(JCW) A recent communique from the Alliance of California Judges
You have probably received an e-mail survey from the recently created Commission on the Future of California’s Court System asking your opinion about how best to improve the branch. You may be tempted to ignore this survey; after all, over the last four years, you’ve been asked to take a survey by the CJA, another one by the Chief Justice, and yet another one by the Strategic Evaluation Committee.
We urge you to respond to the survey, even though we have doubts about the “Futures Commission” that sent it out. Over the next two years, this 21-member commission is supposed to “take a fresh look at legal and structural challenges to long-term efficiency and stability for the judicial branch and develop practical, achievable recommendations that may be implemented by the Judicial Council, the Legislature, or the Governor.”
If our branch leaders are really interested in improving long-term efficiency for the judicial branch, we have some practical, achievable recommendations: cut back the bureaucracy in size and scope, and allow the judges of this state to elect the members of the Judicial Council that purports to guide them. And stop appointing committees that are geographically unbalanced and light on experienced trial court judges.
We know many of the members of this new commission, and we respect them. But we fail to see the need for another strategic planning committee, let alone one that won’t produce a report until deep into 2016, when at least three other committees are supposed to be doing much the same thing. For starters, there’s the Executive and Planning Committee, which “develops the council’s long-range strategic plan for the judicial branch.” Then there’s the Advisory Committee on Financial Accountability and Efficiency for the Judicial Branch, which “makes recommendations to the council on practices that will promote efficiency or improve financial accountability.” The Council also meets regularly behind closed doors (and with an unpublicized agenda) to come up with the six-year branchwide strategic plan and the three-year operational plan. And, of course, the Chief created the Strategic Evaluation Committee in 2011 to conduct an in-depth review of the former AOC.
The appointment of yet another committee, no matter how distinguished its membership, comes across as a feeble response to the recent hammering that our branch suffered in the last budget cycle. The Governor and the Legislature have told us repeatedly that our branch needs reform, and they brought the point home forcefully with a budget that doesn’t come close to meeting our needs. Our branch leaders have responded by changing the name of the bureaucracy and appointing yet another committee. We doubt the other branches of government will be impressed.
In forming this commission, our branch leaders did not reach out to our 500-member organization, which has led the call for branch reform since 2009. So we reached out to them and asked to be included on the commission. Our offer has not been accepted. But as the commission is now asking for our thoughts, we offer these preliminary ones:
Over the past two decades, the Judicial Council, once a relatively quiet body that concerned itself primarily with drafting forms and recommending “best practices,” morphed into a powerful, overlarded, unelected statewide management board with control over trial court budgets, courthouse construction, and judicial education. The Council wasn’t designed to serve these functions, and it has not done them well. We suggest as the starting point for the commission’s deliberations the language of California Constitution, Article VI, section 6, defining the Council’s role as a policy-recommending body, not a policy-making one, and Government Code, § 77001, which mandates a “decentralized system of trial court management.”
Let’s start there. We’re judges. Let’s just follow the law.
Very Truly Yours,
Directors, Alliance of California Judges
Added: A Link to the survey.
unionman575
November 12, 2014
More fine work ACJ and JCW.
😉
JusticeCalifornia
November 12, 2014
Terrific ACJ response regarding Sakauye’s latest committee.
Wendy Darling
November 12, 2014
“Let’s just follow the law.”
The last thing Judicial Branch administration and 455 Golden Gate Avenue is interested in is following the law. Heck, the people flying the airplane in branch administration can’t even follow their own flight plan, as amply evidenced by the above communique from the ACJ.
The last thing the branch needs at this point is another committee. Nothing new here. Just more re-arranging of the deck chairs on HMS Queen Feckless.
You just can’t make this stuff up. Really.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
November 12, 2014
All Aboard!
wearyant
November 12, 2014
Excellent input from ACJ as usual! The council continually speaks of excellence, but to recognize it truly, look to the Alliance of California Judges. Yes, yet another commission, aka committee, in answer to dire problems in Tani’s management and her stranglehold on power. One fundamental way to improve the branch would be to listen to the ACJ, first and foremost. That doesn’t appear to be a consideration. Another great way to improve access to justice would be to embrace the court interpreters and court reporters instead of kicking them to the curm. Wow, what a thought that is! What a concept. What a anathema for the elitists at the helm of the branch. Meanwhile, the majority suffers; the citizenry are constructively denied access to justice and the frontline trial court workers deal with overwhelming, impossible workloads while Tani says, “let ’em eat cake.” Thanks for the great entertainment as I watch this terrific train wreck daily, Queen, but it might be best to get back to boring government work and repair the branch. You really know what to do.
unionman575
November 12, 2014
http://www.alameda.courts.ca.gov/Resources/Documents/SHC%20Alameda%20Self-help%20Perm%20Closure%20Eng%20102814.pdf
unionman575
November 12, 2014
http://www.calaveras.courts.ca.gov/sites/default/files/pdfs/Announcements/PUBLIC%20NOTICE.pdf
unionman575
November 12, 2014
http://www.fresno.courts.ca.gov/_pdfs/Court_LimitedClosure_Notice_2014.pdf
unionman575
November 12, 2014
http://www.humboldt.courts.ca.gov/files/PublicNotice-ClerksOfficeHours-8-27-2014.pdf
unionman575
November 12, 2014
http://www.monocourt.org/pdfs/Notification%20of%20Closing%20Mammoth%20Lakes%20Courthouse%20Every%20Third%20Friday.pdf
unionman575
November 12, 2014
http://www.napa.courts.ca.gov/sites/default/files/images/documents/Court%20Closure%20Notice%20continued%202014%2009%2026_0.pdf
unionman575
November 12, 2014
http://www.sdcourt.ca.gov/portal/page?_pageid=55,1816536&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
Public Notices/Invitation to Comment
CLOSING APPEALS AND SMALL CLAIMS
Pursuant to Government Code § 68106 and Rule 10.620 of the California Rules of Court, the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, is providing 60 days’ notice that it will be: (1) consolidating its appellate filings by closing the appellate desk/operations of its business offices in its North, South and East County Divisions for certain case filings and transferring them to the Central Division; and (2) closing its Small Claims business office in the Kearny Mesa Courthouse and transferring all Small Claims operations and hearings/trials from the Kearny Mesa Courthouse to the Hall of Justice and Central Courthouse.
(Available for comments until: 12/21/2014)
Lando
November 12, 2014
Another survey and another Commission or Blue Ribbon Committee. In my years in this system I have seen this approach used over and over by the insiders at 455 Golden Gate. The CJ and her insiders were shocked and set back by the SEC conclusions so now they have recast themselves so they can get the answers they want. Two clues this deal has no credibility from the start. First did HRH-2 go out and find trial judges with records of long service and experience to participate as Commission members? We all know we can’t have that. Second I believe as was the case for the SEC report, Alliance members are once again ignored as if the voice of over a third of the judges in the state means nothing. All this just makes the case for bringing democracy to 455 Golden Gate more compelling.
JusticeCalifornia
November 13, 2014
I agree that having yet another commission stocked with those who SWOV is inappropriate. The delay (two years) in processing survey input is intolerable and the spin that will be created is foreseeable.
However, raw data is raw data. In my opinion everyone should fill out the survey. Notice of the opportunity to comment should be spread far and wide to everyone who interfaces with the courts.
The Judicial Council and others should widely publicize this survey so they can get as many participants as possible in all counties, and the JC should extend the time frame within which to answer the survey. There should be a highly visible online link available on all county court websites, legal self-help websites and offices, legal aid websites and offices, bar association websites, union and court employee websites, etc.
http://www.courts.ca.gov/27820.htm
NewsViews
November 13, 2014
Reblogged this on News and Views Riverside Superior Court and National Family Law Abuse.
unionman575
November 13, 2014
http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/11/12/punishing-the-public.htm
Wednesday, November 12, 2014Last Update: 7:42 PM PT
Punishing the Public
By BILL GIRDNER
ShareThis
The courts are ultimately human institutions, based on conflict and resolution.
They do not make cars, they do not cook hamburgers, they do not grow grapes or walnuts. They serve the people, as part of our democratic government.
And the people need the courts for a great range of tasks, resolving civil disputes peacefully, deciding if someone has violated society’s criminal rules and a variety of related and often mundane tasks that require a trip to the courthouse.
So when courts cut back on service to the people, and in particular when they cut their public hours, they do damage to their reason for being, their raison d’etre.
An article on our page last week reported on a big group of California courts, led by Santa Clara Superior Court in San Jose, that are cutting their public hours back to those kept by bankers for much of the last century.
The cutbacks in public hours were announced a couple months after passage of a state budget that did not give the courts all the money they wanted.
Closing at two or three o’clock in the afternoon without doubt punishes the public.
The common assumption would be that short hours are required by smaller budgets. But that assumption would be wrong.
The remarkable thing about the story by CNS reporter Maria Dinzeo was that it showed the early closures have no fiscal justification — they save no money. Because the court staff continues to work a full day.
In that perversion of policy — where the staff hours stay exactly the same and the public hours get sharply cut — there is only one effect. The singular effect of the policy is to make it more of a hassle to deal with the court, to make it harder on those poor suckers standing in line.
So why would a court do it.
The stated reason is that it allows clerks to catch up with their work. But that justification does not stand up to reason or experience.
The same number of documents are still filed, the same number of people still need to pay tickets.
Indeed, in Sacramento, a court where the staff had fallen far behind in their work and are now caught up, the presiding judge said cutting public hours does not help. “You turn out at the same place,” he said.
In other words, there is no good reason to short the public on hours. So why?
Since the clear and uncontested outcome of the policy is to make the public suffer. And since i
It is clear and uncontested that the policy will not save money.
Then the only conclusion is that those courts think it is OK to adopt a policy that has no benefit but does have the effect of punishing the public, after a budget disappointment.
T
The other more benign interpretation is that they don’t know what they’re doing.
To be fair to the staff and administrators in those courts shorting the public, such a policy could not be put in place without the approval of their leading judges.
It is they who should know better.
Just as dark is contrasted by light, so the negative effects of shorting the public are clearly outlined by the positive effects of keeping full public hours.
“It has one of the most immediate impacts on the public,” said Winifred Younge Smith, Oakland’s presiding judge. “It affects the public’s ability to access justice and take care of their business.”
To the same effect, Robert Hight, the presiding judge in Sacramento, said, “Our belief is that you should have the counter hours as broad and as long as possible.”
Compounding the bad policy from the court in San Jose and a few others was the decision by the Judicial Council to not talk about it.
At the council meeting last week, the early closures were set as an “information only” item, meaning they were not discussed or voted upon. And the council is the body that is supposed to advise on policy, precisely what was needed.
I was suprised by that collective wave of dismissal. The chief justice had just named a big group of new judges to the council and appointed a new director to head the 800-member staff, formerly known as the Administrative Office of the Courts.
But refusing any discussion of the cuts to public hours — decisions that punish the people of California without fiscal justification — that sounded in every way like the council of old.
Waving the issue away was in my mind a sign of both arrogance and deafness to the needs of the people. And there is nothing new in that.
Home Back to Top
Courthouse News Service Privacy Policy
Terms of Use
Search
RSS
MaxRebo5
November 13, 2014
Another great letter by the Alliance. I filled out my survey response. My main comment was to democratize the Judicial Council. Crushing dissenting views in order for the Chief to control the branch and speak with one voice is wrong and has to end. It is a poor fit for an organization dedicated to fair processes rather than set outcomes.
Speaking of poor processes, Courthouse News put out a fine article today on the bad public policy of courts to shorten their business hours:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/11/12/punishing-the-public.htm
JusticeCalifornia
November 13, 2014
As always, excellent observations by Courthouse News.
The Judicial Branch is paid by the public to serve the public. Not to serve or kowtow in any manner to the arrogant gambling barmaid or her scandal-ridden 800 pound gorilla in the branch. Period.
unionman575
November 13, 2014
The Intersection of Budget Cuts and Due Process
http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/the-intersection-of-budget-cuts-and-due-70358/
unionman575
November 13, 2014
The next JC head honcho?
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article3919630.html
Former Sen. Joe Dunn out as California Bar executive director
Judicial Council Watcher
November 13, 2014
LOL, the last thing the judicial council needs is a whistleblower.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/11/13/sen-dunn-files-whistleblower-action-against-california-state-bar.htm
Wendy Darling
November 13, 2014
Oh, my my. The irony is just so delicious. So very, very, delicious. Published late today, Thursday, November 13, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo.
Quote of the day: “ The lawyer noted that Dunn’s fellow whistleblowers are afraid of retaliation. “They figure if they’re going to blow the whistle that their employment is at risk,” Geragos added. “They’re very brave to stand up against what I consider to be outrageous, unethical and illegal conduct at the State Bar.”
Really? Outrageous, unethical and illegal conduct at the State Bar? Retaliation? Why, that should be reported to the California Office of the Attorney General. I’m sure Kamala Harris and her office will get right on that.
Sen. Dunn Files Whistleblower Action Against California State Bar
By MARIA DINZEO
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – In a whistleblower lawsuit filed Thursday, former Sen. Joseph Dunn says the State Bar fired him as its executive director for exposing malfeasance and “egregious improprieties.”
Dunn, who was fired on November 7, claims he was targeted after he discovered that the bar’s chief trial counsel, Jayne Kim, removed 269 backlogged cases from official reports released to the public in order to make her office appear more productive.
Dunn is represented by Mark Geragos in Los Angeles.
“We wouldn’t have filed this case if we didn’t think there was egregious conduct going on at the State Bar,” said Geragos.
The lawyer noted that Dunn’s fellow whistleblowers are afraid of retaliation. “They figure if they’re going to blow the whistle that their employment is at risk,” Geragos added. “They’re very brave to stand up against what I consider to be outrageous, unethical and illegal conduct at the State Bar.”
He said Dunn was not available for comment Thursday.
Filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, the complaint names the bar and the bar’s newly installed president, Craig Holden, as defendants.
Shortly after Holden took office in May, says the complaint, he began telling people he wanted “to do something about Dunn,” who had worked as executive director since 2010.
Upon learning of Dunn’s concerns with the activities at the Office of Chief Trial Counsel, Kim complained about Dunn, according to the lawsuit.
Her internal complaint led to an evaluation “conducted at exorbitant expense to the membership of the State Bar,” said Dunn. He was at no point provided with a copy or summary of her complaint
In early November, Dunn and several other bar employees lodged complaints about Kim’s conduct with the bar’s board of trustees.
Within two days, Dunn was fired.
His lawsuit points out that Kim’s alleged misconduct occurred just as the bar is about to undergo an audit.
“The California Bureau of State Audits is set to conduct its biannual audit of the State Bar in 2015. Rather than hold Ms. Kim and the OCTC accountable for its actions as Senator Dunn encouraged, the State Bar has terminated Senator Dunn and taken adverse actions against other whistleblowers for bringing this issue to their attention,” said the complaint.
This investigation cost bar members more than $300,000, according to Dunn.
His lawsuit says the State Bar used a private law firm with close ties to one of the bar’s trustees, Miriam Krinsky, even though a retired former California Supreme Court Justice had offered to conduct a pro bono evaluation.
Krinsky was a member of the Judicial Council from roughly 2009-2012. The council decides on rules and budgets for California’s vast court system. During a period of intense turmoil in the council’s staff roughly two years ago, Dunn was under consideration to direct the staff, then called the Administrative Office of the Courts.
One of the merits to his possible ascension to that post was his knowledge of the Legislature where the administrative office had been severely criticized over its handling of public funds, including a disastrous software project. Dunn served as a California state senator representing Santa Ana in Orange County from 1998-2006.
In Thursday’s lawsuit, Dunn said, “The retention of the private firm, in addition to being an utter waste of State Bar membership dues, violated State Bar protocol.”
“Three billings partners from the private firm that were put on the ‘evaluation’ and each billed in excess of $800 per hour,” said the complaint. “The current billable hours for the services rendered by that private firm likely exceeds $300,000.”
Dunn says he was given his 30-day termination notice on Nov. 7 while he was giving a speech for the State Bar in San Francisco. Holden allegedly said he couldn’t speak to the press, or risk losing his severance pay.
The State Bar has not announced a search for a new executive director, Dunn’s lawsuit notes, adding that Holden plans to take the job himself.
Dunn is seeking damages and injunctive relief reinstating him as executive director, or at the very least, an order to show cause why he should not be reinstated.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/11/13/sen-dunn-files-whistleblower-action-against-california-state-bar.htm
One can’t help but wonder how Joe Dunn is going to like being on the receiving end of perjurious declarations, filed in court under oath, under penalty of perjury, and the judicial branch not caring one wit or doing anything about that.
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
November 13, 2014
From The Recorder, the on-line publication of CalLaw, by Cheryl Miller:
Fired State Bar Director Fights Back in Whistleblower Suit
Cheryl Miller, The Recorder
SACRAMENTO — Hours after his termination was announced, fired California State Bar executive director Joe Dunn filed suit Thursday afternoon, alleging that he was canned after alerting the bar to “serious ethical breaches” among top leaders.
The complaint, filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, says that Dunn and six other unnamed plaintiffs filed two whistleblower notices with the bar during the first week of November. Dunn says he was fired two days later—via email—while giving a speech in San Francisco.
Dunn did not return messages left Thursday. State Bar President Craig Holden referred questions to the bar’s communications staff.
“As a policy we don’t comment on pending litigation,” said Rex Bossert, the bar’s chief executive for communications.
Dunn attorney Mark Geragos said his client is seeking damages and reinstatement.
“I don’t think he’d mind finishing the job he was hired to do,” Geragos said.
The whistleblower notices, the complaint alleges, warned administrators that Chief Trial Counsel Jayne Kim—hired on Dunn’s watch—was manipulating the agency’s books to conceal a disciplinary backlog, an issue that Dunn had pledged to lawmakers that he would correct when he came on the job. Dunn served in the state Senate between 1998 and 2006, representing portions of Orange County.
Dunn also says he complained the bar wasn’t doing enough to prosecute non-lawyers performing legal work. And when he raised concerns about Kim’s performance, Dunn said, she filed a complaint against him, resulting in the bar hiring investigators with alleged ties to one of the trustees.
“Ms. Kim’s complaint against Senator Dunn was made shortly after the annual review process for her was commenced, and was merely pretextual to avoid Senator Dunn’s oversight, criticism and review of her,” the complaint alleges.
The lawsuit does not detail any accusations Kim allegedly made against Dunn. Bossert did not respond to questions about the claims.
Dunn also alleges that Holden began telling people in May—four months before he became the bar president—that he was determined to “do something with Dunn” because he wanted to become executive director himself. Holden is a partner at Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith.
State Bar employees received an email shortly after 8 a.m. Thursday announcing that Dunn “is no longer acting as executive director.”
“[T]he employment of State Bar Executive Director Joseph Dunn will end upon the expiration of a 30-day notice pursuant to his employment contract,” Deputy Executive Director Robert Hawley wrote. “The State Bar’s Board has directed President Craig Holden and Deputy Executive Director Robert Hawley to exercise immediate executive oversight of the State Bar on an interim basis. Please continue to focus on the State Bar’s work.”
Dunn’s four-year tenure at the bar’s helm has been marked by tumult and turnover. In 2011, he canned four veteran prosecutors in the Office of Chief Trial Counsel and played a role in the departure of Chief Trial Counsel James Towery. Dunn helped hire Kim in an effort to revamp the bar’s disciplinary functions.
The next year the state Supreme Court returned dozens of recommended disciplinary cases to the bar, suggesting that bar staff had been too lenient in handing down punishment. Just two months ago, the high court returned without comment bar-proposed revisions to the California Code of Professional Conduct. Changes to the standards for lawyers had been in development for more than a decade.
“The Supreme Court is aware of what’s happened [at the bar] and is monitoring what’s going on,” said Beth Jay, a top aide to Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye.
While Dunn was hired, in part, to improve relations with the Legislature, the bar’s legislative record under the former state senator has been mixed. Lawmakers enacted significant changes to the board of trustees’ membership despite bouts of resistance from bar leaders.
Dunn chafed at regular attempts by legislators to increase bar funding for legal aid services.
Dunn also attracted criticism when the bar retained his longtime political ally, Richie Ross, as a consultant. Ross, Dunn said, was originally hired to handle media questions about Sergio Garcia, the undocumented law school graduate who received admission to the State Bar after a legal fight. When that issue faded, Ross said he would continue working on the bar’s legal aid matters. The bar has refused to make public information about his pay and contract terms.
Earlier this month, Ross agreed to pay $5,000 to settle charges by the state Fair Political Practices Commission that he let two elected lawmakers slide on debts they owed him for political campaign work. The FPPC said the situation created the appearance that the legislators were obligated to Ross, who also lobbies for paid clients in the Legislature.
Holden said Thursday that the bar has notified Ross that his contract is being terminated.
“We don’t need his service any further, and that’s the determination I made,” Holden said.
Ross did not return a message seeking comment.
Legal ethicist and bar watcher Richard Zitrin said Dunn “took the State Bar back three paces,” during his years at the helm.
“First he was instrumental in James Towery not being [retained] as chief trial counsel,” Zitrin said. “Second, he failed dramatically to shepherd the Rules of Professional Conduct through to the Supreme Court. And third, he had a real tin ear when it came to genuine public protection. I see [his termination] as a very positive step for the State Bar.”
http://www.therecorder.com/id=1202676361630/Fired-State-Bar-Director-Fights-Back-in-Whistleblower-Suit?mcode=1202615718827
Steve Jahr is currently unemployed. Looks like he’d fit right in as Executive Director of the State Bar.
Long live the ACJ.
Lando
November 14, 2014
Wasn’t Dunn close to HRH-1 and wasn’t Dunn mentioned in major media as a likely replacement to Mr Vickrey? Meantime back at 455 Golden Gate I would like to ask this so called Commission on the Future of the Courts to explain where in the California State Constitution does it state that the Judicial Council is given the power to make policy and dictate to the trial courts ? Speaking of HRH-1 didn’t he seek to amend Article 6 to give him that power? Why would HRH-1 have sought to pass this amendment if he was confident he already had those powers? Enough of the fluff surveys and attempts to shore up the failed leadership of HRH-2 and her self appointed insiders. This is the issue this Commission needs to honestly address. My guess is they won’t and so once again nothing positive for the public and branch will have been achieved and lots of valuable taxpayer dollars will go up in smoke. Sounds like groundhog day and as Wendy likes to say, You can’t make any of this up. Really.
Donna Callison
November 14, 2014
Oh, I filled out the survey and had a wonderful time doing so. I skipped right to the end to leave any additional comments. Mine where along the lines of the survey asking how to improve services in the various areas of law is a joke b/c nothing is going to change because the Governor hates the judiciary and continues to underfund it. Why? Because that is the main offender of government that is not fiscally responsible and the governor is tired of wasting tax payer dollars on a wasteful branch. I also had a few comments about Ron George and his cohorts–thievry at its worst.
unionman575
November 14, 2014
http://courts.ca.gov/familyjuvenilecomm.htm
Family and Juvenile Law Advisory Committee
November 20, 2014 Meeting (Closed)
4:30-5:30 p.m.
unionman575
November 14, 2014
http://www.courts.ca.gov/rupromeetings.htm
Rules and Projects Committee
Purpose:
Assists the full membership of the council in its responsibilities by providing recommendations in its assigned areas, including rules for court administration, practice, and procedure, and by performing duties delegated by the council.
November 20, 2014 Meeting (Teleconference)
12:10 p.m.
1-877-820-7831; passcode (joint session) 846-8947 (listen only)
passcode (RUPRO only session) 925-3865 (listen only)
JusticeCalifornia
November 14, 2014
I remember Miriam Krinsky, dutiful SWOV attorney member of the Judicial Council. She participated in all those disastrous 2009-2012 JC votes on CCMS, court construction, etc. Her firm was paid $800 per hour to take down Dunn? Wow. I don’t know what all is involved –who wears a black or white hat here– but for what it is worth Dunn was smart, personable and even-handed when he spoke at a Marin bar function in 2011. This State Bar debacle is going to be very interesting.
“Crumblin’ Down” John Mellencamp.
Some people ain’t no damn good
You can’t trust ’em
You can’t love em
No good deed goes unpunished
And I don’t mind being their whipping boy
I’ve had that pleasure
For years and years
No, no I never was a sinner
Tell me what else can I do
Second best is what you get
‘Til you learn to bend the rules
Time respects no person
And when you lift up must fall
They’re waiting outside
To claim my crumblin’ walls
Saw my picture in the paper
Read the news around my face
And now some people
Don’t want to treat me the same
When the walls
Come tumblin’ down
When the walls
Come crumblin’, crumblin’
When the walls
Come tumblin’, tumblin’
Down
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah
Yeah, yeah, yeah
JusticeCalifornia
November 14, 2014
And does anybody know why Bob Wieckowski is not a JC member anymore? Why no assembly judiciary committee member is a JC member?
MaxRebo5
November 14, 2014
I found this story interesting:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/11/13/sf-court-clerks-protest-on-courthouse-steps.htm
I wonder if the unions in SF or other coastal trial courts understand the fiscal mess they will soon face as they negotiate raises. Here is a smart research story about the court’s new workload formula and it is really is a big deal worthy of sharing:
http://cacs.org/research/california-courts-wafm-assessment/
This was the main part I noticed:
In 2013-14, twenty populous counties became “donor counties” under the formula, losing substantial portions of their budgets to underfunded counties. Five counties (Alameda, Orange, San Diego, San Francisco, and Santa Clara) each lost over $1 million in funding.
San Francisco, for example, is stomaching an additional $1.5 million cut due to the WAFM.
This post on WAFM may seem technical for me to blog about on JCW but it really is a huge change for the better in CA Courts. It is really going to change funding for many courts in the next few years. In 2013/2014 Orange County Superior Court alone lost 1.9 million in funding due to WAFM and this formula is being phased in gradually to soften the blow: See:
Fiscal Year 2013-14 – 10% new rate / 90% old rate
Fiscal Year 2014-15 – 15% new rate / 85% old rate
Fiscal Year 2015-16 – 30% new rate / 70% old rate
Fiscal Year 2016-17 – 40% new rate / 60% old rate
Fiscal Year 2017-18 – 50% new rate / 50% old rate
Imagine how much more the “donor” courts like Orang County will lose in the future as the formula goes into further effect. I think the WAFM will take from affluent areas with low crime (fewer cases) and give to inland counties with higher crime (more cases). This is a wonderful system and totally fair as it is based on workload (cases). Nevertheless, places like SF are going to be hit hard as will Marin County, Monterey, Santa Clara, San Mateo, San Diego or any county court with a large population relative to their crime rate.
There is more bad news too. The formula is weighted (which is also fair). This means courts get more money when a felony case is filed compared to a misdemeanor case. What just happened last week? Prop 47 passed reducing many felony arrests to misdemeanors. That hurts court workloads across the board under WAFM. It also reduces the need for new judgeships under the judicial needs assessment formula. Nothing shady here just reality to face.
Now look ahead… In 2016 pot may be legalized in CA. The polls show it will likely pass which will further decriminalizing a major caseload item adding to the downward trend in criminal cases. These changes set CA Courts up for a huge set of workload decreases as there will be far fewer things considered crimes for cases. This is all in the next two years not some far off distant future. The Chief’s future report will be too late.
The decline in workloads will mean the branch will lose it’s primary justification for increased funding. Also it means far less money from fines and fees will be collected for the state. Those fines and fees the branch “leaders” promised would be there to pay off the five billion in courthouse construction bonds. You may recall, the legislature just had to back fill millions this year because the fines and fees the AOC estimated to be here didn’t materialize due to the decline in court cases. If filings continue to drop the Legislature will have to pay millions more out of the General Fund to pay off those bonds. Recall the Chief said no new taxes were created to pay for all these new courthouses. Something has to give and the Legislature will notice their payments went up along with AOC facilities staffing.
This added expense for the state will make it harder for the Chief to lobby effectively for additional money as the Legislature will be mad at CA Courts. Those buildings were supposed to pay for themselves with fines and fees was how they were sold. It won’t be the AOC cut but local trial court staff who will get the pink slips when funding levels don’t increase. This is the ongoing hangover for the branch from HRH 1 and Vickrey’s spending spree in the midst of a recession. Some day debt payments come due. I hope the judges will start to see how they have been played and get with the Alliance to reform the Judicial Council who approved all of this.
As I have pointed out before case filing trends are all already way down for CA Courts since 2009 and the DOJ is saying crime rates in CA are at 50 year “historic” lows. Juvenile crime is way down too leaving almost no scenario where court criminal workloads will increase in the next few fiscal years. This is all great news for the CA public but it is very bad news for CA trial court funding.
The Department of Finance and Governor just got the CA Courts to make a huge change with WAFM but some local courts are going to start to notice the impacts big time as it is phased in. One thing not included in WAFM is how many Judicial Council staff are needed based on the caseload numbers. Seems what’s fair for the CA trial courts funding should also be applied to the agency formerly known as the AOC. They always seem to leave themselves out of any kind of metric for their own staffing levels. The Team George insiders may be ruthless and corrupt but they are not stupid. Hopefully the Legislative Audit will address Judicial Council staffing levels in January of 2015. Thanks for reading my long commentary on the two links I shared. I hope you found it interesting.
unionman575
November 14, 2014
” One thing not included in WAFM is how many Judicial Council staff are needed based on the caseload numbers. Seems what’s fair for the CA trial courts funding should also be applied to the agency formerly known as the AOC. ”
Exactly.
I found your post interesting.
wearyant
November 14, 2014
Always enjoy your thoughtful posts, MaxRebo5. Thanks for posting. The length is a plus; and a nice comfy chair and beverage to enjoy.
NewsViews
November 18, 2014
It’s ironic that the sentiment expressed by the Alliance centers around the fact that judges are supposed to follow the law “We’re judges. Let’s just follow the law.” Some litigants are aware of who some of the judges are that are affiliated with the alliance including some of the appellate court justices in this State. These judges most definitely do not follow the law in any capacity. The work of the Alliance serves to act as a criticism of bodies that are supposed to promote fair justice and equal access to the law for all CA’s, part of the democratic process in this state. It would be nice if the Alliance members themselves actually conformed to the sentiment expressed, i.e. their function is to follow the law.
JusticeCalifornia
November 18, 2014
I do believe that those who read and post on this blog have their respective insights about what is going down,
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/politics+makes+strange+bedfellows
In the end, the truth will out, for better or worse.
Let’s all support those upholding the law.