More than 500 years before Christ was born a Chinese general and philosopher penned the chronicles that we know today as the Art of War. That Generals name was Sun Tsu. Packed full of ancient wisdom that has since been passed around the globe, it was produced during a tumultuous time of warring states.
History suggests that after the chronicles were penned and General Tsu’s king of state, the King of Wu read them and he challenged the good general to use that same wisdom to train an army of the least likely: 180 concubine women from kings harem would be assigned to the general and he was ordered to use the wisdom written therein to create a fighting force.
The general picked the kings two favorites as officers in command and put them in charge of 90 women divisions and charged these two women with their troops being able to follow the generals commands. In an effort to test their progress, he ordered his new troops to assemble on the parade grounds for some drill training. When the general ordered his new divisions to face right, they giggled like school girls and did not obey. He issued the command again and again, they giggled and again did not obey.
Believing that a general was in charge of his officers and his appointed officers were in charge of their troops, he explained to his troops his philosophy. He then had the king’s favorite concubines hauled out of the ranks and executed over the kings objections and assigned two new officers from the ranks.
The next time he issued the command to face right there wasn’t a single giggle in the ranks and the command was successfully executed by all because they had all learned a few important lessons.
1. Anyone can be chosen for leadership
2. The penalty for a failed execution of an order is a successful execution of the leadership.
In today’s modern age when you apply Sun Tsu’s wisdom to employment, the net result is termination of a less brutal kind. Except of course if you are a leader appointed by queen feckless. If you are a leader appointed by queen feckless your failure to deliver means you will have a conference center named after you and you will be showered with commendation for being six years behind delivery schedule and a projected billions over budget. Other failed leaders will actually be promoted to specially created internal committees whereby the command remains the same: Develop a case management solution – just don’t refer to it as CCMS anymore.
Personally, I prefer General Sun Tsu’s approach to failed leadership as opposed to that of queen feckless – or her good friend Darrell Steinberg who is currently taxing millions of people while denying them representation in Sacramento. It is this same stuff that creates revolutions – or at least ensures you will never occupy a position of public command again.
Which brings us to queen feckless’s friendship with Alan Zaremberg. Now while on the face of it it seems innocuous enough, consider for a moment how this relationship recently played out. At 18 minutes and 18 seconds in the video below Alzada Knickerbocker, the owner of Avid Reader bookstore owner in Davis California. She also happens to be on the California Leadership Council for the National Association Federation of independent Business which, like the California Chamber of Commerce is pro-business and anti-worker. During her speech, she advocates the use of the motion for summary judgement as a critical tool for small businesses to dismiss abusive lawsuits and claims that only a well-funded court system can take the uncertainty out of owning a small business “When lawsuits are resolved in a year instead of three years” Being small business owners ourselves, we’d like to see motions for summary judgement ruled on within the first 90 days as that takes real uncertainty out of the system but it isn’t so much this message as hauling out small pro-business / anti-lawsuit /anti-worker types as the face of the judicial branch.
Okay, we thought to ourselves, that was an inappropriate case example of how the closed down courtrooms throughout the state have been previously used and how budget might impact a future motion for summary judgement but more important than that was the underlying message: Queen Feckless is pro-business, anti-litigation and anti-worker – a message she’s clearly and unambiguously telegraphed many a time through her various actions. Predictably, it played out as disastrous in the halls of Sacramento.
Was this merely a one-off? Sadly, that answer is no.
Next appearing would be Travis Hausauer whose business the Squeeze Inn would also get a free plug from the chief justice. He would commence his speech with the fact that that he was among the leaders of California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse that, like most other small businesses also relied on a well-funded court system to dismiss frivolous litigation in a timely manner.
While we might agree that the legislature creates the laws that get abused through the usually unintended consequences of their actions, speeches promoting a functional court system and three year plans might be shunned by many in Sacramento that are opposed to those parties other interests, like preventing an increase in the minimum wage. Like requiring employer paid/contributed healthcare. Like requiring paid sick leave. Like providing many of the other benefits enjoyed by first world countries and strongly opposed by the national federation of independent businesses and the chief justices friend, Alan Zaremberg, president of the California Chamber of Commerce.
For sure, we’re pro-business. But we also are smart enough to realize that being pro-business only happens when you take care of your people and are pro-worker by paying them living wages so they’re not forced to live off medi-cal and food stamps. It only happens when you take due care in contributing to health plans that ensures their own economic security. We’re among many other businesses from Apple to ZenApp that rejects the notion of corporate welfare by treating employees as third world slaves of the state that we toss a bone towards every once in awhile. Many of the interests of CalChamber and NFIB are not shared by us.
And we believe it to be wholly inappropriate for a chief justice to even have the appearance of promoting these or any other controversial cause by giving them a voice in any three year plan.
And that is why we believe the chief justices three year plan was dead upon arrival at the state legislature. We trust that there is an award in these matters somewhere for someone when they should probably be hauled out of the ranks and executed like a real leader might do. Yet in an atmosphere where perfect crimes can be committed, this serves as yet another in a really long list of items that lack accountability, for it will be the courts who will be held accountable for this colossal mis-step and not the judicial council or its commanding general, queen feckless.
It begs the question:
Produced by Yen Interactive Media
NewsViews
April 21, 2014
Reblogged this on News and Views Riverside Superior Court and National Family Law Abuse.
unionman575
April 21, 2014
http://www.courts.ca.gov/policyadmin-invitationstocomment.htm
Court Technology Governance and Strategic Plan
Item Number: SP14-04
Deadline for Comments: June 16, 2014 5:00 PM (Pacific)
Submit Comment Online Or, email: invitations@jud.ca.gov
unionman575
April 21, 2014
http://www.kionrightnow.com/news/local-news/local-courts-feeling-the-affects-of-ongoing-state-budget-cuts/25536362
Local courts feeling the affects of ongoing state budget cuts
MaxRebo5
April 22, 2014
Nice link there on Monterey County. I was disappointed the PJ there (Marla Anderson) did not mention there are many judges in CA who want the AOC to be cut to help redirect funds to local trial courts. Nor did she mention to the reporter the new legislative audit of the AOC just approved to look into this possibility. The PJ also didn’t mention the AOC just messed up again to the tune of $70 million dollars and now the Judicial Council is going to vote later this week to ask the general fund to pick up the tab for for this AOC error. This fee shortfall is not a mistake by the other branches but by the AOC staff who overestimated the revenues from fees and are just now coming clean about it. Shouldn’t an AOC leadership head roll for this latest $70 million dollar mistake taxpayers are being asked to to cover?
I liked how the clip showed all the paper files and the clerks file stamping documents as they have done for 100 years. That’s where the branch remains. Stuck in the 20th century despite spending hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars on CCMS to move the branch into the 21st century. The public provided the money but the AOC failed to deliver a usable product.
CCMS was a complete failure in nearly every sense. It even blocks a free press from reviewing files in a timely fashion and violates the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution as the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found in Ventura Court where CCMS was implemented. It’s also left a huge technology gap so courts are not able to do things like e-filing which could help for communities who have lost a local courthouse to a closure.
Who’s responsible for that massive failure and waste of taxpayer dollars ($500 million) for CCMS? According to Ron George’s memoir it was Bill Vickrey’s fault alone. I don’t buy that even though Vickrey clearly has the lions share of the responsibility. It was a Ron George and the entire Judicial Council’s responsibility too. That undemocratic body appointed by the Chief Justice alone has still not been reformed and really needs to be.
The legislature also felt it was Vickrey’s fault after the State Auditor’s report came out so they sent a letter to Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye demanding Vickrey’s resignation for his mismanagement of CCMS. Instead of thanking them Tani Cantil-Sayauye, as the new Chief Justice, defiantly told them to not interfere in her managment of branch administration. Vickrey did announce he would retire but not for nine more months and when he left Tani renamed the Kleps Award to be the William C. Vickrey Award which she gives out every year for “excellence in judicial administration” in his honor She also named the Judicial Council conference center in his honor. Both of these honors she bestowed after the CCMS failure, the state auditors report, and the legislature’s letter! A five hundred million dollar failure results in honors for the Director in charge, on top of a six figure salary he received, and a very generous pension that he took and promptly left the state despite claiming otherwise to the state bar journal.
“He said he and his wife will likely remain in California where their daughter and two grandchildren live.”
Source: http://www.calbarjournal.com/April2011/TopHeadlines/TH3.aspx
That quote from Vickrey was clearly a parting bit of deception to the CA press/public. He took his generous pension money and ran to Scottsdale Arizona to live on a golf course as soon as he could sell his Nob Hill condo in San Francisco. A bit OJ Simpson like in character where OJ fled California to live off his pension and play golf in Florida. Ron Overholt left the state too for Arizona. They have no great love for California let alone a love for the CA Courts or the CA public.
Humble men would be volunteering at a CA Court self help centers trying to atone for their mistakes and seeking to help the CA public they once claimed to serve. Most likely their jobs were about their egos and a means to publicly finance a country club lifestyle for their personal lives. It’s not all that different from what the “leaders” in the City of Bell unethically did to fleece that trusting small community. This is not my idea of public service but Tani remains quite pleased with their work. To me it looks like plain selfishness and greed.
Unfortunately the California public is left paying for all of this and has no new computer system as well. Adding insult on top of injury the public will now have to pay again for local computer systems to be built just to get back to what was supposed to happen with CCMS. That’s massive waste and failure not excellence in administration!
I try to imagine Obama creating an award for Kathleen Sebelius for excellence in administration after the failed Web Page Development and roll out for the Affordable Care Act. To his great credit, Obama admitted the ball was dropped and it was 100% on his administration to have done a better job on the web page. Obama was polite to his cabinet member Sebelius who he put in charge of it, and he doesn’t say it was literally Sebelius’s fault as she is not a computer programmer. Nevertheless, she was appropriately thanked and shown the door because those poorly implemented contracts happened on her watch (her responsibility) and it tarnished both him and the new law. She was 100% responsible for the management of those contracts with the vendors and they failed. If she did her best there is no dishonor in that failure but it’s still not exactly excellence for others to aspire to either. No unkindness toward her nor praise is needed. Just thank her and move on.
Tani as Chief has done the opposite of Obama as President. She remains defiant and has shown no recognition of responsibility for mistakes made by her administrators to this day. The Chief and AOC have an attutide of arrogance instead of humbleness and it is costing the branch greatly. Her view is If there was just more money everything would be great. I think that’s just more BS and spin.
– The public gave you money on CCMS and your leaders wasted it.
– The public funded AOC staff to track filing fees and their estimates came up short to the tune of a staggering $70 million dollars.
– The public gives you a staff of 800 for the Judicial Council and you produce very little with it of value and don’t want to redirect those resources even with the great need at the local level.
The story on hardship for Monterey Courts did some justice though by mentioning the 2,000+ trial court employees let go around the state from local courts through no fault of their own. No mention was made of the small 10-30 AOC layoffs and none of those AOC jobs processed any cases for the public. The AOC mostly staffs Judicial Council subcommittees which are not required by law to exist. They are involved in courthouse construction which the branch is not well suited to manage (Ex: Long Beach Courthouse) and the Federal Courts stay out of. The other major area of AOC staffing is IT which they are not experts in technology either as proven by CCMS. If any place should be cut first it is the AOC as it will least impact “access to justice” for the public. It’s pure politics to me that the AOC is spared while local courts are cut and it is not good public policy. It’s also not a reformed culture of leadership coming from the Chief Justice which she promised to create after the SEC Report. Three years now she has wasted and not made real reforms (cuts) to the AOC to help offset cuts to local trial courts.
The Judicial Council Watcher has a Star Wars theme underlying it which I love. As a prisoner Princess Leah said to Governor Tarkin aboard the Death Star, “The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.” Tarken then used his dictatorial power to blow up her home planet silencing the voices of billions of people.
The same logic holds true for the Chief. The more the Chief tries to force speaking with one voice, the more judges will resist to have their true voices heard. The Alliance of California Judges will be Ron and Tani’s most positive and lasting legacy despite all of their efforts to silence it. Let’s hope this rebel alliance can win the hearts and minds of the CA public representatives before our home state’s courts are blown up too.
Wendy Darling
April 22, 2014
I knew everything that I ever needed to know about Tani Cantil-Sakauye when she not only defended Bill Vickrey in the wake of the State Legislature calling for Vickrey’s firing, but exalted him, and then heralded Vickrey by naming an award for “excellence” in his name and gloried him by naming a conference center in Vickrey’s “honor” – this for a man who has no honor and never excelled at anything except wasting public money and viciously punishing people who told the truth.
In the four years since Queen Feckless has assumed the Office of the Chief Justice can anyone yet name even one act of “leadership” by her – just one – that is worthy of following?
[crickets chirping]
Yeah, that’s what I thought.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
wearyant
April 22, 2014
By God, MaxRebo5, such excellent and precise observations! Thanks for posting. Yes, I also believe The Queen thinks a constant rain of money would solve all the judicial branch problems. Thanks to the JCW for making it possible for fine comments such as yours and the many others here. And long live the ACJ. Long live Wendy D. 😀
katy
April 22, 2014
Deep one, JCW. Had to read it three times to grasp what you are trying to say. Glad to see you are seeing the connected dots.
FYI, Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse (CALAs) are not small Mom and Pop businesses who, gosh by golly, just want a fair shake in the court for little guy trying to make a business for his family and the American Dream.
CALA’s are BIG BUSINESS using a marketing strategy to sway public opinion that they shouldn’t be liable in court for defrauding the public and tax payer in many ways. A lot of it has to do with liability for environmental work related injuries.
A lot of this “need for tort reform to protect small business” nonsense is, in reality to protect those big businesses which abuse their employees and don’t want to be held accountable for the damage. Its no wonder Tani feels a kinship with their message.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Citizens_Against_Lawsuit_Abuse
Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse groups (or CALAs) are “grassroots” groups created by industries and businesses to give the appearance of a groundswell of public desire to alter the legal system to make it harder to bring lawsuits for injuries and illnesses caused by hazardous products. A primary funder of CALAs, and tort reform, has been cigarette maker Philip Morris, and they both funded and controlled the organizations through ATRA, the American Tort Reform Association
A “privileged and confidential” Philip Morris (PM) tort reform budget from 1995 shows that PM spent over $16 million to instigate tort reform during that year alone, and that PM paid an international public relations firm called APCO & Associates (now known as APCO Worldwide) almost $1 million in 1995 to implement tort reform efforts behind the scenes. [1]
Michael Paul
April 23, 2014
It’s ironic, isn’t it? The American Tort Reform Association bankrolls Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse. The American Tort Reform Association is funded by insurance companies nationwide and large corporations that are so large and so rich that they are self-insured. Big pharma, big tobacco, big oil and big chemical fund ATRA and it is this same ATRA that painted Tani’s courts as a “judicial hellhole”
http://www.atra.org/newsroom/california-again-ranks-1-%E2%80%98judicial-hellhole%E2%80%99
How incredibly naive this woman is by actively underwriting her own branches demise while asking for more funding to do it.
Lando
April 22, 2014
Great comments above . The common thread is clear. Queen Feckless enjoys being the center of attention and enjoys power and her quest to maintain it. As Wendy correctly concludes our Queen has never advanced an innovative, progressive or even practical idea to deal with the many problems the branch is confronted with. Instead we see trite Public relations stunts like the so called “Blueprint” and “Blue Ribbon Commission that will be high level”. High level means the constant recycling of the same ” insiders” that have allowed for this once strong branch to fail. Even worse than that though is that our Queen exhibits four personality traits that always result in failure: lack of humility, arrogance, lack of acceptance of responsibility and denial that anything she or her insider friends do cause the very problems we now face. All these personality failings are exhibited when watching the “Blueprint” video above, our Queen’s televised attack on the legislature after 1208 passed , or any recording of a Judicial Council meeting since she was installed as branch dictator.
Wendy Darling
April 22, 2014
At some point Lando, it stops being recycling and just become plain old garbage.
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
April 22, 2014
Speaking of gross incompetence, not to mention a little law breaking, from branch “leadership”: today’s installment of Tani’s Follies. Published late today, Tuesday, April 22, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
L.A. Assessor Suit Over Courthouse Puts Court Budget at Further Risk
By MARIA DINZEO
(CN) – A muddled and controversial deal to spend $2.3 billion for a gleaming new courthouse in Long Beach has from the start attracted criticism of its finances like moths to a flame. Now the Los Angeles tax assessor is suing for millions of dollars in property taxes on the building that, if the suit is successful, would wind up being paid from an already beleaguered court budget.
The 31-courtroom building in Long Beach is the first ever in California to be built through a public-private partnership. Developer Long Beach Judicial Partners financed $490 million to build the courthouse and is leasing part of it back to the courts.
Comparable to buying a courthouse on lay-away, the Judicial Council which votes on court projects and relies on staff from the Administrative Office of the Courts, said California would pay the developer $50 million a year for 35 years, and then own the building.
The Legislative Analyst’s Office said the total cost for the building over time would add up to $2.3 billion.
The new Long Beach courthouse had its grand opening last Fall accompanied by criticism from lawmakers and trial judges over its expense. Those objections were amplified by the admission from the Judicial Council that the “annual service fee” was coming out closer to $61 million rather than the originally estimated $50 million, and by the Legislature’s refusal to take the money out of the state’s general fund.
That left existing court construction funds as the source of payment, resulting in four other planned courthouses for Fresno, Los Angeles, Nevada County and Sacramento being “delayed indefinitely.”
But another of the deal’s chickens is now coming home to roost.
The Los Angeles County Assessor filed a lawsuit earlier this month seeking the payment of property taxes on the building, estimated to be somewhere between $4 million and $5 million a year. In the agreement with the developer, the Administrative Office of the Courts promised to cover the taxes, if the developer was not exempted.
In the genesis of the deal four years ago, the administrative office tried to quietly speed the developer’s tax exemption through the Legislature as a “trailer bill,” a piece of legislation that trails the budget and becomes chit in the frenzied round of trading that accompanies passage of California’s massive budget.
At the time, Los Angeles County Chief Executive Officer William Fujioka sent a letter to the Legislature calling the trailer bill “unconstitutional” and “ill-advised.” His May 2010 letter eviscerates the policy being pursued by the Administrative Office of the Courts.
“Notwithstanding the assertion to the contrary by the AOC, this proposed legislation does raise a constitutional issue,” Fujioka wrote. He added, “If approved, this AOC proposal will further degrade the integrity of the possessory interest component of the property tax system and set a precedent that will invite other interests to pursue similar exemptions.”
Fujioka also blasted a bid request put out by the administrative office a year earlier, in which the administrative office promised to assume financial responsibility for any property taxes imposed by the county on that part of the building used by the courts.
“This self-inflicted harm should not be the basis for legislation that will further erode the legal environment governing the taxation of possessory interests,” wrote the county executive.
He sent a second letter in June 2010, in which he continued to criticize both the Judicial Council and the Administrative Office of the Courts, saying their push for the exemption would set a terrible precedent. But he also noted a possible compromise.
“The high priority that the AOC and Judicial Council are placing on this legislation as the means of expediting the construction of the Long Beach Courthouse means that there is a very real possibility that legislation exempting the Long Beach Court from possessory interest property tax could be enacted into law,” Fujioka wrote.
“This would potentially place the County in the worst possible position since the proposed law would clearly set a precedent which would encourage similar attempts in the future,” he wrote.
Fujioka then chose between two evils. He said he would withdraw opposition to the legislation if the AOC was prohibited from making such deals in the future and if the exemption was passed but not put in the books as a codified statute.
The compromise wound up as AB 1341, authored by Assembly member Bonnie Lowenthal, a Democrat from Long Beach.
Since then, the courthouse has been built, had its grand opening in September, judges have moved in and commercial tenants currently are preparing ground floor units for shops such as Subway.
Lowenthal’s spokesperson defended the deal, saying by email, “She authored AB 1341 in 2010 to resolve the dispute between the Administrative Office of the Courts and the LA County Assessor. The bill was narrowly crafted to apply only to the Long Beach Courthouse project. Without the bill, the project would have been significantly delayed.”
But the tax assessor seems to have no memory of that old compromise and he now wants what he considers his due.
“I have no personal knowledge about that,” said Principal Deputy County Counsel Albert Ramseyer, referring to the compromise allowing a one-time exemption for the builder.
“The Legislature does not have the authority to exempt real property from property tax,” says the complaint filed by Ramseyer. Pending before Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Richard Fruin, the suit asks for a declaration that the law granting the developer’s exemption is “invalid and unconstitutional.”
Because the case is pending, no judge is able to comment on the controversy.
However, when the Long Beach courthouse was opened in September, judges freely criticized the deal as wasteful and extravagant, a recurring theme in comments on the administrative office’s stewardship of public funds.
In a statement shortly after the building was opened, the Alliance of California Judges, an association of more than 500 judges pushing for reform of the Administrative Office of the Courts, said billions of dollars spent on a few courthouses meant that the desperate need for new courtrooms elsewhere would go unmet.
“Our state may never have these billions to spend, nor will court facilities be the only outdated state facilities needing repair and replacement,” said the Alliance statement. “We are concerned that the state will be left with extravagantly funded courthouses in just a few locations, while courtrooms and courthouses throughout the state remain closed and public access remains frustrated.”
Throughout its history, the Long Beach courthouse deal has generated steady criticism from lawmakers who did not agree with the Judicial Council’s idea that California’s general fund would pay for the building.
A legislative staff analysis for the Assembly Committee on Revenue and Taxation in August 2010 notes that because the AOC had already inked the deal with the developer, California taxpayers were locked into covering the property taxes one way or another.
“This bill could result in foregone possessory interest taxes in Los Angeles County of between $4 million and $5 million,” said the analysis. “However, the Judicial Council indicates that, in the absence of this bill, the state would be required to pay any possessory interest taxes related to the Long Beach Courthouse on behalf of the nongovernmental entity, which could result in annual General Fund payments of $4 million to $5 million.”
The Judicial Council, which relies heavily on the AOC staff for its analysis of legislative issues, had said the annual payments for the building, as well as the property taxes, would come out of the state’s general fund rather than the judicial budget.
But that view was not shared by the Legislature. The result is that the money must come out of a court budget that has been already been decimated by cuts.
“It was never intended that the General Fund should pay for it,” said Senator Loni Hancock at a hearing last year.
The Democratic senator from Oakland added, “If I lived in Sacramento, or Fresno, or Los Angeles or Nevada City I’d be asking some serious questions. We don’t have a dollar to waste and every public dollar needs to be carefully accounted for, and the judiciary system is too important to waste one single dollar.”
http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/04/22/67252.htm
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
April 23, 2014
We don’t have a dollar to waste and every public dollar needs to be carefully accounted for, and the judiciary system is too important to waste one single dollar.”
Exactly.
Who will pay for this?
Trial Courts.
😉
sharonkramer
April 23, 2014
and who funds the trial courts? Taxpayers, who are also funding the Long Beach debacle no matter where the funds come from. Misappropriation of tax dollars needs to be stopped via the JC/AOC having no more unbridled control to determine where dollars are spent. If an average person was publicly known to have screwed as many people out of money as these “clowns” have; they wouldn’t even be able to get a job at MacDonalds let alone as leaders of the largest state court in the country.
The OBT
April 23, 2014
Thanks Wendy for posting that informative piece on the Long Beach courthouse aka CCMS-2. Despite whatever is going on with the property taxes, the public should question why the JC/AOC entered into this public- private partnership to begin with. No reasonable person anywhere believes it costs 2.3 billion to build a courthouse. Somewhere along the way, the elites and insiders at 455 Golden Gate lost the total perspective that all this is taxpayer money including the half billion wasted on CCMS and now another 2.3 billion on a single courthouse. Thanks HRH-1 and HRH-2. Your arrogant legacy amounts to billions of dollars of wasted taxpayer dollars.
Michael Paul
April 23, 2014
First mentioned in this thread: https://judicialcouncilwatcher.com/2014/04/10/aoc-priorities-are-not-those-of-the-courts/
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.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I’m not the only one that reads this as a get out of taxes pass. Can I get a get out of paying income tax law specially tailored to me? Not only will taxpayers be straddled with the taxable event that conventional delivery would have avoided but the private entity is entitled to a reasonable profit on that taxable event of about a half million per year.The reimbursement itself will be considered income and trigger another taxable event to be reimbursed by the AOC.
I always said that court construction was a larger financial boondoggle than CCMS and here’s your proof.
Furthermore the service fee coming in at 61 million per year is obscene and par for the course.
Who is lining their pockets with this sweetheart deal?
unionman575
April 23, 2014
“Who is lining their pockets with this sweetheart deal?”
That one needs the Feds.
MaxRebo5
April 23, 2014
You’re right. The Long Beach courthouse and all courthouse construction should have been in the latest audit and you told them so at the hearing (to your great credit).
Perhaps it is best for the State Auditor to review the AOC and Judicial Council in multiple audits as it is a wealth of mismanagement of public funds. Not reforming the Judicial Council and AOC is job security for the State Auditor. Sucks for the average taxpayer though. I’m all for a Federal review at this point as well as these abuses go right to the top of the CA Courts. 😊
Michael Paul
April 23, 2014
It takes over 50,100 traffic convictions on each and every one of the 365 calendar days to pay for the long beach courthouse and that amount seems to rise every time we hear of a new long beach courthouse story.
I’m wondering how any other courthouses can be built and paid for.
Wendy Darling
April 23, 2014
“The service fee coming in at 61 million per year is obscene and par for the course.”
“Who is lining their pockets with this sweetheart deal?”
“The Long Beach courthouse and all courthouse construction should have been in the latest audit.”
I’m sure the feds are “looking into it.” Not.
You just can’t make this stuff up. Really.
Long live the ACJ.
Nathaniel Woodhull
April 23, 2014
For all those who post on this site, it is a sad reality that many of us ave paid the price for trying to stand up for our convictions over the past decades since the installation of HRH-1.
There are many similarities between what we are facing and those on the HBO series Game of Thrones! Unless and until the Legislature is willing to stand up and address the corruption that is rampant within the Crystal Palace, those of us delivering services to the public on a daily basis are condemned to a life of bleak, stark ,reality, while those within the Palace continue to enjoy an life of opulence; with their own “let them eat cake mentality.”
Long Beach and CCMS clearly demonstrate that the clowns leading the Branch have no business controlling the Hundreds of Millions of Dollars that are directed to benefit the public.
$550+ Million lost on CCMS and how many Hundreds of Millions will be lost on Long Beach????
Either repeal Trial Court Funding or democratize the Judicial Council and shut-down the AOC as we know it!
unionman575
April 24, 2014
Shut down the AOC.
😉
unionman575
April 24, 2014
http://www.mercedsunstar.com/2014/04/13/3596832/new-fees-loom-for-online-court.html
sharonkramer
April 24, 2014
I never heard a clear explanation for this: What is the justification for the BSA forensic audit of the JC/AOC excluding court construction fund allocations? What other gov’t agencies and entities become involved when the JC/AOC enter into new construction transactions?
unionman575
April 24, 2014
As a Union Man I must say my construction trades brethren are a powerful lobby here in CA.
Money talks, bullshit walks and they have the cash to lobby for bullshit overpriced jobs with kick backs.
It is all fucking wrong my friends.
unionman575
April 24, 2014
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/jc-20140425-adoc.pdf
See Page 6– • Post-Employment Benefits – Watch this one all of my fellow trial court slum-dog folks..I feel a cold wind a blowin folks..
😉
Trial Court Fund Balances and Post-Employment Benefits:
• Fund Balances: The Fiscal Services Office held a series of conference calls for trial court
leadership and fiscal contacts to facilitate completion of the state Department of Finance’s
request for projected 2013–2014 fund balance information, and to discuss the broad approach
to encumbrances with the approaching one percent fund balance cap.
• Post-Employment Benefits: The Superior Court of Santa Clara County and AOC Fiscal
Services Office hosted an in-person meeting and statewide conference call for trial court
leadership and fiscal contacts on the subject of establishing irrevocable trusts to pay for
future liabilities regarding certain post-employment benefits.
Guest
April 25, 2014
No kidding they are holding the funding for post retirement benefits in Santa Clara as pretty boy Yamasaki resides there. His prettiness has the judges there so captivated that they enthusiastically pay him more than any other CEO in the state but now it appears they gave him a sweet deal that will go on after he retires. You think?
unionman575
April 24, 2014
My, my, my, better grab your ankles you Death Star Humps…spin the cooked books bottle and hope for the best with the State Auditor and her team…
Note to Death Star: Your time has arrived…I fully expect another audit of that foul smelling Construction Program run by OCCM…call me crazy…but it IS coming…Keep up the fight ACJ, JCW and every commenter here.
😉
See Page 7:
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/jc-20140425-adoc.pdf
Judicial Council/AOC Audit: At the Chief Justice’s request, Judicial Council member Judge
Mary Ann O’Malley and Vice-Chair of the Advisory Committee on Financial Accountability and
Efficiency for the Judicial Branch Justice Kathleen O’Leary will represent the council in the
audit process. Both attended the entrance meeting with the California State Auditor’s (CSA)
office. AOC division chiefs and a number of office directors and leads have been interviewed
and a significant body of documentary material has been provided in response to requests from the CSA audit team. The final report is expected to be published in late fall.
wearyant
April 24, 2014
Perhaps the OCCM and their construction program is just too inextricably entangled within the JC/AOC/CJ to not be included in the AOC audit. Perhaps the BSA needs to see the whole picture to sort out the stink. My, my, my, will all be revealed? Will the comfortable, outta shape elitists be able to even reach their ankels? For the spin-the-bottle game, I would suggest New Amsterdam vod. It has a squared-off shape rather than lovely round as Grey Goose is and may be much more easily manipulated as the AOC elites may require in their game-playing. Not bad tasting and a lot cheaper too. Needless to say, this old retired trial court dog cannot afford Grey Goose and found alternatives.
unionman575
April 24, 2014
Say what? Leasing office space? No, no, no…
Pate 7:
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/jc-20140425-adoc.pdf
AOC Facilities Management Unit (San Dimas) lease for office space
How many spaces does the Death Star rent?
Don’t make me list the offices you rent across CA. I will.
That’s a promise.
😉
unionman575
April 24, 2014
We are closing courthouse, courtrooms and DENYING access to Justice to our citizens.
You are renting space across CA at top $$$$$.
Yall are a disgrace at the Death Star.
The list of your real estate holdings IS coming to a theater near you right here on JCW.
😉
sharonkramer
April 24, 2014
“The final report is expected to be published in late fall.” Would that be right after elections?
sharonkramer
April 24, 2014
I’m pulling out my crystal ball on this day of April 24th in the year of 2014.
I make the following predictions:
1. The BSA Audit report will be released within 30 days after November 4, 2014.
2. The audit will note several areas in need of improvement within the AOC/JC.
3. The audit will state that monies are being wasted in these areas — but will not name names of WHO wasted the monies.
4. To paraphrase the gist of the audit, “Now don’t do that again”.
5. To paraphrase the gist of the AOC/JC response to the audit, “Okay, we promise we won’t.”
6. Impact on known fraudsters who caused and benefited, personally, from abuse of power: At best, early retirement with a gov’t pension and double dipping in a lucrative second private sector career. (Crooks will LOVE to associate with other crooks who got away with it and have a lot of dirt on those re-elected on November 4, 2014 and their subordinates. Gives them an edge to get away with more as the circle grows.)
7. And the beat goes on til the next “forensic audit” ordered in an election year pre-election, with post election reporting.
What to place bets on what day the audit report comes out?
unionman575
April 25, 2014
Now for how the other half lives (not all you trial court slum dogs)…
http://www.10news.com/news/investigations/chp-chauffeurs-state-justices-at-taxpayer-expense-042414?autoplay=true
California Highway Patrol chauffeurs state justices at taxpayer expense
State to spend $21.7 million by end of 2014
Mitch Blacher
6:39 PM, Apr 24, 2014
Protecting California justices will cost taxpayers $21.7 million by the end of 2014. Justices don’t sentence criminals; they hear appeals from attorneys. Critics say the California Highway Patrol is acting as nothing more than the justices’ armed chauffeurs.
A San Diego Superior Court judge calls the expense outrageous.
Judge Tony Maino has spent 30 years face-to-face with convicted criminals.
“There hasn’t been a justice who’s been physically attacked, at least in the 30 years I’ve been doing this, I don’t know of any,” Maino said.
Maino receives security protection inside his San Diego County courtroom. Seven blocks away, inside and outside San Diego’s 4th District Court of Appeals, justices receive protection from armed California Highway Patrol officers.
The protective service is detailed in a contract between the CHP and Administrative Office of the Courts, which manages business affairs for California’s judicial branch. Between 2009 and the end of this year, the judicial protective section will cost taxpayers $21.7 million according to the contract.
The CHP dedicates 25 officers to judicial protection according to the contract obtained through public records requests.
“I’ve had death threats,” Sacramento Superior Court Judge Maryanne Gilliard said. “I never got any extra level of security.”
Both Judge Gilliard and Maino have been critical of how California’s judicial branch spends public money. Court furloughs and service reductions have affected the public’s access to state courts.
Gilliard and Maino argue superior court judges have a higher risk because of closer contact with the public.
Justices disagree.
“I think its disingenuous for a trial judge to say it’s not needed,” said retired state justice Arthur Scotland. “It’s just not fact.”
The superior court judges said the judicial protection provided by the CHP can be abused. They cite justices who use the CHP like an armed taxi service to shuttle them to social events and meetings more than 100 miles from their appellate court.
“My information is there have been some CHP officers that have driven justices to the airport,” Maino said.
California’s former chief justice Ronald George detailed one free ride in his book, “The Quest for Justice in California.”
“Terry drove us to the airport later that morning to begin our long journey to Antarctica,” Justice George wrote.
There’s no mention of what judicial business he had there. “Terry” is identified as his CHP driver in the book.
The CHP contract with the judicial branch does not provide any detail identifying individual trips, pick up or drop off locations.
Team 10 captured surveillance images showing as many as six unmarked judicial protection section cars parked near the captitol complex in Sacramento. Two of the same cars were also seen and photographed parked in from of the state supreme court in San Francisco within days of each other.
The judicial branch referred all questions the CHP.
“We are aware of threats justices have received,” said CHP spokeswoman Fran Clader.
Clader said she could not speak about specific threats or give any further detail on duties performed by CHP officers assigned to the protective unit.
Judicial protection is guaranteed by California’s vehicle code, but the CHP only has to provide protection if the Chief Justice of the California Supreme court asks for it.
“I think it is something the legislature has a responsibility to scrutinize to make sure that money is not being misspent,” Sacramento’s Judge Gillard said.
Team 10 has previously exposed the high price of court maintenance across California including hundreds of dollars to replace light bulbs and hang clocks.
Hearings were held after the Administrative Office of the Courts spent $2 billion on a computer system overhaul that was never used because it didn’t work.
Team 10 has also reported on San Diego’s 4th district court of appeals. The same justices in San Diego who receive CHP protection, work from rented office space in the Symphony Towers. When the lease runs out in 2017 the state courts will have spent more than $23 million dollars on rent.
In response to Team 10’s initial question the Administrative Office of the Courts and California Highway Patrol coordinated the following statements:
Judicial Council of California Statement:
The entire judicial branch has faced severe ongoing budget cuts over the last five years impacting every branch entity and that is why A Three-Year Blueprint for a Fully Functioning Judicial Branch was created to encourage reinvesting in California’s justice system.
For the judicial branch enhancing security is a key goal in facilitating equal access to justice for all Californians, protecting all who serve and need our courts, and ensuring continuity of court operations.
Currently, $557.583 million is available in 2013-14 to meet trial court security needs and $4,344,000 to meet appellate court security needs. Security threats and risks vary by jurisdiction and location and the state and judicial branch funds security based on the threat assessments, recommendations, and assignments identified and contracted for by law enforcement agencies-including local Sheriffs’ Departments for the trial courts and the California Highway Patrol’s Judicial Protection Services for the appellate courts.
CHP Statement covering questions related to security:
“The California Highway Patrol Judicial Protection Section (CHP-JPS) provides a variety of law enforcement services to the California Supreme Court and the California Courts of Appeal through a reimbursable services contract with the Judicial Council of California Administrative Office of the Courts. The current contract is for five years.
JPS’s primary mission is to provide security and protection for the California Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal, their employees and the public who conducts business in the largest judicial court system in the nation.
In line with this mission, JPS is responsible for providing security for 112 justices and nine geographically separate court facilities throughout the State. The vast majority of the duties include ensuring a safe work environment for the Judiciary and its staff, assisting the public in conducting business with the court, providing bailiff duties, building security functions, initiating investigations of threats made against the Judiciary, and on an ‘as needed’ basis, provide protective details to judicial members of the Courts.
Threats received by members of the judiciary are investigated. The details are not discussed nor are the details on how or where JPS deploys its personnel as doing so would be counterproductive and could jeopardize the safety and security of its protectees.”
Copyright 2013 Scripps Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Michael Paul
April 25, 2014
The nice thing about working on electronic security systems for the Judicial Council and the AOC is that you might know a thing or two about what the judicial branch and their judicial protection unit might not want you to reveal.
If you work for the AOC or Appellate courts and you know some of the history behind this, the judicial protection unit used to be part and parcel of the state police that was dismantled and folded into the CHP.
Also you know that these fine officers are often tasked with picking up the presiding justice at home and dropping them off at home at the end of their shift. If any justices go to engagements throughout the day, these fine officers are tasked with chauffeuring around the justices to these events under the auspices of serving as personal protection such as one mentioned in the chief justices book where “Terry” drops Ron George off at the airport for a purely business meeting with the Antartic Penguin population.
An interesting thing about 455 Golden Gate is that there are actually two CHP offices within the building. One CHP office in the building, the smaller of the two, is tasked with protecting state workers and state assets and executes building security from within the building. Their office is next to the cafeteria and there are a few officers that can ring the bell and two hundred CHP officers in riot gear will show up in 30 minutes. They drive marked CHP cars.
On the other side of the complex in the old supreme court building is the contracted CHP judicial protection unit. Utilizing separate radios, separate computers and unmarked special black sedans with rear tinted windows, these officers serve as personal protection to the justices, not the building occupants or the AOC.
For the AOC executives like Steven Jahr, there is an office called emergency response and security. They too drive unmarked police cruisers, are armed and have radio systems tied into both the CHP as well as the judicial protection unit. These fine officers can often be found at any judicial council function such as judicial council meetings. Unlike the Judicial protection unit however, they are legally empowered to only make a citizens arrest, yet are armed with 9MM. They are the ones that can be found in JC meetings wearing dark suits and inconspicuous earpieces. You might believe that these officers are judicial protection unit but most of them are emergency response and security. To keep the people guessing and to not reveal the breadth of this AOC program, they often have judicial protection unit officers wear the same dark suits and earpieces just like the AOC’s emergency response and security officers.
So when you take a really close look at things and not a 50,000 foot view from a trial court, there are layers and layers of armed bodyguards serving the judicial council and AOC executives. Some are AOC employees, some are contracted CHP employees some serve the state of California and protect the whole building and its many occupants, that includes an AG office and a governors office and many other senate and assembly offices.
It is a colossal waste of public funds that the “court security fee” pays.
Michael Paul
April 25, 2014
You will note the denial of justice Scotland indicating JPU denying that justices get a free ride to and from work. He’s mostly correct as most of them drive their own vehicles. However there is a different standard for presiding justices and he knows it.
MaxRebo5
April 25, 2014
Justice Scottland again. He’s quite a loyal team player. He agreed to chair the SEC report for the Chief, spoke against the AOC being audited but was shot down by a unanimous vote to do it by the legislature, and now he speaks in support of the CHP security detail for Appellate Justices despite there being any identified threat. Does he ever speak out on waste or speak critically about the priorities of the CA Courts?
For example, where is he on CCMS, the cost of the Long Beach Courthouse, or when the AOC had employees telcommuting from Switzerland? I’m not really opposed to CHP security for the appellate justices but when times get tough I think it is legitimate to question all costs and it could be time to make tough choices. Fund a clerk at the local level or fund security at the appellate level? Those are legitimate debatable policy issues and trial court judges have a right to raise them. They should be thanked for their views
“The entire judicial branch has faced severe ongoing budget cuts over the last five years impacting every branch entity and that is why A Three-Year Blueprint for a Fully Functioning Judicial Branch was created to encourage reinvesting in California’s justice system.”
The AOC response is almost always give us more money. Never do they say, “Let’s manage what we have better and live within our means.” They live like California is always in a boom and the reality is we have busts too and are just pulling out of a very severe recession. Thousands of trial court employees were laid off, courthouses then had to close, and taxes had to be raised (temporarily) with Prop 30 to fund the schools.
The state still has hundreds of billions in unfunded liabilities in state employee pensions. It has billions in infrastructure needs for transportation and water storage, a servere drought to handle, and the Governor just called the Legislature into a special session to get a rainy day fund created.
The few things CA Court administrators were entrusted to do with state money in CCMS and courthouse construction they have botched pretty badly. Now they are being audited again to see if the 800 folks at the AOC are really needed at all. Yet the Chief and AOC brass are not humble in attitude at all. They have a position that they are entitled to more money and know how to spend it best. That’s a bit like Lindsey Lohan or Charlie Sheen saying they are entitled to top jobs in Hollywood and would spend money wisely. Both are stars but their reps for drinking, partying, and not showing up for work are well earned at this point. Most studios would rather give some new fresh face a chance. Why throw more good money after bad on repeat offenders who don’t want to change? Same logic applies with CA Courts. The Chief has not reformed (cut) the AOC. New leadership is needed in the AOC and a new Judicial Council is needed that is not appointed by the Chief Justice alone. Till then I bet they’ll have a very tough time getting more money from the general fund. Maybe Oprah can sit down with Tani the way she did with Lindsey and try to get her to snap out of it.
unionman575
April 25, 2014
http://www.10news.com/news/budget-woes-can-californias-judicial-system-recover-from-a-five-year-crisis
Budget woes: Can California’s judicial system recover from a five-year crisis?
10News Digital Team
8:42 AM, Apr 24, 2014
….
wearyant
April 25, 2014
The pointy-headed bureaucrats in court admin were always trying to pull security from the judges’ courtrooms back in my court slumdog days. In civil court the pointy heads would claim the sheriff is not needed, and the clerk was tapped to do extra duty as a bailiff in addition to the normal judicial assistance workload in court. Remember the old saying, something like the criminal defendants are at their best behavior in court and the citizens behave at their worst? The judges had to put up with *NO* security where violence is not unheard of in our busy courtrooms. Maino and Guillard have my undying and utmost respect; they’ve no doubt put up with a great deal over their working years, a lot of which goes unmentioned and unappreciated.
Wendy Darling
April 25, 2014
The latest installment of Tani’s Follies. Published today, Friday, April 25, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
Open Committee Rule Passed by Judicial Council With Reluctance
By MARIA DINZEO
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – Under pressure from the California Legislature, the Judicial Council unanimously passed an open meetings rule Thursday that would open up many historically closed committee meetings. But the overall balance of the rule still favors closed committee doors, said press and open government advocates.
“We started this effort at the urging of the Legislature and the governor’s office last summer,” said Justice Harry Hull, who helped draft the rule. “As we talked, I was persuaded a broader rule would benefit the branch.”
Other council members were not so persuaded and voted “aye” with great reluctance.
Brian Walsh, the presiding judge in San Jose, said he was “all for openness” but the council was already open enough. His comments also acknowledged but had been an open secret for years, that the advisory committees are made up largely of the staff from the Administrative Office of the Courts.
“They consist of staff and essentially user groups, not Judicial Council members, who then work up issues to present essentially as staff reports to the voting body,” said Walsh. “To require opening up such staff functions, I believe is inappropriate.”
He said he only voted in favor of the rule “not because it is necssary for appropriate democratic transparency- we already have that- but because if we don’t pass this rule, those in Sacramento who continue to misunderstand how our branch functions will impose something even more inappropriate.”
A catch-all justification for continuing to close meetings has been that open discussion might compromise a judge’s ethics. But that justification was rejected by the former head of the ethics committee for the California Judges Association.
“I know of no discipline ever imposed upon a judge who has made public commentary about a pending or impending case within the context of a governmental or judicial advisory body,” said Judge Julie Conger who has taught ethics to judges since 1990 and twice chaired the ethics committee for the California Judges Association.
Open government advocates said the rule passed on Thursday fell short of what the Legislature intended and what is needed to bring sunshine into the decisions that affect the courts and the people of California.
“Like with any bureaucracy, the public is entitled to know what’s going on and the more that the bureaucracy reveals to the public, the greater will be the public’s trust in the court system,” said Peter Scheer, executive director of the First Amendment Coalition. “These rules gives them excessive discretion to avoid transparency by going into executive session for all sorts of reasons.”
The muscle behind the push for the rule came from legislators who included a mandate to open the council’s myriad committees in a trailer bill attached to the 2013 budget. Governor Jerry Brown vetoed the bill after lobbying from Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, who argued that the judiciary should be allowed to write its own rule.
The chief justice then appointed the heads of the Judicial Council’s five most powerful committees, the internal committees, to draft it.
“I knew three years ago we talked about opening meetings, but we never quite finished that conversation because we were hit with so many financial crisis. We just never got around to it,” said Cantil-Sakauye during Thursday’s council meeting. “As for all the comments today I agree with all them. Every single one of them.”
Public Comments
Referring to a very different set of comments, the chief justice noted that the public and press had ample opportunity to give input on the rule. “We are gluttons for punishment,” she said. “We went through two rounds of public comment.”
Public comments were submitted by the California Newspaper Publishers Association, by Courthouse News Service, the Service Employees International Union, Assembly Speaker John Perez and Assembly members Bob Wieckowsi and Reginald Jones-Sawyer.
In a nutshell, they said the open committee rule was out of step with California’s sunshine laws, included too many exemptions and left key committees closed.
The CNPA and Courthouse News specifically argued that the rule-making committees should not be held in secret and there was no reason to close committees where draft reports and initial data gathering were discussed.
The SEIU also observed that the public can understand the difference between draft and final reports, and that public comment obviously has more influence before a report or recommendation is final.
Those arguments were successful. The final version of the rule opens the doors to Rules and Projects Committee and to discussions about draft reports and “unverified data.”
But the committee chairs also gave themselves an escape hatch, calling for a review of the rule after one year. “We will review the rule in its actual working, and if in practice the rule has gone too far we will amend its provision,” Hull said.
Attorney Katherine Keating with Bryan Cave in San Francisco said the comments of the press and were clearly considered in the report to the Judicial Council by the rule’s authors. But, she said, the rule still carries a presumption against transparency.
“The authors of this report spent a lot of time and worked very carefully through all the comments that were submitted,” said Keating. “The chart summarizing comments and responding to them is often detailed and careful.” Keating’s firm submitted public comments on behalf of Courthouse News.
But the rule does not follow the legislative mandate set out in the Legislative Analyst’s Office report on the budget, said Keating. That report, published last summer, gave a broad instruction to open council committees.
“The report asks for a rule that would apply to various bodies that review issues and report to the Judicial Council,” said Keating. “Instead, the rule says if a particular body happens to be working on something they report to the Judicial Council on, then they have to be open. It is significantly narrower — to say that a body that reviews issues has to have open meetings versus only when it reports to the Judicial Council.”
A similar method was criticized by press advocates as a “definitional sleight of hand” in efiling rules passed by the council last year. Those rules attempt to restrict and delay access to court documents by interpreting the Legislature’s broad grant of public access to official records such as those put in a file to say that a record must be put in a file to be public. The rules then make another leap to say efiled documents must be processed, as though put in a file, to become public.
Referring to the 200-page report from committee chairs that accompanied the open committee rule, Keating said, “The chairs of this report were fairly frank in saying that the public has enough access and they don’t need any more. Based on the comments that were submitted, most members of the media and government access advocates would disagree.”
“Most open government and media representatives would say the presumption should be on openness, and where there is a really good reason to have something closed, then you close that,” she concluded. “Even with the few revisions that were made to the rule, it’s still the other way around.”
Question of Ethics
The principal argument against opening the committee has been “ethics,” the suggestion that opening up policy discussions to the press might compromise a judge’s ability to fairly judge cases.
In his comments before Thursday’s council vote, Justice Hull argued that the committees rely on voluntary participation from judges. “If due to a concern that participation calls upon a judicial officer to violate the canon of ethics, that participation would be seriously diminished and the work of the branch would be severely compromised. The rule that has that effect has gone too far.”
But Scheer was not buying it.
“We’re talking about a judiciary in California that has its own lobbyist. If the judiciary as an institution in California doesn’t mind having a lobbyist who tries to influence votes in political process, then I really don’t’ see how they can complain that they’ll be compromised somehow when they talk about public policy,” Scheer said.
Scheer and Keating, both lawyers, said they would like to see some examples.
“I would really have liked to have seen a more detailed explanation of why that’s true. It feels a little bit like we’ve got to take their word for it,” Keating said. “The canons of judicial ethics don’t give judges more latitude to make comments in private than in public. The restrictions apply whether they’re made in public or not.”
“I’ve heard the argument again and again and I think it’s greatly misconceived,” Scheer said. “I’ve never heard of an example where a judge on an advisory committee to the Judicial Council might be called upon to say something or comment on something that would somehow infringe on or would be questionable under the rules of ethics governing judges, or would give the appearance of a conflict of interest.”
Judge Conger, who has taught ethics to judges from nearly a quarter-century said she has never heard of an instance where judges have been disciplined for violating the judicial ethical canon based on comments made in advisory committee meetings.
“If, perchance, the topic of a pending case arises within the deliberations and discussions of an advisory committee, and the facts and substance of the case are relevant and essential to the proceedings, it strikes me that the Committee could adjourn to executive session to discuss the matter.”
Conger added, “The Council report envisions judicial commentary on ‘active cases, non-final decisions, or opposing interpretations of statute or case law’ as being chilled by opening the advisory committees to the public — again, I know of no discipline imposed on a judge who made public comments about pending cases within the context of serving on an advisory committee.”
Though retired, Conger still sits on the bench in Alameda County as an assigned judge, and must still abide by the ethical canon. That includes her work on the California Commission on Aging which requires open meetings under the Bagley-Keene Act.
“We frequently discuss Elder Justice cases which come before the courts; I find no difficulty in discussing the legal issues involved in these cases within the context of a public meeting as long as I avoid specifics of the cases, committing myself to reaching a particular ruling, and appearing to exhibit bias or prejudice,” she said.
During Thursday’s council meeting, Justice Douglas Miller, chair of the council’s internal Executive & Planning Committee and one of the rule’s authors, called the rule a work in progress.”The rule represents a change for the judicial branch. We the Judicial Council and staff will likely be challenged by the demands of the new rule,” he said. “But I sincerely think it is the right and appropriate thing to do.”
Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye said she shared the council’s concerns, but supported the rule’s passage. “It’s not going to be perfect in anyone’s view. But it’s a step in the right direction. I have no predictions in how this will go — I’m a little worried about it myself. But it’s conceptually something to be proud of.”
http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/04/25/67359.htm
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
April 25, 2014
Quote of the Day: “We are gluttons for punishment.” Tani Canti-Sakauye.
You just can’t make this stuff up. Really.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
April 25, 2014
“We are gluttons for punishment.”
Yes you are.
MaxRebo5
April 26, 2014
The council drags their feet, created an open meeting rule only under threat of force from the other branches, and then claim to be victims (gluttons for punishment). Their attitude is really pathetic. Sort of a siege mentality they have coupled with fake we’re doing so much woe is me lament. So unbecoming and uninspiring.
Take responsibility Judicial Council and Chief! Huge policy mistakes were made and continue to be made. It is not a democratic debate of policy going on at your meetings but a political machine created by Ron George and maintained by Tani to control everything.
You are public officials. You are publicly funded. Your actions are of interest to the press and the public. You are accountable to the other branches and to the public. This is cowardly feet dragging on opening up these meetings. You do not need to fear the people you serve.
I hope the upcoming audit solves all of this. I think what the Council members actually fear is once the public sees how much time, money, staff are spent working on trivial AOC control matters to manage judges/staff and speak with one voice they won’t want to find all of these subcommittees at all. Does CA need 800 admin staff for the Judicial Council?
This lame rule I think is there to protect the AOC staff and is about preserving their funding. This fear of judges being found in violation of judicial cannons of ethics is a joke as the article showed nicely.
I hope the Governor and Legislature find it is too weak a rule as well and demand real openness of the Judicial Council and it’s staff discussions. Everything needs to be open and transparent just as it is for the other branches. We’re talking meetings to discuss IT projects, rules of court, courthouse construction, how to name buildings, not the details of individual cases. Everything they do should be open.
Great article by Courthouse News! They’re awesome. 😊
MereServant
May 22, 2014
Me thinks they are mere gluttons.
The OBT
April 26, 2014
So while the trial courts continue to be buried in work,dealing with huge reductions in staff,closed courthouses, radically reduced court hours and significant facility problems, our Queen and her insiders are now wasting valuable taxpayer dollars that should be helping the above on creating a Task Force for K-12 Civic Learning. The California Task Force on Civic Learning is creating yet another “blueprint” (funny how that word gets recycled all the time) with seven regional meetings, co-chaired by none other than than Judy McConnell former CJP Chair and tormenter of countless trial Judges. Now honestly, we spend billions on education as we should so why are we as a branch spending valuable and limited court resources on public education ? Why is the JC/AOC spending anything on a project that is so far afield from our core mission when we can’t fund basic things like access to our trial courts? The ultimate irony is that HRH-2 and J McConnell who are heading up this project represent two of the most anti-democratic institutions in our government, the insiders at the Judicial Council and the closed arbitrary world of the CJP. Maybe they can explain all that to the K-12 students they seek to “educate”. Finally, the State Auditor should look at how much we are going to waste on all this, including AOC staff time and “security costs” for J McConnell so she can attend these seven Task Force regional meetings.You can’t make any of this up. Really.
Michael Paul
April 26, 2014
Food for thought: Much like a courthouse, it takes a “blueprint” before you spend a buttload of public funds building one.
Lando
April 26, 2014
Thanks Unionman and OBT for bringing to light this latest complete waste of taxpayer dollars sponsored by the Crystal Palace insiders. It was yet another bad week down at 455 Golden Gate. The millions wasted on so called “security” for the elite and fumbling around about opening Judicial Council meetings, just shows how this anti-democratic group can’t get anything right, including bringing back Hon Judith McConnell.
unionman575
April 26, 2014
http://www.courts.ca.gov/25819.htm
Council Approves New Guide to Manage California’s Courthouse Construction Program
Also hears report on $360 million in savings by Courthouse Cost Reduction Subcommittee
Grab a bucket…
🙂
unionman575
April 26, 2014
And now the word from Sofa Man & Jahr Head on telecommuting…
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/jc-20140425-itemN.pdf
courtflea
April 26, 2014
50 frickin pages to justify their existance er I mean policy. Coming soon: a policy to justify CHP drivers and helicopter rides for justices and the supremes. No Wendy, you can’t make this up, can you?
PS I’d just like to know how many justices or supremes have had sawed off shotguns duct taped to their neck by black panthers or have taken down a defendant in their courtroom when their baliff was incapacitated? How many face danger every day with murderers/gang bangers/nut jobs sitting a few feet away from them in their courtrooms? How many have had defendants or litigants get into fist fights with their attorneys or other parties in their courtrooms? How many have protesters out in front of their homes when they are hearing high publicity, politically charged cases? I will never believe it is appropriate for the CHP to be toting around justices like they are some bfd, when our trial court judges face this type of stuff all the time. Slum dog trial judges indeed. What is wrong with this picture? It just frankly pisses me off.
unionman575
April 26, 2014
Efficiencies and Restructuring at the Legal Services Office, or what used to be known as Lizard Land…
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/jc-20140425-itemO.pdf
Michael Paul
April 26, 2014
It still is lizard land. Didn’t you hear? The lizard is a double-dipping special consultant.
unionman575
April 26, 2014
Special Consultant Lizard Land.
😉
courtflea
April 26, 2014
ok. is it just me or is all of this out pouring of changes and policy making a bit like closing the barn door after the horse ran out? or in other words, in anticipation of an audit? Dumbshits. But at least they are being “transparent” 🙂
Nathaniel Woodhull
April 27, 2014
On the issue of “security”, don’t forget that HRH-1 and Vickrey tried, and almost succeeded, in creating their own “law enforcement division.” In 1998, HRH-1 proposed that the way to reduce security costs would be to create an internal security force that would administered through the Judicial Council/AOC. Fortunately, the California State Sheriff’s Association and CHP got wind of this and killed it. HRH-1 was furious. Despite all the “perks” associated with having their personal drivers, HRH-1 wanted more control and autonomy.
Can you imagine what things would be like if he had they had their own personal Gestapo????? I’m sure that The OBT will remember efforts to get information about some of us…
http://www.chp.ca.gov/depts_divs_offs/psd_jps.html
Nathaniel Woodhull
April 27, 2014
This was the riddle of the 1960’s:
Why are the doors of a CHP car white?
So they know where to get in.
wearyant
April 27, 2014
Interesting link, General. The CHP has come a long way since they were termed “Triple A with a gun.” The JC/AOC/CJ have an innate ability to sniff out entities who may be “hungry” and may be malleable in order to acquire more power, in turn gobbling them up like The Blob from the 60s, thus creating more to administer, manage, seek out more public funds and on and on, ad nauseam. Case in point, how the AOC flirted and suckled the interpreters in order to grab their funding; the interpreters were fucked with the romance, but love quickly faded and see where the interpreters are today with the AOC in control of funding meant to be for interpreter services in the trial courts. Once the AOC had the bailiffs/CHP under their public funding auspices, then it would be a short blob jump to probation officers perhaps. Maybe the AOC could set up hospital services too. I’m surprised they don’t have fast food outlets … oh, I get carried away. The JC/AOC/CJ do make me mad in the literal sense, apologies to all. They actually are transparent in the instance of their power-grabbing, love of the high lifestyle and secrecy in all they do except their obvious disdain for the hard-working trial courts. I’ll give them that they are very transparent there.
Long live the JCW and ACJ
sharon Kramer
April 27, 2014
Wearyant,
Here’s the way it works: Once someone turns a blind eye to corruption, they never have the opportunity to expose it again without letting it be known that they turned a blind eye, earlier.
What then happens is that they become part of shielding corruption because otherwise, it would become known they let it (aided it) to happen.
Pretty soon, they are caught in the web of having to promote the concept that the corruption never happened in order to protect their own self interest.
At that point, they become as big of liars as the ones who caused the fraud in the first place, while aiding and abetting the circle of corruption to gro — while causing those who refused to go along to be ostricized and retaliated against.
That’s how people get sucked into doing dasterdly deeds for the JC et.al..
So becareful out there, to whose unethical deeds you turn a blind eye — for you can never go back without exposing yourself as being complicit to the problem, once you’ve done it.
Yes. There is a not so hidden message in this post.
wearyant
April 27, 2014
You make a very good point, Sharon, that helps me understand *why* in the hell no one appears to give a damn — of those who could really *do* something — about the obvious ongoing rampant waste occurring at the behest of the JC/AOC/CJ! Apparently many in elite and responsible positions are in fear, and need I mention someone who recently supports the view of the AOC thugs who has been previously respected and well thought of?
sunshine
April 29, 2014
Excellent points by Sharon. Unfortunately, this type of “leadership” exists in too many places these days and the rank and file workers continue to suffer because of it.