Last week, the Executive & Planning Committee held a brief public meeting by telephone. After approving the agenda for the next Judicial Council meeting, the committee’s chair, Justice Miller, asked the members to call a different number so that the committee members could privately discuss appointments to the Council’s advisory committees. An article in Courthouse News describing the E&P Committee’s teleconference is available below.
So this is how it works: The Chief Justice appoints 14 of the 21 members of the Judicial Council, not including herself; the Chief Justice appoints the members of the E&P Committee; and the E&P Committee—behind closed doors—nominates the members of the advisory committees. It’s a closed system in which the people in charge choose like-minded people, who in turn choose more like-minded people to give them advice. Committee members and their ideas are continuously recirculated. The system is set up to stagnate. The Council and its advisory bodies have become one giant echo chamber, a hall of mirrors.
We don’t need to change names and labels. We need to change the system. We need to throw open the windows and let in fresh, even disruptive, ideas. A good place to start would be with the Council itself, a body in which dissenting votes occur about as often as Halley’s Comet. Under the Rules, the Chief Justice picks the Council members, ten of whom come from the trial courts. Why couldn’t the Chief Justice simply pick ten representatives elected by the trial court judges?
Very Truly Yours,
Directors, Alliance of California Judges
Powerful Committee Opens Doors Only to Close Them Again
By MARIA DINZEO
(CN) – Under new open meeting rules, the most powerful committee on the California Judicial Council met this week and, after a perfunctory approval of the upcoming full council agenda, Justice Douglas Miller told everyone to hang up and call a private number. The meeting then continued outside the earshot of press and public to consider committee nominees, according to its preset schedule.
“The new rules regarding open meetings is absolutely toothless,” said Sacramento Judge Maryanne Gilliard. “Though Branch leaders have promised transparency, they balk at every turn.”
Gilliard is one of the founding directors of the Alliance of California Judges, a group of roughly 500 state judges, pushing to rein in the San Francisco-based court bureaucracy, limit its influence on budgets and rules, and bring more democracy into the selection of council members. The Alliance has consistently pushed for open meetings within the myriad committees that feed the Judicial Council, and won that fight last year by order of the Legislature
The Executive and Planning Committee, considered the most powerful of the council’s committees, met Tuesday via teleconference to discuss next week’s agenda for a meeting of the full Judicial Council, among other matters. The agenda and meeting materials were posted, noting several agenda items would be discussed in closed session.
Among the items was one entitled, “Review materials and develop recommendations to be sent to the Chief Justice regarding advisory committee nominations.”
How judges and justices are nominated and recommended for positions on the Judicial Council and its myriad committees has been a topic of great interest and controversy among trial judges, especially those who have urged transparency in the council’s and its committees’ decisions.
“Certainly judges of this state have a right to know how selections to these committees are made, and what actual, as opposed to published, criteria are being used in making the decisions,” Gilliard said.
To justify private discussion of that item, the committee cited California Rule of Court 10.75(d)(1), which allows a meeting to be closed if it involves the discussion of “the appointment, qualifications, performance, or health of an individual, or other information that, if discussed in public, would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”
The rule suggests a conflict between the principles of privacy and the ability of judges to know how their representatives on public committees are chosen.
Gilliard said the exemption was too broad and too vague, and could easily encompass any discussion of committee applicants. “It appears that since they closed the session as to discussion of all applicants, they are not relying on individualized criteria, as required by rule 10.75(d)(1). This suggests that ANY public discussion of the applicants and the decision-making process of the committee is somehow an ‘unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.’ Again, the exception seems to have swallowed the rule, as predicted.”
The privacy exemption is one of ten put forward by the Judicial Council last year.
The exemptions were challenged by the press and open government advocates, but the council voted to approve the exemptions when it passed the rule in April. The open meetings rules went into effect in July.A few months earlier, in December, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye said she supported open meetings, but wanted the Council, not the Legislature, to draft the rule, keeping privacy and ethical considerations in mind for judges who volunteer to sit on committees.
“Judges have a code of ethics that guides — really guides — their input, their membership, their communication because the law requires a judge to be neutral,” said Cantil-Sakauye. “And so when this concept came up we were not opposed but we needed to draft this ourselves because we have different considerations.”
When the rule was first presented to the press last year, Justice Miller, who helped draft the rule as head the Executive and Planning Committee, said it was something he wanted to “get right,” but added, “We have to balance that with how we do business.”
Judicial Council Watcher 
Wendy Darling
August 22, 2014
Today’s installment of Tani’s Follies. The one thing you can always count on Judicial Branch “leadership” doing in public: demand “more money.” Pretty much everything else, however, they can’t shut the doors fast enough or have enough secrecy. It’s also interesting how the demand for “more money” is clothed as a standard of “democracy” when “democracy” is the last thing they’re doing at 455 Golden Gate Avenue. Published today, Friday, August 22, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
California Judges Grill Finance Director Over Governor’s Emaciated Court Budget
By MARIA DINZEO
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – At a meeting of the Judicial Council Thursday, judges grilled the governor’s finance director over the emaciated budget for California’s court system, with one judge asking whether the governor believed the funds adequate for the public service standards of a first world democracy.
The examination of Michael Cohen, who directs the Gov. Jerry Brown’s finance department, focused on the governor’s recent $160 million bump for the courts’ previously approved $3 billion budget for trial courts in the current fiscal year, with a 5% increase suggested for following year.
The courts have survived a series of brutal year-on-year cuts that have reduced their overall court budget by roughly one third. They have continued to operate by closing courthouses and laying of hundreds of staff. The result has been that delays extend for getting cases to trial and various simple tasks that the courts are supposed to resolve stack up.
The additional amounts recently proposed by Brown gave some financial relief but are widely considered inadequate to operate the courts in the long term in the nation’s biggest state.
At Thursday’s council meeting, Judge Mary Ann O’Malley from Contra Costa asked Cohen, “With the permanent lower level of funding, do you believe that the governor believes that we’re providing a level of access to sufficient to a first world democracy?”
The finance director replied, “I think the government believes we can always become more efficient in providing all types of government services, and this two-year window is an opportunity for us to figure out how much efficiency is still there that doesn’t threaten access to justice.” But he added, “At some point, clearly you go too far.”
Cohen said he was well aware that the $160 million in addition funds well below what “you feel is necessary to run the branch at the level you suggested.”
But, he added, the judges should “view that as a real win,” when California is just emerging from several years of deficit budgets. He said very few state-funded programs have seen ongoing funding increases outside of areas where the governor’s finance department has no control, like K-12 education and federal healthcare reform.
The $160 million breaks down $86.3 million for trial court operations, $42.8 for court employee benefit costs and $30.9 million to offset a shortfall in filing fee revenue.
O’Malley questioned the $30.9 million figure.
“Is there going to be a position in the future where if there’s reduced fines and fees that the state as you mentioned is responsible for the trial court funding, that you would pay all of that and not just part of it? I think we were short $22.7 million this last time,” she said.
Cohen answered, “We recognized that your trial court funding is more at risk than it used to be given the higher percentage of your revenues coming from fees.” He said there will always be some uncertainty in estimating fee revenues, “but to the extent we can do a better job at following the trends and my first priority is to build the budget based on the most realistic estimates we can get. And I think that will reduce the level of risk that you enter a year with. And so I’d like to try that in the coming year.”
“Any hope for recovery of that in the near future?” O’Malley asked.
“I don’t see how in the current year, we do anything about it,” Cohen said. “Budget decisions get made and then we tend to need to live with them, within the year. But absolutely, as we build the 2015-16 budget, we’ll revisit all of the aspects of the fee revenues.”
Presiding Judge Brian Walsh of Santa Clara said “Please remember that efficiency and justice don’t always equate. We’re committed as a branch and committed as trial courts to efficiencies. We will never stop developing those and benefiting from them, but we can’t efficiency our way out of a deep budget reduction, because people get hurt and justice gets hurt.”
He pointed to the $86.3 million figure, presented as a five percent increase in funding for trial court operations.
“The five percent is great but is it sort of like — I used to write wills for my clients ‘If anybody contests this will, they get $1’ — if we aren’t happy with the five percent and we ask for more, are we going to get pounded or can we say, ‘five percent is a good start, now let’s keep talking.'”
Cohen laughed. “I never give anyone a hard time for advocating more money than I’m offering. People don’t get penalized for being passionate advocates and bringing forward additional information,” he said.
Judge James Brandlin from Los Angeles asked about the 50 additional judgeships approved by then-governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2007, which are still unfunded.
“The funding for those judgeships and disbursement of those judges greatly affects two severely under resourced courts namely Riverside and San Bernardino. Each of them would receive nine judges,” Brandlin said. “The question would be, what steps and what prognosis do you have about getting funding for those judgeships in the future?”
The prognosis isn’t good, Cohen replied. “There’s a trade-off for everything and we do have a fixed pot. What doesn’t happen if you fund those 50 judgeships? Is it that the rest of the courts around the circle have even less funding? Is it some other program outside of the judicial branch that doesn’t get the funding? ”
He added, “It is a reality of our budget situation that every demand such as the additional judgeships has a reaction someplace else in our budget, but it’s something we’ll continue to look at.”
http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/08/22/70693.htm
Long live the ACJ.
MaxRebo5
August 22, 2014
Always needing more money.
The Judicial Council’s own staff said in a report just the other day (here is the link)
Click to access 2014-Court-Statistics-Report.pdf
that filings are way down and the charts show filings have been going down for several years in a row. That’s why the fees are short and the Legislature’s general fund is having to back fill for CA Courts to make up for it. Meanwhile the JC members act like they are drowning in work and can barely tread water! It’s simply not true.
Imagine a school district saying, “We need more money to stay afloat” but then admitting in their own stats that they actually have fewer kids enrolled (which is the basis of their funding model). That’s exactly what the “leaders” on the JC did today. The workload of the courts is cases and case filings are way down statwide. They have been for several years in a row but not a word from the Chief about this inconvenient truth completely outside of her control.
Knowing this fact they should be ashamed of themselves pretending they need more money just to tread water. They are in much shallower water in 2014 because the tide of their workload has really turned in the last few years. They won’t drown if the Governor keeps the funding as is. If the Governor slowly adds back funding (as he has) and case filings keep going down they will no longer need to tread water but will be lying on their backs in a shallow pool. Nevertheless, they will likely still keep advocating for more money like an idiot yelling “I’m drowning’ while standing in a kiddie pool out on the lawn. How much Cool Aide and Grey Goose does one have to drink to buy this spin from the Chief?
Take a look at their own chart for Assessed Judicial Needs and it is clear the branch is better off in terms of judgships than it has been in the past (Figure 67) on page 54. To help courts in need perhaps the JC should consider taking from one jurisdiction with a decrease in filings and giving to another county where filings are up. Other states do such things and CA Courts could too. That’s an idea for improving efficiencies for the Judicial Branch as the Governor called for in his State of the State last year. Nope. Just give us more money.
As the DOF politely pointed out, CA state government is in a short grace period with Prop 30 money and those tax increases are set to expire in a few years. At the same time there is no guarantee there won’t be another recession so the Governor is getting CA’s fiscal house in order. He’s building a rainy day fund, reformed pensions for state workers and teachers, and only giving modest raises (2%) to state workers who have had their salaries cut 15% in the recession compared to the 5% CA Court employees took. The only ones who were cut worse were the 2,500 CA Court employees laid off and who the branch still does not have rehire lists for as vacancies occur.
It undermines the credibility of the Judicial Council to seek more money from the DOF and Legislature but not speak to shrinking workload numbers. No rebranding of the AOC as the Judicial Council’s staff is going to help them with this fundamental flaw of basic logic. If the Audit shows waste exists in the Judicial Council’s 800 staff there could be even less need to cry for more money. Yet they just pressed the Governor’s people hard for more money, before that audit came out, and it was shameful to hear.
Wendy Darling
August 22, 2014
“More money” is not going to fix what is wrong in and with the California Judicial Branch. And everyone that matters, such as the State Department of Finance, the Governor, and others, is well aware of this. Everyone that matters has also woken up to the hypocrisy emanating from 455 Golden Gate Avenue. Yesterday was but the latest manifestation of the hypocrisy of branch “leadership.” And it wasn’t lost on Michael Cohen and Governor Brown.
And it was shameful to hear. Unfortunately, they have no shame at 455 Golden Gate Avenue. You don’t have to look any further than the Vickrey award for “excellence in judicial branch administration” to know this. It’s like naming an award for excellence in financial investing after Bernie Madoff.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
August 22, 2014
😉
wearyant
August 23, 2014
The antics of the nameless, faceless group formerly known as the AOC never fail to entertain. I’ve cut off cable years ago to survive on a public pensioner’s salary and have never wanted for daily poignant amusement from our beleaguered judicial branch. What a friggin’ train wreck! Will our hard-working, valued trial court workers and judges ever find relief from these soulless bureaucrats?
Long live the ACJ
Official
August 23, 2014
So true about the damn cable. We should all cut it off. It’s outrageous.
unionman575
August 23, 2014
Click to access csac-20140904-agenda.pdf
COURT SECURITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
OPEN MEETING WITH CLOSED SESSION AGENDA
😉
Open to the Public Unless Indicated as Closed (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 10.75(c)(1))
OPEN PORTION OF THIS MEETING IS BEING RECORDED Date: September 4, 2014
Time: 10 a.m. to 3 p.m.
Location: Ronald M. George State Office Complex
William C. Vickrey Judicial Council Conference Center
Malcolm M. Lucas Board Room
455 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102-3688
Public Call-in Number: 877-820-7831, passcode 2856918 (listen only)
wearyant
August 23, 2014
RONALD M. GEORGE STATE OFFICE COMPLEX
WILLIAM C. VICKREY JUDICIAL COUNCIL CONFERENCE CENTER
malcom m. lucas board room
Hubris? nah.
Long live the ACJ
Lando
August 25, 2014
and one of their prior “insiders” Brad Hill had a jury room in Fresno named after him. What will J Jahr get ? Maybe that bathroom way down in the lowest bunker at 455 Golden Gate.
Lando
August 25, 2014
In reviewing all the latest JC meetings I was dismayed to hear J Hull’s claims that anyone opposed to the ” leadership” at 455 Golden Gate was against our great branch of government.You really can’t make up how arrogant that is. I often wonder where do people like J Hull come from? Didn’t anyone before his appointment to the Judicial Council by HRH-2 see this unbridled arrogance ? One would have expected our former Governor to have at least interviewed J Hull before anointing him to the Court of Appeal. Wouldn’t that process have exposed Hull’s arrogance and self importance ?
wearyant
August 25, 2014
Perhaps psychological exams could be given to these *current* people in power over our beleaguered judicial branch. People who are twisted and hunger for absolute power are just as ethically challenged as those who are never satiated by endless monies (our public funds). Of course George’s crew would claim privacy and security concerns. LOL! But I am preaching to the choir. Look at that behemoth load of useless documents most recently produced by the 800+ horde at the formerly known as the AOC. It does nothing for the trial courts; it provides endless, useless work for the unwanted 800+ horde. Ho-hum, monkey business as usual.
Good to hear from you, Lando.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
August 25, 2014
http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/08/25/70711.htm
Monday, August 25, 2014Last Update: 6:06 AM PT
Council Says it’s Hamstrung by Lack of Funds
By MARIA DINZEO
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – California’s Judicial Council heard at its Friday meeting a grim report from courts in Glenn and Amador county, where overworked court employees are reportedly losing their homes due to furloughs and low wages.
It also unanimously approved a plan setting technology goals and priorities for the courts, while lamenting the lack of funding for new technology programs.
Governor Jerry Brown has repeatedly emphasized efficiency in the courts, and the council hopes that electronic case filing and moving many court services online will meet the bill.
“We really are in a zero-sum game here across the board in terms of funding,” said Judge James Herman of Santa Barbara, who heads the council’s technology committee. Herman is also chair of the task force that put together the technology plan. He said he was heartened by comments at Thursday’s council meeting from state finance director Michael Cohen, who said Governor Brown favors technology programs geared toward helping the courts operate more efficiently. Cohen made no promises, however, and seemed pretty firm that the judiciary will see no funds for extra programs.
Herman said the judiciary will have to work to convince the legislature and the governor to spend money in order to save money. “How do we develop a funding stream for technology? The way we do that is through outreach to our sister branches. So it’s going to depend on that outreach to develop a funding source,” Herman said. “We realize we need funding, and we have to pursue a course that can convince the other two branches that technology is a necessary efficiency.”
The plan for technology governance, strategy and funding, was developed in the wake of the failed Court Case Management System, an ambitious technology project that sought to connect the state’s 58 trial courts under one software system. The $1.9 billion project, scrapped by the council in 2012, raised an outcry among judges up and down the state who blasted the Administrative Office of the Courts for spending huge sums on a system that was only installed in a handful of counties. The Bureau of State Audits also found that the project was bloated and mismanaged, and predicted that the technology would be outdated by the time it was fully installed.
One of the many criticisms leveled at CCMS was that it was being forced on the courts by the AOC. The new plan brings together a consortium of judges, court clerks and IT experts from courts all over the state, and allows for local courts to start technology projects on their own or work with other counties without much interference from the central bureaucracy.
The Judicial Council hopes the new plan, which emphasizes transparency and accountability for spending public money, will restore credibility with the legislature.
After voting to move forward with the plan, the council heard a report from Justice Richard Huffman, head of its committee on accountability and efficiency. He recommended that the council reconsider its spending on technology consultants.
“The reality is, long-term consultants have been used in information technology, partly because you can’t hire people with those skill sets for the wonderful salary that we provide and the cost of living in this particular area,” Huffman said. “However, some have been there more than 10 years. And it raises the question of at least again, we’re not suggesting anything be done with it other than it’s an issue that is important to the overall branch consideration. All we’re suggesting is from a policy perspective over time you should be concerned with instances where you have a consultant working as a consultant for the council ten, 12, 15 years. The normal view is they should be employees. Generally probably cheaper.”
He added, “However, again, you are facing this world of technology change, limited resources and limited ability to hire. So we simply raise it in our responsibility as being, I suppose, the appointed nitpickers for the Judicial Council.”
The council did not vote on the recommendation, but agreed to follow up.
Earlier that morning, the council also heard a liaison report from Commissioner Sue Alexander, whose recent visit to the rural courts in Amador and Glenn county revealed staff shortages, boxes of uncompleted work and failing technology.
“The staff is very dedicated but morale is low, not only because the workload but they don’t see a light at the end of the tunnel but also because the staff is doing this with less take-home pay,” Alexander said of the Amador court. “As we’ve heard from other courts, some staff can no longer afford living expenses and some have lost their homes,” Alexander said there seems to be no foreseeable end to the court’s financial woes. “Amador has hit the proverbial wall and seems to see no relief in the future. They needed a loan to make payroll.”
She said that with drastic staff cuts, the court is about a year behind in its work. “There are boxes of files that have work to be completed. This includes completing minutes, doing filing and responding to document requests. The estimate is they are about a year behind in all non-crucial matters. The courtroom and office staff work together to try to keep the urgent matters up to date and then they focus on matters set for hearing and assisting customers who come to the Windows or make phone calls. The public is noticing because there are unintended consequences due to the delays now being felt by the public. While I was speaking to one of the staff members, she had to respond to three phone inquiries in a period of about five minutes. The staff I spoke to has been there for up to 20 years and has never seen it this bad.”
In Glenn County, Alexander said “Things are a little bit better, but not much. Morale is bad. Each employee doing more with less both less time and less money.”
Council members were horrified. “It continues to be a parade of horrible,” Justice Harry Hull said, wondering if there is any way Alexander’s report and others like it could be written up and submitted to the governor. “At least providing those, whether they are paid attention to or not, to the legislative leadership and governor’s office to put a daily, real life picture before them as to what remains drastically reduced funding is doing to our courts every day.”
Others suggested that the media hasn’t been doing a very good job of covering the gritty, real-life consequences of cuts to the courts.
“Unfortunately, what we’ve just discussed amongst ourselves is not very sexy. It’s not very exciting. It’s depressing and it’s sad. And it’s not the by line or the headline that unfortunately, we’ve been reading about,” Judge Mary Ann O’Malley of Contra Costa said. “They’d rather print about small, little clips and controversies within the branch rather than the real needs of the branch. And so when staff are losing their homes, they’d rather discuss some little fight that’s going on between some entities. And so I can only hope that those in the press see the real dire, real-life stories that are presented here. And if you want a story, that’s a story.”
😉
unionman575
August 25, 2014
http://www.pe.com/articles/casa-748822-sutton-riverside.html
RIVERSIDE COUNTY: Foster kids losing court advocates
The courts have declined to renew their agreements with Court Appointed Special Advocates
wearyant
August 25, 2014
It would appear that the guv will not throw good money after bad. The screws are being applied to those with the power in the third branch to change, put simplistically. But the ilks of the hull, huffman and herman still don’t get it. Are we at a stalemate yet? I wonder if Maria Dinzeo’s CNS article was out prior to the Napa 6.0 earthquake.
Long live the ACJ.
MaxRebo5
August 25, 2014
This was interesting to me:
http://www.courts.ca.gov/distinguishedserviceawards.htm
Notice there is no mention of William C. Vickrey as the namesake for the Leadership in Judicial Administration award this year. I wonder who decided not mention the namesake of the award on the internet link?
I see Richard D. Huffman’s name was prominently displayed for the Justice for Children & Families Award. However, I also don’t see Ron George’s name mentioned anywhere for his namesake award for Judicial Excellence. Interesting….
I would normally assume these inconsistencies in including or excluding the namesakes of the awards are just errors by the Judicial Council’s staff. However, with 800+ staff assigned to the Judicial Council they should have plenty of resources to check such things before posting them to the pubic. Plus as we all learned from CCMS, they never accept any responsibility for mistakes.
That leads me to the conclusion that the proper way to interpret this action by the Judicial Council’s staff is to believe the Judicial Council did not want William Vickrey’s name to be mentioned with this “Leadership in Judicial Administration Award” announcement. Makes sense given the legislature demanded Vickrey resign over CCMS and the Chief is asking the legislature for court technology money again while still giving out an award in the name of the guy who was most responsible for the last IT failure. That’s gotta be awkward for her politically so she gave out the award quietly this year.
The Chief has not actually changed the name of the award and still supports her former State Court Administrator and his team who she keeps in all the top admin positions of the AOC. She remains defiant of the legislature in telling her to reform her top administrators but now appears to be keeping her true views on the down low. She used to express open outrage toward the legislature for telling her to fire her director. Today she maintains a quiet contempt for their meddling in her administration but appears to be willing to hide Vickrey’s name on the award announcement out of political expediency in her ongoing efforts to get more money.
If you go to this link you can see Chief has indeed kept Vickrey and George as namesakes on the awards:
http://www.courts.ca.gov/26915.htm
I think this behavior clearly shows the two face behavior of our Chief and Judicial Council. This news release was some very slight progress to me. It shows she is week politically on the topic of not reforming the top administrators or in accepting responsibility for mistakes made by the Judicial Council’s top staff in the past. I’m so looking forward to that audit and hope it can force real reforms of the Judicial Council and its admin staff.
JusticeCalifornia
August 25, 2014
Sakauye and quiet contempt? I think not. More like suppressed rage. She has zero tolerance for anyone who crosses or questions her.
Sakauye will NEVER voluntarily relinquish any of her power. The only way the Judicial Council will be reformed is via judicial revolution. It has to happen, unless the branch wants nine more years of what we have had.
The biggest judiciary in the world run (and run down) by an ambitious former blackjack dealer, and her handpicked sycophants. Nothing against blackjack dealers, I just don’t think (contrary to Sakauye’s claims) it qualifies one to be a chief justice. She used to talk about how it gave her the ability to read “tells” (LOL) but who needs tells when the gigantic handwriting is on the wall.
What she is doing is not working.
Wendy Darling
August 25, 2014
There is zero recognition at 455 Golden Gate Avenue and in the Office of the Chief Justice that the real problem in the branch is the absence of true leadership, as exemplified by this statement: ““They’d rather print about small, little clips and controversies within the branch rather than the real needs of the branch.”
The absence of ethics, lying under oath, vicious suppression of any dissent, punishing people for telling the truth, embezzlements of public funds, slamming doors shut and holding meetings in secret, the waste of over a half billion dollars on the biggest failure of a public works IT project in the history of California for which no one has ever been held accountable, all just “small” little things.
More money, more money, more money – it’s the only thing branch “leadership” knows how to say. And now they have the audacity to blame the press for not trumpeting their plea of poverty, while at the same time shutting the press out as a matter of policy.
Note to the Chief Justice: it’s difficult for anyone that matters in Sacramento to buy into your pleas of poverty while you’re being chauffeured around and escorted to resorts in Hawaii, all at taxpayer expense to the tune of tens of millions of dollars, and at the same time handing out awards named after two of the biggest crooks in the history of the California Judicial branch.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
Delilah
August 29, 2014
JusticeCalifornia, can you provide more details about the rally happening on September 19? Some of us may like to attend and/or encourage others to be there.
Wendy Darling
August 25, 2014
Today’s installment of Tani’s Follies, and Exhibit 1 that they just don’t get it at 455 Golden Gate Avenue. Published late today, Monday, August 25, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
Quote of the day: “If we hope to extricate ourselves from the hole we dug with CCMS we ought to first stop digging in the same spot,” said Judge Andy Banks of Orange County, a long-time critic of spending by the San Francisco-based bureaucracy the sits atop the state courts.
Tech Proposal for Courts Brings Sharp Criticism From Judges
By MARIA DINZEO
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – A technology roadmap OK’d at the Judicial Council is unlikely to get a favorable reaction from the Legislature said judges on Monday, adding that the longtime tech leaders on the council are digging a deeper hole for themselves after their overly ambitious and financially disastrous attempt to create a central software system for the courts.
The swift reaction was prompted by a lengthy tech plan presented by Technology Committee chair James Herman who lamented the lack of funding for technology. Judge Herman’s committee was previously called the CCMS Internal Committee, in charge of the Court Case Management System, a software project scrapped after wasting $500 million in public funds.
“If we hope to extricate ourselves from the hole we dug with CCMS we ought to first stop digging in the same spot,” said Judge Andy Banks of Orange County, a long-time critic of spending by the San Francisco-based bureaucracy the sits atop the state courts.
A San Diego judge said there is a crisis of confidence in the council’s ability to spend public money wisely. “We are not trusted by the governor, the Legislature and the public to use public funds in a prudent fashion,” said Judge Tony Maino.
At the council meeting, Herman presented a 283-page plan for technology in the courts that called for electronic filing, video appearances for traffic matters, self service for paying traffic tickets and online data access to docket information, a capability that already exists for big California courts.
In keeping with past pronouncements on technology, including those promoting the CCMS system, the document was long on what judicial critics call “techno-babble.”
“The judicial branch will maximize the potential efficiency of its technology resources by fully supporting existing and future required infrastructure and assets, and leveraging branch wide information technology resources through procurement, collaboration, communication and education,” said the report.
But what Herman’s committee did make clear was that it should govern technology development. “We should work together as an IT community with appropriate governance and oversight by the Judicial Council and the Technology Committee,” said the report.
The technology commitee and its staff have been sidelined from technology contracts by a group made up largely of trial court IT staff who decided on the three top software bidders, which the trial courts built on by negotiating their own, multi-million-dollar software deals, mostly with Tyler Technologies. The roadmap unveiled at Monday’s council meeting appears to reestablish the council and its tech committee as the overseers of technology for the courts, a gambit that drew fierce criticism.
Maino in San Diego called the roadmap “old wine in a new mislabeled bottle.”
“CCMS was a $500 million fiasco,” he added. “It was a top-down program. One of the most vocal supported of CCMS and it top-down strategy was Judge Herman.”
“I think this is another illustration of why new ideas and not just old ideas in disguise need to be presented to the Judicial Council,” Maino added. “This can only happen if new and innovative people are on both the Judicial Council and the various committees that feed information to the Judicial Council.
Maino is part of the Alliance of California Judges, with a membership of 500 judges, trying to reform the council and its bureaucracy. Most of the council and most committee members are appointed by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye. The Alliance is pushing for a more democratic system where judges decide on council members through a ballot.
In his comments at the council meeting, Herman said the roadmap should restore the council’s credibility with the Legislature and the governor.
“How do we develop a funding stream for technology? The way we do that is through outreach to our sister branches,” Herman said. “We have to pursue a course that can convince the other two branches that technology is a necessary efficiency.”
But Judge Banks was not convinced that the governor, or the Legislature, would be enamored with more spending on technology by the council and its staff.
“The idea of resurrecting an IT bureaucracy in San Francisco within the entity formerly known as the Administrative Office of the Courts would probably not be well received by the governor or the Legislature,” he said. “I think that the Governor expects the branch to become more efficient by severely downsizing and eliminating pre-existing failed bureaucratic segments of our judicial branch.”
Trial judges have for years been campaigning for reduction of the bloated council staff that still numbers nearly 800 workers, based on the last count.
A related agenda item at Friday’s council meeting offered more fodder for critics in reporting that consultants in technology and information were paid $156 million in fiscal year 2012-2013, during the heart of an ongoing fiscal crisis for the California courts that resulted in layoffs for hundreds of workers in the trial courts.
The ongoing consulting cost is particularly noteworthy because much of the money spent on the failed CCMS venture went to Deloitte Consulting, a massive outflow of public funds that caused intense criticism from legislators as well as individual judges.
Justice Richard Huffman, head of the council’s committee on accountability and efficiency, recommended that the council reconsider its spending on technology consultants.
“We’re not suggesting anything be done with it other than it’s an issue that is important,” said Huffman. “All we’re suggesting is from a policy perspective over time you should be concerned with instances where you have a consultant working as a consultant for the council 10, 12, 15 years. The normal view is they should be employees. Generally probably cheaper.”
“So we simply raise it,” he concluded, “in our responsibility as being, I suppose, the appointed nitpickers for the Judicial Council.”
The council did not vote on the recommendation, but agreed to follow up.
In additional business, the council also heard a report from Commissioner Sue Alexander whose recent visit to the rural courts in Amador and Glenn county revealed staff shortages, boxes of uncompleted work and failing technology.
“The staff is very dedicated but morale is low, not only because the workload but they don’t see a light at the end of the tunnel but also because the staff is doing this with less take-home pay,” Alexander said of the Amador court. “Amador has hit the proverbial wall and seems to see no relief in the future. They needed a loan to make payroll.”
She said that with drastic staff cuts, the court is about a year behind in its work.
“There are boxes of files that have work to be completed. This includes completing minutes, doing filing and responding to document requests. The estimate is they are about a year behind in all non-crucial matters. The staff I spoke to has been there for up to 20 years and has never seen it this bad.”
Justice Harry Hull described the report as a “parade of horribles.” Others blamed the media.
“Unfortunately, what we’ve just discussed amongst ourselves is not very sexy. It’s not very exciting. It’s depressing and it’s sad. And it’s not the by line or the headline that unfortunately, we’ve been reading about,” Judge Mary Ann O’Malley of Contra Costa said. “They’d rather print about small, little clips and controversies within the branch rather than the real needs of the branch. They’d rather discuss some little fight that’s going on between some entities. And so I can only hope that those in the press see the real dire, real-life stories that are presented here. And if you want a story, that’s a story.”
Last year, the council dismissed objections from the media and unanimously enacted new e-filing rules designed with a large amount of input from the Technlogy Committee. The L.A. Times, San Francisco newspapers and the California Newspaper Publishers Association, representing most newspapers in the state, objected to provisions that said the public record does not become public until it is processed by court officials, representing an open-ended delay that in courts like Amador and others can extend to months.
“They always blame someone, don’t they?” commented Judge Maino in San Diego. “Now it is the media that has let them down.”
http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/08/25/70742.htm
Note to Judge Maino: it’s not “old wine in a new mislabeled bottle”; it’s Kool-Aid. The same old Kool-Aid as before, just with “AOC” taken off the label. You can actually drink old wine. Drinking the Kool-Aid, whatever bottle it’s in, is not recommended.
Long live the ACJ.
Lando
August 25, 2014
Great insights from wearyant, Justice California and Wendy. I wanted to vomit when I read about the latest Judicial Council awards. Honestly it is a total disgrace that any awards are given out in the names of Ronald M. George, Richard D. Huffman and William C. Vickrey. Is it any wonder our once proud branch has no credibility with the Governor and legislature? In these tough times as evidenced by the plight of the Amador and Glenn county courts wouldn’t it be a good idea to stop handing out awards and perhaps ask HRH-2 to suspend her lavish CHP rides and escorts throughout the state and beyond. While court employees are losing their houses I can’t get out of my mind the image of some poor decent CHP officer handing Queen Feckless her shopping bags.
Wendy Darling
August 25, 2014
The hypocrisy is appalling, isn’t it, Lando? And, no, it isn’t any wonder that the branch has no credibility with the Governor and the legislature. Branch “leadership” got that well deserved reputation the old fashioned way: they earned it. And they just keep earning it, over and over and over again.
You just can’t make this stuff up. Really.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
August 26, 2014
The budget pen is mightier than all the BS from 455 Golden Gate Avenue
MaxRebo5
August 26, 2014
I thought the State Auditor’s report on the Judicial Council’s staff was due out in October of 2014. Their web page now says January of 2015. Not sure why the delay.
https://www.auditor.ca.gov/bsa/aip
Anonymous
August 26, 2014
Betcha there was a stonewall she ran into and she needs more time to chip through it.
Wendy Darling
August 26, 2014
“Betcha there was a stonewall she ran into and she needs more time to chip through it.”
You know, because they’re all about “truth” and “transparency” at 455 Golden Gate Avenue.
Long live the ACJ.
Lando
August 27, 2014
156 million paid out to technology consultants last year? For what? To produce a 283 page report on why the insiders at 455 Golden Gate should continue to dictate technology policy to the trial courts? This after their billion dollar CCMS train wreck? J Huffman the ultimate insider, suggests maybe just maybe we shouldn’t be keeping these Judicial Council staff consultants around for 10 or 15 years. It is apparently ok to keep Huffman around all that time who is now for the first time questioning all this waste of taxpayer dollars? A fraction of these dollars could have kept the Amador court from going under or people in the Inland Empire from driving hour after hour from attending small claims court. It is time for the likes of one J Huffman to be thanked and excused. Oh and by the way did J Huffman’s committee look into all the wasted taxpayer dollars spent on having Queen Feckless escorted by the CHP everywhere? How many millions have been wasted on that for HRH-1 and HRH-2 since 1998? My guess is this sacred cow will never be touched by the 455 Golden Gate insiders. And that is precisely way democracy needs to be brought back to our once proud branch of government. As Wendy likes to say, You can’t make any of this stuff up. Really.
Wendy Darling
August 27, 2014
156 million paid out to technology consultants last year = 13 million dollars a month.
Think about it.
Long live the ACJ.
Delilah
August 27, 2014
What happens when you add in the multi-million-dollar judicial security contract with the CHP? (link below) I don’t do math. What does that come out to per month?
And please reacquaint yourselves with some of the other links in the article, including the SacBee once again flippantly describing the ACJ as a “dissident group” of judges. It is all so wrong. But, remember, in AOC speak (yes, they’re still the AOC to me): Down=up, wrong=right, obfuscation=transparency, left=right, villains=heroes, truth-tellers= dissidents, etc, etc.
unionman, I need a bucket again.
http://www.sacbee.com/2013/11/25/5945038/from-the-notebook-read-the-judicial.html
Long Live the ACJ and JCW.
Delilah
August 27, 2014
More specifically:
@Justice California. Is there a link or more info about the September 19 rally?
wearyant
August 27, 2014
I thought J Huffman was explaining why the 40 people were hired by the agency formerly known as the AOC around the first of the year while the bloodletting continued as thousands of valued trial court workers from the front lines were let go. Ya learn something every day. It’s interesting how the agency formerly known as the AOC thinks. Ouch. It hurts to imagine that twisting and yanking on the ol’ brain. Ow, ow, ow.
Does Elaine Howle know that the agency formerly known as the AOC no longer exists? Another move away from transparency. What a chuckle. She may as well stop auditing now as the agency formerly known as the AOC no longer exists! LOL!
================================================================
“The audit by the California State Auditor will provide independently developed and verified information related to the funds administered by the Judicial Council of California (Judicial Council) and the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) ” …
===========================================================
Long live the ACJ!
God bless our California auditor!
Michael Paul
August 28, 2014
They wonder why the media does not cover the judicial council in a favorable light and defer to them as the leaders.
1. Never attack the media: They have long memories and when you attack them they assume that you are attacking them for a reason. It makes them want to find the reason.
2. Never create an open door policy for meetings and then shut out the media. It just increases cynicism about your true intent and guaranteed, you will not bask in favorable light.
3. If you admit your mistakes and hold people accountable, the media remembers as it demonstrates leadership. It allows you to move on. If you fail to admit your mistakes and hold people accountable, cynicism grows, your credibility is reduced to fecal matter and that tends to attract media flies who love covering a good trainwreck.
unionman575
August 30, 2014
Click to access Public_Notice-Court_hours.pdf
unionman575
August 30, 2014
Click to access PublicNotice-ClerksOfficeHours-8-27-2014.pdf
unionman575
August 30, 2014
Click to access Notification%20of%20Closing%20Mammoth%20Lakes%20Courthouse%20Every%20Third%20Friday.pdf
unionman575
August 30, 2014
The House that Roddy built:
http://webcampub.multivista.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=aPublicWebcam.page&WebcamPublicPageUID=68481374-9D98-46A1-948D-AECE9BBC380C
unionman575
August 30, 2014
Click to access Notice%20of%20Closure%20Santa%20Barbara%20Juvenile%20August%208%202014.pdf
unionman575
August 30, 2014
Click to access PublicNoticeCourtroomClosures.pdf
Lando
August 30, 2014
To everyone here , Have a great Labor Day weekend. Thanks to all of you for caring about our great branch and for seeking to bring democracy and reform to it . You are all a sky full of stars !