We asked our membership to suggest priorities for the incoming Administrative Director of the Courts, Martin Hoshino. Thank you to our members who took the time to lay out priorities for the judicial branch. Here we will attempt to summarize those responses, which we plan to share with Mr. Hoshino when we meet with him next month.
By far the most common theme of our members’ responses focused on limiting and redefining the role of the Judicial Council and its staff, formerly known as the Administrative Office of the Courts. Nearly every judge who weighed in stressed this as a primary concern. Some of the specific comments we received on this topic include:
- “Limit the function, power and authority of Judicial Council staff.”
- “Reaffirm that judges are Constitutional officers, not employees of court administration. The Judicial Council and its staff should serve and aid the courts, not dictate policy.”
- “The AOC, or whatever they are now called, needs to remember that they work for the judges, not the other way around. How ridiculous is it that I would need to make a public records request of an agency that works on my behalf?”
- “Remove from Judicial Council thought, and page one of its website, the idea that ‘Judicial Council staff implements the Council’s policies’ – they exist to serve the courts and the courts implement policy.”
- “Increase the authority of judges over allocation of court funds and what they can be spent on.”
- “Limit the mission of the Judicial Council staff to serving the courts and stop trying to manage them.”
In addition to these comments seeking to redefine and limit the role of the Judicial Council and its staff, perhaps an equally common theme among our members focused on a related topic: the critical need to significantly cut the Judicial Council budget and the operations of its staff, so that saved monies can be redirected to trial court operations. This suggestion dovetailed with the direction to cooperate fully with the ongoing audit of the AOC to help identify operations that can be eliminated or reduced to free up funds for the courts, and included comments like:
- “Dramatically cut the AOC budget and redirect saved money to the trial courts.”
- “Audit each position at the AOC, eliminate nonessential positions so those funds can be used to hire court staff.”
- “Immediately reduce Judicial Council expenditures by a minimum of 50% — this will require a prompt elimination of all non-critical functions.”
- “Deeply cut the staff of the AOC, especially in the CJER, Information Technology and Office of Governmental Affairs divisions.”
- “Reduce the amount spent on outside counsel – why does a staff of over 100 rely so heavily on an army of law firms?”
- “Scrap any idea of a statewide data management system for the courts – let local courts decide what they need and what systems are best suited to those needs.”
- “Audit the court construction program to address whether projects are poorly managed, too opulent, built in locations where the need is not the greatest and on sites that are inconvenient, unsafe and financially unsound.”
- “Move the Judicial Council/AOC headquarters from the expensive facilities in San Francisco to a more austere and functional location in Sacramento.”
Another related topic that was stressed by nearly all respondents was the subject of Judicial Council governance. Comments here focused on the need to democratize the Council selection process, consider the views of all judges before taking action, and make the Council’s decision making process more transparent:
- “I would like to see the branch be able to elect leaders to the Judicial Council. Not all of them, but some of them. I would like to see the council soliciting our opinions on major issues before they act.”
- “Eliminate the Judicial Council nomination/selection system and replace it with a system the will ensure a balanced, elected and representative council of judges.”
- “Encourage the Chief Justice to open the appointed trial court judge positions on the Judicial Council to a vote of the trial court judges of the state.”
- “Bring true transparency to the Council and its various committees, subcommittees and task forces – bring in new people who have a different view on issues and who will look critically at what is being proposed.”
- “Eliminate closed meetings, except in very limited situations (personnel issues, litigation management, etc.).”
- “His highest priority should always be to provide meaningful opportunities for judges to be informed and heard on matters concerning the judiciary, regardless of whether those views are in accord with those of the Council and its bureaucracy.”
Of course, restoring funding to the courts was a high priority among many of our judges. Some specifically wrote that funding should be earmarked for hiring staff, improving court technology, and reopening courtrooms that have been closed due to strained budgets. Others specifically noted that additional funding is needed to repair, maintain and construct court facilities, with an eye toward functionality and safety.
Finally, several judges wrote to express concern about judges’ pay and retirement benefits; they had particular concern that the current system would discourage talented attorneys from seeking election or appointment to the bench. This was expressed as a real deterrent for younger attorneys who, under the current system, may have to contribute 15% of their pay into the system for 30 years or more to obtain a defined benefit that may be less than what they would receive if they remained in their current position in public employment.
We hope we have accurately summarized your suggested priorities for Director Hoshino. Should you feel we omitted something of importance, or that we have highlighted a concern that should not be a priority, please respond promptly to this message so we may have that input before we meet with him early next month. It is our desire to represent the interests of our members, so we look forward to any further input you may choose to offer on this or any other subject of importance to the courts.
Directors, Alliance of California Judges
Edited by JCW: The highlighted item was emphasized by us, not the Alliance of California Judges. The reason this item was highlighted by us is because the Judicial Council uses the construction list as a carrot and stick. All of the Appellate courts were built or remodeled first. They were followed by a courthouse that was so far down the list it should have never been built. ( Aronson Justice Center in Pittsburgh, California) as an internal political deal. The court construction list has been re-ordered several times to benefit the Judicial Council favored, while penalizing the less favored.
This was not the intent of the construction program.
wearyant
October 3, 2014
Excellent missive by the Alliance of California Judges. Thanks for posting it, JCW! Looks like a lot of time and effort went into the judges’ thoughtful points made. Always hopeful that reason will prevail …
unionman575
October 3, 2014
ACJ march on!
😉
courtflea
October 3, 2014
great job ACJ. I just wonder why this meeting has never been held with the CJ. You know there is really something wrong with someone who holds a position of “power” yet is afraid to hear any dissent. Seems to me in my management 101 course that surrounding yourself with yes people is the worst thing a leader should do but I guess most of us know that 🙂
courtflea
October 3, 2014
too bad Tani does not.
JusticeCalifornia
October 3, 2014
wearyant
October 3, 2014
Excellent link, JusticeCalifornia. The agency formerly known as the infamous AOC should review it again as they seem to have forgotten many fine points therein from June 2008. Thanks for posting. When the AOC became “infamous” rather than “famous” to the judges and general public, they chose to go underground by ditching their name altogether as opposed to cleaning up their act in any way whatsoever, thus instilling suspicion rather than confidence — but of course I preach to the choir here.
Have a lovely, COOL Friday evening and weekend, all. And I must say, Fridays are sure fun with the UMan’s contributions at JCW.
Long live the ACJ and the long-suffering trial court judges and employees, and the worker-bees at the um, what are they called, people who work with Wendy Darling, I guess. 😃
unionman575
October 3, 2014
Speaking of construction…
Build, Baby, Build…
http://www.courts.ca.gov/27364.htm
Request for Qualifications for Architectural and Engineering Services RFQ# JBCP-2014-03-BR
The Judicial Branch Capital Program office (JBCP) of the Judicial Council seeks to identify and select a qualified architectural concern and their consulting engineering team to provide services in all phases of pre-design, design and construction of the new courthouse for the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento.
Requests for clarifications or questions must be submitted to
CapitalProgramSolicitations@jud.ca.gov by no later than 5 P.M. on Friday, October 10, 2014.
Written submittals must be received no later than 2 P.M. on Friday, October 24, 2014
Hard copy submittals must be delivered to:
Judicial Council of California
Administrative Division, Finance
Attn: Nadine McFadden – RFQ#JBCP-2014-03-BR
455 Golden Gate Avenue, 6th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
😉
unionman575
October 3, 2014
http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2014/10/03/state-buys-railyard-site-for-future-sacramento.html
State buys railyard site for future Sacramento County courthouse
Oct 3, 2014, 7:16am PDT
Dennis McCoy | Sacramento Business Journal
Escrow has closed for property designated for a high-profile courthouse project within the Sacramento railyard.
Ben van der Meer
Staff Writer- Sacramento Business Journal
The state of California bought 2.4 acres on the northwest corner of where H Street meets Sixth Street for a future Sacramento County courthouse, according to broker Fritz Brown of Brown, Stevens, Elmore and Barre.
“Fact is, this is probably the start of a great vision for downtown and the railyard,” Brown said.
According to the Judicial Council of California, the property cost $10 million. Court officials have estimated the cost to design and built a courthouse at $452 million, said Teresa Ruano, a spokeswoman for the judicial council.
Plans call for a 12-story building of 405,000 square feet, with 250 parking spaces and a basement.
The purchase was no surprise, as court officials had long eyed the site as a future home for a second Sacramento County court building. When built, the new courthouse would handle primarily criminal cases, while civil cases would be heard at the existing courthouse on Seventh Street in downtown Sacramento.
The state bought the property from a lender who’d foreclosed on the entire railyard four years ago. Since then, LDK Ventures has bought the rights to develop the property but has not formally taken possession of the property itself while soil clean-up is being finished.
But when the courthouse gets built is still sometime off. Ruano said the judicial council gave authority this summer to begin working on legislation to appropriate money for courthouse design, but such legislation still needs to be approved by both the council and the state Legislature.
As well, similar legislation will be needed for appropriating construction dollars, Ruano said. However, the state has selected two firms to team up on building design, Nacht & Lewis and HOK.
Ben van der Meer covers real estate, development, construction, transportation and the business of sports for the Sacramento Business Journal.
wearyant
October 3, 2014
LOL! Oh, Lord, help us all.
unionman575
October 3, 2014
Yall come on down…
Notice of Open Meeting with Closed Session of the
Executive and Planning Committee
Time: 12:10 to 1:40 p.m.
Location: Teleconference
Public Call-In Number: 877-820-7831; passcode 846-8947
In accordance with California Rules of Court, rule 10.75(e)(1), public notice is hereby given that the Executive and Planning Committee will hold a meeting open to the public on Thursday, October 9, 2014, from 12:10 to 1:40 p.m. by teleconference. A portion of the meeting will be closed pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 10.75(c)(1) and (d)(1). A copy of the agenda for this meeting is available on the advisory body web page on the California Courts website listed above.
unionman575
October 3, 2014
Insane…
unionman575
October 3, 2014
😉
JusticeCalifornia
October 3, 2014
What I would say to the leaders of all three branches of government:
First and foremost, all three branches are paid by and serve the public, and should at all times, first and foremost, be acting in the public’s best interest. They really should remember that. All the time.
“Top leadership” of our judicial branch has definitely forgotten that, but I hope the Governor and the legislature have not.
What the public needs from the judicial branch: Open courts, impartial judges who know and follow the law, court reporters, good court clerks who keep accurate and accessible “official court records” and . . . . .
GREAT California Courts self-help centers. Knowledge is power, and the self-represented public needs that power to navigate through our complicated court system.
JC
JusticeCalifornia
October 3, 2014
And thank you Unionman for your posts alerting us to so much.
Geez all these emergency Judicial Council meetings about everything.
Blood in the water?
IMHO, I think Judicial Council members should be VERY wary of what they are signing up for. They are legal professionals at the highest levels of the branch and will be held responsible for reading the fine print of what is put before them, before taking action.
Wendy Darling
October 3, 2014
Two thoughts after reading the Alliance’s priorities for the incoming Administrative Director:
1. Most, if not all, of the identified priorities were previously identified in the SEC report. According to Queen Feckless and branch “leadership” all of the priorities in the SEC report have already been implemented. So nothing for the incoming Administrative Director to take care of there.
2. The voice of Curt Soderlund, in stating the ultimate goal, “The Plan”, of branch “leadership” for controlling branch administration: “The judges will be allowed to control their courtrooms, and we (the AOC) will control everything else.” Nothing about “The Plan” has changed. “Allowed” being the operative word in that statement.
It is foolish to think or believe for even one second that the incoming Administrative Director at 455 Golden Gate Avenue is going to be an agent of change or reform, in any way, shape, or form. He’s just another enforcer. That’s why he was determined to be the “most qualified” candidate. In very short order, expect to see him up at the State Legislature repeating the mnemonic incantation of “more money, more money, more money.”
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians. Regardless of whatever name they’re doing it under, or whatever black robe they’re hiding behind.
Long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
October 3, 2014
Wendy, I agree.
Hoshino and the Governor appear to have had some kind of personal/professional understanding about their respective differences and concerns about each other, that resulted in Hoshino’s promotion, notwithstanding Hoshino’s longstanding and intimate involvement with a very troubled state agency.
Ummmmm……Let’s hope that does not affect the primary concern of all three branches: the welfare of the public. The Governor and the legislature and members of the judicial branch cannot give Hoshino and his new bosses ANY breaks if they in ANY way adversely affect the public.
JC
Dante
October 5, 2014
Your comment that Curt Soderlund said that “the Plan” of branch “leadership” for controlling branch administration is that “the judges will be allowed to control their courtrooms, and we (the AOC) will control everything else” is both interesting and scary. Do you know where I could find that quote?
Wendy Darling
October 5, 2014
It was stated by Sunderland in a meeting at the AOC, in which over 20 AOC staff were present. It is an exact quote. To the best of my knowledge, the meeting wasn’t tape recorded. But I did write it down in my notes of the meeting, along with other statements Soderlund made in the meeting. Such as describing court CEO’s as collectively being mindless idiots who had no qualifications for overseeing trial court operations, and the AOC’s goal of replacing all the court CEO’s with AOC selected regional managers, among other things.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
October 3, 2014
Cheers!
JusticeCalifornia
October 3, 2014
Indeed.
The OBT
October 4, 2014
Meaningful change in the branch will never come from Queen Feckless, J Hull, J Miller or Mr Hoshino. Change will only come after the State Auditor’s report exposes the truth about the AOC and Judicial Council and the abuses that have occurred since Ronald George took over an entire branch of government. Those here know the full story. Hopefully the State Auditor’s report will also reveal another truth. The SEC report has not been implemented despite claims from our royal leadership. The next big story is the AOC Judicial Council abuse of courthouse construction funds. The legislature needs to have the State Auditor look into this next. Long Beach , San Diego and the now closed Plumas facility would be a real good place to start that investigation.
sharonkramer
October 4, 2014
Oct 1st Courthouse News
http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/10/01/72025.htm
Judicial Tech Group Walks Back IT Contract Numbers
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – The ghost of fiascos past was awakened when a justice reported in late summer that California’s court bureaucracy in a time of great financial hardship had spent $156 million on information technology contracts. This week the head information officer for the courts tried to lay that ghost back down, saying the figures had been “misunderstood.”
The controversy stems from a report presented in August to the full Judicial Council by Justice Richard Huffman, chair of the council’s Accountability and Efficiency Committee. The report showed with tables and charts that the bureaucracy, formerly called the Administrative Office of the Courts, has spent $146 million for information systems consultants and roughly $10 million for IT consultants in the last fiscal year.
At a meeting of the Judicial Council’s Technology Committee, Chief Information Officer Mark Dusman dismissed the report as news that “drew a lot of oohs and ahs.” He then made a cursory bullet point presentation, claiming that the true number spent on tech contracts last year was only $12.6 million, less than one tenth of what Justice Huffman had reported.
Dusman said the biggest share of the $12.6 million was spent for work on the now-defunct Court Case Management System, a software described by judges as a “fiasco” and a “boondoggle” which cost the state a half-billion dollars and which at its peak was running through $200,000 a day.
The current Technology Committee was formerly called the CCMS Internal Committee, and many committee members carried over, including its chair, Judge James Herman……
In his report, Huffman discussed not only the amount spent on IT contracts but also the length of time contractors were working. “Our committee ultimately was concerned about long-time use of consultants,” Huffman said.
“Some have been there more than 10 years . . . over time you should be concerned with instances where you have a consultant working as a consultant 10, 12, 15 years. It may be necessary but it ought to be the exception to the generalized rule. Hiring the employee may be better and more financially prudent.”
Huffman was indulgent in his August remarks however, noting several times that he did not expect the Judicial Council to do anything with his report other than consider it…..
In answer to that point, Dusman said the staff is trying to move contract workers over to full-time positions, moving eight out of 18 positions to full time last year to save $600,000. “What’s left, the 10, are very specialized positions or there were other salary, lifestyle, or telecommuting issues. Our contractors can choose to work remotely, whereas Judicial Council staff has a relatively restrictive telecommuting policy in place,” he said……