12 days of a judicial branch christmas: A review of 2014

Brilliant JCW. And the best line a “Chief Justice endlessly deluded by power and vanity “. That says it all.

And the delusion continues . . . today’s installment of Tani’s Follies. Published today, Monday, December 15, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:

Judicial Council Makes Push for More Judges, Higher Filing Fees
By MARIA DINZEO

SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – At its meeting Friday, California’s Judicial Council voted to seek 50 new judgeships as part of a package of legislative priorities for the coming year.

But the council’s demands would fall on deaf ears, according to the Alliance of California Judges, a 500-member reform group.

“Any discussion of legislative priorities, however, is pointless if the members of the Legislature aren’t listening to us. And they’re not,” the group said in a statement after the council meeting.

Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye recently told reporters that her budget blueprint asking for $1.2 billion for the courts over three years, which she unveiled to much fanfare in January, would not be used as a basis for lobbying the legislature this budget season. Cantil-Sakauye told reporters that the council “won’t be working from that document as the ultimate demand,” and suggested the blueprint be renamed.

“We have another name for it: It’s a dead letter,” the Alliance shot back.

The council’s Friday vote on legislative priorities also included support for legislation that would expand access to interpreters in civil cases, as well as a request that the legislature extend civil case filing fee increases.

Temporary fee increases were enacted by the legislature in fiscal year 2012-13 and are scheduled to end on July 1, 2015. But the council’s lobbyists will be asking the legislature for an extension.

Judge Martin Tangeman of San Luis Obispo did not vote for the proposed fee extension, saying the idea did not make sense because people who cannot afford the fees are less inclined to file cases.

“Shifting costs to users will have an inevitable effect of inhibiting public access and use of the courts by the public,” Tangeman said. “That’s been borne out by statistics we’ve seen with lower civil case filings, certainly borne out by common sense. I don’t know how far we can carry this on or how far we should carry this on. But I think that we are dangerously close to moving into a mode of institutionalizing permanent increased fees in order to perform justice for most.”

The other dissenting vote came from Mark Bonino, a partner with Hayes Scott Bonino Ellingson & McLay in Redwood City, Calif. The Alliance also blasted the increases.

“As much as our branch needs the money, we should think hard about extending the increases in filing fees,” the group said. “If we’re really concerned about access to the justice system, we cannot keep the price of admission high.”

If approved by the Legislature, the fee increases will raise the filing cost by $40 for civil cases where the dispute is more than $25,000. It also raises the filing fee for probate and family law cases by $40, and complex case fees by $450.

“I think it’s sad that we have to as a body, vote on this type of issue, increasing fees,” said Judge Brian Back of Ventura. “There are a lot of people out there that cannot afford these fees. I would be voting for it because I think we are compelled by forces which we’ve been working against and with. I certainly look forward to when we can vote on a reduction of fees.”

The council also approved a new formula for allocating judgeships – if they are ever funded – giving smaller courts a better shot at getting an additional judge. It multiplies a judge’s workload by a three-year average of filings, then divides that number by the time it takes a judge to hear a case.

The result is called a full-time equivalent, representing a court’s judicial need. Currently, a court must have the need for one full-time equivalent to be eligible of a judgeship, but the council voted to lower the threshold to .08 to give smaller courts like those in Del Norte, Lassen, and El Dorado counties the chance to get on the waiting list.

“At the bottom, this affects really small courts,” said Judge David Rosenberg of Yolo County, who voted for the proposal. “And if you have a court of two judges, for example, losing the possibility of an additional judge has huge impacts. On a 100-judge court, deferring that additional judge has less impact. You can deal with it.”

Judge Brian McCabe of Merced County was the lone dissenter. “I think there are pragmatic and political problems with that issue,” he said.

McCabe admitted that his court is unaffected by the change, but said he thought the policy unwise given that it costs roughly $1 million to fund a judge and support staff.

“One, I think the legislature and the governor might have a problem with expending monies for a full-time position and staff for a position that is not full time,” McCabe said. “Number two, we’ve in essence had a line. People have been standing in line since 2007 because they have demonstrated full-time needs for judges. The formula’s now changed to allow somebody that doesn’t have a full-time need to get in line.”

The Alliance seemed to agree with McCabe on the numbers. “As much as we need more judges, we can’t justify more judicial appointments when we don’t have the money to meet our current staffing needs,” the group said.

In its statement following the council meeting, the Alliance urged the council to reform itself before demanding more money from the Legislature. The judicial branch, it said, has to restore its reputation with the other branches of government.

“We need to commit ourselves to reforming our bureaucracy, not just relabeling it,” the judges’ group said. “We need to remake the Judicial Council, with its cumbersome apparatus of standing committees, advisory committees, subcommittees and task forces, into a representative body that takes its oversight role seriously and that truly speaks for the judges it purports to lead. Our pleas for more money will never gain traction until our branch leaders demonstrate a commitment to real reform, and back that commitment with meaningful action.”

The Alliance has a history of pushing for reform of the Judicial Council and its bureaucracy, and has long-advocated democratizing membership of the council by allowing trial judges to vote for the judges that represent them. Council members are currently chosen by the chief justice from a pool of nominees.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/12/15/judicial-council-makes-push-for-more-judges-higher-filing-fees.htm

Long live the ACJ.

“our review indicate that there is an unacceptably high risk that data from the applications the AOC and superior courts currently use to perform their day-to-day operations could lead to an incorrect or improper conclusion. Therefore, we determined the data were not sufficiently reliable, regardless of the purpose for which the data are used. Moreover, the weaknesses we identified, including practices we do not divulge because of their sensitive nature, could compromise the security and availability of these information systems, which contain confidential or sensitive information, such as court case management records…”

{P]ractices we do not divulge because of their sensitive nature? And what? This has to be addressed within 45 days? Asthe saying goes, good things come to those who wait.

What, specifically, do you all think it is that has “an unacceptably high risk that data from the applications the AOC and superior courts currently use to perform their day-to-day operations could lead to an incorrect or improper conclusion”?

I think its improper entries in the stealth CCMS Case History that don’t match the CCMS ROA or the physical court files; yet are what judges and court personnel see when they look at what has occurred in a case.

Whatever it is, its something pretty bad if they are ordered to correct it by Feb.

To all JCW followers:

Please accept, with no obligation, express or implied, best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice and holiday seasons, practiced in the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasion of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all. Have a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling, and medically uncomplicated new year, with recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2015, but not without due respect for the calendars and traditions of choice of other cultures whose contributions to our society have helped make America what it is today. This is, of course, neither to suggest or imply that “America”, as noted herein, is the only America in the Western Hemisphere. May these heartfelt wishes be received with equal intensity regardless of distribution of individual wealth, documented carbon footprint, or perceived social privilege among the wishes addressed herein. This wish is made without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical condition, religious faith, or sexual preference of the recipient.

These politically correct wishes should cover it for all.

May the new year bring real progress in the fight for the future of the California courts.

.

The moment we’ve all been waiting for. Published today, Wednesday, January 7, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo. Not surprising to anyone here. And not that it will change one damn thing at 455 Golden Gate Avenue.

California Auditor Issues Scathing Catalog of Judiciary Overspending
By MARIA DINZEO

(CN) – California’s judicial bureaucracy wasted millions on overpaid employees and “questionable business practices,” as Judicial Council supervisors turned a blind eye, an exhaustive investigation by the state auditor published Wednesday states.

“The level of the Judicial Council’s involvement in the AOC’s budget process and expenditure decisions appears to have been more ministerial than substantive. In the absence of adequate oversight, the AOC engaged in questionable compensation and business practices, and failed to adequately disclose its expenditures to stakeholders and the public,” Auditor Elaine Howle wrote.

Howle pointed to generous salaries and compensation packages for employees of the Administrative Office of the Courts, which has recently undergone a name change to “Judicial Council staff,” as well as its employment of at least 70 high-cost contractors and temporary employees, its keeping a fleet of 66 vehicles for office use without justification and its maintaining offices in Los Angeles, Sacramento and San Francisco.

“We identified about $30 million in questionable compensation and business practices over a four-year period, plus the additional estimated annual savings of more than $5 million that would result if the AOC were to consolidate its operations in one location. For example, the Judicial Council allowed the AOC to provide its staff with salaries and benefits that significantly exceed those that executive branch employees receive, without sufficient justification,” Howle wrote. “Moreover, the AOC made questionable-and costly- business decisions, such as maintaining multiple office locations and hiring an excessive number of consultants, contractors, and temporary workers. In light of the significant funding cuts to the judicial branch, it is difficult to understand why these practices have continued. Had the AOC discontinued some or all of the questionable business practices, additional funds might have been available for redirection to the trial courts.”

According to the auditor’s report, the average AOC salary is $82,000, while executive branch employees make $62,000 on average. “Furthermore, at a salary of over $179,000, the AOC pays eight of its nine office directors more than the governor and other high-ranking state officials receive, yet those officials have much broader responsibilities,” Howle wrote, also noting the AOC’s practice of paying some employee’s shares of their retirement contributions “at a total cost of more than $858,000 over a four-year period.”

Had the Judicial Council, the judicial rule-making body that oversees the AOC, done better job of supervising the staff, it might have caught the AOC’s dubious spending, Howle found. It may have even identified ways to direct more money to the state’s trial courts from the AOC’s own budget.

But, she wrote, “The lack of Judicial Council involvement in the budgeting process resulted, in some cases, in the AOC having sole autonomy in deciding how to spend certain judicial branch funds.”

The 21-member Judicial Council is chaired by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, who chooses the bulk of its voting members. The AOC’s administrative director also reports to Cantil-Sakauye.

Howle’s report also expressed the same concern that many trial judges have vocalized over the years- that the Judicial Council and its bureaucracy will champion reform publicly, without making any actual changes. “We are concerned that without significant changes, the Judicial Council and AOC will continue to publicly embrace addressing the weaknesses that we and others have identified but fail to take the steps necessary to actually repair those weaknesses in a meaningful and transparent way,” Howle wrote.

The 96-page, long-awaited audit was pushed for by Assembly member Reginald Jones Sawyer (D-Los Angeles), who obtained a committee vote authorizing an audit of the council staff by California’s Office of the State Auditor last year. The committee’s meeting in March 2014 was well-attended by members of the Alliance of California Judges, a reform group of roughly 500 judges, that has hammered the central bureaucracy of the courts over spending habits, size and perceived arrogance.

In his February 2014 letter to the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, Jones-Sawyer wrote, “Despite several budget cuts, the Judicial Council’s budget grew while funding for trial court operations declined. For example, the Judicial Council’s budget for 2013-2014 is stated at $141.5 million. This is $20.9 million more than was spent in 2011-2012.”

Lawmakers have also expressed frustration with the bureaucracy in recent years over controversial financial policies, such as a pension system that rewarded the top 30 employees with another 22% in pension contributions from public funds on top of their salaries, and a pay raise for most of the staff of 3.5 percent in 2010 and another 3.5 percent in 2013, in the heart of California’s financial crisis.

Developing story . . .

http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/01/07/california-auditor-issues-scathing-catalog-of-judiciary-overspending.htm

Long live the ACJ.

As Sakauye admitted on camera before she was suggested as George’s successor, Sakauye — as a Judicial Council member–was personally well informed as a Judicial Council member about problems in the branch before she assumed her current position. She has had well over FOUR (4) long, excruciating years to show her stuff as Chair of the Judicial Council.

Marie Antoinette Sakauye has done that, by choosing to pursue an arrogant same-as-it-ever-was (or worse-than-it-ever-was), let-them-eat-cake approach that never did, and never will, work.

Marie Antoinette Sakauye has not, and cannot, lead the biggest judiciary in the world, and needs to resign.

Here is an article from the San Jose Mercury News on the new audit of the AOC:

http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_27274353/california-judicial-leaders-slammed-spending

http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article5557542.html

Gotta love Team George’s interesting excuse for wasting money:

‘Rosenberg added that the audit covered less than 5 percent of the judiciary’s budget – “a bucket of water in Lake Tahoe” – and would not resolve its funding problems.’

Anyone remember this analysis by Justice Huffman about consultants and their costs?

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. It may be necessary but it ought to be the exception to a generalized rule in our view. Following the human services entities’ own view, and the normal view is hiring the employee is probably better than most financially prudent mechanisms. 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, I guess we’re now the appointed nitpickers for the Judicial Council.
>> [Laughter]
>> So that’s our report, Chief Justice. I’d be happy to answer questions.
>> Thank you, Justice Huffman

The CA State Auditor said in their summary document yesterday that the AOC:

Employs over 70 contractors and temporary employees and could save about $7.2 million per year by using state employees in comparable positions.

That was 7.2 million dollars that could have been redirected to trial courts! I lost my job in one of those trial courts because there was not funds to pay for it. That 7.2 million is not abstract money to me at all! It could have saved me from going on unemployment. How dare Justice Huffman call ending waste at the top nitpicking. Stop wasting valuable taxpayer money, get out of your fortress of a court, and start taking your duties to people seriously.

The LA Times reported today the Judicial Council/AOC wasted 30 million on massive salaries for the top admin. That money could have saved hundreds of jobs for trial court staff. For shame Chief!!!

Add in the waste on CCMS which didn’t even work as promised and it gets really bad. Then add in the courthouse construction waste on the Long Beach Courthouse, since the Chief keeps saying the scope was limited, and it gets to be obscenely bad management for over a decade.

For the record, there were voices saying the scope needed to be broader for this audit and I specifically recall Michael Paul was at the hearing saying courthouse construction should be included. His small voice of reason was overruled but the legislature should remember it now. Given how much waste the Auditor found at the AOC with this limited scope I think the Legislature and Governor should go back and review the courthouse construction to find the rest of the public funds wasted. The Chief shoots herself in the foot by saying this was limited in scope. As comedian Dave Chappelle might say “Fine, lady fine” (on the scope being limited). portraying Tani he would say, “Just because the report says I did bad in this limited scope audit does not mean I am a total administrative failure.” Chappelle would then reply as himself, “That is true. That is true. The scope was limited and we should not forget it. But you are an administrative failure everyplace the auditors reviewed so far I’ll tell you that much”

Huffman and all of the Team George leftovers (Jody and the Curts) clearly have to go. There needs to be all new blood in the AOC “leadership” and on the Judicial Council itself. Tani should say she is sorry to all trial court staff for the unnecessary hardships her waste at the top has caused for those in line positions in trial courts who lost jobs around the state. She could have saved some of those jobs by making salary cuts at the AOC but she didn’t. Shame on her!!! That was her job to do as Chair of the Judicial Council but she didn’t do it. Don’t change the subject to the other cuts the branch took (like all state government had to take due to the recession). That is weak! I want a Chief Justice who is mature enough to take personal responsibility for her mistakes not redirect blame elsewhere.

Lastly, I would like to see a reporter follow up and ask Retired Justice Arthur Scotland if he still feels this audit was a waste of taxpayer money? That was the position Justice Scotland expressed at the legislative hearing calling for it to take place. He wanted to just let the Judicial Council fix it on their own. Given his advice to the legislature I think his opinions on court administration issues have now just been proven to be 100% wrong. He is a Team George player through and through as are Justices Huffman, Miller, and Hull. They have lost all credibility in the real world. It is time for new “leadership” on the Judicial Council. Time for the Chief to stop being defiant and admit her own personal admin failures. Much of this waste is on her time and she owns it.

Fortunately Governor Brown is bringing in all new Justices to the CA Supreme Court and is reshaping the courts from below as well with new appointments of judges to the trial courts. Ron George’s legacy is going to be that he was the clearly a horrible dictator of an administrator for CA Courts not ‘Great” at all. The only way to define him as “Great’ is if the word “Bully” and “Great” are made to be synonymous and I don’t mean bully the way Teddy Roosevelt used the word. I think Tani should now change sides and respect the voices of the Alliance CA Judges or she too will be remembered as a bully in a robe who only wanted to hear certain voices yet pretended to be democratic and open to all. That shell game is over. Time for real changes and most of that change just needs to happen in Tani’s head.

http://www.kcra.com/news/audit-blasts-financial-management-at-california-courts/30584792?absolute=true?par=nbcnews&site=nbcnews.com&cm_ven=nbcnews&cm_cat=Article

A bit more press and this time from out of state:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/7/audit-blasts-financial-management-of-california-co/

Last one:

http://www.allgov.com/usa/ca/news/where-is-the-money-going/state-auditor-issues-scathing-report-on-california-court-administrators-150108?news=855311

I like it because the author links how CCMS came first and this is on top of that failure.

Updated article from Courthouse News, by Maria DInzeo:

Quote of the day: “ Jones-Sawyer said his budget committee will hold a hearing on the audit, where the Judicial Council’s staff will be asked to testify. “We will ask the courts to explain approximately $200 million in efficiencies that I beleive this audit identified,” he said. “It will be difficult for the legislature to increase their budget by once cent until they can prove they are managing their budget efficiently.”

Note to Assembly member Reginald Jones-Sawyer: instead of “asking” Judicial Council staff to testify, you may want to consider issuing Judicial Council staff subpoenas and having them testify under oath. Not that committing perjury is any problem for them.

Scathing Catalog of Judiciary Overspending by CA Auditor
By MARIA DINZEO

(CN) – California’s judicial bureaucracy wasted millions on overpaid employees and “questionable business practices,” as Judicial Council supervisors turned a blind eye, according to an exhaustive investigation by the state auditor published Wednesday.

The auditor’s blistering, 96-page report noted that nine of the AOC’s office directors are paid more than the governor, and also pointed to a series of other indulgences that have eroded confidence in the bureaucracy and diminished resources that would have otherwise gone to the trial courts.

“The level of the Judicial Council’s involvement in the AOC’s budget process and expenditure decisions appears to have been more ministerial than substantive. In the absence of adequate oversight, the AOC engaged in questionable compensation and business practices, and failed to adequately disclose its expenditures to stakeholders and the public,” Auditor Elaine Howle wrote.

Shortly after the report’s release, the reform group Alliance of California Judges issued a statement saying, “The Judicial Council has lost touch with its primary mission of advising the courts, and has instead morphed into an over-bloated bureaucracy that places its own interests ahead of those of the trial courts it was created to serve.”

The group of roughly 500 judges that has hammered the central bureaucracy of the courts over spending habits, size and perceived arrogance, added, “We have never contended that we have all of the answers to the problems facing our court system, but we persist in one unwavering belief — money could not have been so tragically misdirected if the process whereby funds are allocated to the courts had been an open and democratic one.”

Former Alliance director and retired judge Charles Horan of Los Angeles said, “Once again, what we’ve been saying has been verified by an independent source. What the AOC and the chief justice have denied over and over and tried to minimize has been laid out for everybody to see.”

In her report, Howle offered an unprecedented solution, based on a survey conducted by her office that found each trial court in the state used an average of 55 percent of the AOC’s services.

“Given the lapses in the Judicial Council’s oversight and the AOC’s decision making that we identify in this report, we believe significant change is necessary to ensure that the State’s courts receive the critical funding they require to provide access to justice to all Californians,” she wrote. “One change could come in the form of a fee-for-service delivery structure for the AOC, which would redirect some of the funding that it currently receives to the courts and empower them to use that funding to pay for only those AOC services that they need.”

She added, “An expanded fee-for-service system could also lead to a right-sized AOC. If such a system was established, the AOC would derive part of its funding from the trial courts’ payments for services. Under the current system of service delivery, courts can use as many AOC services as they wish at no direct cost to the requesting court.”

Judicial Council leadership did not respond to a request for comment on the audit through its press office, but the council recently scheduled a closed session meeting for Wednesday afternoon, to discuss “personnel and other confidential matters.”

But Assembly member Reginald Jones-Sawyer (D-Los Angeles), who headed the effort to obtain the audit, said in an interview that he agreed with the auditor’s recommendations.

“My goal is to provide access to justice for everyone,” he said. “That requires that courtrooms are open and staffed. We must ensure that funding meant for the judicial branch gets to the trial courts. This audit shows that mismanagement has impeded our efforts to provide over $200 million in efficiencies. The audit recommends possible changes, including re-engineering of the services provided by the AOC, and possibly the alternative use of a fee-for-services funding structure and requiring an annual independent financial audit of the AOC.”

He added, “I support them all. Every last one of them.”

Well-Compensated Staff
Among the highlights of the auditor’s report were the generous salaries and compensation packages for employees of the Administrative Office of the Courts, which has recently undergone a name change to “Judicial Council staff,” and its employment of at least 70 high-cost contractors and temporary employees.

“We identified about $30 million in questionable compensation and business practices over a four-year period, plus the additional estimated annual savings of more than $5 million that would result if the AOC were to consolidate its operations in one location. For example, the Judicial Council allowed the AOC to provide its staff with salaries and benefits that significantly exceed those that executive branch employees receive, without sufficient justification,” Howle wrote.

“Moreover, the AOC made questionable — and costly — business decisions, such as maintaining multiple office locations and hiring an excessive number of consultants, contractors, and temporary workers,” she added. “In light of the significant funding cuts to the judicial branch, it is difficult to understand why these practices have continued. Had the AOC discontinued some or all of the questionable business practices, additional funds might have been available for redirection to the trial courts.”

According to the auditor’s report, in fiscal year 2012-13, the AOC spent $63 million on salaries. The average AOC salary is $82,000, while executive branch employees make $62,000 on average, and employees of four of the state’s biggest trial courts make around $71,000.

It also pays eight of its nine high-level directors more than $179,000 per year, “more than the governor and other high-ranking state officials receive, yet those officials have much broader responsibilities,” Howle wrote. “In fact, 88 of the AOC’s employees earn over $130,000 per year, which exceeds the salary level of the executive branch’s highest career executive assignment.”

Assembly member Jones-Sawyer called the salaries “very shocking,” adding, “as other people were denied raises and laid off, as resources were choked out of the local levels, it does not look like the people at the AOC upper level were sharing the burden.”

In the audit released Wednesday, Howle also noted the AOC’s practice of paying some executive employees’ shares of their retirement contributions “at a total cost of more than $858,000 over a four-year period.”

While state law does permit this benefit for employees who were hired before January 1, 2013, “the fact that the AOC continues to provide this benefit to its executives during a time when budget cuts are severely affecting the courts indicates that it is not taking all reasonable steps available to reduce its costs,” the audit said.

The Judicial Council, a 21-member rule-making body that oversees the AOC, is chaired by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, who chooses the bulk of its voting members. The AOC’s administrative director also reports to Cantil-Sakauye, who last approved staff salaries in October 2012. In September 2014, the council hired Martin Hoshino as its new administrative director.

In a letter to the auditor sent on Dec. 16, Hoshino said he welcomed the auditor’s input and agreed with many of the report’s recommendations. However, he added, “A number of the recommendations have already been implemented or are in the process of being reviewed.”

Howle replied with skepticism, saying, “We are concerned that the AOC’s assertion that it will review its current policies or bring our recommendation to the attention of the Chief Justice and/or the Judicial Council — without proposing a specific plan — suggests that meaningful change will not occur.”

Executive Perks
In addition to lavish salaries and benefits, the auditor said the AOC also picks up the tab for its executives’ parking, unjustifiably maintains a fleet of 66 vehicles for employee use, spends excessive amounts on catering and maintains three locations in Los Angeles, Sacramento and San Francisco.

According to the audit, had the council done better job of supervising the staff, it might have caught the AOC’s dubious spending. It may have even identified ways to direct more money to the state’s trial courts from the AOC’s own budget.

But, she wrote, “The lack of Judicial Council involvement in the budgeting process resulted, in some cases, in the AOC having sole autonomy in deciding how to spend certain judicial branch funds.”

Howle also expressed the same concern that many trial judges have vocalized over the years- that the Judicial Council and its bureaucracy will champion reform publicly, without making any actual changes.
“We are concerned that without significant changes, the Judicial Council and AOC will continue to publicly embrace addressing the weaknesses that we and others have identified but fail to take the steps necessary to actually repair those weaknesses in a meaningful and transparent way,” Howle wrote.

Reacting to the report, Cantil-Sakauye sent an email to judicial officers Wednesday morning saying, “In 2015, we will continue to move forward on many important priorities for the branch. This audit, while confined in scope, gives us another useful tool to help us make progress.”

Jones-Sawyer said, “The auditor was very fair. And the scope was almost exactly what was agreed upon by both the Judicial Council and our office. Now I think theis may be the tip of the ice berg. There could be some more inefficiencies that we could find and ferret out and make the department run smoother. This is about top management right now, and right now top management, according to the audit, needs to do more to ensure that every penny is spent appropriately and that funding gets down to where it’s most needed.”

For four years, lawmakers have expressed frustration with the bureaucracy over controversial financial policies, such as a pension system that rewarded the top 30 employees with another 22% in pension contributions from public funds on top of their salaries, and a pay raise for most of the staff of 3.5 percent in 2010 and another 3.5 percent in 2013, in the heart of California’s financial crisis.

The AOC was also heavily criticized over its mismanagement of a statewide computer project called the Court Case Management System. The software project was scrapped in 2012, but not before it had already spent at least $500 million. Howle also audited the project in 2011, finding that AOC bureaucrats had disguised its true cost to taxpayers.

‘Tumultuous History’
“The AOC has a tumultuous history with various stakeholders including the public, the trial courts, and the Legislature,” the audit noted. “In fact, the evaluation committee’s report noted that the AOC does not consistently seek input from stakeholders, present information that would allow stakeholders to be informed, or retain evidence of analyses it conducted to support certain decisions. Although the AOC has taken steps in recent years to improve its processes, these steps have coincided with amplified scrutiny and thus may not have been a proactive effort.”

Such scrutiny culminated in Cantil-Sakauye’s appointment of the Strategic Evaluation Committee, a 14-judge committee charged with reviewing the AOC. Its resulting report in May 2012 contained 124 recommendations for reform of the AOC’s bloated staff, overspending and lack of communication and strong leadership within its divisions. The council accepted the report, re-writing the recommendations into “directives,” of which it claims 109 of the 145 are complete. But according to the auditor, only 51 recommendations have been completed.

“The AOC has not been transparent or accurate in its reporting on the status of implementing the recommendations from the evaluation committee’s 2012 report,” Howle’s audit said.

Cantil-Sakauye’s Wednesday email nevertheless referred to the SEC report in saying the auditor’s concerns are already being addressed. “I believe every organization should constantly re-assess and continuously improve itself. I am, therefore, pleased to see that a number of the recommendations have been in process since 2012, when the Judicial Council accepted the recommendations of the Strategic Evaluation Committee (SEC),” she said.

Horan called the chief’s message “insulting,” saying, “I found it so disheartening and predictable, her statement that she released to every judge, pointing to the SEC report which the auditor made clear they have not complied with.”

In the audit, Howle included a caveat to ensure the council’s cooperation. “If the Judicial Council does not undertake sufficient and timely action in response to our recommendations, it may be desirable to amend the provisions of the California Constitution that prescribe the powers of the Judicial Council so that the reforms we recommend can be implemented,” Howle said in her audit.

Horan said Howle is right to be concerned. “She indicated she was afraid that without legislative intervention they’d do what they’ve always done, falsely claim to be making progress. Once again, despite their promises, we’ve seen four more years of the same nonsense from this bunch that’s in power. I agree 100 percent with the auditor, nothing good will come from that bunch. It will have to come from legislative fixes and may be a constitutional amendment.”

Jones-Sawyer said his budget committee will hold a hearing on the audit, where the Judicial Council’s staff will be asked to testify. “We will ask the courts to explain approximately $200 million in efficiencies that I beleive this audit identified,” he said. “It will be difficult for the legislature to increase their budget by once cent until they can prove they are managing their budget efficiently.”

http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/01/07/scathing-catalog-of-judiciary-overspending-by-ca-auditor.htm

Long live the ACJ.

I love the great double standard that the Judicial Council created here. They send their auditors to the trial courts to torture our employees over every alleged minor auditing problem but they allow themselves the luxury of 66 cars and 200 cellphones which no one accounts for. In fact, no one at the Judicial Council made any effort to insure that these cars or phones were used only for work related purposes and no records appear to exist for when the cars and phones were used. The Chief Justice and her two top minions, J Hull and J Miller supervised this mess. They are responsible for the massive failings set forth by the State Auditor. The problems identified by the State Auditor are remarkable including the staggering amount of over 300 million dollars of wasted taxpayer funds at a time when trial court employees were losing their jobs and the public was being cut off from local access to justice. The Chief’s response to this is also rather remarkable. She is appointing yet another committee of ” insiders” including J Miller to respond to the Auditor’s devastating findings. This state, the citizens we serve and work for and the thousands of hard working employees of the trial courts deserve so much better. The Chief, Miller and Hull should resign. As that will never happen, the legislature should then democratize the Judicial Council and thereby end the tyranny and arrogance of this Chief Justice’s totally failed regime.

I don’t know who is telling the press Hoshino’s salary is $227,000. According to the CA Court website announcing his selection, “his salary will be $240,828.”

http://www.courts.ca.gov/26992.htm

A new committee appointed by Sakauye and chaired by Miller to address a problematic situation created by Sakauye and Miller. Oh yeah, that is just what the branch needs.
Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. . . . .

Sakauye and Miller have zero intention of changing anything. The SEC report was commissioned almost 4 years ago, and it was presented to the Council 2.5 years ago. That report has been treated as convenient window dressing for Sakauye, as is now clear from the new audit.

The legislature needs to cut to the chase NOW and start the process of amending the Constitution and taking other available measures to protect the public NOW.

“a news release appeared on the council’s website saying several council members had been chosen to lead a new working group to review the audit’s recommendations.”

If anything is going to change, shouldn’t that say, “implement” instead of “review” the audit’s recommendations?

No Unionman, the audit did not go down the toilet. Brown’s nonsensical response to the situation is just more information.

A plus B does not equal C.

A: “The Judicial Council is responsible for managing the resources of the Judiciary”. (p. 111, Brown’s proposed budget)

B: San Diego Union Tribune:

“The 96-page audit not only criticized the office for mismanagement, but also concluded the leadership of the state judiciary has failed in its duty to oversee the agency. The report depicted an office with few internal controls and less oversight, one that doesn’t spend the hundreds of millions of dollars allocated to it by the legislature “in the most transparent and justified manner.” Among other examples, auditors found the agency used $386 million that was supposed to support the state’s 59 local court systems for its own operations. In effect, the audit found the agency siphoned money designed for local courts for its own use.”

Courthouse News Service:

“The audit found that the judiciary’s bureaucracy, the Administrative Office of the Courts, had wasted $30 million over four years that might have gone to keeping the courts running during the height of California’s fiscal crisis.

“…Auditor Elaine Howle did not seem to have much confidence in the Judicial Council’s oversight ability. ‘Given the lapses in Judicial Council oversight and AOC decision making that we have identified throughout this report, we believe significant change is warranted,’ Howle said. ‘We are concerned that without significant change, the Judicial Council and AOC will continue to publicly embrace plans to address the weaknesses that we and others have identified but fail to take the steps necessary to repair those weaknesses in a meaningful and transparent way.’

She added: ‘If the Judicial Council does not undertake sufficient and timely action in response to our recommendations, it may be desirable to amend the provisions of the California Constitution that prescribe the powers of the Judicial Council so that the reforms we recommend can be implemented.’ ”

C. Courthouse News Service:

“Brown cited the audit Friday, saying the chief justice is ‘well aware of the problem,’ and that the audit should provide some guidance on where the judiciary can save. He added: ‘She’s creating her own group to look into it and I think they can handle it fine.’”

I am sorry, but you gotta wonder what the terms of the deal were.

Just calling it like the world sees it.

Time now to review the totally failed regime of HRH-2. From the start she adopted the Ronald George attitude of believing in her self importance and power. She met with the ACJ once and thereafter ignored them or failed to acknowledge their existence. Upon the passage of AB 1208 , HRH-2 went on the attack and claimed she was lied to by the legislature. As the legislature funds the branch that misplaced attack was certainly a well thought out response. She and her “insider” minions defended CCMS right through to the bitter end never understanding that the waste of 500 million would not go unnoticed by the Governor, Legislature and public. Her arrogance manifested itself best when she was driven home by her CHP officer detail who was caught on film removing her bags from the trunk.To this day we still have no idea how many millions of dollars have been wasted on her honor having a CHP driver for non business trips. Like Ronald George, HRH-2 has used the Judicial Council to insure that little or no dissent would ever be aired out. Her first appointee to the Council the incredibly arrogant Harry Hull continues to represent all that is wrong with 455 Golden Gate. Hull was responsible for overseeing the search to replace Mr Vickrey and identified J Jahr as the most qualified person in the entire nation to head up the AOC. We know now in light of the State Auditor’s findings last week just how wrong Hull and HRH-2 were. Many of the most devastating findings of the Auditor occurred on HRH-2, Hull’s and Jahr’s watch.Even in the face of continued Judicial Council and AOC failings, HRH-2 never wavered from protecting Ronald George and his crumbling legacy. Despite another 360 million dollars of wasted taxpayer dollars, closed courthouses, thousands laid off and radically reduced trial court services to the public, HRH-2 and her latest most qualified head of the AOC , Mr Hoshino would have you believe they have rectified everything in the State Auditor’s report. That Soviet like response is right out of the Ronald George playbook, bringing us back to where we started. HRH-2 is not only failure, but a a miserable failure . She needs to resign. We need to get beyond the arrogant and long shadow of Ronald George. We need to restore democracy to our once proud branch of government now.