The Chief Justice made a startling statement in a recent television interview:
“General funds support for the third branch of government has failed. It’s absolutely a skeleton of what it used to be.”
Her remarks stand in stark contrast with those of her predecessor in a speech he gave back in 2009:
“It was anticipated that the switch from county funding to state funding of California’s judicial system would raise the level of services provided across the state to an effective baseline, provide courts with a stable and predictable level of funding, and allow the judicial system to engage in productive planning for the challenges ahead. Those expectations have been met.”
The current chief’s recent statement, along with her admission that backing CCMS was a mistake, constitute a sweeping acknowledgement of what we in the trial courts know to be true. Chief Justice George’s vision of a unified judicial branch—directed by a central bureaucracy, bound together by a massive computer network, housed in dozens of gleaming new courthouses, acting in unison with the Chief Justice at its head—has proven to be a mirage. Centralized administration didn’t lead to stable funding. Centralized administration didn’t improve the level of service we provide. Centralized administration didn’t bring us more prestige. And centralized administration certainly didn’t bring us a working case management system.
The issue is not simply the failure of the centralized model of state funding for the trial courts, but also the failure of the Council to adequately carry out its duty of oversight– the $500 million waste on CCMS being the most prominent example. The primary problem with centralized funding is that it has empowered a centralized state court bureaucracy, to the great and lasting detriment to the courts of this state.
In that same interview, the current Chief Justice said, “We did not mismanage ourselves into this position.” But that’s precisely what our branch administrators did.
Very truly yours,
Directors, Alliance of California Judges
Judicial Council Watcher 
sharonkramer
April 14, 2014
Close, but no cigar. The problem is that centralized control of money has given bureaucrats control of court employees’ actions. Anyone who has kowtowed to the collusive loss of autonomy has played a role in the problem.
One can follow the example of the JC/AOC and futilely attempt to sweep the continuing damage caused by past misdeeds under the rug — or one can cleanse their midst of those who have been participants to gross misdeeds caused by too much centralized control.
They are the worker bees of the phantom menace, protected by those who hold centralized control. One can’t fight them and protect them at the same time if one’s goal is to restore integrity to the branch.
NewsViews
April 14, 2014
Reblogged this on News and Views Riverside Superior Court and National Family Law Abuse.
organicmomca
April 14, 2014
From a law student, and nonprofit helping people with their nightmare civil, and Family Cases,. the problem is that the judges and lawyers are currently running up more high conflict cases so they can complain that there is not enough funding. The system is letting Judges scoot cases way out,. rescheduling, not enforcing discovery, all leading to highly complex cases. That then means less time for easier cases,. and everyone gets bogged down. The solution is to have more local management oversight and sanctions on Judges who fail to follow Rules of Court,. as well as a way for a litigant or lawyer to bring those without persecution or bias from the Judge on other cases. Any thougths? I agree with the above,. the abuse is out of hand, giving a bad name to honest lawyers and Judges. There are currently m.ore than 50 active web sites with abuses spelled out,. and now with Divorcecorp Movie showing the criminal aspect of Family Law and Civil law Cases. . .
MaxRebo5
April 15, 2014
Those of you who believed centralized admin would mean more $ were played for fools. This may seem unkind, but I think many of you were played by George and Vickrey. What they really really meant was more $ for their friends at the AOC when you thought it was more money for the courts overall. Time to wake up and realize the vision of George and Vickrey was a total shell game. George is retired/gone and Vickrey has left California entirely and lives in Arizona now. They have their generous pensions. How is yours looking? (A bit underfunded I bet – 3 billion short).
Do you trust Tani to lead you or would you feel better having an actual voice of your own in policy making for CA Courts? If I was a judge I know I’d want my own voice. Unfortunately, If you want a voice you are screwed. The Chief alone controls all appointments to the Judicial Council. Trial court judges have no voice of their own (except the Alliance of California Judges) and the Alliance is being marginalized as much as possible. Fortunately the recent vote on the AOC audit shows they have growing clout (unanimous) with the legislature. This existing system sucks and has to change!
I’d rather cast my lot with the 500 judges on the right side of history with no guarantees than be for certain on the side of bullies who have no interest in a democratic Judicial Council. Sadly it seems 1,200 CA judge are still on the side of Team George and this is after CCMS, the Long Beach Courthouse fiasco, courthouse closures around the state, 2,000+ trial court employees laid off, and the AOC trying to strip local PJ’s of power. Those of you on Team George/Tani’s side at this point blow my mind. I don’t get your point of view at all. What do you stand for? ….
My best guess is muddling through with less than perfect bosses. Or if only the courts were funded 100%, despite the waste, all would be fine. That’s crazy talk to me. They screwed up to the tube of $500 million on CCMS alone. How about some contrition and shame for this mismangement withinCA Courts?
The longer 1,200 trial court judges support Tani the harder it will be to make the cuts needed at the AOC and also the harder it will be to get funding to local trial courts. I want to see 1,700 trial court judges in the Alliance forcing the Chief to change and asserting their voices in policy making. Getting judges to agree is like trying to heard cats and this amazes me given how badly centralized admin has failed CA Courts. I would think judges would be clamoring to be voices of reform and disassociate themselves from the failures of the AOC.
Wendy Darling
April 15, 2014
“I’d rather cast my lot with the 500 judges on the right side of history with no guarantees than be for certain on the side of bullies who have no interest in a democratic Judicial Council.”
Yep.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
Michael Paul
April 16, 2014
I’m not so sure that TCS can count 1200 judges in support. More like…. 1000 judges that are ambivalent and are probably trying to do their jobs without getting involved in the politics. This is not gulf war 2 with the bush administration saying “Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists” and I’m glad that the ACJ isn’t taking that tack, though the judicial branch leadership certainly is by getting everyone they dole out funding to to jump into their boat – or else.
sharonkramer
April 19, 2014
Speaking of branch leadership and those who jump from boat to boat, why would a District Attorney un-endorse the re-election of an incumbent judge?
Could there possibly be some colorful history here?
http://katysexposure.wordpress.com/2014/04/18/san-diego-superior-court-judicial-candidate-lisa-schalls-answer-to-voters-questions/