Back in 2013, in an effort to fix the lack of transparency that led to the CCMS fiasco, the Legislative Analyst’s Office directed the Judicial Council to “submit to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee a report on the implementation of an open meetings rule” for its advisory bodies. So the Council came up with a rule which featured ten exceptions. At the time, we expressed concerns that those ten exceptions would wind up swallowing the rule. The Council, however, proclaimed a brave new era of openness: “The open-meeting rule marks a new era for the judicial branch in California and sets a high bar for the judicial branches in other states,” crowed Justice Douglas Miller, chair of the Executive and Planning Committee.
It’s been a year since the new open-meetings rule took effect. So how has it worked in practice? Let’s take a look at the meetings calendar for this month:
· February 2—Judicial Council Technology Committee (Closed)
· February 4—Alternative Dispute Resolution Subcommittee Meeting (Closed)
· February 5—Policy Coordination and Liaison Committee Meeting (Closed)
· February 5—Family and Juvenile Law Advisory Committee Meeting (Closed)
· February 6—Protective Orders Working Group Meeting (Closed)
· February 6—Probate and Mental Health Advisory Committee, Legislative Subcommittee Meeting (Closed)
· February 9—Small Claims and Limited Case Subcommittee Meeting (Closed)
· February 9—Unlimited Cases and Complex Litigation Subcommittee Meeting (Closed)
· February 10—Traffic Advisory Committee Meeting (Closed)
· February 19—Judicial Council (first 40 minutes closed)
· February 19—Family and Juvenile Law Advisory Committee meeting (Closed)
· February 20—Collaborative Justice Courts Advisory Committee Meeting (Closed)
· February 23—Appellate Advisory Committee Rules Subcommittee Meeting (Closed)
· February 24—Traffic Advisory Committee Meeting (Closed)
· February 27—Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee (Closed)
Fifteen meetings, including part of the Judicial Council’s meeting, are closed. Two meetings of the Rules and Projects Committee are by e-mail only, with no public comment. By contrast, only 11 meetings are open.
And so it continues: A Judicial Council dominated by the Chief Justice’s appointees receives input from a tangled array of standing committees, subcommittees, advisory committees and task forces with hand-picked members, meeting behind closed doors. It’s an opaque, ungainly system that filters out dissenting voices, lacks internal checks and balances, and does not serve us well.
By drafting a meaningless rule on open meetings, once again the Judicial Council has thumbed its nose at the Governor and the Legislature that trusted it to reform itself. The Council has shown that it will take a lot more than an easily sidestepped, loophole-ridden rule, drafted by the very entity that wants to keep much of its business under wraps, to bring about real change.
Legislators and the Governor should remember this when considering whether the reforms so necessary to our branch, such as those identified by the State Auditor, will ever be enacted voluntarily by the Council. In this regard, we echo the concerns expressed by the State Auditor:
“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.”
Another rule of court, passed to stave off legislation, is no more likely to be followed. It will take legislative action to effect the needed overhaul of the governance of our branch. By their own inaction, obfuscation and lack of transparency, the Council and its staff have created that reality.
Directors, Alliance of California Judges
unionman575
February 17, 2015
It’s not working for me.
😉
Wendy Darling
February 17, 2015
Me either. Not that anyone is going to do anything about it.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
February 19, 2015
Court Technology Advisory Committee
February 19, 2015 Projects Subcommittee Meeting (Teleconference)
😉
12:00 – 1:30 p.m.
1-877-820-7831
Public Access Code # 4348559
unionman575
February 17, 2015
More fine work ACJ & JCW.
😉
unionman575
February 17, 2015
unionman575
February 17, 2015
http://www.courts.ca.gov/28045.htm
Public Comment Procedures
😉
unionman575
February 17, 2015
Tires squealing here it is in all its glory….
Public comment at Judicial Council meetings can provide valuable information for council members and enhance the council’s understanding of the issues coming before it. Public comment can be provided in writing before the meeting or in person on the day of the meeting.
General and Specific Public Comment
The agenda for each Judicial Council meeting specifies time for public comment on general matters of judicial administration. Time is also allotted for public comment on specific agenda items. Meeting agendas are posted here.
Comments pertaining to a specific court case will not be received.
Requests to Speak
Individuals can request in advance to speak at a council meeting, or they can make the request in person at the beginning of any council meeting.
Make a written request in advance.
Please provide the speaker’s first and last name and the specific agenda item or the topic to be addressed.
You can e-mail the request to judicialcouncil@jud.ca.gov.
You can also send by postal mail or deliver in person to:
Judicial Council of California
455 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, California 94102-3688
Attention: Cliff Alumno
Each meeting agenda lists a timeframe for receipt of written requests. Those who submit a written request will receive a confirmation of receipt.
Make a request at the meeting.
Members of the public who attend a Judicial Council meeting in person can request to comment at the meeting. Requests to speak during the time reserved for general comment will be taken until the chair of the council’s Executive and Planning (E&P) Committee or a designee calls for public comment in the meeting.
Requests to speak on specific agenda items will be taken until the item is called before the presentation of the item.
At the meeting
1.Please sign in at the reception table. Speakers are asked to print their first and last name along with the specific agenda item to be addressed or, if the comment concerns something not on the agenda, the topic to be addressed.
2.General comments on judicial administration (that is, topics not on the meeting agenda) will be heard during the general public comment period at the beginning of the meeting.
3.Comments on specific agenda items will be heard before the presentation of the agenda item. Anyone wishing to speak on a specific agenda item should arrive at the beginning of the meeting day, as agenda times are subject to change.
4.To accommodate the schedules of members of the public who prefer not to wait until the council hears a particular agenda item, speakers can choose to speak on a particular agenda item during the general public comment period at the beginning of the meeting.
Please be advised
😉
Given time constraints, there is no guarantee that all who request to speak can be accommodated on the date requested. As an alternative when requests cannot be fulfilled for the date requested, written comments will be accepted and made available to the council.
The time allotted for public comment will vary according to the number of requests received and the time available on the agenda. If there are numerous requests, individual speaker time may be limited.
Three or more individuals may pool their time for one speaker. The Executive and Planning Committee will determine the amount of time given to that person with the understanding that the combined time will be less than the total time available to the individuals separately.
😉
Members of the public who attend open meetings must remain orderly. The Chief Justice may order the removal of any disorderly persons.
😉
Written Comments
Written comments on matters affecting judicial administration or specific agenda items at any Judicial Council meeting will be accepted and made available to the council. Written comments will not be received on matters relating to a particular case.
Written comments can be e-mailed to judicialcouncil@jud.ca.gov or mailed or delivered to:
Judicial Council of California
455 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, California 94102-3688
Attention: Cliff Alumno
Each meeting agenda lists a timeframe for receipt of written comments.
unionman575
February 17, 2015
Scroll on down to this nugget o’ gold on Page 8 right here:
“IX. Courtesy and Decorum”
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/Parliamentary_Procedures.pdf
unionman575
February 17, 2015
unionman575
February 17, 2015
Nothing like a late night Grey Goose to get me fired up….
😉
unionman575
February 17, 2015
The Death Star is now hiring. All aboard!
😉
https://careers.jud.ca.gov/psc/recruit1/EMPLOYEE/PSFT_HR/c/HRS_HRAM.HRS_CE.GBL?FolderPath=PORTAL_ROOT_OBJECT.HC_HRS_CE_GBL2&IsFolder=false&IgnoreParamTempl=FolderPath%2cIsFolder&
Job Title:
Legal Assistant (Administrative Assistant to Counsel)
Job ID:
3966
Location: San Francisco
unionman575
February 17, 2015
But wait there is more…Need a JC Job in San Diego here ya go…
https://careers.jud.ca.gov/psc/recruit1/EMPLOYEE/PSFT_HR/c/HRS_HRAM.HRS_CE.GBL?FolderPath=PORTAL_ROOT_OBJECT.HC_HRS_CE_GBL2&IsFolder=false&IgnoreParamTempl=FolderPath%2cIsFolder
Job Title: Facilities Management Administrator
Job ID: 3965
Location: San Diego
Hmm..that must pay ok…
Pay and Benefits Salary Range: $6,693 – $8,133 per month
😉
unionman575
February 17, 2015
The Analysis Team presents a JC job opportunity at Death Star HQ right here:
https://careers.jud.ca.gov/psc/recruit1/EMPLOYEE/PSFT_HR/c/HRS_HRAM.HRS_CE.GBL?FolderPath=PORTAL_ROOT_OBJECT.HC_HRS_CE_GBL2&IsFolder=false&IgnoreParamTempl=FolderPath%2cIsFolder
Job Title: Senior Court Services Analyst
Job ID: 3960
Location: San Francisco
Hmm I bet this one pays ok too…
Son of a gun, it does pay good…
Pay and Benefits Salary Range: $6,261 – $7,608 per month
Tsk tsk tsk.
unionman575
February 17, 2015
unionman575
February 17, 2015
I do find that a Grey Goose or two does tend to unleash my more creative, adventurous side.
JC humps.
unionman575
February 17, 2015
And just when I thought I was done for the evening yet another late night blue light special brought to you by the Death Star.
Well shiver me timbers yet another new committee…I am simply giddy!
😉
February 24-25, 2015 Meeting
(Meeting will be open to the public from 10:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. on February 24)
😉
Milton Marks Conference Center
Judicial Council San Francisco Office
455 Golden Gate Ave.
San Francisco, CA
New Members to Commission on Future of California’s Court System
FOR RELEASE
Contact: Blaine Corren, 415-865-7740
February 17, 2015
Chief Justice Names 40 New Members to Commission on the Future of California’s Court System
Commission to hold first public meeting on Feb. 24
SAN FRANCISCO—California Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye named 40 new members to her Commission on the Future of California’s Court System, charged with recommending ways to improve the state court system by making it more efficient and effective.
“I’m grateful for the impressive number of talented legal minds that will be tackling this issue,” said the Chief Justice. “The commission will help ensure that the judicial branch is doing all it can to make our court system as accessible and efficient as possible,” she added.
The appointments round out the commission, which will be divided into four subcommittees to focus on court operations in the areas of Civil, Criminal/Traffic, Family/Juvenile, and Fiscal/Court Administration.
The commission will meet on Feb. 24–25 at the Milton Marks Conference Center in the Ronald M. George State Office Complex in San Francisco. The meeting will be open to the public from 10:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. on Feb. 24, when commission members will receive an overview of their charge.
– See more at: http://www.courts.ca.gov/28730.htm#sthash.QmYJNKhh.dpuf
http://www.courts.ca.gov/28730.htm
unionman575
February 17, 2015
What a total supreme Circle Jerk!
unionman575
February 17, 2015
More on the new “Commission”:
Commission on the Future of California’s Court System Charge and Vision
The Commission on the Future of California’s Court System (Commission) will study and recommend to the Chief Justice initiatives to effectively and efficiently serve California’s diverse and dynamic population by enhancing access to justice.
The Commission will focus on:
Improving systems and structures to effectively adjudicate civil, criminal, traffic, and family and juvenile law cases;
Achieving sustainable fiscal stability for the branch;
Employing modern technology to enhance public access to court information and services.
Mission
The focus of the Commission’s work will be an internal review of the current operations of California’s courts. It will assess the statutory and Constitutional obligations of the courts, the current manner in which those obligations are being discharged, and whether there are systemic changes that can ensure those obligations are met directly and effectively, by the prudent allocation of limited resources.
Its goal will be to recommend ways in which the core responsibilities of the judicial system can be achieved effectively and fairly, taking into account the demands and opportunities of the Twenty First Century.
The Commission will solicit ideas and input from a broad spectrum of sources. Its focus will be on practical and achievable suggestions to make certain that the methods employed to support the delivery of justice are responsive to the needs of all Californians.
Subgroups of the Commission will consider what changes may be made, what costs may be both required and saved, what advantages and disadvantages any proposal may entail, and whether implementation of proposals will require changes in statutes or rules of court.
Structure of the Commission The Commission will consist of a chair and vice-chair and members from within the judicial branch. Additionally, the Commission will seek input and expertise from groups outside the branch including labor, technology, business, justice system partners, the Governor’s Office, and the legislature.
The Commission will have an Executive Committee that will be charged with ensuring appropriate input and participation is sought from within the branch and from various stakeholder groups and will be responsible for the final development and approval of all reports and recommendations submitted to the Chief Justice. The Executive Committee will include Patrick Kelly, former State Bar President, as a non-voting Special Advisor.
The Commission will have four subcommittees each focused on the following case types/subject areas: Criminal/Traffic; Civil; Family/Juvenile; and Fiscal/Administration. Each subcommittee will be chaired by an Executive Committee member, and will consist of voting members drawn from the Commission, and subject-matter specific attorney groups. The subcommittees will develop ideas, conduct research, and make recommendations to the Executive Committee.
The Judicial Council’s Chief of Staff, Jody Patel
(There ya are Jody!)
😉
will be lead staff for the Commission’s efforts. She will be assisted by a core team of Judicial Council staff that will support the efforts of the Commission aided by subject matter experts from throughout the Judicial Council.
Contact Information
Judicial Council Leadership Services Division
Special Projects
FuturesCommission@jud.ca.gov
http://www.courts.ca.gov/futurescommission.htm#tab27318
I need to splash cold water on my face and refresh my Goose ‘n’ Tonic.
BRB
😉
unionman575
February 17, 2015
Drum roll please….
And the Commission members/winners are:
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/FuturesComm-ExecRoster.pdf
Feast your eyes on retreads and Yes people…
My, my, my.
What a travesty.
😉
Auntie Bureaucrat
February 18, 2015
Mr. “There is no plan B” himself on the futures commission? You really can’t make this stuff up.
unionman575
February 17, 2015
What does all of the above suggest?
Speak with one voice.
I’m NOT ok with that.
So we all truck on together here fighting the good fight.
ACJ keep fighting!
😉
unionman575
February 17, 2015
Time for the Unionman to power down this evening.
Have a nice evening ladies and gents.
😉
Lando
February 17, 2015
Come on everybody. We need to give HRH-2 a chance and time to fix all this. Forget about the fact that she has been CJ for going on 4 long years. Now of course we hear we need to give Brian Williams Hoshino time to fix all this . It never ends with the insiders at 455 Golden Gate. They either claim things are fixed when they aren’t or they plead for more time because someone new and improved like Hoshino has arrived or a new committee has been appointed with the same old insiders being “selected”. Vickrey, Overholt, Jahr, and now Hoshino. Nothing will ever change at 455 Golden Gate. Nothing. I think I know why. Ronald George, HRH-1, has really never left the building. What a total disgrace.
Lando
February 18, 2015
Unionman, the Committee J Corrigan has assembled has numerous Justices and Judges that are smart , thoughtful and totally independent . This committee could be a voice for positive change, if any of the 455 Golden Gate insiders would actually listen and get beyond the obsessive goal of protecting Ronald George’s failed legacy.
unionman575
February 18, 2015
SWOV is strong.
unionman575
February 18, 2015
Alright Lando I will meet you half way, my friend.
There are some good folks on that committee.
I grant you that my friend.
BUT the committee is BULLSHIT when you look at the whole JC setup.
We have had SEC. And zip has occurred.
We have had other committees and zip has occurred,
Call me a pessimist.
BUT I do care., Or I would not being doing the deal here.
Right?
😉
Meanwhile, we must rely on ourselves, the ACJ, and each of us here on JCW to carry us to the Promised Land.
CA Assembly Sub 5 Chair Reggie Jones Sawyer help get us there….please.
😉
courtflea
February 18, 2015
Uman, can you say re-engineering all over again? When Jody was the Northern Region Director, she had a “re-engineering” specialist on staff. Another service offered by the AOC that the courts had no use for. It was also labeled as “best practices” at other times. Well you can count on one thing with the AOC, they will rehash the same old stuff every few years with the same results: nothing.
Judicial Council Watcher
February 18, 2015
Unfortunately the commission is charged only with boosting efficiencies in the trial courts by the look of their mission statement.
Worse, this commission duplicates efforts of already standing committees.
courtflea
February 18, 2015
Yah think JCW? So Typical. When the negative spot light is on the AOC, they turn it into “let’s take a look at ways to improve the trial courts” in the usual tactic of not doing anything about the real problem, the AOC. By the time this committee does anything everyone will have forgotten about the most recent audit of the AOC right? It’s almost laughable. Like the trial courts have been wasting millions of dollars. Yeah right. I can’t believe the folks in Sacramento would fall for this again.
Wendy Darling
February 18, 2015
“I can’t believe the folks in Sacramento would fall for this again.”
I can.
Long live the ACJ.
sharonkramer
February 20, 2015
Well when you get right down to it, isn’t increasing efficiencies in the trial courts what its ALL about?
Hey, maybe they could operate better if they had some damn money or if there was maybe a statewide “staff” that actually helped them rather than squandered their money.
In theory, seems good. In reality, one can’t expect any change by forming a new committee made up of those whose foremost personal interest is to continue to hide the dead bodies in the graves they helped to dig.
Roddy????? C’mon!!
sharonkramer
February 18, 2015
“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.”
This is true. What, specifically, are the “significant changes” and what steps need to be taken to assure they are implemented? Would democratizing the JC cause change? If so, how? What, specifically, does “democratizing the JC” mean?
MaxRebo5
February 18, 2015
At the last JC meeting that I listened to online they gave so little time for public comment that one guy gave up trying to make his point and simply offered a prayer out loud. He was praying to God to fix this body which was so messed up. It was a beautiful plea on his part. What more could he do in the one minute he was given?
The JC members are perfectly fine with the one minute per speaker and no member ever makes a motion to end the practice. Then there is Justice Miller warning the speakers, as politely as he can, that they have 15 seconds left to wrap up. It is so sad I have to laugh.
I’m somewhat ashamed to admit I find the public comments time to be the funniest part of JC meetings. It reminds me of the Soup Nazi episode on Seinfeld where the chef/owner of the soup store mistreats his customers knowing he has created something they love greatly. The Soup Nazi is in total control of his shop but it has made him mad with power.
The comic sadness for the JC meetings is the speakers are real people with genuine problems yet the council members and Chief view them as the joke. I think the JC members wish they didn’t have to listen to them at all. They feign interest and openness to the public’s ideas but that is a lie. The actual truth, based on their actions, is they do not seek the public’s input and despise the public’s scrutiny. As the ACJ’s pointed out the majority of subcommittee meetings are closed completely. The final JC meeting each quarter is the most choreographed of all meetings and it is completely controlled to produce a set outcome from discussions at those closed subcommittees.
The council members know their role is to rubber stamp whatever the Chief wants. To them the public speakers are a formality they are required to include to give the appearance of openness. The only problem with the public coming in with advice on issues at the last minute is it’s awkward for the JC members. They sit silently pretending that they have been open to the public’s ideas throughout the process and for painful minute must endure real input from the public. In that brief moment of they face human voices, actual democracy, and also their own corruption. It has to suck for them as 99% of the time they can believe their own lie that they are serving the public.
Fortunately, Justice Miller makes the awkwardness tolerable by reminding the council members how soon the speaker will be cut off. The warning is both for the listeners on the committee as well as for the speaker. Both are being controlled as this is the Chief’s shop.
For me the public comments are wrong on so many levels but I just can’t turn away. It’s a sad divine comedy made possible when a Chief Justice runs the Judicial Branch like the soup Nazi. Instead of saying “No soup for you” she has her JC committee say, “No extra money for your court” or “No new courthouse for you”. On Seinfeld most of the customers played along quietly to get their soup. Same thing in CA Courts with most judges who remaining silent to get what they can. It is fun to see the ACJ is smart and doesn’t buy the act anymore. They are right to point out the real joke is the Chief Justice’s so called “open meeting rule.” Most meetings are closed and she only created that rule to avoid the accountability that comes from having real open meetings like the rest of government.
The final bit of comedy, more like insult on top of injury, is Mr. Hoshino who gives quotes to the press about how democratic the Judicial Council’s committees are. How can he say the JC is democratic when the few judges who dare to give no votes on JC subcommittees for ethical reasons are kicked off? The joke is on anyone who believes Hoshino that the JC is anything close to democratic. In reality none of this (except the Seinfeld show) is a laughing matter so I am glad the ACJ’s treats it as the serious misuse of power that it is.
sharonkramer
February 18, 2015
I agree. Those meetings are surreal. Not ONE JC member says ONE word acknowledging the validity of legitimate and many times, heart-wrenching concerns by the public. You’re right. There is something funny about it in a black comedy sort of way. Its a bizarre thing to witness.
Its like watching a troop of marionettes in a carnival sideshow, who don’t move until their strings are pulled by the Chief Justice.
unionman575
February 18, 2015
Those meetings are the “f’n” Twilight Zone.
I have been to my share of JC shindigs and it is UNREAL.
courtflea
February 18, 2015
Uman it’s more like a remake of Step ford wives: Step ford people.
unionman575
February 18, 2015
So stipulated Flea!
😉
Guest
February 18, 2015
This would be funny if it wasn’t so sad and affecting thousands of honest court employees and millions of California citizens who need access to justice. So another committee and this one to discuss the future of the California Court system and who is on this committee? Yamasaki and Roddy. These are the same retreads who have been on every committee that got us into this mess. So they are now on a committee to discuss our future? Does the cj even look at the past? If she did she would see that these two boobs “led” the branch down this hole we are in. Insanity!
Auntie Bureaucrat
February 19, 2015
They definitely give good “yes.” Two boobs, indeed.
katy
February 18, 2015
Its blatantly obvious that NOTHING is going to change until the self-appointed “policy-writing-body” of the California judicial branch is forced to change from its function as merely a yes-man organization; and its committee members are no longer appointed by the same person they say “yes” to.
So how does one make that happen?
(I’m logged in from Katy’s Exposure blog — its me, Sharon)
JusticeCalifornia
February 18, 2015
It is surreal to attend judicial council meetings. You watch Sakauye, Miller, Hoshino etc., yukking it up and pretending to be the queen and her court.
Then comes public comment. Yes, the one minute time limit interrupted by the 15-second warning can be disconcerting, but an amazing amount of pain, branch wrongdoing, and disgust can be reported in one minute. Some speakers are better than others but everyone is becoming part of a fascinating recorded moment in time. I hate to be macabre but it is kind of like some kind of bizarre third reich ritual where branch prisoners get to report the torture inflicted upon them and for a brief moment confront the tormentors who are allowing it to happen.The flip side of the stiff orchestrated proceedings is that the unwashed masses are unpredictable and I have watched the council have to sit there, tightlipped, while they are publicly flogged, but good.
As painful and bizarre as it is to watch, a record is being made.
unionman575
February 19, 2015
Wednesday, February 18, 2015
Page 1
Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye Makes Final Appointments To Futures Commission, Sets Group’s First Meeting
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye yesterday named the final 40 members of the Commission on the Future of California’s Court System, charged with recommending ways to improve the state court system by making it more efficient and effective, the Judicial Council staff said in a press release.
“I’m grateful for the impressive number of talented legal minds that will be tackling this issue,” the release quoted the chief justice as saying. “The commission will help ensure that the judicial branch is doing all it can to make our court system as accessible and efficient as possible.”
The release said the commission will be divided into four subcommittees, but the entire group will meet next Tuesday and Wednesday in the Milton Marks Conference Center at the state courts complex in San Francisco. “The meeting will be open to the public from 10:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. on Feb. 24, when commission members will receive an overview of their charge,” the release said.
The commission’s Civil Subcommittee is chaired by Court of Appeal Justice Judith L. Haller of the Fourth District’s Div, One. The vice-chair is Santa Clara Superior Court Judge Patricia Lucas, and members include Los Angeles Superior Court Presiding Judge Carolyn Kuhl and Judges Michelle William Court and Bruce Iwasaki; attorneys Robert P. Feldman of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP and Edith Matthai of Robie & Matthai; and former State Bar President Patrick Kelly, who is regional managing partner at Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP.
The Criminal/Traffic Subcommittee is chaired by Monterey Superior Court Judge Carrie McIntyre Panetta, with retired Placer Superior Court Judge J. Richard Couzens as vice-chair, Los Angeles County District Attorney Jackie Lacey is a member, and Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Tricia Ann Bigelow of this district’s Div. Eight, who chairs the Judicial Council Criminal Law Advisory Committee, is an advisory member.
The chair of the Family/Juvenile Subcommittee is Sacramento Superior Court Judge Stacy Boulware Eurie, The vice-chair is San Diego Superior Court Judge Lorna A. Alksne, and members include Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Holly J. Fujie—a former State Bar president—Donna Quigley Groman, who was recently named supervising judge of the court’s Juvenile Delinquency Division, and Mark A. Juhas, as well as Leslie Starr Heimov, executive director of Children’s Law Center of California.
The Fiscal/Court Administration Subcommittee is chaired by Fourth District Court of Appeal, Div. Three Presiding Justice Kathleen E. O’Leary, with San Diego Superior Court Executive Officer Mike Roddy as vice-chair.
None of the members are from Los Angeles County.
http://www.metnews.com/articles/2015/futu021815.htm
unionman575
February 19, 2015
February 26, 2015 Joint Appellate Technology Subcommittee Meeting (Teleconference)
3:00 – 5:00 p.m.
Call-In Number: 1-877-820-7831
Public Access Code # 4348559 (listen only)
😉
http://www.courts.ca.gov/ctac.htm
Auntie Bureaucrat
February 19, 2015
“The Fiscal/Court Administration Subcommittee […] with San Diego Superior Court Executive Officer Mike Roddy as vice-chair.”
In other news, Ms. Glenn Close and Mr. Elmer Fudd have been appointed as co-chairs to the Commission on Kindness to Rabbits.
Guest
February 19, 2015
Yeah Roddy over Fiscal and Court Adminstration. He sure is an experienced expert in those areas. You can tell by the death spiral his court in San Diego is going through and as head cheerleader for CCMS while at the AOC. Yep, the cj could have found a better yes man. Plus Roddy brings his little dog Yamasaki with him to smile and admire the cj’s brilliance. When will someone realize that the people who drove the branch into the abyss we’re in are the same people still driving? These people are the ONE constant during this last decade of decline.
sharonkramer
February 19, 2015
K, will try to say this discretely.
If you were the Chief Justice of California and you were trying to show the BSA, governor and legislators that you are diligently working to clean up problematic cronyism in the branch; would you appoint a family court judge and a superior court clerk to the committee of 40 that is charged with task — who are your named co-defendants in a federal RICO/honest services fraud suit that has been brought by a CA family rights non-profit group? (there’s another recently discussed female judge defendant in the RICO, but will refrain from naming her here. 🙂
Sure sounds like more smoke and mirrors to me!
unionman575
February 19, 2015
Hot Rod is nuthin’ but hot air.
What a mindless Hump!
Auntie Bureaucrat
February 19, 2015
I understand Mr. Hoshino was recently shocked to hear that all is not sunny in San Diego. As if maybe nobody had told him the real truth about what’s going on there. Really? Roddy lie to someone about the current state of affairs?
From what I understand he’ll be lucky to get through the year without some major backlash. His people are tired of bearing the brunt of his all of mistakes while he sits on yet another committee and plays Tani’s lapdog.
unionman575
February 19, 2015
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/Futures_Commission_Roster-Fiscal-CourtAdminSubcommittee.pdf
There it is the sub cmte on $$$$
Think I am gonna heave
😉
unionman575
February 19, 2015
http://www.courts.ca.gov/28741.htm
Request for Information – Disposition of Structure Located on Site of New Redding
Courthouse – RFI# REFM-2015-01-DM
The Judicial Council of California is issuing this RFI to obtain responses from non-profit organizations, real estate developers, construction entities, joint ventures, and other members of the community who are potentially interested in acquiring what is more commonly known as the Dobrowsky House at 1720 Yuba Street, Redding, California. The purpose of this RFI is to elicit private sector market perspectives of a possible sale and relocation of this structure.
😉
The deadline for respondents to submit questions, requests for clarification is 3:00 p.m., PST, Tuesday, March 10, 2015.
Submittals must be submitted to CapitalProgramSolicitations@jud.ca.gov by no later than 3 P.M., PST on Friday, March 20, 2015.
Hard copy submittals must be delivered to:
Judicial Council of California
Attn: Nadine McFadden – #REFM-2015-01-DM
455 Golden Gate Avenue – 6th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
unionman575
February 19, 2015
Executive and Planning Committee
February 19, 2015 Meeting (Closed Session)
This meeting has been canceled.
😉
😉
http://www.courts.ca.gov/epmeetings.htm
Wendy Darling
February 19, 2015
Published late today, Thursday, February 19, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
New Director of California Court Agency Cuts Perk for Top Brass
By MARIA DINZEO
SACRAMENTO (CN) – In his first round of big changes to California’s court bureaucracy, new director Martin Hoshno answered a scathing report from the state auditor with a series of reforms that included eliminating a lavish pension benefit for the top brass.
The controversial perk was cut back in 2012 by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, but top executives were still receiving another 22% in pension contributions from public funds on top of their salaries, including Chief Operating Officer Curt Childs, Chief Administrative Officer Curt Soderlund and Chief of Staff Jody Patel.
The pension benefit for the top officials caught the attention of the California State Auditor, who honed in on the perk in a scathing report released in January after a nearly year-long investigation of the bureaucracy, formerly known as the Administrative Office of the Courts. The new director said the benefit would end July 1st.
At Thursday’s meeting of the Judicial Council, Hoshino, who took over the job as director of the bureaucracy in September 2014, gave a brief update on the staff’s progress in implementing the auditor’s recommendations in anticipation of a 60-day progress report due to the auditor on March 7.
He said that several other perks noted by the auditor had also been cut, like parking reimbursements for executives, and the staff’s fleet of 66 vehicles. Hoshino said 22 of those vehicles were eliminated, and that he planned a cost-benefit analysis of the remaining 44, which he said are primarily used in maintaining the state’s 500 courthouses.
After listening to Hoshino’s report, retired Judge Charles Horan of Los Angeles said in an email that he expected more changes.
“The cessation of paid pension benefits (which will not occur until July, when it should have stopped years ago), the paring of the AOC fleet of vehicles from 66 to 44, and the cessation of parking allowances was low hanging fruit,” he said. “The important parts of the auditor’s recommendations were not addressed today, including the up to $300 million spend by the AOC from trial court funds on activities that arguably should have been paid for from the AOC’s own internal budget.”
Horan was referring to the auditor’s finding that the AOC could have paid consultants and temporary employees out of its own budget, but used trial court funds instead.
“Over the past four years, the AOC spent $386 million on behalf of the trial courts including $186 million in payments to consultants, contractors, and temporary employees using the trial courts local assistance appropriations; however, the AOC could have paid a portion of these costs using its own appropriation,” the auditor wrote.
Horan added that it was strange that Hoshino made the announcement about the end to staff executive benefits, as opposed to the council.
“The Council is the body that should be making these decisions, as pointed out by the auditor,” said Horan. “It seems that that message has not yet worked its way into the Council’s thinking.”
In her report, Auditor Elaine Howle also pointed to five Judicial Council staff employees who worked in Sacramento, but because of “poor record-keeping,” were paid above the maximum salary range for that area. On Thursday, Hoshino said that problem had been fixed.
“We have done the work of correcting and reconciling the pay for the five employees that were identified in the report,” Hoshino said. “We will be conducting quarterly reconciliations of each employee’s primary work location to assure that any issues identified in the future are rectified in a timely and appropriate manner.”
Hoshino added that the staff changed its policy on IT contracts. “Contractors may not exceed one year in duration unless pre-approved by myself or by the chief administrative officer,” he said. “To ensure the Council has adequate information on this we will also create an annual reporting mechanism to the Judicial Council for any exceptions to this particular rule.”
During the council meeting Thursday, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, who appointed a committee of four judges, two justices and one court clerk to go through the audit’s recommendations, said, “I’m greatly pleased by the process thus far and the report getting ready for March 7. I know these were not easy decisions at all.”
Hoshino’s report, billed on the council agenda as an “information item,” was presented without discussion or a vote.
But the council later voted to approve several cost-cutting measures related to technology, including reducing the number of IT contractors, and re-evaluating the California Courts Technology Center, a server in Phoenix, Arizona still used to host the Court Case Management System, a software system only used by a handful of courts.
The plan was to implement CCMS statewide, but cost overruns led to the council pulling the plug on the project in 2012. The Phoenix server also hosts California’s court protective order registry and the judiciary’s statewide human resources and accounting system.
“We would like to review all of the services that are hosted by the CCTC and costs associated with those services to see if they could be accomplished at less expensive costs,” said Judge Laurie Earl of Sacramento, who heads the Trial Court Budget Advisory Committee.
Earl also recommended that IT experts from the Judicial Council’s staff and from larger trial courts be sent out to smaller courts to help them find ways to cut costs through technology.
“They do not have IT departments. Some of them don’t have a single IT person on staff in their building, and they rely on sharing an IT person that might come to the court once a month or so. So we believe that there may be cost savings and efficiencies by creating a working group to work with them, to see if we can leverage the work that larger courts are able to do in helping the small courts,” she said.
Judge Brian McCabe of Merced County asked Earl if her committee planned to periodically review whether smaller courts’ IT needs were being met in a cost-efficient way.
“Needs change, costs are variable, what they cost today may be completely different in three years from now. So is that part of the policy you’re looking at as well, set in place a mechanism for annual reviews or something so you know you’re getting the best bang for your buck and at the same time, needs are being met?” McCabe asked.
Earl said she recommended a new committee to make ongoing reviews.
The chief justice said she was hesitant to form a new committee just for that purpose.
“I worry about the proliferation of task force workgroups and I know, especially with technology, often we have too many tentacles,” she said.
“I think it would be helpful for us to bring it back at the next meeting,” Earl said.
The council also voted to give the Napa County Superior Court $187,000 in emergency funding, as it had to relocate its courthouse, which was badly damaged in an earthquake.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/02/19/new-director-of-california-court-agency-cuts-perk-for-top-brass.htm
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
February 20, 2015
“The chief justice said she was hesitant to form a new committee just for that purpose.”
Really? LOL
😉
unionman575
February 20, 2015
Here is the current Death Star committee set up:
Wendy Darling
February 20, 2015
Had me laughing too, Unionman. Never stopped her before.
You just can’t make this stuff up. Really.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
February 20, 2015
😉
Michael Paul
February 20, 2015
Committees in the last four years have been formed at the drop of a hat. Some even duplicate the work of other committees. It’s mindboggling the number of useless committee recommendations have been made and die in E&P, never to see the light of day.
Auntie Bureaucrat
February 19, 2015
I don’t know whether to applaud the baby steps in the right direction or shake my head. Hasn’t everyone at the JC been cheerfully exclaiming that the auditor’s recs have already been addressed? And then they make an announcement that they are finally starting some small changes? Do they think no one is paying attention?
unionman575
February 20, 2015
I am on their ass.
😉
Wendy Darling
February 19, 2015
Hold your applause Auntie.
Also published late today, Thursday, February 19, from The Recorder, the on-line publication of CalLaw, by Cheryl Miller:
“But branch leaders will likely have to explain their plans earlier than that as Assemblyman Reggie Jones-Sawyer, chair of the subcommittee that governs the judiciary’s budget, is expected to convene a hearing on the audit’s findings within the next two weeks.”
State Court Officials to Trim Perks
Cheryl Miller, The Recorder
SACRAMENTO — State judicial leaders on Thursday announced that they will eliminate a number of executive perks in response to a recent audit that criticized branch administrators for spending lavishly on salaries, benefits and consultants during years of bleak budget-cutting in the courts.
The move marks the first substantive response by the judiciary to Auditor Elaine Howle’s January report, which concluded that the branch’s administrative arm, known until recently as the Administrative Office of the Courts, may have wasted tens of millions of dollars that could have gone to trial courts that were shuttering courthouses and slashing public service hours.
Martin Hoshino, administrative director of the Judicial Council, outlined a handful of policy changes at the council’s meeting Thursday that he said would address about one-third of the auditor’s recommendations. Among the changes:
• The branch will eliminate 22 vehicles from its 66-car fleet and institute new rules governing the use of the remaining leased and owned vehicles. The audit found that the AOC never justified the existence or size of the fleet and that some executives were driving the cars for personal use as much as 80 percent of the time. The remaining cars in the fleet are driven by real estate and maintenance workers who need them for frequent travel to work sites, Hoshino said.
• As of July 1, the branch will stop paying the employee’s share of retirement contributions for 11 executives and managers. Howle said that paying the perk, authorized by former Chief Justice Ronald George in 2007, suggested the AOC “is not taking all reasonable steps available to reduce its costs” despite significant budget cutbacks.
The change will not apply to any of the 13 employees of the Supreme Court, the appellate courts and the Habeas Corpus Resource Center who were receiving the pension-contribution payment as of August 2014. Howle said the contribution to all two dozen employees cost the branch approximately $858,000 over four years.
• As of this summer, executives will no longer be reimbursed for parking costs at or near their workplaces. Similar benefits are already banned by other state agencies.
• Temporary employees will no longer be allowed to work more than one year for the branch without approval from top administrators. The audit concluded that the AOC has hired a significant number of consultants and temporary workers “at excessive pay rates” and kept many of them on staff for years.
• A program that has allowed AOC employees to cash out up to 80 hours of leave time a year has been suspended until mid-2016. The buyback program cost more than $900,000 a year for each of two years covered by the audit, Howle said.
The branch is also in the midst of an employee classification and compensation study that may result in additional changes, Hoshino said. The audit flagged high executive compensation that often exceeds that paid to top-level administrators in the executive branch and even, in a few cases, the governor.
The changes announced Tuesday do not address other recommendations in the audit, such as a potential cost-cutting relocation of staff to Sacramento—something Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye has ruled out in the past—and a reduction in catering and meal expense reimbursements. Hoshino said he and others appointed by the chief justice to respond to the audit will continue reviewing the issues before submitting a formal response in March.
But branch leaders will likely have to explain their plans earlier than that as Assemblyman Reggie Jones-Sawyer, chair of the subcommittee that governs the judiciary’s budget, is expected to convene a hearing on the audit’s findings within the next two weeks.
http://www.therecorder.com/id=1202718420334/State-Court-Officials-to-Trim-Perks?mcode=1202615718827
Long live the ACJ.
Auntie Bureaucrat
February 19, 2015
Well, I’ll just applaud Mr. Jones-Sawyer and stay tuned for the rest.
Wendy Darling
February 19, 2015
Good plan! 🙂
Long live the ACJ.
sharonkramer
February 20, 2015
Someone should also applaud the two people on Huffman’s (choke) accountability committee who voted “no” to the hairbrain plan of funding CCMS V. w/o needed info and in non accordance with the BSA audit directive. What do you want to bet that they will soon be asked to leave the committee? Bet they are being deemed “bothersome”.
unionman575
February 20, 2015
Repeat after me: Reggie, Reggie, Reggie…
“But branch leaders will likely have to explain their plans earlier than that as Assemblyman Reggie Jones-Sawyer, chair of the subcommittee that governs the judiciary’s budget, is expected to convene a hearing on the audit’s findings within the next two weeks.”
Michael Paul
February 20, 2015
They’re credible first steps if and only if they do not get offsetting raises to compensate them for their missing parking perks, their missing 22% personal contribution to their pensions and the vehicles that are used for personal use more than 80% of the time.
I remain concerned about the compensation study because I know and personally observed the way the AOC conducts various studies and it’s disingenuous as those contracted are contracted to come to preordained conclusions. The AOC is odd in that they require someone from the outside to tell them how to do something on the inside so that they can point to their studies and justify their positions. Private business would be paralyzed and bankrupt if it worked that way. Many government agencies couldn’t afford to operate that way.
The real test for Martin is to see if he comes to the conclusion that all of this waste did not happen in a vacuum and people should be held accountable. Jody and the two Curts were the leadership and Jahr was merely a figurehead. Sure, Jahr stepped down but Jody and the two Curts were running the show.
unionman575
February 20, 2015
The comp study will result in HUGE $$$ pay raises $$$ for the Death Star top brass.
😉
sharonkramer
February 19, 2015
Mr. Hoshino just left from manuvering his way through politics in the prison system. Wonder if he goes home at night and tells his wife of crimes in the California judicial branch that make the prison system look like chior boys?
unionman575
February 20, 2015
Navigating Leadership: Martin Hoshino – “The whole is greater than the sum of its parts”
😉
unionman575
February 20, 2015
courtflea
February 21, 2015
Say what? !
unionman575
February 22, 2015
Who nnew the Direktor was a savant.
lol
unionman575
February 20, 2015
Is he worth it?…
Nope!
😉
State Worker Salary Database
Martin Hoshino
Title: Administrative Director Of The Courts
Department: Judicial Council
$332,025 Total Pay
http://www.sacbee.com/site-services/databases/state-pay/#req=employment%2Flist%2Fsafename%3Dmartin%2520n%2520hoshino%2Fdepartment%3DJudicial%2520Council
Lando
February 20, 2015
Brian Williams Hoshino . Now he’s trying to justify a fleet of 44 cars. This man is a fraud. I can’t remember at any time someone from the AOC needing to drive all the way across the state to address a facilities issue. Are you kidding? This really needs to be investigated by the legislature. Hoshino’s report also missed all the major State Auditor conclusions like moving 455 Golden Gate to Sacramento. Hoshino like Vickrey, Overholt and J Jahr , simply needs to be thanked and excused. What a total disgrace.
unionman575
February 20, 2015
http://www.courts.ca.gov/familyjuvenilecomm.htm
Family and Juvenile Law Advisory Committee
February 26, 2015 Meeting (Closed) 😉
10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
455 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco CA 94102
Public Call-In Number: 877.820.7831;
Listen Only Passcode: 3059688
😉
unionman575
February 20, 2015
Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee
February 26, 2015 Protective Orders Working Group Continuing Meeting (Closed)
😉
12:10 – 1:30 p.m.
http://www.courts.ca.gov/civilandsmallclaims.htm
JusticeCalifornia
February 20, 2015
I understand 30-40 people in red Stop Court Crimes t-shirts attended the Judicial Council meeting for public comment yesterday. I understand that Miller’s people pretended they did not get the request by a reporter to attend and obtain a videotaped record of the public comment. This follows the decision by the Judicial Council to no longer post public written comments online (and the last time I attended a meeting, the written comments–which included an analysis of the JC’s proposed legislative priorities– weren’t in the binder distributed at the meetings. The tab was there, the comments were not.)
Wendy Darling
February 20, 2015
“the last time I attended a meeting, the written comments–which included an analysis of the JC’s proposed legislative priorities– weren’t in the binder distributed at the meetings. The tab was there, the comments were not.”
Not even surprised.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
February 20, 2015
I am shocked!
😉
unionman575
February 20, 2015
Worth a read…
The Legislative Analyst’s Office has just issued the following report:
http://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Detail/3181
The 2015-16 Budget: Criminal Justice Proposals
“For example, the Governor’s budget includes $109.9 million in increased General Fund support for trial court operations. There are no reporting requirements for, or constraints on, the use of these funds to ensure that they will be used in a manner that is consistent with legislative priorities. To help increase legislative oversight, we recommend that the Legislature (1) provide courts with its priorities for how the funds from the augmentation should be spent and (2) take steps towards establishing a comprehensive trial court assessment program, which will help the Legislature determine whether the funding provided to the courts is being used effectively.”
Anonymous
February 21, 2015
The need is not for a comprehensive trial court assessment program but a comprehensive judicial council assessment program with increased oversight. While the money that goes up in smoke is usually trial court funds, those funds are historically delegated to a judicial council that takes their pound of flesh first before doling out whatever is left.
Lando
February 21, 2015
Per the order of Mr Hoshino , 22 Judicial Council AOC cars have been eliminated. How exactly were they eliminated ? If they were purchased are they going to be sold? If leased when are the leases up? If 22 cars were eliminated how about the entire fleet? If you polled the trial courts I would doubt many would say they’ve seen their AOC facilities managers on a regular basis, calling into question why they have cars to begin with. I also found strange that the retirement give away benefits to top management weren’t revoked until July. Maybe Mr Hoshino can explain some good reason for that delay. In addition to those issues, a larger question needs to be addressed. Why is Hoshino the one making these decisions ? I thought under the ever changing policies of HRH-2 and her minions that the Judicial Council was going to make decisions of this importance. Isn’t that what the insiders at 455 Golden Gate claimed in response to the SEC report ? CCMS, retirement gifts, 66 cars, an OGC lawyer ” working” from Europe, parking benefits, dinners billed out at rates way over those imposed on the trial courts and yet despite all that and the loss of hundreds of millions, no one at 455 Golden Gate has ever accepted responsibility for anything or been held accountable. What a total disgrace.
unionman575
February 21, 2015
Traffic Advisory Committee
February 27, 2014 Meeting
(Closed) 😉
12:00 p.m.
http://www.courts.ca.gov/trafficac.htm
unionman575
February 21, 2015
Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee
February 25, 2015 Legislative Subcommittee Meeting
(Closed) 😉
12:10 pm to 1:00 pm
http://www.courts.ca.gov/civilandsmallclaims.htm
unionman575
February 21, 2015
February 26, 2015 Protective Orders Working Group Continuing Meeting
(Closed) 😉
12:10 – 1:30 p.m.
http://www.courts.ca.gov/civilandsmallclaims.htm
unionman575
February 21, 2015
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoke-filled_room
Smoke-filled room
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In U.S. political jargon, a smoke-filled room is a term for a secret political gathering or round table style decision-making process. The phrase is generally used to suggest an inner circle of power brokers, as at a convention. It suggests a cabal of powerful or well-connected, cigar-smoking men meeting privately to nominate a dark horse political candidate or otherwise make decisions[1] without regard for the will of the larger group.
😉
unionman575
February 21, 2015
😉
http://www.courts.ca.gov/28750.htm
unionman575
February 22, 2015
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-court-interpreter-20150221-story.html
A U.S. Department of Justice report in 2013 found that L.A. County and the state’s Judicial Council were in violation of the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act for failing to provide language services for those who need them in civil cases.
unionman575
February 22, 2015
http://documents.latimes.com/two-litigants-complained-l-courts-did-not-give-them-interpreters/
unionman575
February 22, 2015
Hey Mr. H I like this nugget o’ gold from your potential successor…coming soon to a JC theater near you:
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/readersreact/la-le-0120-tuesday-court-expenses-20150120-story.html
Expenses by ‘profligate’ Judicial Council were justified
• Letters to the Editor
To the editor: Like the state auditor’s report on purported waste by California’s judicial branch, The Times’ editorial fails to provide context. (“Profligacy at the state’s Judicial Council?,” Editorial, Jan. 13)
Much of the spending by the Judicial Council’s administrative arm, including the salaries, cars and temporary employees the auditor criticizes, is incurred to provide services to the trial courts and perform necessary functions that the trial courts cannot afford.
Also, Judicial Council administrative salaries are mostly similar to or lower than comparable trial court administrative salaries.
California Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye correctly observed in her response to the audit that all public entities should welcome recommendations to do a better job of spending public dollars. That includes the state Legislature, executive agencies and trial courts as well as the Judicial Council.
Terry Friedman, Santa Monica
The writer is a retired Los Angeles County Superior Court judge.
Anonymous
February 22, 2015
The trial courts can’t afford those services because the judicial council has held the funding back and unilaterally decided that they will be the provider of those services.
Terry Friedman looks like the ass that he is when he goes out of his way providing an inexcusable defense for intolerable behavior. First up is Rosenblab defending the judicial council by calling the state auditor a liar and now Friedman wants to provide context for the judicial council providing services that no one wants or uses, a fleet of cars – a third of which were just eliminated and salaries that are off the charts both at the court executive level and at the AOC executive level.
“Court Executive Officer” which replaces “Clerk of the Court” was an AOC brainchild. It was envisioned that the court executive officers would be appointed by the AOC and that the new title would garner much higher salaries for serving the AOC with the ability to rotate in and out of the AOC.
JusticeCalifornia
February 22, 2015
And the National Center for State Courts has been on the national forefront of the aggressive push for Court Executive Officers to take over control of the judicial branch nationwide, at all levels.
NCSC was paid a lot of money to advise the CA judicial branch, and look at what has happened to our courts.
Adrasteia
February 22, 2015
JusticeCA you are absolutely right on the money. Vickrey was a powerful NCSC voice as was former CJ George. Former “Scholar-in-Residence” for the AOC, Roger Warren, was also a leader at the NCSC. The NCSC still provides “consultants” to the CA AOC. The NCSC has an agenda of centralized judicial power and promotes the concept that administrators should control the judicial branch. The Wisconsin judiciary fell prey to the same centralized judicial, bureaucratic authority as CA. The WI Chief Justice, like former CJ Ron George, aggressively pursued the same agenda. Both served as NCSC leaders when the aggressive centralization push began. It is no surprise that the two state judiciaries with the most internal strife are in California and Wisconsin. The judicial havoc in WI (Supreme Justices allegedly assaulting each other and more…) has caused the WI legislature to pursue a constitutional amendment that will change how the CJ in that state is selected.
The NCSC and its related organizations, believe that “due process” interferes with their goals. They believe that allowing judges to control the judiciary is problematic since judges believe in due process, not consumer oriented outcomes. Their agenda includes finding judges who will be “early adopters” (Kool Aide Drinkers). Former CJ George with Vickrey’s assistance promoted all of these views, as did Clark Kelso (another former “Scholar-in-Residence”). For this, the NCSC richly rewarded them and their spouses with leadership positions, junkets to glamorous hotels in resort locales, gala dinners, awards, honors and national attention, all funded through membership fees ($500,000 annually) law firm and foundation donors.
For years the NCSC quietly went about their business, unnoticed. They never imagined there would be criticism of those who led the way; Chief Justice Ron George (CA) and Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson (WI), alongside Bill Vickrey and others who successfully promoted the centralization, bureaucratization themes.
Proof of the damage caused by centralized, bureaucratic judiciaries is that regardless of whether the state legislatures are majority republican (WI) or democrat (CA), both are fed up with how their state judiciaries now function. While typically state legislatures do not push for governance change within the judicial branch, it is now happening in Wisconsin and will occur in CA. In CA it may take an Initiative, but it will happen.
Governance within the judicial branch is uniquely non-partisan. Too much authority vested in one person, the Chief Justice, whether in a red or blue state results in internal chaos as does a central purse with central control. Meanwhile, the centralized judicial bureaucrats, like puppeteers, enjoy unfettered control. Why, because one person, the Chief Justice, enjoys dictatorial power. Whether that control is exercised like a Diva (Tani) or like a Tyrant, her predecessor, without governance change California’s judiciary will continue to flounder.
Good call, JusticeCalifornia.
Wendy Darling
February 23, 2015
As stated by none other than Curt Soderlund himself: “The judges will be allowed to control their courtrooms, and we (the AOC) will control everything else.”
“Allowed” being the operative word in that statement.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
February 22, 2015
“Terry Friedman looks like the ass that he is”
😉
unionman575
February 22, 2015
Poor Terry…lost again…someone call 911…
😉
wearyant
February 22, 2015
LOL! 😉
Lando
February 22, 2015
Terry B. Friedman. The Met News articulated his lack of ethics years ago. Undaunted, Mr Friedman remains one of the most strident defenders of the overlords at 455 Golden Gate. Years after retiring or resigning from office, Friedman is still on the stage now trying to defend against the devastating results of the State Audit of the AOC. What a total disgrace.
unionman575
February 23, 2015
Well shiver me timbers what an idea…
http://www.plumasnews.com/index.php/13451-city-investigates-shared-lease-options-to-reopen-regional-courthouse
City investigates shared lease options to reopen regional courthouse
Ann Powers
Staff Writer
2/23/2015
At its Feb. 12 meeting, the Portola City Council authorized staff to research the feasibility of a possible shared lease agreement with the California Judicial Council to reopen the Plumas-Sierra Regional Courthouse at 600 Gulling St.
Just four years after it made its debut in June 2010, the $4.7 million, 6,500-square-foot courthouse fell victim to state budget cuts and closed in November 2014.
😉
However, City Manager Robert Meacher said the state would now like to see a “presence” at the shuttered facility and open its doors as a combined-use government center partnering with the state’s judicial council, Portola, sheriff’s departments and California Highway Patrol agencies from Plumas, Lassen and Sierra counties.
During its initial operation, the building held court at least four days per month and employed two clerks. Shortly before it closed, it had only one clerk and held court just one day each month. The courts could no longer justify the expense to keep it running.
😉
The courthouse is owned and managed by California’s judicial branch, not Plumas County.
😉
“Right now it’s even too expensive for them to even mothball the thing,” explained Meacher. “It’s costing them a fortune just to have it sitting there, and it’s wearing out quicker than it would have if it had occupants.”
😉
Various potential lease terms had been “brainstormed” with state and local officials, he added.
😉
One idea includes giving occupants free rent and requiring them to pay only utilities if the state had the option to use the courthouse “from time to time.” Another was a 10-year lease with an option to buy.
😉
Portola owns the current City Hall structure, at 35 Third Ave.; hence, no rent is due. However, Meacher told the council that the building is old and may soon be in need of costly repairs. The regional courthouse structure is newer and move-in ready.
😉
“I do believe there could be some remorse down the road because the building you’re in is aging and significant repair costs could surface,” he said. “This becomes more expensive to be in than the facility up there. The question is, if you got it for zero dollars or next to nothing, would you still oppose the move?”
Mayor Michelle Gault said probably not.
She recently toured the cedar-sided regional courthouse, which won several awards for its state-of-the-art design and was the first multi-jurisdictional courthouse in the state. The building features a prominent entry vestibule, a tall clerestoried lobby and a spacious wood-paneled courtroom.
Rather than constructing a traditional-looking courthouse, the architects (Nacht & Lewis, of Sacramento) crafted a building that fit into the mountain community setting.
😉
“I was really impressed,” she said. “It has so many possibilities. I would really like to pursue looking into it further.”
The courthouse is about twice the size of the Portola’s City Hall. Gault said more space could mean more community involvement in attending council meetings and other civic affairs.
While some members of the public expressed having a newer, bigger and more attractive government center could help promote the area and accommodate an increase in needed services as the community grows, others weren’t so convinced.
“I mean, look around this town,” said County Supervisor Terry Swofford, who was seated with the meeting’s public audience. “A pretty building isn’t going to move people here.”
Swofford, along with a few others, suggested “fixing up the rest of Portola first” before moving city operations to the courthouse.
Additional concerns were raised about moving expenses, insurance fees, renting the existing City Hall, unknown repairs the newer facility may require and the risk of the judicial council monopolizing the building’s use or terminating the lease and forcing the city to relocate again with taxpayer dollars.
Plumas Charter School officials have also expressed an interest in renting space at the courthouse, and some felt that might be a better option than moving City Hall.
Gault assured residents the city would not enter into a lease agreement that wasn’t financially feasible and advantageous for the community. She then directed staff to investigate the state’s offer and other potential opportunities.
The mayor asked for those findings to be presented to the council at upcoming city meetings.
Wendy Darling
February 23, 2015
A meeting of a public administrative agency that was open to the public, where public comment was actually listened to, and where issues involving the administration of the California courts were discussed? All in the same meeting? And without a pre-determined conclusion?
OMG – I think I just saw a pig fly by.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
February 23, 2015
unionman575
February 23, 2015
https://judicialcouncilwatcher.com/2014/10/24/closure-of-plumas-sierra-regional-courthouse/
Closure of Plumas / Sierra Regional Courthouse
😉
unionman575
February 23, 2015
What goes around comes around…
😉
Right? You JC Humps!
JusticeCalifornia
February 23, 2015
Desperation, so thick you can cut it, is in the air. Oozing out everywhere. Too many holes in the branch corruption dike for Team George et al to ever try to contain.
Everyone needs to keep the pressure on full blast, keep pushing, pushing, pushing.
By the way Unionman, your energy and information output is fricking amazing. Thank you.
Adrasteia
February 23, 2015
Judge Ira Kaufman, Plumas County Judge and Judicial Council insider promoted this “regional” courthouse. He also got a very nice remodel of his courtroom in the historic Quincy courthouse while awaiting another new AOC courthouse project in Quincy to replace the historic courthouse, still owned by the county. The perks of Judicial Council membership included new courthouses for many of the members. But, alas, the AOC had to put many of the pending projects on hold because they overspent 1407 money. Yes, the governor swept some of the pot, but there is more than enough blame to go around when it comes to the emerging failure of 1407 projects. For example, the security costs for the Plumas-Sierra Regional Court were never adequately vetted by the AOC. The AOC did not bother to get the buy-in needed to sort out what county would provide courthouse security; would it be the Plumas County Sheriff or Sierra County Sheriff? There were no meaningful budgetary plans for the increased insurance or maintenance costs of the Plumas-Sierra Courthouse. The Plumas-Sierra Courthouse failure is simply the first domino to fall. More Judicial Council fiscal courthouse disasters are looming.
AOC Facilities Division Whistleblowers where are you?
Wendy Darling
February 23, 2015
“AOC Facilities Division Whistleblowers where are you”
Anyone at 455 Golden Gate Avenue who had ethics and a conscience and told the truth has been fired and had their careers ruined. Some of them went to the Office of the California Attorney General and other enforcement agencies, with supporting evidence, only to be told those agencies had “no authority” over unlawful or illegal activities taking place in Judicial Branch administration, and those offices would do nothing. The predictable result is that anyone left at 455 Golden Gate Avenue who has ethics and a conscience knows better than to say anything. At this point, if you work at 455 Golden Gate Avenue you would have to be an idiot to speak up or blow the whistle, because it’s just not worth it to tell the truth only to be punished for it.
And then watch as no one, absolutely no one, in a position of authority and responsibility, will do one damn thing about it. No one.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
February 24, 2015
I am swinging for the fences.
😉
Lando
February 23, 2015
” A pretty building isn’t going to move people here ” What a refreshing common sense view that so sharply contrasts with HRH-2 and her minions who arrogantly have now ignored both the SEC Report and the State Audit urging them to vacate the Crystal Palace for more modest surroundings in Sacramento. Mr Hoshino is nowhere to be found on this issue. I guess it’s just too painful to part with the glass , cherry wood, television studio, Willliam C. Vickrey Conference Center and HRH-1’s art work . 455 Golden Gate and the above contents should be auctioned off to compensate the taxpayers for the loss of over 500 million HRH-1 and HRH-2 wasted on CCMS.
Wendy Darling
February 23, 2015
As the late Will Rodgers observed: “Have you ever noticed that the most common thing about common sense is just how uncommon it is?”
Long live the ACJ.
Adrasteia
February 23, 2015
“Desperation, so thick you can cut it, is in the air.” There are too many holes in the branch corruption dike to contain… Wendy, I disagree that you would have to be an idiot to speak up or blow the whistle. The pressure is on. The time is now.
Lando
February 24, 2015
Adrasteia, The truth is Wendy is right. I finally figured this out when Hoshino made the incredible statements that the overlords at 455 Golden Gate were ” democratically” elected and that the SEC report has been implemented. Now after Hoshino’s cosmetic responses to the State Audit, the latest group of 455 Golden Gate insiders will claim all is well as Mr Hoshino has reformed the branch. Right out of the HRH-1 or Soviet Union playbook. Nothing will ever change. Nothing. What a total disgrace. .
unionman575
February 24, 2015
The stench wafting from the construction program is overwhelming.
😉
unionman575
February 24, 2015
A picture is worth a thousand words…the now shuttered Plumas / Sierra Regional Courthouse …
😉
http://nachtlewis.com/portfolio/superior-court-of-ca-plumas-sierra/
unionman575
February 24, 2015
http://iaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_detail.disp_program_facility?p_registry_id=110055746279
PLUMAS/SIERRA REGIONAL COURTHOUSE JCC-AOC #32-B2
600 S GULLING ST
PORTOLA, CA 96122
EPA Registry Id: 110055746279
Query executed on: FEB-24-2015
😉
unionman575
February 24, 2015
http://cloud2.snappages.com/90b198ba90b5e28a84879dd2e211239db3ff56a1/Agenda%20January%2028,%202015.pdf
CITY OF PORTOLA
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Page 3:
E. Plumas/Sierra Regional Courthouse – Review and consider lease option for the Plumas/Sierra Regional Courthouse. Discussion, possible action.
Michael Paul
February 24, 2015
I don’t ever see the two courts utilizing that courthouse now or in the future though I’m also not sure how the city of Portola could put it to use without gutting the only courtroom, which represents about 70% of the usable space in that building. Rent would also be quite expensive or a gift to the city. Just to try to break even the rent would need to be about 15 grand a month.
unionman575
February 24, 2015
Page 74 there she blows from our apologist friends at NCSC:
http://www.ncsc.org/~/media/Files/PDF/Services%20and%20Experts/Areas%20of%20expertise/ICCD7%20Presentation.ashx
JusticeCalifornia
February 24, 2015
And the beat goes on.
Regarding comments made above, there is NO question that judicial branch whistleblowers –at all levels– are targeted for severe retaliation. It is rare that someone can step forward and publicly blow the whistle without retaliation.
But at this point the defenders of the judicial branch status quo are ending up looking like bought and paid for party-liners who could not read an audit report– or the handwriting on the wall– if their lives depended upon it.
Based on audits that have already been done, and information that continues to surface on a regular basis, it is becoming increasingly difficult for anyone to credibly claim or believe that Marie Antoinette Sakauye and her gang of thieves are “serving” either the branch or the public in a responsible fashion.
An audit of the court construction program is a next logical, responsible step.
So is democratization of the Judicial Council.
So is an analysis–by someone– of the fact that Sakauye continues to purposefully surround herself and staff her key committees with the very same historically problematic longtime “advisors” who have gotten the branch into its broken current state.
So is an internal revolt within the Team George network as, under the bright spotlight of outrage from all directions, they are unable to receive their amazing hefty perks in reward for crossing legal and ethical lines, burying bodies, and towing the SWOV line while double-crossing the branch and the public.
Double-cross – Merriam-Webster.com
“to cheat or deceive (someone) especially by doing something that is different from what you said you would do.”
I imagine many Team Georgers are saying “screw this, life is too short to continue to put myself at risk supporting a chief justice who actually PUBLICLY BRAGS that her status as a former gambling barmaid and tough Filipina-chick who jumps ugly really fast have prepared her to be the chief justice of the biggest judiciary in the world. [To her credit, at least she is not falsely claiming to be an experienced administrator or brilliant legal mind]. I imagine that many seasoned Team Georgers are considering bailing, given that her arrogance and failed administration have alienated a substantial portion of of the judiciary, her natural fan base, key members of all three branches, and an increasingly outraged public.
Define Hooey at Dictionary.com
“silly or worthless talk, writing, ideas, etc.; nonsense; bunk”
George at least had credentials. Sakahooey does not. George at least knew when his reign was over. Sakahooey does not.
I was not at the last Judicial Council meeting (I had a conflict, darnnit) but I am anxiously awaiting the audio of Sakahooey’s opening comments. I heard that she was bragging about hanging with the SF giants, but don’t know if, given the very somber issues facing the branch right now, she would really do that. Cannot wait to find out.