It was a struggle for the AOC to keep what they knew about the so called 70 million dollar revenue shortfall under wraps with a joint legislative audit committee breathing down their neck.
Had the information leaked out sooner, it just might have resulted in a unanimous decision to audit the judicial council and the AOC.
Oh, wait. They DID render a unanimous decision to audit the judicial council and the AOC anyways.
What is more disconcerting is that when they began to shape the message and have a trusted third party deliver that message it would be framed as a ‘revenue shortfall’ and that it was just one of those things that happens when you break out a crystal ball and try to anticipate revenue.
They would line up the daily journal, who as a legal publication relies upon the revenue generated by the approval of the council & the AOC for printing legal notices with an exclusive story that contained a host of familiar players. Those familiar players would step forward and shape the message to one that completely and utterly absolves them of all responsibility just days after the JLAC’s unanimous audit decision.
If you caught Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher’s Chris Christie sponsored “bridgegate” absolution party the other day you get a better flavor of what is going on at the judicial council and the AOC.
As we have stated many times over the past few years, no study, audit, investigation or exclusive story sponsored by either the council or the AOC is launched without a predetermined result.
Of course we can no longer expect the Daily Journal to do anything but parrot the position of those in power because those in power hold their purse strings in numerous ways, from the AOC’s extensive SUSTAIN case management system implementation to the legal notices that people pay good money to have the overpriced rag distribute under a questionable definition of general circulation that can count only deep pockets among its many subscribers.
What is leaking out of the AOC through various means, what is not being picked up by the overpriced rag is that the revenue shortfall isn’t a revenue shortfall at all. It was a conscious decision to permit the administrative director Jahr the flexibility to use the trial court trust funds to cover pension obligations to those courts that couldn’t afford to make them without significantly greater layoffs. “Play ball with us” he said unto the vulnerable courts “and you shall be rewarded with riches from other courts that you would not otherwise be entitled to”.
And so it came to be.
The claims of revenue shortfall should be subjected to rigorous audit to determine if it was a revenue shortfall or a conscientious decision to overspend in areas that overspending should not have occurred.
Our sources and commenters alike tell us it was not a shortfall of revenue.
It was Executive Director Jahr’s conscious decision to direct those funds to courts that played ball with the AOC. And it worked. Not a single (Non-ACJ) LA judge would be caught deriding the worlds most expensive courthouse. There would be near silence about the AOC’s lack of implementation of the most important parts of the SEC report from the 800 lb gorilla in the room that had previously made their position known in spades.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
An epidemic of paid corruption in the state senate?
I have a problem. When any employee from any company or government agency is caught with their hand in the cookie jar, they’re usually fired with cause. But if they happen to have the title of “Senator” before their names like Wright, Calderon and Yee, our senate leader believes that these fine crooks and shysters should continue to get paid! Today’s vote to ‘suspend’ the senators means THEY ARE STILL SENATORS they can keep their 8 grand per month government perk while they go out and privatize their access to government.
It should be a vote to expel the good senators without pay. If, at a later time the courts decide that there was no corruption involved and the parties are factually innocent, then I as a taxpayer have no problem giving them back pay with interest. I have a big problem as a taxpayer continuing to have to refer to them as “Senator” and paying their salaries after they have been convicted or are under indictment. The message the senate leader sends to the people is that honest services to the people do not matter.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
On Gun Control
If you have read the detailed federal indictment of Senator Yee, he who was a strong proponent of gun control legislation single-handedly sealed the argument for the NRA on gun control with his alleged statements about people being able to get what they want regardless of the laws. The NRA would be wise to jump on this and the population would do well to pay attention.
When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
And Senators who passed those draconian gun control laws will themselves be armed to the teeth and even profiting off of such legislation by teaming up with organized crime and street gangs running illegal weapons into the state.
Proof positive that prohibition and zero tolerance have never worked and they never will.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Nathaniel Woodhull
March 28, 2014
Great post JCW!!!!
Those of us in the trenches know that the more things change, the more they stay the same. This is all right out of the Ronald George Playbook. For those of you who haven’t read Mein Kampf, simply pick up a copy of “Committed to Justice – The Rise of Judicial Administration in California”. Published by the AOC at taxpayer expense in 2002.
Go along to get along has been the catch phrase within the Crystal Palace since 1996. Good luck if you cross them, I guarantee your Court will be subjected to the wrath of the overseers. The difference between HRH-1 reign and that of HRH-2 is that at least the former had a brain. The current “leader” and her underlings are being becoming targets because of their transparency and lack of skill.
The Legislature will be on a jihad after the indictment of 7% of the members of the Senate. I doubt that even HRH-2’s close confidant, Darryl Steinberg will ultimately get in the way of the audit, the results of which will be scalding.
As to the remainder of the post, at least Senator Joel Anderson had the guts enough to say that all three indicted senators should be expelled from the Senate. This betrayal of public trust is amazing.
courtflea
March 28, 2014
Great post but what is going to be interesting to me is how the AOC is going to handle the auditor’s requests for information. They can blow off the public, judges and even the legislature for their requests for information. What is the penalty for non compliance or giving false information to the auditor? who is going take up the charge to prosecute these jerks when they don’t? So far no one seems to feel that they can; not the feds, the AG or anyone else. I’m not setting my hopes to high on this audit making much of a difference, even if the results hit the main stream press. The public and the legislature have for the most part made their indifference clear in spite of this blog, whistle blower information, etc.. I am thrilled the audit is happening, I just don’t have much faith in anyone to do a damn thing about the results.
unionman575
March 28, 2014
Flea, I think Howle will, show the humps at the Death Star a really good time.
I mean a real good time.
😉
wearyant
April 2, 2014
I’ll be happy to provide the caterers and music
Wendy Darling
March 28, 2014
I’m with you, Flea. I lost count a long time ago of the number of times I’ve heard judicial branch “leadership” boast that they can “do whatever we want” because there is no one who will/can hold them accountable, and then watching exactly that happen. After witnessing the corruption, fraud, waste of public money, and complete lack of ethics literally happen right in front of me over and over again, It finally became impossible to deny that the branch was, and is, being run by liars, thugs, thieves, and bullies. As disturbing as that is, what is even more disturbing is the complete unwillingness, if not intentional failure, for someone, anyone, in a position of authority and responsibility to do anything about it. So, like you, hooray for the audit, but I, too, “just don’t have much faith in anyone to do a damn thing about the results.”
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
MaxRebo5
March 28, 2014
I hear you courtflea. The pace of reform is terribly slow.
Still, there is much good happening. The ACJ’s is growing in members and political influence. The trial court unions are getting more aware of how the waste at the top is impacting them. The press is on to the lack of transparency at the AOC. If trial courts can do innovative things on their own they help to make the point that leadership does not need to come from the top. For example, this came out today:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/03/28/66570.htm
Way to go Sacramento Superior Court!
Oh, and don’t forget that audit vote was unanimous over the objections of AOC Director Jahr trying to stop it. The last audit (for CCMS) was also opposed by the AOC “leaders” and it cost Vickrey and Overholt their top jobs. Perhaps this one will end the rest of Team George (Jody and the Curts) and lead to the break up the Chief’s control of the Judicial Council. There’s always hope!
unionman575
March 28, 2014
Yours truly has been aware for 5+ years of:
“The trial court unions are getting more aware of how the waste at the top is impacting them”
We all live the Death Star nightmare every day, in our own way.
You know what I mean.
Yall have a nice Cesar Chavez Day on Monday.
NewsViews
March 28, 2014
Reblogged this on News and Views Riverside Superior Court and National Family Law Abuse.
Wendy Darling
March 28, 2014
Think this link was already posted, but here is the article. Note to Queen Feckless and 455 Golden Gate Avenue: people know real transparency when they see it. And when they don’t. Published today, Friday, March 28, from Courthouse News Service, by Chris Marshall and Barbara Wallace:
Sacramento Court Turns Public Access Around With New System
By BY CHRIS MARSHALL AND BARBARA WALLACE
SACRAMENTO (CN) – Sacramento judges on Thursday introduced the first case search system in California built without outside consultants, saying it was constructed without extra funding, gives free public access online and stands in telling contrast to the financially disastrous Court Case Management System developed by the central bureaucracy of California’s courts.
Judge Maryanne Gilliard said the Sacramento court’s technical staff created the new search system with funds already in the court’s budget. Her presentation to a packed courtroom of journalists, court officials and lawyers included a big-screen review of the new features conducted by technology chief Heather Pettit.
“All of our judges believe in free public access,” Gilliard told the crowd.
Under its new leadership, Sacramento Superior Court has become a highly transparent California court, providing the public with prompt access to public documents.
Journalists can now undertake a full review of new matters on the day they are filed, where the previous access was delayed, partial and intermittent. The public can now see records promptly online or at the courthouse, where access had been delayed for weeks and months.
The turn-around has come with a January change in leadership when Presiding Judge Robert Hight and Assistant Presiding Judge Kevin Culhane took the court’s reins.
The new direction came suddenly after a multi-year effort by the media, including Courthouse News, to improve public access following the adoption in fall 2007 of the Court Case Management System, cumbersome software developed at enormous cost by the Administrative Office of the Courts through Deloitte Consulting.
The clerk at the time, Dennis Jones, was enmeshed with the AOC and paid by the agency. In separate meetings with press representatives, both Jones and his deputy Jake Chatters rejected any effort to improve public access.
Chatters expressed the view that a new record is not considered filed until it is fully processed, a set of operations that was until recently talking weeks to accomplish in Sacramento. That view has subsequently been adopted by AOC officials in recent e-filing rules, over the strong objections of press groups, including the California Newspaper Publishers Association.
In the years since CCMS was adopted in Sacramento, former Presiding Judge Steve White battled with the administrative office over control of the software which was housed on servers in Arizona and was prone to breakdowns, and former Presiding Judge Laurie Earl rejected a final version of CCMS in a letter that blasted its efficacy and contributed to the ultimate abandonment of the troubled ten-year old project.
In Thursday’s presentation, Gilliard pointedly noted that the AOC, with 161 IT employees in its San Francisco headquarters, could not get CCMS to function correctly. In contrast, Sacramento’s new system was built entirely by the 31 technical workers in Sacramento at no extra cost to California taxpayers.
Gilliard said the decision by the centralized AOC to spend almost half a billion dollars on the defunct CCMS system is “still cited nationwide as a giant boondoggle and debacle.”
Pounding on the disastrous consequences of that program, she said that the extraordinary waste of public funds combined with the economic recession had resulted in a 30% reduction to the Sacramento court’s staff since 2008.
During the big-screen presentation of Sacramento’s new system, technology chief Pettit pointed to a feature that allows anyone to follow an ongoing case by signing up for free notifications whenever a new document is filed. That capacity represents an extraoardinary improvement in public access in a state court.
A few federal courts have set up a similar function although most have not. Courthouse News, with nationwide coverage of state and federal courts, is unaware of any other state court that provides such a capability to journalists and the public.
Sacramento’s new public access system is not completely free, however. The new format will go live on April 7 and can be accessed remotely or at the court for free until July 1, when the court will begin charging for remote access to documents and name searches.
Name searches are generally conducted by agencies paid to conduct employer background checks, and the court will charge $1 for each search. In addition, a copy of any documents will cost $1 per page for the first five pages of each document and 40 cents per page for each additional page.
The court will spend more than $800,000 annually to provide the case search system, with more than $400,000 going to web-hosting hardware and software, more than $200,000 for the document managing system and more than $145,000 for Adobe software, according to a printout provided by the court.
Access to all aspects of the system will remain free at the courthouse. The fee structure will remain in place until the court can offset the $800,000 annual cost the court incurred creating and maintaining the system, the judge said.
“The charges are temporary,” Gilliard promised. “Once the court is in position to provide remote access to documents for free we will do so.”
The announcement from Sacramento Superior followed shortly after the public watchdog CalAware released an audit of the California courts on Wednesday afternoon. Judge Gilliard pointedly noted the audit’s conclusion that local trial court officials were substantially more committed to transparency in government and more responsive to information requests than the overarching bureaucracy at the Administrative Office of the Courts.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/03/28/66570.htm
Long live the ACJ.
The OBT
March 28, 2014
Maybe it is my optimistic nature, but I believe a full and complete audit of the Judicial Council and AOC will expose their massive public policy failings and waste of millions upon millions. The audit will finally prove what many of us have been saying for years, that HRH-1 highjacked control of the courts by using Trial Court funding so he could dictate to the trial courts and enhance his own power. When things started to unravel, HRH-1 headed for the exit, but made sure his replacement would follow and protect his legacy. Instead of a full and complete search for the most qualified new Chief Justice , our then Governor allowed HRH-1 to elevate the uniquely unqualified HRH-2. Under her watch the waste and abuse of branch funds has become more aggravated, including this recent 70 million accounting error. Follow the money, it always leads to the truth and in this instance it will result in a new round of so called leadership changes at 455 Golden Gate .
Lando
March 29, 2014
The word from inside the capitol is that Queen Feckless and her minions all have no credibility. The insiders at 455 Golden Gate fool no one. If our Queen, J Miller, and J Hull really cared about the branch and the citizens we serve all would resign forthwith. I trust Governor Brown to fix this mess upon those resignations as Justice Liu or Justice Humes would end Ronald Georges’s and Queen Tani’s self important , incompetent and anti democratic rule of our judicial branch.
Wendy Darling
March 29, 2014
“The insiders at 455 Golden Gate fool no one. If our Queen, J Miller, and J Hull really cared about the branch and the citizens we serve all would resign forthwith.”
We all live for the day. But, as we all know, all too well, Queen Feckless et al don’t really care about the branch, so don’t be looking for that to happen anytime in the foreseeable future.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
March 30, 2014
“She wasn’t paying attention back then.”
By all indications, she is not paying attention now, either.
Long live the ACJ.
Lando
March 29, 2014
Wendy as usual you are totally right. Queen Feckless never went to Judges meetings in Sacramento and admitted she had no idea about what the 1998 Trial Court funding legislation was all about as she wasn’t paying attention back then. Wasn’t paying attention to the most significant change in California judicial history? This lack of any caring about the branch continues today and the only thing she believes in is the preservation of her power. J Miller who is actually a decent guy also lost his way to preserve his power and loses out defending all the nonsense at 455 Golden Gate. J Hull as far as I can tell is one of the most arrogant and out of touch Judges, oh I am sorry, Justices that has ever risen to gatekeeper at the crystal palace.What a crew. Is it any wonder this group who took on more exacting oversight of the AOC is now presiding over a 70 million dollar accounting error?
courtflea
March 30, 2014
It’s the Kool Aide Lando, it’s the Kool Aide. They were all good guys until they drank it.
Wendy Darling
March 30, 2014
lol, Flea!
It would be funnier if it weren’t so true.
Long live the ACJ.
sharonkramer
March 29, 2014
“Shortfall of projected revenue” is a bold faced lie if the actual proven problem is management expenditure misappropriations causing deficit net proceeds. If they had stockholders to answer to, they would have all been fired by now, for this little trick alone.
sharonkramer
March 29, 2014
lol
AOC Watcher
March 30, 2014
Zlatco knew. Jahr knew. Sherri Carter knew as did other insiders who serve the Chief on the Trial Court Budget Advisory Committee, but none were talking. Not until their hands were forced by the JLAC vote did the news start to publicly trickle out about the $70 million Trial Court Trust Fund “shortfall” going into fiscal year 2014-2015. Rather than cut AOC spending, the Judicial Council supported AOC’s staff recommendations to continue spending the Trial Court Trust Funds they controlled throughout fiscal year 2013-14, which included a blanket authorization that Jahr backfill increased trial court employee health care and pension costs. The AOC has continued their practice of spend first ask questions later.
Let the encumbrances begin. As June 15 approaches, courts with extra dollars over their 1% reserves are racing to lock into contracts. Fiscal year 2013 – 14 marks the end of the era when trial courts could hold back reserve funds over 1 % for a rainy day.
If left to their own devices and AOC reporting, the Department of Finance will have a tough time unraveling Judicial Branch encumbrance magic as trial courts play hide and seek with millions. Keep in mind that the only trial courts capable of playing the AOC game are those with AOC gamers at the top. The good news for the public is that Whistle Blowers are lining up.
Wendy Darling
March 30, 2014
“The AOC has continued their practice of spend first ask questions later.”
One of the favorite phrases of those in power at 455 Golden Gate Avenue: It is better to beg forgiveness than to ask permission.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
March 31, 2014
That trial court cash is spent by the Death Star like shit going through a goose.
😉
katy
March 30, 2014
Nice to see someone discussing the problem from the aspect of what’s good for the public, not just those employed in Calfornia’s “legal” system.
unionman575
March 31, 2014
http://www.publicceo.com/2014/03/lawsuit-seeks-back-pay-pension-boost-for-all-california-judges/
katy
March 31, 2014
Real Leadership Means Owning Your Disasters
http://www.inc.com/will-yakowicz/when-disaster-strikes-own-it.html
“When a crisis occurs and your company is responsible, what’s your first move? If you think it is to push blame onto someone else, you have the wrong job.
‘By taking responsibility, demonstrating her values, and speaking honestly and forthrightly, Barra has shown stronger, not weaker leadership,’…’Had she not done this, or simply blamed others … she would have inevitably faced withering and justified criticism.’
The lesson here is that leaders sacrifice themselves for their employees. If you’re a leader, your job is to take ownership of everything your company does–good, bad, and ugly.”
Wendy Darling
March 31, 2014
Today’s installment of Tani’s Follies. News flash: 455 Golden Gate Avenue can’t do basic math. Published today, Monday, March 31, from Courthouse News Service by Maria Dinzeo:
Shortfall in Judiciary Budget Stirs New Controversy on Accounting
By MARIA DINZEO
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – A memo sent to California judges defending a judiciary budget estimate that turned out to be off by $70 million has generated another round of controversy over the central court bureaucracy’s ability to accurately keep books on the large sums of public money requested by the courts every year.
The latest dust-up is over a budget estimate by the Administrative of the Courts that in mid-January projected that a fund for trial courts would receive $1.38 billion in the next year from a variety of sources including filing fees.
Then a more recent budget estimate in mid-March said the earlier estimate of income was too high, by about $70 million. Much of that shortfall was due to a long-term decline in filing revenue which the administrators said they were well aware of.
The Alliance of California Judges, a reform group, criticized the “massive shortfall,” saying it made the effort to rescue court finances through petitions to the governor and Legislature even harder.
Justice Douglas Miller then followed with a memo saying the Administrative Office of the Court’s revenue projections did not reflect a fundamental mistake.
“You may have seen a letter recently titled ‘AOC’s Revenue Projections Off by $70 million.’ The letter both misstates and misunderstands the revenue projections at issue,” Miller’s memo said. “The revenue projections are not ‘off’ but instead reflect the five-year downward trend in Trial Court Trust Fund revenues, something judicial branch leaders have monitored with the AOC’s Fiscal Services Office.”
At a meeting in March discussing the new numbers, AOC Finance Director Zlatko Theodorovic said he was “not surprised” by the shortfall.
But both judges and an accountant said that if the bureaucracy’s bookkeepers were in fact aware of the downward trend, then it should have been reflected in the earlier January budget estimate rather than packing a surprise shortfall into last month’s new budget projection.
Karen Covel, an independent accountant with the San Diego firm of Lauer, Georgatos and Covel, said the bureaucracy’s finance staff should have noted that trend in its January report to the governor. “The projection is only as good as the information you use,” said Covel.
She pointed to the revenue projections for the current fiscal year and for the coming fiscal year. Both include precisely the same income figure, $1.38 billion.
“If it has already been established that there is a downward trend in fee revenue, why would one assume that projected 2014-15 revenues will remain constant? Shouldn’t this downward trend be anticipated and built into the projections? If they’ve known about this declining fee base for five years, it should have been taken into account in the January ’14 projection,” Covel questioned.
“They say they are not surprised and that they knew about the falling revenue, but it should have been in that January column,” Covel said. “Somebody is not paying attention.”
The current controversy bears a number of similarities to an earlier accounting controversy involving the AOC’s report to the Legislature on the costs of the now- mostly abandoned Court Case Management System.
In that earlier matter, in early 2012, the administrative office apparently dropped a multi-million-dollar item on the future costs of the program, in all likelihood a programming error. In that case, Justice Terence Bruiniers sent a letter defending the AOC’s accounting and the AOC’s then director said the costs estimates had simply changed over time.
“It appears they didn’t provide the Legislature with any cost information for future years,” said Covel at the time. “They did not tell you what lies ahead.”
In an interview over the most recent budget snafu, Alliance director Judge David Lampe of Kern County also said the AOC based its numbers on overly optimistic projections.
“There’s no question the AOC overestimated trial court fund revenue in giving figures to the Department of Finance in preparation for the release of the January budget proposal for 2014-2015. Now three months later, they’re saying that was overestimated by $70 million, which apparently is reflecting a five year downward trend in revenues. Which judicial branch leaders have monitored.”
He added, “The AOC is not surprised but we are surprised and members of the legislature are surprised because this means they have to negotiate for twice as much as the governor offered just to get the benefit of what the governor was offering.”
“Estimates are by their nature estimates, so they’re not necessarily inaccurate in that sense,” he continued. “But when they say they are not surprised, that leads me to believe they expected the numbers to be lower and that expectation should have been part of their original estimation on which the January budget proposal was made.”
Miller’s memo in defense of the administrative office accounting said not only were the administrative office’s accounting officials aware of the downward trend, but that the shortfall is minor in the overall context.
“Total revenue in the trial court trust fund from all sources will be approximately $2.1 billion in the current year; so the estimated ongoing $70 million is about 3.3 percent in order of magnitude,” Miller said.
“Revenue projections are not performed in a vacuum,” Miller said. “The AOC has been working in close concert with the Department of Finance, and, as appropriate, with the Leigslative Analyst’s Office, on the status of the fund. The practice of revising revenue estimates is an ongoing process in all state entities.”
But Lampe pointed to the political task the judiciary now faces in trying get the governor to grant that extra $70 million, which raises the total that the branch needs to stay afloat to $331 million.
“The political task to get additional funding was daunting in the first place. When you’re asking the legislature and the governor to come up with $70 million more we didn’t expect it makes achieving a $331 million figure even more daunting. We’re already in a crisis. So the $70 million shortfall in the estimate is not adding to the crisis; it just makes repairing it more difficult.”
http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/03/31/66627.htm
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
April 1, 2014
http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/03/31/JC%20memo.pdf
Wendy Darling
April 1, 2014
As is to be expected, that letter is signed by all the usual suspects.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
wearyant
April 2, 2014
Why doesn’t the D.O.F. simply take over then?
Wendy Darling
April 2, 2014
Very good question, Ant. One of the few things 455 Golden Gate Avenue actually fears: being put under some form of administrative receivership.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
wearyant
April 1, 2014
Good people, you must understand, the JC/AOC/CJ consider $70 million to be chump change. They are not surprised or concerned by the shortfall because they’re so much more intelligent than the roiling unwashed masses. And, remember, the JC/AOC/CJ nonchalantly blew away a half billion on the poorly planned and conceived of CCMS and subsequently blew off any mention or reminder of their past mistakes without apology. It’s simply “consider the source.” Now we must resurrect our once fine judicial branch; the JC/AOC/CJ must be fundamentally transformed. The local system was working. We don’t need an extra layer of very expensive administrators pummeling our trial courts. Bring back the local system, puhlleeze.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
April 1, 2014
Next week, the legislature begins hearings on the judicial budget. On Wednesday, Assembly subcommittee #5 will hold a hearing, and on Thursday morning, Senate subcommittee #5 will hold theirs.
😉
Wendy Darling
April 1, 2014
Some food for thought, from today’s Sacramento Bee, by Bruce Maiman,
Quote of the day: “Funny how elected officials create different sets of rules that you and I would never be accorded, and then, when caught red-handed, it’s all about due process and equal treatment under the very same laws some of these officials have spent their careers skirting.”
Violate Public’s Trust, Lose Your Job
By Bruce Maiman
The California state Senate’s decision to suspend three wayward members resolves nothing.
Leland Yee, Rod Wright and Ron Calderon should be tossed out on a rail. Expelled, not suspended.
A public servant can commit no greater transgression than to violate the public trust. That trust is what differentiates public service from private-sector employment. It’s not a job; it’s a duty.
It’s what impelled Alpine Republican Joel Anderson to stand alone in Friday’s 28-1 vote to suspend. He wants all three expelled.
“The fact (is) that you stayed in a room with somebody who tried to bribe you,” Anderson tells me. “If you engaged in a conversation where somebody asked you about delivering automatic weapons, you’re not taking the job as seriously as you should. You’ve lost your way; it’s time to go home. You’re done.”
Agreed, and for that, you don’t ask people to resign unless you mean it. It’s like that time-honored advisory: Never draw your firearm unless you intend to use it. Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg had to know these guys would never resign. They all need the money. They’re all facing hefty legal fees and/or serious campaign debt. None of them has other outside work. Why quit when you can get suspended and still get paid?
One might argue that you can’t expel someone chosen by “the people.” But we choose candidates we assume will serve honorably. If that candidate wins and is dishonorable, are we still getting the person we voted for?
Steinberg prefers to let due process be the final arbiter. You mean we should do that while paying three representatives not to represent nearly 3 million constituents in three different districts?
“We’re telling them, you’re too nefarious to cast a vote on the floor,” Anderson said, “but we’re still going to pay you.”
How about this: You lose all salary and benefits until proven innocent. If found innocent, you’re remunerated retroactively. If you’re convicted – Wright already has been – the taxpayer is out nothing.
Indeed, Yee can actually use the campaign money he’s collected to pay his legal defense. The rules – written by lawmakers – allow for that. His secretary of state campaign account contained $134,000 as of March 17, according to recent campaign finance filings, and there’s $518,000 he paid a company earlier this year to reserve airtime for his now-defunct candidacy for secretary of state.
Funny how he’ll be able to ask to get back as much of that as he can, but if he’s convicted, I doubt he’ll be returning the salary he’ll have collected from us while he was suspended.
Funny how elected officials create different sets of rules that you and I would never be accorded, and then, when caught red-handed, it’s all about due process and equal treatment under the very same laws some of these officials have spent their careers skirting.
Why haven’t our three lawmakers been expelled? Here’s why: How many Gold Domers are squirming about things they may have done in the past or may still be doing right now regarding fundraising or the kind of people with whom they’re photographed, or whatever comic cornucopia of baubles they may have accepted?
Expulsions mean questions. If Wright complains about being expelled for “mis-identifying” his address, a couple of others might face the same problem. Ya think they wanna raise a stink?
Pay to play? Bribes? Money for favors? Do you suppose other lawmakers wonder, “What if what I did comes too close to cutting corners and suddenly the light shines on me?”
The last thing these people want is anyone being called in and asked: Where do you live? Who’s this donor? Who’s that consultant? Where’d that money come from?
Remember, Yee is accused of taking campaign contributions for setting up meetings, writing letters and issuing proclamations. How many lawmakers do you think are guilty of that? Maybe not for gun runners or Chinese gangs, but how many even want to be questioned about the possibility of impropriety?
The Capitol simply does not want to have hearings on how business is actually conducted in the Capitol.
“One is an anomaly; two is a coincidence; three?” Steinberg said.
You know what three is? Three is too much heat to not do something. Friday’s vote wasn’t about sending a message; it was about covering keisters.
Exactly what assurances did we get? An office-by-office ethics review? A conduit for would-be whistle-blowers wherever a suspicion of impropriety exists?
How does that solve the problems that led to the improprieties in the first place?
How convenient for the Senate to sweep this little package under the rug so it can pretend an incident like this will never happen again.
Abandon hope, all Yee who enter here.
http://www.sacbee.com/2014/04/01/6283969/bruce-maiman-violate-publics-trust.html
Long live the ACJ.
Michael Paul
April 3, 2014
If you paid attention to the rumblings of what was going on, Wright indicated he had the dirt he would dish on Steinberg should he be expelled.
Then Calderon says the feds wanted him to wear a wire and meet with Steinberg but he refused.
Steinberg announces he is not the subject of any federal investigation yet suspends and does not expel both.
His chances of ever being appointed a judge went up in smoke as did his elect ability for any future office. People have long memories for above the law double standards.
Wendy Darling
April 3, 2014
The day Steinberg gets a seat on the California bench is the day I will completely give up on the California judicial branch. Forever.
Long live the ACJ.
wearyant
April 4, 2014
Yes, I have a long memory. It causes my hubby great grief at times. But referring back to Wright’s far-sightedness, do y’all think Wright had some reason to believe he could actually get his proposal passed? Is there more to this article or am I again conspiracy-minded?
http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2014/01/rod-wright-introduces-bill-to-convert-some-felonies-to-misdemeanors.html
The OBT
April 1, 2014
The layers of denial at 455 Golden Gate are astounding. Now J Miller J Hull and the other insiders want to minimize a 70 million dollar shortfall. They can’t even admit that their budget projections were ” off”, instead they claim they are the result of a 5 year downward trend. Well, if they knew the numbers were declining as part of a long term trend why weren’t they telling everyone that? It is no wonder this crowd has no credibility in Sacramento. As for the minor nature of a 70 million dollar mistake, tell that to the hundreds of court employees who lost their jobs in the last two years or the people that drove to and waited in traffic court all day because their local courthouse was closed.
The OBT
April 1, 2014
Among the many insightful posts above, wearyant made a great observation about the need to restore the system to what it once was. That point got me thinking that no one, not one person, not a single voter ever elected Justices Miller or Hull or any other Crystal Palace insider to oversee and manage the California judicial branch budget. This is the overriding flaw in King George’s now failed plan to take over the entire court system. The insiders have no constitutional authority to spend and waste taxpayer money and then attempt to explain away things like CCMS and now a 70 million dollar revenue mistake. No one ever gave them that power and no one other than King George, ever took away the constitutional power of local elected trial courts to manage their budgets. Is anyone in Sacramento listening ?
unionman575
April 1, 2014
http://www.courts.ca.gov/4650.htm
Hurry it is a limited time offer.
😉
unionman575
April 1, 2014
You are going to love this bucket of shit….
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/AOC_Services.pdf
wearyant
April 2, 2014
It’s high on the “gag” factor. I just ate, U-man! 😦
courtflea
April 2, 2014
Just justifying their existence uman. I did not even bother to read. Pravda is really working overtime, in other words, the AOC seems to be running scared enough to try to justify their existence to others. Laughable when you think about it. Like who cares? Assholes. How many AOC hacks did it take to produce that POS? Timbers must be ashivering in the AOC executive office. Cool.
wearyant
April 2, 2014
I like your take, Flea! 🙂
unionman575
April 3, 2014
Probably about a 20 person AOC crew to produce that POS.
wearyant
April 3, 2014
please pass a bucket
unionman575
April 1, 2014
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/hr-aoc-staffing-metrics-1314-02.pdf
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/hr-aoc-staffing-metrics-1314-01.pdf
wearyant
April 2, 2014
Does somebody at the AOC believe that “909” means the number of people they’re allowed to swell to per the legislature?!
unionman575
April 1, 2014
http://www.courts.ca.gov/12926.htm
Lando
April 1, 2014
Sorry OBT no one at least in the State Senate is listening. If they did they would have passed 1208 two years ago to end King George’s tyranny. That didn’t happen as the Senate leader D.Steinberg,blocked that effort to restore democracy to our branch of government all on his own. Thanks to him, 1208 died in the Senate along with a real chance at reform. So much for transparency, ethics and honesty, all values Steinberg says he believes in. Now the tables have turned. The chickens always come home to roost. Arrogant Steinberg will now go down in history as the leader of the most corrupt legislative body in state history. I guess that vacancy on the Court of Appeal isn’t looking so good right now, not to mention ever getting elected Mayor of Sacramento. Funny how that karma thing always seems to work out.
Lando
April 2, 2014
Maybe Tani could make a deal to get her vacant Court of Appeal spot back and the Governor could appoint Justice Liu or Justice Humes to replace her. Both men of integrity and vision, they could end the tyranny that Ronald George created.
unionman575
April 2, 2014
Recall Tani Organizing Committee (RTOC)
A Judicial Council Watcher public accountability project
https://recalltani.wordpress.com/
unionman575
April 4, 2014
Thy Queen doth speak:
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/state&id=9492578
unionman575
April 4, 2014
What can I say Tani…
unionman575
April 4, 2014
There be some rough seas ahead “T”…
unionman575
April 4, 2014
Whew maybe this will help…maybe I’ll just have another Vodka Tonic..Hmm. What to do, what to do…
Wendy Darling
April 5, 2014
“We did not mismanage ourselves into this position.” Tani Cantil-Sakauye
Um, yeah, you did. You really, really did.
Long live the ACJ.
Michael Paul
April 5, 2014
An incomprehensible state of denial. Luckily she is not being reviewed by a parole board for release.
Yet.
R. Campomadera
April 7, 2014
Apparently, she has a different view of mismanagement than the rest of us. Obviously, she still sees nothing wrong with totally wasting $500 Million on CCMS, completely failing to implement the recommendations of the SEC, and approving pay raises for already overpaid and useless AOC bureaucrats, while thousands in the trial courts lose their jobs as a direct and proximate result of her failed leadership.
That she was able to say “We did not mismanage ourselves into this position” with a straight face suggests she missed her calling…she should have gone into acting as a career.
wearyant
April 5, 2014
“You’re going to have to spend a little to save a little,” Cantil-Sakauye said.
===========================================================
Queen Feckless really said that? Now that the queen has spent all she can on her sycophantic cheerleaders, the same people who touted CCMS, said failure of a program that cost us all a half a billion in public funds, she pulls out all stops in begging for yet more money.
Let us all get off this train to nowhere, thank and expel the JC/AOC/CJ and return to local control of our once fine, formerly always open courts. It must be patently obvious to everyone, everyone with a pulse, that the central AOC has literally trashed our judicial branch. This joke of an experiment by Team George should be ended now. We know what works; return to local control. Access to our courts could happen tomorrow.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
April 5, 2014
“You’re going to have to spend a little to save a little,” Cantil-Sakauye said.
Well Queen that dog don’t hunt…
An obviously faulty endeavor; also as ~ /won’t hunt/, predictive of failure.
No go, non-starter
As he faced the blank stares of the members following his proposal, someone whispered offcamera, “Well. That dog don’t hunt.”
unionman575
April 6, 2014
http://us5.campaign-archive1.com/?u=bc36e9ce03262c2daefc0596a&id=ab96f49da7
😉
Michael Paul
April 6, 2014
EVEN IF YOU’RE NOT FROM THESE COUNTIES, if you have a story that the Legislature needs to hear – a story that explains how you or your clients are being denied justice because courts can’t hear your claims or provide relief in a timely manner, PLEASE JOIN US NEXT WEEK. I cannot over-emphasize how important your support is, and how important your voice if we are to have a chance at restoring trial court funding.
Thanks for the invite Andi, I’ll see if I can make it.
unionman575
April 7, 2014
Michael I know the Death Star sure does appreciate your efforts to be personally present.
Keep slinging the mud on THEM dude!
;).
Wendy Darling
April 7, 2014
How do you know when, as a public agency, you have lost ALL credibility? One really big clue is when you have to fly your message under someone else’s banner.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
April 7, 2014
Yes indeed Wendy.
They are real gutter rats the last few days, even for Death Star humps & their buddies.
wearyant
April 7, 2014
Looks like desperation is setting in. Gotta maintain that high lifestyle. They see their Grey Goose and caviar possibly slip-sliding awaaaay.
sharonkramer
April 7, 2014
When the CJ said they have not mismanaged themselves into this position, maybe she meant that the JC/AOC are not the only ones involved in the mismanagement that has caused this critical condition.
Seems to me that if the Cal judicial branch were a human being, a full body detox program would be appropriate. All circulating immune complexes (aka toxic pompous asses) and breachers of the blood-brain barrier causing the severe cognitive dysfuction in decision making, need to be flushed from the entire system.
unionman575
April 7, 2014
Say goodbye to more Trial Court cash:
unionman575
April 7, 2014
Yall study up for your next appearance before thy Queen:
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/ItemI_attachA.pdf
unionman575
April 7, 2014
Next Big Top Circus…
Judicial Council Meetings
April 24 and 25
Nathaniel Woodhull
April 8, 2014
Good morning Mr. & Mrs. Middle America and all the ships at sea. (Walter Winchell’s birthday was yesterday)
Well interesting nuggets were located on the Internet this morning. Justices Noonan, Warlaw and Murguia had the good sense to reverse Judge Real in his decision to support Mike Planet in the case of Courthouse News Service (CNS) v Michael Planet. As many of you know, Ventura County stopped allowing the press same-day access to civil filings under the guise that the court needed to scan the documents before they were accessed by the public. This delayed access to new civil filings, sometimes by 2-5 days. CNS tried to work with Ventura, to no avail. Planet refused access and CNS filed suit in Federal Court. Judge Real bought the initial argument raised on behalf of Ventura that this issue was more properly raised in State Court (obviously where Planet and company would have the upper hand through Tani).
The Appellate panel said: au contraire mon frere, there are very important First Amendment issues raised here. They ordered that Judge Real have a hearing on the merits.
Now it is bad enough to see Planetites trying to block public access to information, equally as disturbing is who was hired to “defend” Mike Planet in this case. Three partners from the Jones-Day law firm appeared on behalf of Planet in Federal Court. Their combined billing rate is somewhere north of $2,000.00 per hour. This was obviously authorized and is being paid for by the AOC out of some slush fund.
When we have hundreds of AOC lawyers sitting in San Francisco, Sacramento and other AOC domains (maybe some even telecommute from Tierra Del Fuego), ask yourself, why are the taxpayers paying for outside counsel to represent them in this action???? HMMMMMM???
I hope that the auditors focus on the funds used for “outside counsel”. From the rough math I’ve done on the Ventura caper mentioned above, someone got a bill for an amount in excess of $250,000.00 to date. The meter is running and they haven’t even started to address the merits of the complaint, which should not have been opposed in the first place.
GO AUDIT! Go audit! GO AUDIT!
🙂
MaxRebo5
April 8, 2014
That is awesome news General! Loved your post. Here is the article from Courthouse News today. Very happy for them. CNS is 100% vindicated and the AOC is so in the wrong (as usual) on a fundamental first ammendment issue which is the freedom of the press. Very glad the Federal Courts have stepped in to fix it. This is a great day!
Courthouse News Wins First Amendment Battle in 9th Circuit
By TIM HULL
Tweet ShareThis
In a unanimous and strongly worded opinion, the 9th Circuit ruled Monday that press access to state court records is a clear First Amendment issue that belongs in federal court. The ruling in favor of Courthouse News Service came as part of a challenge to the Ventura court clerk’s imposition of long delays to access newly filed records.
“The news media’s right of access to judicial proceedings is essential not only to its own free expression, but also to the public’s,” Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw wrote for the three-judge panel. “It is thus well-established that the right of access to public records and proceedings is ‘necessary to the enjoyment’ of the right to free speech.”
Courthouse News had gone into federal court to challenge Ventura clerk Michael Planet over a policy followed by a minority of courts in California, delaying access to newly filed court records until official processing is completed. As a result, press access is delayed until the new matters are no longer news.
CNS argued that the delay violated the right of access to judicial proceedings guaranteed under the First Amendment. Moving for dismissal, the clerk claimed that the case was not about free speech at all but rather the state’s clear discretion to withhold some information.
U.S. District Judge Manuel Real in Los Angeles then dismissed the complaint, agreeing with the clerk that he should abstain because the case involved a sensitive state issue. That decision was reversed Monday by the appellate court.
“Abstaining in this case portends particularly egregious damage to First Amendment rights because it stifles the ‘free discussion of governmental affairs’ that the First Amendment exists to protect,” the unanimous 9th Circuit ruling states. “The purpose of CNS’s effort to timely access filed unlimited civil complaints is to report on whatever newsworthy content they contain, and CNS cannot report on complaint the Ventura County Superior Court withholds.”
In a 32-page opinion, Wardlaw said Courthouse News should not be left to wait on when or whether a California state court decided to take up the First Amendment issue.
“We decline to leave CNS and those who rely on its reporting twisting in the wind while the state courts address a different question entirely – the interpretation of a state law that itself recognizes the importance of public access to judicial proceedings,” Wardlaw wrote.
Representing CNS, Rachel Matteo-Boehm with Bryan Cave pointed out that the 9th Circuit had rejected the argument made by the clerk’s lawyer, Robert Naeve with Jones Day, who said the case was not about “free expression.”
“This was definitely a case involving free expression,” Matteo-Boehm said in an interview. “You can’t talk about your government unless you know what your government is doing. The right of access is necessary to allow the public to discuss what the courts are doing.”
Naeve, who represents the Ventura clerk and the overarching bureaucracy in California’s Administrative Office of the Courts, did not return a request for comment.
The background to the litigation is tied to policies of the administrative office, an 800-strong, San Francisco-based bureaucracy that has been criticized by the press for its opposition to government transparency on a host of matters.
The press in California for decades enjoyed prompt, same-day access to newly filed matters in the state’s big courts, a frequent source of news. That changed in a few courts, however, when the central bureaucracy started pushing a software project called the Court Case Management System that cost the public more than a half-billion-dollars before it was abandoned.
A small number of courts, with clerks closely tied to the central bureaucracy, adopted the cumbersome and labor-intensive CCMS software. They included the courts in Ventura, Orange County and San Diego.
Pursuing a policy backed by the bureaucracy, all three local courts refused to give news reporters access to newly filed matters until after they were officially processed, which took days and sometimes weeks.
That change in access policy kllled news reporting on new filings for most journalists and newspapers, CNS editor Bill Girdner said.
“Ventura County, supported by the Administrative Office of the Courts, is delaying access to newly filed complaints, and that delay is killing the news value of the coverage and ultimately damaging the First Amendment rights of the press and of the public,” Girdner said in an interview.
In Monday’s ruling, the 9th Circuit panel made up of Wardlaw, Judge Mary Murguia and Judge John Noonan used sweeping and powerful language to say that such a discussion clearly involves the First Amendment and should be heard in a federal court. CNS was joined in its Ninth Circuit appeal by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.
“Open government has been a hallmark of our democracy since our nation’s founding,” Wardlaw wrote, quoting an earlier 9th Circuit ruling. “Indeed, this transparency has made possible the vital work of journalists who have strengthened our government by exposing its flaws.”
“The news media’s right to judicial proceedings is essential not only to its free expression but also to the public’s,” she added. “We have observed that the news media, when asserting the right of access, ‘are surrogates for the public. The free press is the guardian of the public interest, and the independent judiciary is the guardian of the free press.'”
Because the underlying ruling by Judge Real said the federal courts should not get involved in the case – should “abstain” from hearing it – the 9th Circuit panel needed to address that issue.
“CNS’s First Amendment right of access claim falls within the general rule against abstaining,” the opinion states. “CNS’s right of access claim implicates the same fundamental First Amendment interests as a free expression claim, and it equally commands the respect and attention of the federal courts.”
A common argument that state courts resisting access make is to say the volume of paperwork is so overwhelming that it would create a huge amount of extra work to let reporters look at new cases on the day they are filed. The clerk’s lawyer Naeve, for example, told the 9th Circuit panel in oral arguments that “no court” provides the press with same-day access.
That argument was contradicted by the current policy of all four federal courts in California and big state courts such as Los Angeles and San Francisco, as well as the smaller courts in Fresno, Bakersfield, Contra Costa, San Mateo and Solano. All of those courts provide journalists with access to the great majority of new actions at the end of the day they are filed.
In Monday’s ruling, Wardlaw noted the declarations provided by Courthouse News employees, including CNS reporter Julianna Krolak with 12 years of experience covering the Ventura court, who described simple and practical means for journalists to review new filings.
“The Ventura County Superior Court has available a variety of measures to comply with an injunction granting CNS all or part of the relief requested,” Wardlaw wrote. “For instance, the court could provide reporters with a key to a room where new complaints are placed in boxes for review before being processed, as does the Los Angeles Division of the U.S. District for the Central District of California.
“To permit same day access, the Ventura County Superior may not need to do anything more than allow a credentialed reporter – the same reporter who has been regularly visiting the court for the past twelve years – to go behind the counter and pick up a stack of papers that already exist.”
Such simple remedies would not inappropriately tie up the federal courts in ongoing supervision of state court affairs, and therefore it was wrong to abstain in the case, the court found.
“We also trust that the Ventura County Superior Court would comply with any federal injunction requiring it to make unlimited civil complaints available within a specified time period,” Wardlaw wrote.
The opinion concludes: “We reverse the judgment below and remand so that the First Amendment issues presented by this case may be adjudicated on the merits in federal court, where they belong
MaxRebo5
April 8, 2014
Perhaps Tani will give Michael Planet the William Vickrey award for “Excellence in Judicial Administration” in 2014. Are they accepting nominations yet?
It could be another act of defiance by the Chief but this time towards the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for meddling in the administration of CA Courts. It’d also be in keeping with the spirit of the award (which Tani renamed from the Kelps Award to an award in Vickrey’s honor after the Legislature demanded his resignation for mismanaging CCMS).
Please do it Tani. Please….It would have so much comedy value for me. Or maybe just name a conference room after Michael Planet to say thanks. I’ll even help you with the dedication speech for the upcoming Judicial Council meeting:
“Michael Planet …You were willing to deny first ammendment rights of the press and public to stand firm in the AOC interpretation of the law. You are a true and loyal Team George player. Screw those Federal Appeals Court Judges. I liked the lower Federal Court ruling better!” (Pause here and cue for applause from the Judicial Council members. Continue when cheers have subsided).
“Your blind following of AOC authority in the face of common sense reasoning is true excellence in judical administration. This isn’t over yet. We’ll take our right to deny the press same day access to our cases all the way to the U.S Supreme Court!” (Pause here for more Judicial Council members to applaud)
‘In the meantime, kudos to you Mike! You’ve made all of us on the Judicial Council very proud and I can say this with 100% confidence as I’ve appointed every one of them. This meeting is now closed” (Thunderous applause from the council and AOC staff present. Bust out the Grey Goose for the private reception catered on the public dime.)
wearyant
April 8, 2014
Great posts, MaxRebo5! You’ve summed up the situation perfectly! And as our Nat says, GO AUDIT, GO AUDIT!
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
April 8, 2014
This ruling is probably cinching their shorts at 455 Golden Gate Avenue, as they detest any hearing on the merits when it comes to their own actions. Published today, Tuesday, April 8, from the Metropolitan News Enterprise, by Kenneth Ofgang:
Court Revives Suit Over Same-Day Access to Trial Court Filings
By KENNETH OFGANG, Staff Writer
A federal district judge erred in abstaining from hearing a lawsuit challenging a state superior court policy denying the press and public same-day access to newly filed civil complaints, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled yesterday.
“This case presents an important First Amendment question…that should be decided by the federal courts…,” Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw wrote for the panel, adding that the injunctive and declaratory relief sought by plaintiff Courthouse News Service “would not excessively intrude on sensitive state functions.”
CNS sued Ventura Superior Court Executive Officer/Clerk Michael Planet in 2011. It contended that a series of policy changes initiated by the court since 2008 had made it increasingly difficult for the service to report in a timely manner on new suits filed in the court.
No Access Problems
CNS—which provides information on trial and appellate-level civil cases to thousands of subscribers, and to the general public via its website, and whose reports periodically appear in the MetNews—said that from 2001, when it first began covering the Ventura court, to 2008, it was able to obtain access to the vast majority of general civil filings on the day of filing or shortly thereafter.
But by the time the lawsuit was filed, the complaint alleged, the court was no longer providing access to new complaints until they were fully processed, which CNS said was taking up to 34 days.
The defense responded that budget cuts had made it impossible to complete case processing and make the filings available to the press within the timeframes that had previously been commonplace.
Planet asked the court to dismiss the suit for failure to state a cause of action or to abstain from hearing it under Railroad Commission of Texas v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496 (1941), and O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488 (1974). The cases hold that a federal court may decline to hear a suit against state or local officials despite having jurisdiction, if a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs could harm significant interests of the state.
Real’s Ruling
U.S. District Judge Manuel Real granted abstention on the First Amendment claim, and did not reach the merits.
He dismissed a separate claim, for violation of the California Rules of Court, based on U.S. Supreme Court authority that protects state and local officials from being sued in federal court for violating state law, even when that claim is factually related to a claim for violation of federal law. CNS did not appeal that portion of the ruling.
Wardlaw, writing for the Ninth Circuit, explained that the Pullman abstention, despite its “ignominious origins”—the Supreme Court relied on the doctrine to avoid the “sensitive” issue of whether Texas could require that railroad sleeper cars be placed under the supervision of conductors, who were all white, rather than porters, who were all black—remains a valid doctrine.
The Ninth Circuit, however, has never approved use of the doctrine when First Amendment issues are involved, except in one “procedurally aberrant” case, the judge said. And she emphatically rejected the court executive’s argument that access-to-information cases should be treated differently than those involving “free expression.”
Wardlaw wrote:
“CNS’s First Amendment right of access claim falls within the general rule against abstaining under Pullman in First Amendment cases. CNS’s right of access claim implicates the same fundamental First Amendment interests as a free expression claim, and it equally commands the respect and attention of the federal courts.”
No Ruling on Merits
The judge emphasized that the court was not ruling on the merits of the claim, leaving the defendant free to argue on remand that there are countervailing interests that justify the court’s limitations on access.
But she also noted that all of California’s federal district courts make a large majority of their civil complaints available to the press on the day they are filed, as do several superior courts, in some cases by allowing press access after the court has closed to the public for the day or by adjusting work schedules so employees are available to assist the media in viewing complaints.
Judge Mary Murguia and Senior Judge John Noonan concurred in the opinion.
CNS editor Bill Gildner, in an interview published on the service’s website, tied the processing delays and change in access policies to the adoption by certain courts, including Ventura, of the now-defunded Central Case Management System.
The changes killed news reporting on new filings for most journalists and newspapers, Girdner said.
“Ventura County, supported by the Administrative Office of the Courts, is delaying access to newly filed complaints, and that delay is killing the news value of the coverage and ultimately damaging the First Amendment rights of the press and of the public,” Girdner said.
The case is Courthouse News Service v. Planet, 11-57187.
http://www.metnews.com/
Long live the First Amendment. And long live the ACJ.
MaxRebo5
April 8, 2014
Not sure what Justice said it but I loved this line in the audio recording of CNS v. Planet. She was great!
This quote is based on the audiocast from the case. It may not be exact but it’s pretty close for a regular guy who doesn’t do court reporting. It’s from around 27:45-28:00 where the Justice says:
“If California had actually been able to get that electronic processing going and hadn’t spent so much time and money wasting it to no effect this wouldn’t even be an issue.”
Here is the actual link if you want to hear the case for yourself:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view.php?pk_id=0000010790
Even Federal Justices are telling the CA Court Administrators (actually their attorneys) that their waste on CCMS is resulting in CA Courts ending up in Federal Appeals Court and losing on first amendment issues.
The attorneys for Planet were saying they had to close the clerks offices, close courthouses, etc due to the budget. I wish the Justices were able to point out that there seems to be enough funds in the CA Courts budget to keep 800 employees in San Francisco as staff to the Judicial Council.
Bring on that audit as there is a need for funding redirected away from the AOC and back to the trial courts simply to comply with this case.
unionman575
April 9, 2014
See #4: “assess whether the Judicial Branch of California (Judicial Branch) can re-direct funds for these AOC functions to trial court operations.”
http://www.bsa.ca.gov/pdfs/analyses/2014-107.pdf
2014-107 AUDIT SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES
Judicial Branch of California—State Operations and Expenditures
AUDIT SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES
The audit by the California State Auditor will provide independently developed and verified
information related to the funds administered by the Judicial Council of California (Judicial
Council) and the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) and will include, but not be limited
to, the following:
1. Review and evaluate the laws, rules, and regulations significant to the audit objectives.
2. Determine whether the Judicial Council and the AOC have complied with the key reforms
contained in Senate Bill 1021 (Chapter 41, Statutes of 2012).
3. Determine whether the AOC’s methodology for determining its budget for administration
and staffing is consistent with the best practices of one or more comparable-sized
organizations.
4. Determine the size and composition of the AOC’s staff. Analyze whether staffing is
appropriate for the AOC’s mission. Determine whether reductions in trial court funding
over the last three years have made any of the AOC’s functions unnecessary. If so, assess
whether the Judicial Branch of California (Judicial Branch) can re-direct funds for these AOC
functions to trial court operations.
5. Determine whether the Judicial Branch has any reserves, contingency funds, or any other
set-asides that could be made available immediately for trial court operations.
6. Review and assess any other issues that are significant to the audit.
😉
wearyant
April 9, 2014
Music! I hear music …
Thanks for posting, UMan!
Long live the audit! Long live the ACJ! And great thanks to long-suffering WendyD!