The AOC recently put together a 21-page spreadsheet listing all that it does. You can read it on the Judicial Branch website here.
The AOC counts the following among the services it provides:
- “Support to Civics Education program to improve civic learning and public understanding of the judicial branch including the California Task Force on K-12 Civics Learning.”
- “Local Blue Ribbon Commissions training and technical assistance.”
- “Management of content strategy, publishing, and metrics evaluation for social media channels including YouTube and Twitter and consultation with other judicial branch entities on their programs.”
- “Photography support for judicial council and judicial branch programs, projects, and initiatives.”
You may note that the AOC does not perform any of the following functions:
- Issue protective orders in domestic violence cases.
- Sign search warrants.
- Decide which parent gets custody of a child.
- Rule on juror hardship claims.
- Set bail.
- Manage asbestos litigation.
The AOC doesn’t do any of those things. We do. And every dollar that the AOC spends on civics education or photography support or monitoring Twitter feeds is a dollar that isn’t going to hire clerks and reporters to work with us in the trial courts.
This latest document is hardly the defense of the AOC that it was intended to be. To the contrary: It’s an indictment. It’s a handy list of redundant and trivial bureaucratic activities that do nothing to improve public access to our courts. If the AOC wants to know why the Legislature and the Governor don’t take it seriously, it need look no farther than its own website.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A note from JCW:
In case you were wondering why the AOC launched this link that alleges to point out all of the services they offer the courts consider that they are currently undergoing a comprehensive 700k+ self funded compensation study that is supposed to come to the conclusion that an organization that provides all of these services to the courts on a statewide basis is far more valuable than they are being paid for. As the alliance of California judges has pointed out above, there should be more than a few things that they shouldn’t do.
In our mind, the AOC should not be an administrative arm of a judicial council that only has the benefit of questionable oversight about two days per month. I say questionable oversight because it is the AOC themselves that drafts judicial council meeting agendas alongside the executive and planning committee. Rather, all of the services that the AOC offers are already provided by many courts, oftentimes better and far less expensive than the AOC’s approach to providing those same services. In collaborating with each other, the courts can write out the AOC’s exorbitant clawbacks of limited funding.
If the AOC wishes to exist, it should do so by permitting the courts to trickle up financial support for their endeavors rather than taking a huge chunk of judicial branch budget up front and permitting what is left to trickle down to the trial courts.
However, the management and faux directors of the Administrative Office of the Courts could never justify their sky-high pay or their free san francisco parking privileges without presenting a byzantine map of governance that places them at the top of the branch food chain offering a myriad of court duplicative services.
sharonkramer
April 10, 2014
JCW, good stuff. I take issue with one concept. I think that instead of “AOC does not perform any of the following functions”, it should be stated as “AOC and its attorneys are not suppose to have input in any of the following functions”. I’ve seen too many instances in too many cases where some of these court functions have been systematically used to retaliate and cover-up f**k ups via an orchestrated SWOV:
You may note that the AOC does not perform any of the following functions:
Issue protective orders in domestic violence cases.
Sign search warrants.
Decide which parent gets custody of a child.
Rule on juror hardship claims.
Set bail.
Manage asbestos litigation.
wearyant
April 10, 2014
Thank you, JCW! The trickle up proposal would be a great start — and it should be the end result for our judicial branch. However the AOC was able to fund this ridiculous $700+ waste, the AOC’s ability to do this “study” must be ended at once! What these elites consider chump change would have benefited our local courts so much! We need our foot soldiers, not lazy-ass AOC directors now and always.
Incidentally, the ability to view yesterday’s assembly subcommittee via calchannel was very helpful; today’s senate subcommittee on the same subject is not available for listening or viewing. Annoying and disappointing. Darrell Steinberg, how about it? The senate floor was filling with talk of accountability and transparency. Really? You just can’t make this stuff up.
Long live the ACJ and JCW!
wearyant
April 10, 2014
I just gave a glance to the 21-page spreadsheet link provided by the ACJ letter. “Access” services was item one. Oh, gawd, what a bad joke! You just can’t make this stuff up. Really.
NewsViews
April 10, 2014
Reblogged this on News and Views Riverside Superior Court and National Family Law Abuse and commented:
Priority of the AOC is not the priority of the court system or litigants.
“You may note that the AOC does not perform any of the following functions:
Issue protective orders in domestic violence cases.
Sign search warrants.
Decide which parent gets custody of a child.
Rule on juror hardship claims.
Set bail.
Manage asbestos litigation.
The AOC doesn’t do any of those things. We do. And every dollar that the AOC spends on civics education or photography support or monitoring Twitter feeds is a dollar that isn’t going to hire clerks and reporters to work with us in the trial courts.”
MaxRebo5
April 10, 2014
The Long Beach Courthouse is back in the news. Did the Judicial Council sponsor the statute in question? Seems like they should have known this might come up. I’m not an attorney but common sense of the heirarchy of the law says the state Constitution trumps state statute. I’m betting on the County Assessor to win.
The whole Long Beach Courthouse is just a really odd project. This is why I think the AOC should not be in the courthouse construction business. Let the Department of General Services build CA Courthouses. It’s too bad the scope of the new legislative audit excludes courthouse construction. Michael Paul tried to have it included and I wish they did too. Maybe next year. As I said before, funding the AOC is job security for the State Auditor.
Tax Fight Over Long Beach Courthouse
By JAMIE ROSS
Tweet ShareThis
LOS ANGELES (CN) – A developer that holds a 35-year leasehold interest in the Long Beach courthouse is not exempt from a property tax assessment despite a California statute that indicates it is, the county assessor claims in court.
Los Angeles County Assessor John Noguez sued the California State Board of Equalization in Superior Court.
Noguez claims a California law passed in 2010 – Chapter 442 – unconstitutionally exempts developer Long Beach Judicial Partners from paying property tax, because the state constitution “requires the assessment of all non-exempt real property in proportion to its fair market value,” including a privately held interest in government-owned property.
The statute says that the state Constitution does not apply to the Gov. George Deukmejian Courthouse “because of the need to resolve the property tax issues potentially delaying the Long Beach courthouse replacement project and to mitigate the attendant risks of that delay to” California residents.
The courthouse opened in 2013, replacing a 55-year-old building down the street, and costing a reported $340 million.
Noguez claims a “leasehold interest in a government facility owned by a developer, in which the facility reverts to the public agency lessor at the conclusion of the lease term is an assessable taxable interest.”
Noguez seeks declaratory judgment that the law is unconstitutional and that he may enter a tax assessment against the developer, Long Beach Judicial Partners, for the 2013-2014 assessment year.
unionman575
April 10, 2014
http://longbeach.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=188913&GUID=2F385CBB-5A11-
42C7-A471-8D665317F08F&Options=&Search=
(Long Beach Courthouse). APN: 7278-019-946 through 951
😉
http://longbeach.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=188896&GUID=49AC69A9-BF73-4BCE-8BFD-B0C40098FF64
MaxRebo5
April 10, 2014
Interesting idea JCW! Trickle up funding for the AOC would make for a very small AOC and great customer service to the courts. Certainly that would beat the service trial courts have received from AOC “leaders” in recent years. Recall how they tried to strip trial court PJ’s of any power in a trailer bill and then when caught the AOC tried to blame it on the Department of Finance (classy). With “service” like that from the AOC who needs enemies? I’d say the idea of service for many years now from AOC Execs has been arrogant bullying and no compromise.
The top Execs at the AOC aren’t stupid though when it comes to securing funding for their personal salaries/pensions. They get their six figure pay and generous pensions directly from the Legislature (not trickle up from trial courts). They use the power/robe of the Chief as well as the Constitutional power of the Judicial Council to shield them from scrutiny from the bench, unions within the branch, or from outside pressures. In return the AOC Execs vigorously support whatever the Chief wants to do administratively/politically. It’s a smart, circular, non-merit based system based on loyalty that is very tough to break up. A little like a court admin mafia and one better not go against the family.
The past five years have shown it is nearly imposible to cut the AOC even when trial courts are closing whole courthouses, laying off thousands of staff, and dramatically reducing hours for the public. The legislature appears to be on to it finally (thanks to the ACJ’s) and I look forward to the State Auditor’s coming report. On face value it’s crazy to need 800 administrative staff for the Judicial Council to make policies.
As for the AOC staffing review, I recall Director Jahr mentioning the review at the assembly hearing. He was saying the new legislative audit was not needed because the Judicial Council had just paid several hundred thousand dollars for an outside company to do a staffing study of the AOC. I thought his logic was nuts. It is such a waste of taxpayer money to prepare an expensive staffing report on the AOC that it amounts to an insult on top of injury (with the injury being nearly 800 AOC employees as staff to the JC in the first place). The authors of the report undoubtedly are going to come back and tell their client, who is paying the bill, exactly what the AOC directors want to hear.
This useless AOC staffing report may not say AOC executives and staff are underpaid and overworked but it will at least say their size and cost are comparable to other admin offices. That’ll be cover enough for AOC Directors and the Chief to avoid doing any cuts. The AOC staffing reviewers won’t ask the larger questions either. Mainly, could the money being spent on admin at the AOC be put to better use if it was redirected to the trial courts to process cases for the public? That’ll be beyond the scope of their review. I am so pleased the legislature went ahead with their own independent audit of the AOC, over the AOC Director’s protests, and is asking the important questions. Hopefully dramatic change will be coming this year to the AOC and to the Judicial Council.
Just imagine if the Judicial Council did not spend tax dollars on that AOC staffing study the state could have funded a new judgeship for a year, helped shore up underfunded pensions, funded a local trial court technology project, or hired many trial court clerks to help the public. There are so many real world applications for that money ahead of a staffing study. They just don’t have the same priorities at all.
As the title of this post says, AOC priorities are not those of the courts. According to the new flow charts, prepared after the SEC Report, the Judicial Council is who sets the priorities for the AOC. Since the Chief appoints all the members to the Judicial Council she alone can control the priorities of the branch. Clearly Tani values the nearly 800 admin staff working at the AOC with a fierce loyalty but for how long is the branch stuck with her misplaced priorities?
For three years now she hasn’t changed her position or cut the AOC dramatically to fund the trial courts when there is great need. My hope is the Legislature will soon check the Chief with this audit to get her priorities to match the priorities of local courts. The Legislature can and should redirect money from the AOC to fund local courts and change the appointment process to the Judicial Council. Sort of a sister branch’s slap to the face which is long overdue. As Cher’s character in Moonstruck said, “Snap out ot it!”
Thanks for the forum JWC.
MaxRebo5
April 10, 2014
http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/10/politics/kathleen-sebelius-resigning/index.html?hpt=hp_c2
I’m a supporter of the affordable Care Act but even the President said they dropped the ball on the web page roll out and to his credit took responsibility saying it was on us (his administation) for it’s failure.
If Obama follows the Cantil-Sakauye method for how to handle the resignation of a top administrator plagued by IT problems, and facing calls for their resignation, then the next step is to create an award named afer Sebelius for “excellence in adminstration” plus name a conference center after her.
Only in CA Court Administration …lol
wearyant
April 10, 2014
Another deviant from Ventura county, more specifically, city of Ventura. The article leaves that out. The prosecutor mentioned that Spaccia has no respect for the judicial system. Is the air or water in Ventura to blame? Michael Planet, Sheila Gonzalez Calabro, this greedy woman, Randy Adams … ?! I think there’s at least one more greed-challenged person I can’t think of at the moment. They never think it will happen to them … I mean the shackles and prison garb.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-angela-spaccia-bell-prison-20140410,0,6743372.story#axzz2yXOLepyQ
Lando
April 10, 2014
Great post JCW. Other areas of waste at the AOC are not hard to find. General Woodhull in a prior excellent post identified one of my favorites, the hiring of outside counsel. Does any lawyer thats works in the cushy confines of 455 Golden Gate ever go into a courtroom? If not why do we have so many of them ? One of my other favorite areas of waste is the unlimited numbers of Task Forces that have been created that meet and meet and accomplish what exactly ? Of course a big area of waste is all the self promotion the AOC does including having their own media facility. One only need to count the number of pictures Queen Feckless has posted of herself on the AOC webpage to know a huge amount is wasted on her self promotion. Another huge area of concern is the cost we as taxpayers shell out so that our Queen is transported all around California by her CHP drivers. How much of that is really work related ?
The OBT
April 10, 2014
My my my. The arrogance of the Judicial Council and AOC are finally being accounted for. In terms of waste, how much has been spent over the years in the petty and unconstitutional audits they have been imposed on the trial courts? How much has been spent of continually changing and revising forms like TROs for harassment and domestic violence? How much is spent on AOC staff who show up at their conferences to monitor when Judges come in and out of their educational programs? How much gets misallocated every year for a two week Judicial College which spends lavish amounts on a fancy hotel ? How much gets spent on paying for hotels for the insiders who show up in San Francisco every month for meetings that could take place over the internet? And the best part of this? Prior to 1998, our trial courts operated just fine without any and all of this elitist waste. In the end that is the most important point. Nothing the Judicial Council and AOC does is necessary and if their false oversight and budgets were eliminated, the trial courts cold and would plow ahead serving the public just as they did before the advent of King George and his many self important insider minions.
unionman575
April 11, 2014
“Nothing the Judicial Council and AOC does is necessary…”
So stipulated!
😉
Lando
April 10, 2014
Selfies? Long before they became popular our Queen created a whole digital library of them about herself. That sure speaks volumes about the self important, arrogant and out of touch so called leadership our branch is stuck with. Her latest comments on KABC denying any and all responsibility for our branch problems pretty much sums it all best. ” We can never fail to fail, because it’s the easiest thing to do” or ” You can’t make any of this up. Really.”
unionman575
April 11, 2014
And now a word from the LAO dated 4-10-14…
😉
http://www.lao.ca.gov/handouts/crimjust/2014/Trial-Court-Operations-Funding-041014.pdf
Trial Court
Operations Funding
L E G I S L A T I V E A N A L Y S T ’ S O F F I C E
April 10, 2014
Presented to:
Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 5
On Corrections, Public Safety and the Judiciary
Hon. Loni Hancock, Chair
unionman575
April 12, 2014
Modesto on my mind (Again)…
“This new courthouse will serve the critical purpose of providing the public with a modern, secure, integrated, and efficient court facility in downtown Modesto.”
And WHO will staff this Taj Majal courthouse?
And what will it actually cost?
Notice you don’t hear a word about another PPP project like the Long Beach fiasco…and our “leaders” wonder why the Gov and the Legislature won’t pony up more $$$$ for their shenanigans that rip off the trial courts and the citizens that we the trial courts serve every day throughout CA…
http://www.modestopress.com/modesto-city-council-to-consider-modesto-courthouse-project/4667/
Modesto City Council to Consider Modesto Courthouse Project
by Charlie Thai on April 11, 2014
After years of planning, numerous hours of deliberation and intensive negotiations, the Modesto Courthouse Project site agreement will come before the Modesto City Council for consideration on Tuesday, April 15. This momentous step comes on the heels of the Court Facilities Advisory Committee voting to endorse continued negotiations for the preferred site bounded by G and H Streets and 9th and 10th Streets (10th Street Site).
The City Council will be asked to consider purchase agreements for privately-owned parcels, transferring parcels owned by the former Redevelopment Agency to the City of Modesto, packaging the entire site (both private and City-owned parcels) for sale to the State of California, as well as alley abandonment on the site.
“This is an incredible milestone in the journey to have a much needed new courthouse facility in Downtown Modesto,” said Modesto Mayor Garrad Marsh. “Either site identified for this project would have been great for the Modesto economy – and we are pleased about the selection of the 10th Street Site. All-in-all, we are excited about this project and what it will do for Downtown Modesto.”
The Administrative Office of the Courts, which is the staff agency of the Judicial Council of California, is proposing a new courthouse for the Superior Court of Stanislaus County to be located in Downtown Modesto at the 10th Street Site. This new courthouse will serve the critical purpose of providing the public with a modern, secure, integrated, and efficient court facility in downtown Modesto.
“The acquisition of the 10th Street property is a significant milestone in bringing to our community a modern courthouse that will provide a safe and secure facility for all our court users,” said Stanislaus County Superior Court Facilities Chair Judge Jack Jacobson. “We are excited to proceed with the design and planning phases of this project.”
The proposed new courthouse will be approximately 300,000 square feet, with 26 courtrooms, and will replace seven facilities. The cost of the new courthouse is $278 million. The project is funded by Senate Bill 1407, which finances critically needed courthouse construction through judicial branch fees, penalties, and assessments, without impact on the state’s General Fund. In July 2010, the State Public Works Board approved the new Modesto Courthouse Project for initial funding and ranked the project in the “immediate” need category.
Additional information about the courthouse project process can be found online at http://www.modestogov.com/courthouse. The complete agenda pack for the April 15, 2014 City Council meeting can be found online at:http://www.modestogov.com/ccl/agendas/
😉
unionman575
April 12, 2014
tsk tsk tsk…
unionman575
April 12, 2014
No hiring freeze at the Death Star…hire away!
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&
How To Apply
To ensure consideration of your application for the earliest round of interviews, please apply by 4:00 p.m. on April 18, 2014. This position requires the submission of our official application. To complete an online application, please visit our Web site at http://www.courts.ca.gov/careers and search for Job Opening 3842, Staff Accountant.
unionman575
April 12, 2014
Merced reduced services: http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/68106-merced-20140410.pdf
unionman575
April 12, 2014
Another EXISTING courthouse bites the dust and will close:
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/68106-plumas-20140403.pdf
Lando
April 12, 2014
J Jahr is a total figurehead. He has presided over a total disaster, at the behest of our Queen. He like Vickrey and Overholt needs to resign so he can go back to counting flowers on the wall.
The OBT
April 13, 2014
So true Lando. Counting flowers on the wall, that don’t bother me at all…Smoking cigarettes and watching Captain Kangaoo, don’t tell me I got nothing to do. Jahr would be better off doing that than further damaging our branch, by showing day in and day out.
Lando
April 14, 2014
Well it looks like the “insiders” at 455 Golden Gate have stepped in it again. The LA Tax Assessor isn’t buying what the ” insiders” are selling regarding exempting the private real estate company that owns the new Long Beach courthouse from paying property taxes. You know the taxes all of us non elites pay twice a year. How many millions of dollars did the JC/AOC try to help their private land owner partners from paying ? If true, it sounds like a gift of public funds something that the Penal Code generally prohibits. Also certainly another area the State Auditor should look into.
Michael Paul
April 14, 2014
https://judicialcouncilwatcher.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/pra990-1.pdf
See Changes In Law Events – Page 120 Section 17.2
I’m not a lawyer but the language seems pretty clear to me.
The Judicial Council and the AOC indemnified Long Beach Judicial Partners from changes in the law. Any cost increases (such as property taxes that LBJP OR ANY OCCUPANT might have to pay as a result of changes in the law) will be paid by the AOC.
I think we’ve stated many times that 2.3 billion is a baseline. That baseline appears it may increase by over 5 million dollars per year plus a reasonable fee (profit) so round that figure up to 2.5 billion minimum.
Watch the assessor win in superior court only to have it overturned by the appellate court and their judicial council insiders with the tried and true “the legislature crafted a legislative solution to a constitutional issue” without actually changing the constitution.
This boondoggle should also be scrutinized by the state auditor.
sharonkramer
April 14, 2014
But the BSA will not be auditing the court construction funds, right? Tell me again, why is that?
Michael Paul
April 14, 2014
Because spending $1,900.00 per square foot is “rockets red glare” – far greater than a red flag – so it’s out of her league and in the feds league.
In my discussions with legislators they loathe to change anything about the court construction program because they “assume the feds are already looking into it”.
Their exact words.
Michael Paul
April 14, 2014
Worse it would appear is section 18 of the same document that appears to say that the litigation management committee (a group of judges and justices alongside the bazillion AOC lawyers, who will hire private counsel) will work together to defeat any such litigation at the cost of state taxpayers.
sharonkramer
April 14, 2014
Interesting assumptive reasoning — omitting a legal avenue to examine documentation which could aid the feds. If there is really a federal investigation underway, seems to me that the feds would be encouraging the BSA and legislators to audit this aspect.