the supply side, that’s you all, the courts, and the demand side, people who want to come into the courts. A lot of traditional access to justice is all about trying to improve demand side, and lower the costs. However, what accounts for variation across the courts?”
“Funding!” the judges shouted.
“Every court has got different funding. That’s a whole other story,” Judge Susan Lopez-Giss from Los Angeles said. “Don’t use economics on this, it has nothing to do with that. It has to do with how the allocation of funds have gone, pursuant to an Administrative Office of the Courts which is the reason you’re here.”
“I don’t even know if there’s an economic explanation,” Johnston said.
“There’s a political explanation,” Lopez-Giss rejoined.
In an interview following the conference, Judge John Adams of Orange County said participation from Alliance members and non-members had jumped since last year’s inaugural conference.
“The comments I received from judges across the state in terms of the caliber of education they received was uniformly outstanding,” he said.
“The judicial office can be an isolating office,” said Adams. “Part of the process as an institution that represents what I would call the trusted voice of the judiciary is providing an opportunity for our members to gather outside of the court and outside of an email string.”
The conjunction between the Alliance conference and the legislative vote for an audit was serendipitous, he said.
“It really allowed for our members to get together after what is an important milestone in our effort to restore as much funding and as much fiscal authority as we can to our local trial courts,” Adams said. “We see it as a win-win situation. If the audit finds the AOC have been good stewards, that puts us in good posture to go to the Legislature and governor to ask for funding. If it shows areas of weakness, we can correct those areas and then ask for funding.”
“We need to have the air cleared and we need to have a basic understanding so we’re all on the same page with our fiscal requirements,” he concluded. “And the Alliance has done a yeoman’s job in bringing these critical issues to the forefront.”
http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/03/19/66310.htm
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
March 19, 2014
Quote of the day: ““It’s getting worse,” answered Judge Robert Dukes from Los Angeles. “We’ve closed ten courthouses in Los Angeles County,” added Judge Dan Oki.”
As I read this, I pictured the Chief Justice being chauffeured to a private party by her CHP driver, all paid for with public money, and Curt Child hobnobbing with Ron George at a private book signing, complete with a hotel stay and meals, again all on the taxpayer dime. Maybe it’s just me, but I have a hard time reconciling that behavior with being “good stewards” of the public trust.
I’m a bit old-fashioned that way, I guess.
Long live the ACJ.
Lando
March 19, 2014
Wendy, General and Max have all done an outstanding job in exposing HRH-2’s considerable failings. Three points to add. 1. There is a complete disconnect between what HRH-2 says and what she does. She goes to high schools and now colleges lecturing students about the virtues of democracy. Yet she runs the third branch of government in California as a dictatorship, showing not the slightest interest in bringing any democracy to the Judicial Council. The result, failure on many levels including drastic reductions of services to the public and huge waste of taxpayer dollars. 2. HRH-2 is indeed a hypocrite of the highest order. That would explain her lofty words combined with her failure to apply those same principles to branch governance. 3.One huge additional problem is that like HRH-1, this Chief Justice enjoys the trappings of power. She enjoys being a dictator. She enjoys sitting at the center of the crystal palace while her entourage hang on her every word. She enjoys the perks of power including being chauffeured about the state in the name of court security. She enjoys appointing only her supporters to the Judicial Council insuring that little real debate ever occurs. This latter quality explains why from day 1 this Chief Justice like the last won’t tolerate dissent or even acknowledge that it exists. The worst part of all this was HRH-1 handpicked HRH-2 and the rest of us all over the state suffer the consequences of that horrible decision every day.To all the great people here that believe in democracy, ethics , honesty , fiscal accountability , public service and real fairness, we need to fight on to restore those principles to the management of our branch of government.
The OBT
March 20, 2014
I agree with al the great comments above. This Chief Justice is an unmitigated disaster. Her arrogance is incredible. Her unwillingness to meet with the ACJ or even acknowledge them when they have over 500 members speaks volumes . More importantly she has no concern for the now over one thousand branch employees who have lost their jobs due to her mismanagement . While she claims to be an agent of reform she promoted and supports AOC managers like C Child who bill our taxpayers extra for just doing their job. Billing the state for driving to King George’s book signing is beyond belief. She also has no concern for out of control spending on courthouse construction, Long Beach and San Diego, or raising AOC employee salaries or standing by the give aways of retirement benefits to AOC management. The very best however is we pay for the CHP to drive her to private parties and events so she can live like royalty . The tantrum she threw after 1208 passed when she questioned the integrity of the legislature will never be forgotten. One can only imagine the stomping around the dark hallways of 455 Golden Gate when the audit of her dictatorship was approved last week. Mirror Mirror on the wall, Who is the most feckless of them all? Queen Tani. In the end this Chief Justice will continue to have no credibility with the leadership of the legislature or Governors office or the citizens of California. She should do the right thing and accept responsibility for her miscues and resign but her arrogance and ego will never allow it. A pretty sad state of affairs indeed.
sharonkramer
March 20, 2014
The CJ has had over 3 years to clean up the branch. She hasn’t been able to do it. There’s no transparency; no change in wasteful ways; and no reduction in unethical and/or inept conduct. A corporate CEO or college football coach with that kind of ineffectual record would have been fired by now. Surely, she must realize that she has to make real changes now or acknowledge she is not the right person for the job — for the good of us all.
Michael Paul
March 21, 2014
The CJ has no intention of cleaning up or reforming anything as doing so would acknowledge there might be a problem.
She never has acknowledged any issues, she never will.
The whole SEC exercise was to run out the statute of limitations on certain offenses and is ongoing until the statutes on certain offenses run their course.
Now that there are so many of them over the course of a long period of time and the nature of many of those issues falls under a racketeering umbrella they have all become racketeering eligible. Since they are aware of that we can expect more of the same with a new found sense of impunity.
sharonkramer
March 21, 2014
Yep. That’s what I meant with this comment:
“CJ’s speech: ‘Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly’
Translation: We sure as Hell don’t want it known that injustice in our network of mutuality continues to be a threat to justice everywhere. We’re concerned that whatever affects one of us directly may end up affecting us all directly; and that the our inescapable destiny is to be tied by shackles while all are wearing a uniform, single garment.”
Sense of impunity with lack of immunity is a pipe dream. I know you think I can’t do it. But I think its just a matter of time.
wearyant
March 20, 2014
I’m all for continually reminding the public of the CCMS half billion dollar disaster. Here’s Dan, thankfully not using the words “rebel judges” for once:
http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2014/03/dan-walters-daily-032014.html
unionman575
March 20, 2014
Get a bucket and then click the link…
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/art-and-writing-project-flyer.pdf
The OBT
March 21, 2014
“My Dream for the Future”. The day HRH-2 resigns and HRH-1 actually gets off the stage.Thanks unionman for that great link.
unionman575
March 21, 2014
Mine too.
😉
sharonkramer
March 21, 2014
According to religious teachings, the saying is “We are all God’s children”. So does this qualify us to enter? Can we submit written complaints to Mrs. George of “My Nightmare of the Past” involving her husband? Do jpegs of court docs and past BSA audit reports qualify as pictures?
unionman575
March 22, 2014
Prepare for the year end spending orgy…
http://www.courts.ca.gov/25483.htm
Michael Paul
March 22, 2014
Let’s help the AOC out on a benchmark price of an Fi 7160
Best online price delivered for a quantity of one: $863.63
Source: A Matter of Fax
I know fujitsu as a company very well. You would be a fool not to buy the three year advance exchange warranty which costs another 199.00 or count on them to last much past the factory exchange warranty period.
Funny that the RFP doesn’t mention the requirements for a fujitsu advance exchange warranty. Nadine\Grant\Mike you might want to add that to the RFP less the courts be straddled with some lame aftermarket warranty or have nothing but a carry-in one year factory warranty.
Total benchmark delivered price with a three year advance exchange warranty: $1062.63 qty 1.
A quantity of 95 should be benchmarked at less than a grand.
The RFP also requires that a corporation be in good standing and qualified to conduct business within the state of California. I would call that a welcome change.
R. Campomadera
March 22, 2014
Michael,
You are such a spoiler.
MaxRebo5
March 25, 2014
ACJ says the AOC has a $70 million shortfall and are looking to get that audit done so money can be redirected to the trial courts. That makes total sense to me.
Meanwhile the reality is the Judicial Council/AOC is still hiring:
http://www.ncsc.org/Education-and-Careers/Jobs/Court-Community-Jobs.aspx
This is a perfect example of how the Judicial Council is using funding to create a job in San Francisco that is 100% administrative and does very little to help an actual person resolve their case or get access to justice.
Why not just use the $6-8K a month for this salary (plus benefits/retirement) to actually fund an interpreter position at a local trial court? This is a simple example of getting the money provided by the legislature out of admin in san Francisco and back down to the local level where it can be used to help real people in need of services (an interpreter).
This example is just one job but over time (say the 15 years of George/Cantil-Sakauye administrations) such hiring at the top has amounted to hundreds of jobs and millions of dollars spent on admin instead of operational jobs at the trial court level. Do judges prefer funding an interpreter “expert” at the AOC or funding an actual interpreter in their courthouse? There isn’t funding for both. I think it is well past time to start using what money is provided to at least get some justice for the public rather than another FTE at the AOC. Better for Del Norte Superior Court or San Diego Superior Court to have funding for an interpreter than for this AOC job to be filled.
MaxRebo5
March 25, 2014
On further thought, why is the JC/AOC in the business of licensing interpreters at all? They don’t control the licensing of attorneys (that’s the state bar), nor do they license court reporters (that’s done by the Department of Consumer Affairs with the Court Reporters Board). So why does the JC/AOC license/certify interpreters and do the testing? They have a whole unit called the Court Language Access Support Program doing this. I’m 100% all in for professions having standards. I just don’t see why the CA Courts are involved in administering the licensing of any profession in California. This is another expansion of the AOC into things it is not well suited to do. The licensing of most professions in CA is done by the Department of Consumer Affairs. They regulate doctors, nurses, mechanics, accountants, you name it (but not attorneys as that is done by the state bar).
Notice you have to have a license or certification to practice law, be an interpreter, be a court reporter. Even barbers have to have a license to cut hair. So is there any sort of license required to be a court executive or court manager? Nope. Many of them make six figure salaries with huge public pensions but don’t have to have anything more than a bachelor’s degree (and connections of course). I hope the state auditor looks at this huge gap in professional licensing and makes note of it to the legislature to fix ASAP.
The lack of standards for administrators has a really negative impact on Court Administration as the field is mostly a bunch of yes men who have no professional strength or integrity. I want educated and professional administrators with actual education in public administration, management theory, research methods, statistics, human resources, ethics, the law, and information technology. Make it a real field like any other profession you can think of (engineers, nurses, accountants, dentists, you name it) and not just a job for friends of those in charge.
So point one is get the JC/AOC out of the licensing/testing business. Point two is get some professional standards for court administrators (also outside of the JC and AOC) so the field has some integrity. Point three, which has been expressed so many times before, is democratize the Judicial Council so there is a place for professionals (especially judges) to debate policy and not have everything dictated by the Chief Justice and her hand picked committee who are selected to speak with a “statewide” perspective.
FYI, “statewide” = “Chief’s” perspective
Wendy Darling
March 26, 2014
“On further thought, why is the JC/AOC in the business of licensing interpreters at all?”
Answer: money. By controlling the certification of court interpreters and the court interpreters “program”, the AOC also controls the interpreter funds/funding, and the AOC charges back to those funds, with considerable padding, all of the expenses and costs, as calculated by the AOC, of certification of court interpreters and running the court interpreter “program.”. An auditor from the BSA would probably be pretty amazed/incredulous at what the AOC charges back as “expenses and costs” to the interpreter funds.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
wearyant
March 25, 2014
Good press — a little slow on the uptake, but the real story is finally getting out.
http://californiacourtsmonitor.com/community/alternative-judges-group-gaining-momentum/
unionman575
March 25, 2014
http://www.courts.ca.gov/25492.htm
AOC On-Site Catering San Francisco, RFP# CJER-030614-OSCSF-CF
The AOC seeks to identify and retain a contractor with expertise in providing professional, day-to-day business meal catering services. The contractor will be required to prepare, deliver, set-up and tear-down catered meals in a professional manner, with the utmost attention to detail. The AOC anticipates awarding a master agreement for these services for an initial 12-month term, with three additional consecutive one-year option terms for a potential maximum total of four years of catering services. The initial term of the master agreement is anticipated to commence on July 1, 2014 and run for 12 months. The three consecutive one-year option terms will then run 12-months each, and may only be exercised at the AOC’s sole discretion.
Questions should be directed to solicitations@jud.ca.gov by no later than 1:00 pm (PDT) on April 7, 2014.
Proposals must be received by no later than 3:00 pm (PDT) on May 8, 2014.
Hard copy proposals must be delivered to:
Judicial Council of California
Administrative Office of the Courts
Attn: Nadine McFadden, RFP# CJER-030614-OSCSF-CF
455 Golden Gate Avenue, 6th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102-3688
katy
March 26, 2014
Now let me get this straight. Some Cal citizens are going to debtor’s prison because they can’t afford the high traffic violation fines? There’s a $70M court operations shortfall because the high fines are not generating the anticipated revenue? And the JC/AOC is calling for fancy schmancy catering bids to be funded from the branch’s stretched coffers?
Suggested contracted caterer: http://pizza.dominos.com/california/san-francisco/
unionman575
March 25, 2014
https://careers.jud.ca.gov/psc/recruit1/EMPLOYEE/PSFT_HR/c/HRS_HRAM.HRS_CE.GBL?FolderPath=PORTAL_ROOT_OBJECT.HC_HRS_CE_GBL2&IsFolder=false&IgnoreParamTempl=FolderPath%2cIsFolder&
😉
The OBT
March 26, 2014
I keep asking this question but no one from the Judicial Council or AOC ever answers. I thought the AOC had a hiring freeze? Certainly the trial courts which have closed courthouses and laid off thousands aren’t hiring anyone. So why is the Judicial Council / AOC hiring two managing lawyers? The bottom line is the same thing. The “insiders” at 455 Golden Gate have no regard for taxpayer dollars and believe they are entitled to spend it any way they want. Nothing has changed in the culture of the Judicial Council/AOC as no one is ever held accountable for anything. Has Curt Child been held accountable for billing the taxpayers for just doing his job? Was he held accountable for billing the taxpayers to hang out with HRH-1 at his book signing? It is a culture of arrogance and entitlement that both HRH-1 and HRH-2 have fostered at the expense of the trial courts and the public we try to help. It is no wonder no one in the legislature buys what anyone at the crystal palace is selling.
Lando
March 26, 2014
I have it on good authority from my sources within the dark hallways of 455 Golden Gate that J Jahr is defending Mr Child’s bilking of taxpayer dollars. What a disgrace. Queen Tani and Jahr himself claim all is well and transparent yet they take no action to address this blatant abuse of public funds? Paying Child to go to Ron George’s book signing? How is that in any way related to Mr Child’s work at 455 Golden Gate? I am hoping the State Auditor will look into all this along with the expenses HRH-1 and HRH-2 have wasted on being driven around the state in the guise of “security”. Is driving Queen Feckless to a private party, and making her security wait in the hall a legitimate and proper use of taxpayer dollars? I think any reasonable person knows the answer to that.
unionman575
March 26, 2014
We all do.
The answer is no.
😉
Wendy Darling
March 26, 2014
Defending the indefensible. Proving once again that the more things “change” at 455 Golden Gate Avenue, the more things just really stay the same.
BTW, isn’t that the calling card slogan of criminal defense attorneys?
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
March 26, 2014
There’s apparently plenty of money for Queen Feckless to enjoy being chauffeured to parties at public expense, for Curt Childs to hobnob at private book signings with King George on the public dime, and for the hiring spree to continue at 455 Golden Gate Avenue, but the trial courts must still go begging. Published today, Wednesday, March 26, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
California Courts Face Huge Shortfall in Funds
By MARIA DINZEO
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – California trial judges and court officials moved on Tuesday to plug a staggering shortfall in the Trial Court Trust Fund, brought on by inaccurate filing fee revenue projections made by the Administrative Office of the Courts.
The Trial Court Budget Advisory Committee voted unanimously to request $70 million from the state’s general fund to close the gap. By 2014-2015, the fund will be short by $56 million, according to numbers provided by the Administrative Office of the Courts. That shortfall is projected to worsen to $67 million in future years.
“We had a two-hour meeting with the Legislative Analysts’ Office yesterday. They understood it and they’re not surprised,” said AOC finance director Zlatko Theodorvic. “We’re not surprised either. We just now finally, based on the most recent actuals, are able to make a more accurate projection of our 2014-2015 numbers.”
While revenue estimates that go to support trial court operations are projected to decline by $35 million in 2014-2015, a separate problem has contributed to the fund’s dwindling balance. The judiciary has been paying court employee pension and health benefits for the last two years out of the Trial Court Trust Fund, which is meant to fund trial court operations rather than employee benefits.
Theodorovic said those benefits should be paid for by the state general fund. “We took it on the backs of the Trial Court Trust Fund to fund these benefits, which they should fund,” he said. “We feel this is the time to make it clear that the state has an obligation to maintain the allocations to the trial courts, so it’s not the whims of the revenue coming in and out of the trust fund.”
He noted the future $67 million deficit assumes the judiciary does not make a benefits payment in 2014-2015. Otherwise, he said, the deficit would total $97 million.
The judiciary’s Improvement and Modernization Fund also has an ongoing deficit of $25 million, again mostly due to declining revenues.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/03/26/66500.htm
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
March 26, 2014
“And the Administrative Office of the Courts has been singularly unrevealing.”
😉
http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/1813905
California Courts Share Basic Records of How They’re Run; Agency That Oversees Them, Not So Much
PR Newswire
CARMICHAEL, Calif., March 26, 2014
CARMICHAEL, Calif., March 26, 2014 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — California courts are generally prompt and forthcoming in sharing with the public basic information about how they are administered, including specifics about the pay, benefits, and outside financial interests of judges and key executives. But they could do a better job of informing the public of its right of access to such information. And the Administrative Office of the Courts has been singularly unrevealing.
This conclusion reflects results of an audit of the trial and appellate court systems throughout the state conducted by Californians Aware throughout 2013, checking how readily and completely they responded to information requests as required under a judicial branch disclosure mandate—Rule of Court 10.500—that went into effect four years ago.
Access to the records of most state and local agencies is governed by the California Public Records Act (CPRA), but that law does not apply to the judicial branch. Instead, the state court system for the first time opened its administrative books to public review with Rule 10.500, whose provisions in most respects parallel those of the CPRA.
To test how well the state’s 58 county-based superior (trial) courts comply with the new rule, CalAware used email addressed to each court’s executive officer to make requests for 10 different areas of information, including:
•agendas and minutes of court executive committee meetings;
•supplemental benefits paid to judges by some counties;
•statements of court officials’ outside earnings and investments;
•professional histories of court executive officers; and
•local procedures for public to use in accessing such information.
Almost all courts provided access to most of the requested information, but at widely varying rates: some the same day, 40 percent within 10 days, and one almost a year later. And few made much effort to educate the public on access to the administrative files.
As for 10 comparable requests to the Administrative Office of the Courts in San Francisco, only four drew responses.
The complete report, including county-by-county results, is at http://tinyurl.com/knlvae5.
For further information contact Terry Francke, terry@calaware.org, (916) 487-7000
Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/1813905#ixzz2x7ZmVXtJ
Lando
March 26, 2014
“We’re not surprised either” says the head AOC finance guy regarding a 70 million dollar shortfall. Are you kidding us? A 70 million dollar miscalculation? Why are’t the Chief Justice and her minions at the Judicial Council responsible for this huge error. Isn’t it their place to oversee the AOC ? Isn’t that what they said they were going to do after the SEC report? One of the great flaws in the house that Ron George built is that no one ever accepts responsibility for anything that goes wrong at 455 Golden Gate. The result as usual, the trial courts continue to contract and the public we serve loses out again.
sharonkramer
March 27, 2014
“One of the great flaws in the house that Ron George built is that no one ever accepts responsibility for anything that goes wrong….” Yep. I’d say that’s the Number One problem in California’s judicial branch.
The words “I’m sorry. We made a mistake. What do we need to do to correct it?” goes a long way to stopping mounting damage from error and fraud. Nothing is going to change until you get rid of those who won’t say those words and encourage others not to say them either.
MaxRebo5
March 27, 2014
Look how the US Air Force handled their scandal. Not just those who cheated but those who failed to catch it were held responsible:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/27/us/air-force-cheating-investigation/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
In CA Courts there is never any sense of shame for HUGE (hundred + million dollar) mistakes made. The legislature demanded the state court administrator resign because of the $500 million dollar failure on CCMS and the Chief showered Vickrey with awards and honors.
Now the AOC has seriously messed up their estimates for these two funding sources to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars (this is also an ongoing funding error that has to be fixed forever which makes it really bad). The AOC finance “experts” now expect the general fund to just pick up the tab by magic.
Not a single AOC head will roll for this blunder? There is absolutely no accountability? The legislature can’t just print money and put it into the general fund to give to the AOC to fix their mistake. Something is going to have to give in the CA budget and most likely it will be something needed by trial court employees (the little guys).
I see a Vickrey award for “Excellence in judicial administration” coming soon to Finance Director Zlatko Theodorvic in 2014. That would be about right given the Chief’s idea of “fairness” and accountability for royal screw ups.
How stupid is the legislature to not get mad as hell over this? I know they are dropping like flies in the CA Senate but come on is there anyone there left guarding the general fund? The Governor should be pissed too. He is trying to save every dime he can to get the state out of the red (plus he got Prop 30 passed to temporarily raise taxes) from the Great Recession and here come the AOC saying they need millions more because we screwed up (again) by hundreds of millions of dollars. That’s horrible administration by the AOC! You can’t run a government like this. We’ll be Detroit.
sharonkramer
March 27, 2014
I think we might already be Detroit!
New book by a former Michigan Supreme Court Justice.
http://www.judicialdeceit.com/
The OBT
March 26, 2014
You know when you go into the inner sanctum of the William C. Vickrey conference center at 455 Golden Gate adorned with the crystal glass and cherry wood, the following should be engraved in the crystal. “We never fail to fail because it’s the easiest thing to do”. A perfect new mantra for Queen Feckless and her entourage.
unionman575
March 27, 2014
“We never fail to fail because it’s the easiest thing to do”.
Here ya go Tani and Co.- a little ditty containing that catch phrase….
MaxRebo5
March 27, 2014
Are the fee shortfalls the AOC is talking about also going to impact SB 1407 which were supposed to be there to pay for courthouse construction and not impact the general fund in repaying the bonds?
http://www.courts.ca.gov/25293.htm
click on the SB 1407 and look at all those promises. An estimated 104,000 direct and indirect jobs and then it says:
“The law created a revenue stream from court fees, penalties, and assessments to finance courthouse construction and renovations, ensuring that these projects would be paid for from within the judicial branch rather than drawing on the state’s general fund.”
If the fees are not generating enough money now (according to the AOC) couldn’t that sentence on the AOC web page be a lie too? Won’t the general fund have to shore up this too? Or are these different fines and fees for courthouse construction money?
MaxRebo5
March 27, 2014
Funding the AOC = job security for the State Auditor
Wendy Darling
March 27, 2014
What many of us have known for quite some time: 455 Golden Gate Avenue is about as “transparent” as a black hole. Published late today, Thursday, March 27, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
Public Watchdog Says Courts Fairly Transparent, Not Its Bureaucracy
By MARIA DINZEO
(CN) – Whether the bureaucracy at the top of California’s courts follows its own rules on transparency is in dispute, with one of California’s foremost public watchdogs saying Wednesday that, “The Administrative Office of the Courts has been singularly unresponsive.”
The administrative office, however, said it did reply to the document requests, and a spokesman argued that the agency has a record of the records being sent some time ago.
While individual trial courts were generally helpful in the group’s survey, two courts, San Bernardino Superior Court and San Diego Superior Court, refused to disclose any information from their executive committee meetings claiming a privilege.
According to an audit conducted by Californians Aware throughout 2013, “California courts are generally prompt and forthcoming in sharing with the public basic information about how they are administered, including specifics about the pay, benefits, and outside financial interests of judges and key executives.”
“But they could do a better job of informing the public of its right of access to such information,” the group’s report added. “And the Administrative Office of the Courts has been singularly unresponsive.”
CalAware made requests of all 58 trial courts and the Administrative Office of the Courts for public records to see how well they complied with Rule of Court 10.500.
The rule mandating disclosure of public records has been in effect for four years. In an interview, CalAware General Counsel Terry Francke said his group decided to conduct the audit “to see whether those governed by the rules understand and observe them.”
CalAware asked the AOC for agendas and minutes of the Judicial Council’s technology, executive and trial court budget committee meetings, the resumes and economic interests of the AOC’s director, general counsel and top three highest paid executives and any written policies governing public or press access to judicial administrative records.
The audit says the AOC responded to only four of the ten requests, providing only the executive’s resumes, the resumes of the head clerks for each appellate court, and the economic interests of the head clerks and all recently appointed appellate justices.
However, the AOC claims they responded to all requests. An email from an AOC spokesperson to Francke says the files may have been too large, and they had sent him a link to a file containing the requested records. A copy of that email with the link was provided to Francke.
But Francke said he never received the initial email with that link. “Their IT people say their response was sitting in their sent file. I had nothing like that in my incoming files,” Francke said in an interview.
Francke said he would post an update to the audit saying the AOC claims it responded to all requests.
Forty percent of the trial courts responded within ten days, as required by the rule, and were generally forthcoming about their judges’ and head clerks’ outside financial interests, their court executive committees’ agendas and minutes, supplemental benefits paid to judges by some counties and their clerks’ resumes.
“The first response of many was a simple acknowledgment of receipt. Others provided some substantive answers-either a partial or complete response. Forty-five courts-77.5 percent-made an initial response within 10 days,” the audit said, adding, there were some “interesting responses.”
For example, superior courts in San Diego and San Bernardino said their executive board agendas and minutes were exempt from disclosure, under the “official records privilege.”
“The Court’s Executive Committee is a deliberative body and minutes or other records of its discussions, decisions, recommendations and actions are protected from disclosure by rule 10.500(f)(11) of the Rules of Court,” an email to CalAware from San Bernardino head clerk Debra Meyers.
“Additionally, it is in the best interest of the Court, and the community it serves, to promote candid and thoughtful discussion during committee meetings; the direct result of which is deliberate and objective actions by the committee,” she said. “Disclosing the agenda(s) and minutes could inhibit discussion and thereby impact the actions of the committee.”
CalAware also requested records showing the dollar value of any supplemental benefits paid to judges by the county throughout 2012. The audit found, “Los Angeles County in recent years supplemented its superior court judges’ salaries in two ways, with a tax-free benefits cafeteria plan that could be cashed out (as ordinary income) at a judge’s discretion, and with a taxable cash payment intended-but not audited-to support professional development activities.”
It continued, “All but three of those respondent courts receiving county benefit supplements provided enough detail to determine the dollar value of the benefits awarded each judge by name, exactly as requested. But Los Angeles and Orange County Superior Courts provided a description of how the local benefits program works, with no names or individual benefit listings. Sacramento Superior Courts listed the local benefits paid to each of its 21 judges-but identified them only with a number.”
Courts were generally responsive to CalAware’s request for their head clerk’s resume. Forty courts provided those resumes, twelve were promoted internally, one court no longer had the resume, one took 30 days to produce, one had no head clerk, one court said it was exempt and one did not respond.
Los Angeles Superior Court Senior Administrator Gregory Drapac replied, “Los Angeles Superior Court Administrator Gregory C. Drapac stated that the executive officer’s “application would be a personnel file within the meaning of CRC 10.500(f)(2), and hence exempt from disclosure.”
But the audit went on to cite Rule 10.500(d)(1). “Unless otherwise indicated, the terms used in this rule have the same meaning as under the Legislative Open Records Act (Gov. Code, § 9070 et seq.) and the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code, § 6250 et seq.) and must be interpreted consistently with the interpretation applied to the terms under those acts.”
“There were some curious claims of exemption in a couple of courts,” Francke said, but he added that overall, “I didn’t get any sense of real resistance. Overall I’ve got to say the courts came out much better than the institutions we’ve previously audited in law enforcement and public education.”
http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/03/27/66544.htm
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
March 28, 2014
http://www.scribd.com/doc/214367569/CalAware-Audit-Report-Courts-Compliance-With-Their-Own-Public-Records-Access-Rules
AOC Watcher
March 27, 2014
This isn’t a blunder. The AOC buried this reality until after the presumed JLAC hearing date of March 4th. A few days later, the AOC updated their estimates of fiscal year 2014-2015 Trial Court Trust Fund available dollars. The updated estimates were not reported until after the rescheduled JLAC hearing, March 12. Shortly thereafter, not only was the shortfall leaked from AOC sources, but the Daily Journal, reputed to be an AOC rag, reported on the “double dipping” AOC retirees who are collecting salary from judicial branch funding on top of their pensions. Beth Jay was prominently mentioned as she is now working as a consultant for Chief Justice, after her recent retirement. Even Ron George gave the Daily Journal his spin. When the Daily Journal has an exclusive, consider it as a purposeful set up behind the scenes by the AOC insiders. Consider all Daily Journal articles as AOC driven damage control; nothing but AOC leaks to ameliorate the bad news ahead.
References to the unfunded pension obligations funded out of the TCTF, that in part is responsible for the 70 million dollar shortfall is no surprise to AOC insiders. The Judicial Council approved these expenditures during the 2013-2014 fiscal year as far back as the February 2013 Judicial Council meeting. At that meeting the Judicial Council approved a recommendation submitted by the Trial Court Funding Working Group, that delegated to Jahr authority to disperse funding from the TCTF to trial courts for purposes to backfilling unfunded pension obligations. LA was the big winner.
None of this comes as a surprise to AOC staffers who work in finance, auditing and accounting, Jahr or Sherri Carter (LA’s new CEO and notorious AOC insider). While the AOC feigns ignorance, a thorough review of AOC documents prove that Jahr, AOC staffers and members of AOC Budget committees knew the true condition ahead.
The timing of the JLAC hearing could not have been worst for them as they scrambled to figure out how and when they would release their worsening financial condition. Waiting until after the presumed JLAC date of March 4th before circulating the updated numbers internally, and then not making those numbers public until weeks later, they hope no one drills down to the documented time line that destroys any credibility they might have left.
Meanwhile, judges in the AOC’s pocket respond as usual by issuing purported “FACTS.” One would think Putin was in charge of California Judicial Branch revisionist history.
Folks, these are dangerous times for our democracy.
Delilah
March 27, 2014
Could this possibly be a new revenue stream for AOC claw-backs? Why else would the AOC care that certain people in certain matters are being deprived of “Access to Justice,” unless that that provided another source of money for them to misappropriate?
http://www.modbee.com/2014/03/26/3259600/state-considers-providing-lawyers.html
sharonkramer
March 28, 2014
It seems to me that all those past whistleblower complaints need to be compiled and submitted for consideration by the BSA auditors as part of the AOC/JC audit. If it works like a federal audit, you can specifically state that you want the info you are providing to be part of a specific audit that is underway.