Our little bird informed us this afternoon that the senior leadership of the ‘judicial council staff offices’ pooled together their brain cells just enough to release some cranial flatulence. They decided that having everyone travel to hear a consultant speak in Sacramento for one hour was probably not the best use of public funds.
They ordered all travel plans canceled and indicated that said consultant would meet with these managers and supervisors in regional meetings at a later date. Said little bird thanked the influential role that Judicial Council Watcher plays over the money-wasters…. but the real thanks goes to the many little birds that populate the judicial council staff offices who aren’t afraid to make their case to us when their management goes sideways which is an everyday occurrence.
And the consultant?
http://shawvalenza.com/attorneys_bio.php?id=1
Judicial Council Watcher 
Lando
September 13, 2014
JCW deserves a lot of credit for averting a huge waste of taxpayer dollars. The other great story of the week is the closing of the first ever ” regional ” courthouse. It was of course HRH-1’s and Vickrey’s vision to breakdown local county control of the courts at every level so they would have more control. Regional courthouses fit right into their plan. They used Judges like Ira Kaufman to implement their scheme. Kaufman in turn as President of CJA played a major role in diminishing the power of local trial Judges. Now it looks like it didn’t work out too terribly well for King George, Vickrey, or Kaufman. Their vision ? An incredibly expensive “regional” courthouse that is now closed to the public but needs to be maintained at huge taxpayer expense. The ultimate insult to the taxpayers is that Kaufman and the “AOC” or I mean “Judicial Council staff” want another new courthouse built in tiny Plumas County. Hopefully the voters of Plumas County will see through all this and vote Kaufman out of office at the next opportunity.
courtflea
September 13, 2014
yes, way to go JCW. Speakin of regional places, are the regional offices of the agency formerly known as the AOC still open now that the “RADS” (with the noteable exception of Mz.. Patel) are long gone? if so, what are all those employees doing? telecommuting? Talk about a big taxpayer expense.
I’m still waiting to hear that Ira Kaufman has been appointed to the appellate court. not! 🙂
unionman575
September 13, 2014
wearyant
September 14, 2014
Hooray! Sanity trumped hubris. This is no small matter. It has been impossible to turn the huge ship of arrogance in the past. Thank you all and especially JCW and the little birdie. Now if the earmarked funds could be redirected to the trial courts … 😉
Court_Lifer
September 14, 2014
Judicial Council=Peter Principle!
unionman575
September 17, 2014
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/09/17/penny-for-courts/1blJCgma8TyJv8q4aZBX3M/story.html
A penny for the courts
unionman575
September 17, 2014
http://www.metnews.com/articles/2014/bean091714.htm
Metropolitan News-Enterprise
Wednesday, September 17, 2014
Page 1
C.A. Tosses Suit Over Injuries From Courthouse Elevator Accident
Panel Holds Presentation of Tort Claim to Wrong Agency Fatal to Action
By KENNETH OFGANG, Staff Writer
The Court of Appeal for this district yesterday held that a suit against the Judicial Council and the Administrative Office of the Courts was barred because the plaintiff presented her statutory tort claim to the wrong agency.
Div. Five granted a writ of mandate directing entry of summary judgment in favor of the defendants and against Mari Bean, who claimed that she was injured when an elevator malfunctioned at the Foltz Criminal Justice Center in downtown Los Angeles. The defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that Bean did not present a proper claim within six months of the alleged injury.
Bean presented a claim within the statutory period. But it was sent to the Victims Compensation and Government Claims Board, which handles claims against the state.
The defendants moved for summary judgment on the basis of Government Code §915(c) and (e). They cited §915(e)(4), which requires that a claim against the Judicial Council or the AOC be served by “[d]elivering or mailing it to the Secretariat of the Judicial Council,” but that even if mail or delivery is not accomplished, the presentation requirement is satisfied by actual receipt of the claim by the secretariat.
AOC Employee Declaration
In support of the motion, the defendants presented the declaration of the AOC administrative coordinator. She explained that she was the employee of the secretariat responsible for logging all claims, summonses and complaints, and other legal process directed at the Judicial Council or the AOC.
She detailed the processes for receiving and logging all such documents, and declared that she reviewed the log and could find no claim on behalf of Mari Bean.
The defendants also relied upon Bean’s responses to interrogatories and a request for production, showing that she had presented her claim only to the Victims Compensation and Government Claims Board and that the board had routinely denied the claim as being “complex and outside the scope of analysis and interpretation typically undertaken by the board.”
The plaintiff responded that timely mailing to the claims board satisfied the introductory provision of §915(e), providing that a claim is deemed presented “if any of the following apply,” and §915(e)(2), which provides that one of the circumstances in which a claim is deemed to be presented is if it is “actually received at an office of” the claims board.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Daniel Buckley denied the summary judgment motion, but Presiding Justice Paul A. Turner, writing yesterday for the Court of Appeal, said it should have been granted.
Legislative History
Turner, reviewing the legislative history, said the clear intent of one of the 2002 amendments to §915 was to require that claims against the Judicial Council and AOC be presented to the secretariat and not to the claims board.
He cited an Assembly committee report explaining that the legislation was intended to clear up any ambiguity resulting from the transition from county-funded court operations and county-owned courthouses to state funding of trial courts and ownership of courthouses. Another committee report, he noted, declares that the legislation “[e]stablishes the Judicial Council rather than the Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board (formerly known as the Board of Control) as the governing body authorized to act on claims in actions filed against a judicial branch entity or judge thereof.”
Attorneys on appeal were Sarah L. Overton of Cummings McClory Davis & Acho and Douglas J. Collodel of Sedgwick LLP for the Judicial Council and AOC, and Roger L. Gordon and Vincent Vallin Bennett of Gordon, Edelstein, Krepack, Grant, Felton& Goldstein for the plaintiff.
The case is Judicial Council of California v. Superior Court (Bean), 14 S.O.S. 4140.
😉
unionman575
September 18, 2014
http://www.pleasantonweekly.com/news/2014/09/17/work-to-begin-on-new-courthouse-alameda-county-building-in-dublin
Grand Opening now…closure soon…
😉
unionman575
September 18, 2014
http://www.plumasnews.com/index.php/12872-budget-cuts-force-closure-of-portola-courthouse#!/ccomment-comment457
Budget cuts force closure of Portola courthouse
Dan McDonald
Managing Editor
9/14/2014
Just four years after it opened, the Plumas-Sierra regional courthouse in Portola is scheduled to close Nov. 3.
The $4.7 million courthouse, which won several awards for its state-of-the-art design, is a victim of state budget cuts to the judicial branch.
“The trial courts have lost a billion dollars (in funding) in the last few years,” Plumas Superior Court Executive Officer Deborah Norrie said. “The Plumas court has taken its fair share of hits.”
While multiple courthouses have been closed throughout the state over the past four years, Plumas County has now lost three of its four court facilities.
The Greenville court closed in 2012 and Chester’s court was shuttered last year.
All cases in Plumas County will now be processed and heard at the Quincy courthouse.
Budget cuts will mean reduced court hours at the Quincy courthouse as well. Beginning Nov. 3, the court will be open from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. Phones will be answered from 8:30 a.m. to 3 p.m.
“We regret inconveniencing the public,” said Plumas Presiding Judge Ira Kaufman. “We hope to reopen the (Portola) courthouse and return to a normal work schedule once funding is restored to the judicial branch and the courts.”
Norrie said no jobs would be lost due to the closure. The Portola clerk will be moving to the Quincy courthouse.
Norrie said judges have made calendar changes scheduled to be announced soon. The changes “will allow everyone to have their time before the court,” she added.
The Portola courthouse is owned and managed by the judicial branch, not the county. “They will maintain the building and make decisions on how it might be used, or not used, in the interim,” Norrie said.
The Plumas-Sierra courthouse in Portola was the first multi-jurisdictional courthouse in the state.
Rather than constructing a traditional-looking courthouse, the architects (Nacht & Lewis of Sacramento) crafted a building that fit into the mountain community setting.
The 6,500-square-foot building won design awards from McGraw-Hill’s California Construction Magazine and the Distinguished Project Award from the Western Council of Construction Consumers, among others.
When it opened in June 2010, the courthouse held court at least four days per month and employed two clerks.
Today it has one clerk and holds court one just one day per month.
After Nov. 3, all of the Sierra County cases will be processed at the Downieville courthouse.
Anyone who has questions may call the Plumas court at 283-6263 or the Sierra court at 289-3698.
MaxRebo5
September 18, 2014
No Alternative for California Judicial Council’s Shortfall
By JULIE BAKER-DENNIS
Tweet ShareThis
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – With California’s Judicial Council facing a $22.7 million revenue shortfall that will likely be backfilled or funded, a committee declined Wednesday to offer an alternative recommendation on allocation.
At its meeting Wednesday led by Court Executive Officer Jake Chatters, the second this year to be open to the press and public, the Trial Court Budget Advisory Committee (TCBAC) deftly bypassed the option to revisit the original four allocation options.
Instead, members narrowed their focus to the two pro-rata 2014-15 base allocation scenarios.
Adoption of the second scenario means a 2 percent increase for San Diego, San Francisco, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Siskiyou, Stanislaus, Tehama, and Tulare counties over the first scenario.
Several brutal years of ongoing budget cuts meant that courts continued to eke by in the first six months of 2014, until approval of a $60 million budget boost in July.
In April, the Judicial Council had directed its staff to submit a finance letter for fiscal year 2014-15 to the state Department of Finance (DOF) requesting $70 million from the General Fund to address the shortfall in Trial Court Trust Fund revenues that sustains courts base distribution for operations.
A sharp decline in projected revenues stemming from the decline in paid, initial paper civil filings, as well as court operations evaluation on criminal convictions, primarily caused the shortfall.
In May, Gov. Jerry Brown revised the proposal to provide $30.9 million to backfill the impending loss of revenue leaving the courts with an expected $22.7 million deficit.
During its July meeting , after considering the four recommendations of the TCBAC, the Judicial Counsel decided against addressing the projected $22.7 million shortfall. The council instead will send the DOF a request at the end of September to address any deficiencies.
Also during its July meeting, the Judicial Counsel decided how it would allocate the $22.7 million shortfall with the option exercised today to have the TCBAC propose a different allocation method for consideration during its October meeting.
The results of today’s decision means that the Judicial Council will proceed with its adopted allocation method, based on a pro rata share of the 2014-2015 base allocation, minus individual court’s 2011-2012 non-sheriff security allocation.
During the discussion, all committee members agreed that “the overall goal in deciding how to allocate funds should be true to their original intent … provide more of an allocation in relation to workload.”
Earlier this year, presiding Judge Brian Walsh of Santa Clara had said to “please remember that efficiency and justice don’t always equate.”
“We’re committed as a branch and committed as trial courts to efficiencies,” he said. “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.”
In unanimously agreeing not to develop a policy on how to allocate funding reductions in the future, the TCBAC found that its members should be able to consider the unique circumstances and the type of reduction involved.
No one addressed the only comment from the public because someone submitted it in writing five minutes before the meeting started.
The meeting was only the second afforded public access after Gov. Brown axed a provision initiated by the state Legislature earlier this year to open up all of the council’s advisory committee and subcommittee meetings.
anonymous
September 18, 2014
The only thing that is transparent is pleas for cash. Maybe the state legislature will take up the open meeting every year until any governor signs it.
unionman575
September 18, 2014
http://www.kcra.com/news/constructing-stocktons-tallest-building/28115056
😉
unionman575
September 18, 2014
http://www.contracostatimes.com/contra-costa-times/ci_26554048/alameda-county-officials-break-ground-new-east-county
:;)
unionman575
September 18, 2014
http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/protest-planned-in-sf-against-states-broken-judicial-system/Content?oid=2903089
Protest planned in SF against state’s ‘broken’ judicial system
By Jonah Owen Lamb @jonahowenlamb
Critics of the state’s courts plan to march to the California Judicial Council on Friday to protests lax oversight of a system they say is broken.
Organizers argue that many Californians are being “denied lawyers, court reporters, and effective relief from biased judges and corrupt branch officials,” and little is being done to change the status quo.
Representatives from the Center for Judicial Excellence and California Protective Parents Association, who organized the event jointly, are expected to be joined by lawyers and advocates at the event to speak out against their claims of judicial wrongdoing. This is planned for outside the State Building across from Civic Center Plaza.
The rally starts at noon and will last until 3 p.m. The event will include a “Wall of Shame” listing the alleged wrongdoings.
The Judicial Council’s headquarters is 350 McAllister St.
More information on the rally can be found at http://www.centerforjudicailexcellence.org.
The state’s judicial council, headed by Chief Justice Tani Gorre Cantil-Sakauye, implements policy for all the state’s courts, from superior courts up to the Supreme Court.
😉
JusticeCalifornia
September 18, 2014
Thanks unionman!
Tomorrow is going to be interesting.
We were told to go to the Judicial Council, we are going to the Judicial Council.
unionman575
September 19, 2014
http://www.centerforjudicialexcellence.org/2014/09/18/hundreds-to-protest-judicial-corruption-with-wall-of-shame/