Last week, the Judicial Council met for the second time since State Auditor Elaine Howle released her searing critique of the way in which the AOC/Judicial Council staff runs its entire operation. As you’ll recall, the State Auditor concluded that the AOC has channeled money away from the trial courts to pay for services that should have come out of its own budget; that it provides services that the trial courts don’t need; that it has wasted $30 million on bloated salaries, perks, and other questionable business practices over a four-year period; and that it has proven impervious to reform.
The Council’s response to this landmark review was, to say the least, tepid. Only 20 minutes of the meeting were devoted to the audit. The chair of the Working Group on Audit Recommendations, Justice Douglas Miller, didn’t even appear. The message from the Council—as it was when the SEC report came out in 2012—is that the problems with the AOC have already been identified and addressed. In her introduction of Administrative Director Martin Hoshino’s report to the Council, Judge Marcia Slough claimed that “the work the SEC completed is covered by much of the same ground as that of the State Auditor.” But the State Auditor was, to put it mildly, underwhelmed by the actions that the Council took in the wake of the SEC report, finding that the AOC distorted the SEC’s directives and exaggerated its compliance.
Director Hoshino opted not to address the calls for a complete overhaul of AOC business practices, choosing instead to focus on pay and benefits. He claimed that the other issues raised by the audit—the really big ones—will be addressed in a more detailed report due early next month.
Director Hoshino spoke earnestly, but his remarks raised as many questions as they answered. He noted, for example, that the payment of the retirement contributions of top AOC executives—up to five percent on top of salary—will end as of July 1. We wonder if there is some contractual or legal reason that prevents that perk from being eliminated as of right now. Director Hoshino claimed that the issue of excessive pay was being addressed by a comprehensive classification and compensation study. He did not, however, acknowledge the State Auditor’s recommendation that the AOC first figure out which staff members it really needs before deciding how much to pay them.
Director Hoshino devoted a large chunk of his time to the issue of the AOC’s 66-car fleet, which has cost the branch $712,000 over the last four years. The director conceded that he was “comfortable eliminating” 22 vehicles from the fleet. In other words, there was never any valid business-related reason for having spent $237,000 of taxpayer money on cars. We note that the State Auditor analyzed how three AOC executives drove their state cars and found that, on average, the vehicles were used for personal business 80 percent of the time.
Director Hoshino claimed that 45 cars were assigned to staff in the Real Estate and Facilities and Capital Programs offices, and maintained that these vehicles have “a legitimate business purpose.” According to the latest AOC staffing metrics, however, a total of only 123 people work in those two offices. Forty-five cars for 123 people seems a tad excessive.
You can read about the meeting in greater detail in this article by Maria Dinzeo of Courthouse News Service, which is reprinted below.
If the Council thinks that the criticisms raised by the audit can be ignored, it’s got another think coming. The Legislative Analyst’s Office just came out with its review of the Governor’s proposed criminal justice budget. The Legislative Analyst wrote:
“The Governor’s budget includes $109.9 million in increased General Fund support for trial court operations—$90.1 million from a 5 percent base increase and $19.8 million to backfill an expected decline in fine and fee revenue in 2015-16. 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.”
In other words, additional funding will come with additional oversight. That’s the price our branch leaders will pay for dithering instead of reforming.
We trust—we hope—that in the near future, the Council will address the audit in a thorough and serious manner that befits the gravity of the issues it raised. We hope that the dismissive remark made by one Council member—that the portion of the judicial budget covered by the audit was just “a bucket of water in Lake Tahoe”—is not a reflection of the Council’s current thinking. If it’s just a bucket, it’s an awfully big one. And in a drought, every drop counts.
Directors, Alliance of California Judges
Thursday, February 19, 2015 Last Update: 3:20 PM PT
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 Hoshino 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 spent 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.
Alliance of California Judges
1817 Capitol Ave., Sacramento, CA 95811
Anonymous
February 25, 2015
Pages 16-27 are a fascinating read insofar as they suggest that the legislature impose their legislative priorities on a reckless judicial council that spends every year more than it gets in funding. It suggests that the legislature establish funding priorities for the judicial branch.
I couldn’t agree more. “court leaders” appointed by the feckless one have unmistakably demonstrated that they couldn’t budget their way out of a paper bag.
And where do you think the money for this waste comes from? From poor rural courts that don’t have two nickels to rub together that can’t get the council to part with a few dollars to keep their operations afloat.
JusticeCalifornia
February 25, 2015
Yes, poor rural counties that have dared to speak out against Team George waste and mismanagement– or counties who have otherwise “fallen out of favor”– are being shortchanged, while party liner counties with JC members who SWOV are getting hefty subsidies.
LeahLeahLeah
February 25, 2015
Blah, blah, blah. New people, same stuff. This is the same thing over and over. I’ve seen this since I worked there under the reign, I mean term of King Ron and it was the same thing. They were stealing anything that wasn’t nailed down and no one did anything. The legislature makes noise but never really does anything. I’ll believe this when either the budget really gets cut, and not at the trial court level or someone gets hauled in front a legislative committee and made to truly answer.
Wendy Darling
February 25, 2015
I’m with you Leah. I’ll believe it when I see it.
Long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
February 25, 2015
I am more optimistic.
The Judicial Branch landscape is vastly different than it was between 2006-2008, when George and his Team bullied, blustered, and ruled with a despotic iron fist.
Change is a process.
The more noise that is made, the more our tough chick gambling barmaid’s arrogance, inexperience and irresponsibility are demonstrated, the more people are going to take notice and force change.
That is just the way it is. Things don’t change until it is more dangerous and expensive and irresponsible not to change, then it is to change.
Ron George looked at the cost/benefit odds against him in 2010 and bailed.
The scales are tipping against Sakauye. She needs to go. She cannot and is not qualified to lead anybody and has alienated just about everybody except her bought and paid for minions.
Undoubtedly why Justice Corrigan — who garners far more respect than Sakahooey–has been brought in to lead the Futures Commission.
But let’s not forget that Justice Corrigan is neither stupid nor naive. She was around to witness lots of egregious Team George behavior that, as far as I know, she made no attempt to correct.
I hope Corrigan pays less attention to Sakauye and Ming Chin and more attention to branch audits, the highly problematic last minute rubber stamp JC proceedings, the LOUD concerns of the public, the ACJ, and advocacy groups, and the harsh lessons gleaned from the epic failures of Ron George and Marie Antoinette so that when Sakauye is forced out and if Corrigan becomes Chief Justice, she will have moved past the George/Sakauye mistakes. Especially their arrogance in thinking they can, without consequence, play favorites and bully and boss around and make life hell for the public, and advocates, and employees, and about 2,000 bench officers. Not gonna happen. The bullied include members of the public who have wrongfully lost everything and have nothing left to lose, determined advocates who are appalled at the status quo, and the best and brightest legal minds in the country who are pounding the floors of the legislature year after year.
Just my opinion.
Dante
March 2, 2015
I think highly of Justice Corrigan — I always have. She is smart, personable, and a straight-shooter. However, the Commission on the Future of the Courts, which she chairs, has been told that their charge is to examine how to improve the trial courts, no more. They have been told not to consider the Courts of Appeals, the Supreme Court, the Judicial Council, or the Judicial Council’s staff. Significantly, the Commission has on its Executive Committee 11 representatives of the Courts of Appeals, and 10 representatives of the trial courts.
JusticeCalifornia
March 2, 2015
Hi Dante
That may be what Commission members have been told, but that is not what Sakauye is telling everybody the Commission will do.
“The goal of the Futures Commission is to catalyze change. It will take a fresh look at legal and structural challenges to long-term efficiency and stability for the judicial branch and develop practical, achievable recommendations that may be implemented by the Judicial Council, the Legislature, or the Governor. ” — Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye
“Commission on the Future of California’s Court System
Purpose: To study and recommend to the Chief Justice initiatives to effectively and efficiently serve California’s diverse and dynamic population by enhancing access to justice. ”
http://www.courts.ca.gov/futurescommission.htm#tab27318
JusticeCalifornia
March 2, 2015
And the really ironic thing is that we have already had reports reflecting stakeholder and/or public opinions, bearing on improving access to justice.
The 2005 Praxis Public Trust and Confidence report
The 2009 Commission on Impartial Courts report– and comments
The 2010 Elkins Family Task Force Report
The 2011 CCMS audit report
The 2012 SEC report
The 2012 letter from the Commission on Judicial Performance to the Judicial Council regarding court reporters
The 2015 Judicial Council Audit Report
ANYBODY ELSE PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CHIME IN REGARDING ADDITIONAL REPORTS AND STUDIES.
Why is every new “commission” reinventing the wheel, instead of first reviewing everything that has already been studied and reported, and seeing what has been recommended and done to improve matters (LOL), and what was recommended but not done?
The key problem, as we all know, is the branch’s failed leadership. Terribly, horribly, irreparably failed leadership subject of all kinds of reports that failed leadership than further “studies” and ultimately ignores.
What we have are voluminous amounts of paper representing reports, recommendations, law (case, statutory and rules of court), budgets, practice manuals, professional standards, JC branch manuals, and so much more.
But you know what all that is under current failed leadership?
NOTHING MORE THAN VOLUMINOUS PIECES OF PAPER.
For Team George, rules are made to be broken.
Nobody can expect meaningful change under failed leadership. So no matter the quality or quantity of judges sitting on a Judicial Council commission, if that commission issues yet another “access to justice” report that refuses to squarely address the CA judicial branch’s patently failed leadership, it is just another exercise in futility, like all the other expensive, time-consuming commission reports. A waste of paper, time and money.
Given the Chief Justice’s public comments, I believe she has publicly defined the broad discretion the Futures Commission has, and I for one expect the Commission to do precisely what she has stated:
“It will take a fresh look at legal and structural challenges to long-term efficiency and stability for the judicial branch and develop practical, achievable recommendations that may be implemented by the Judicial Council, the Legislature, or the Governor.”
JusticeCalifornia
March 2, 2015
And to be clear, one of the top “structural challenges to long-term efficiency and stability for the judicial branch” this commission (and everyone in all three branches, in fact) should be looking at is the patently failed non-democratic branch governance structure which operates without ANY effective oversight.
unionman575
February 25, 2015
More fine work ACJ and JCW.
😉
Lando
February 25, 2015
I was reminded today by a fellow judicial officer that furloughs were imposed on the trial courts and judges essentially required to give part of their salaries back to the AOC. At the time we accepted these sacrifices to help the branch. Now only after the State Auditor’s report do we find out when these furloughs were imposed on us, the management of the AOC was living high on the hog. Furloughs reducing trial court employees pay were ordered by HRH-1 while his management staff was apparently not contributing to their retirement, driving around in Judicial Council paid for cars which they got to park for free. Unless of course you were a telecommuting AOC lawyer from Europe. How incredibly arrogant and ironic.
Lando
February 25, 2015
And oh by the way, all these perks continued unabated under HRH-2 despite her grand claims of reform and transparency. Had the State Audit of the Crystal Palace not occurred, does anyone really think, HRH-2, J Miller, J Hull or Mr Hoshino would have reduced free retirement benefits for high level management staff or taken away their cars or free parking benefits? Not a chance.The bottom line in all of this. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. HRH-2 aka Queen Feckless should do the right thing and resign along with Miller, Hull and Hoshino so we can start over and build a judicial branch that can move us forward in a democratic, open, and ethical way.
Adrasteia
February 27, 2015
The Queen herself, not King George, personally signed off on the retirement benefits for her three minions. She did this in September 2012, all the while publicly claiming that she was cutting this benefit for those hired to serve on October 1, 2012 and thereafter. There is a document with her signature that proves this. She’s sweating this out, hoping that Hoshino will give her cover.
unionman575
February 26, 2015
http://www.courts.ca.gov/clac.htm
Criminal Law Advisory Committee
March 4, 2015 Meeting
(Closed)
😉
12:15 p.m.
unionman575
February 26, 2015
http://www.courts.ca.gov/tcpjac.htm
Trial Court Presiding Judges Advisory Committee
March 5, 2015 Joint TCPJAC/CEAC Legislation Subcommittee Meeting
(Closed)
😉
12:10-1:00 p.m.
unionman575
February 26, 2015
Shasta gets a new courthouse BUT services are once AGAIN reduced….Hmm..
😉
unionman575
February 26, 2015
http://www.courts.ca.gov/12973.htm
Reduced Court Services
😉
unionman575
February 26, 2015
http://www.courts.ca.gov/efficiencies.htm
unionman575
February 27, 2015
Prompt action is a must…Right!
😉
http://www.courts.ca.gov/epmeetings.htm
Executive and Planning Committee
February 26, 2015, Notice of Action by E-mail Between Meetings
With the chair of the Executive and Planning Committee having concluded that prompt action is needed, public notice is hereby given that the Executive and Planning Committee proposes to act by e-mail between meetings on Thursday, February 26, 2015, in accordance with California Rules of Court, rule 10.75(o)(1)(B). A copy of the proposed action is available on the advisory body web page on the California Courts website listed above.
Written Comment
The Chair of the Executive and Planning Committee has concluded that prompt action is required. In accordance with California Rules of Court, rule 10.75(o)(2), written public comment will not be accepted on the proposed action.
Posted on February 25, 2015
Subject: Request for E&P Action by E-mail
Members of the Executive and Planning Committee:
With Justice Miller’s approval, I am sending this email to request your approval of a technical change to form FW‐001. (Attached.) This fee waiver form was approved at the February council meeting, to be effective March 1, 2015. We just learned of an error in one place on the form: Page 1 erroneously refers to items “8, 9, and 10” when it should refer to items “7, 8, and 9.” This would be confusing to users. As the form is widely used and is a form that courts provide, we are concerned that courts will soon order large sets of the form, so prompt action is necessary to correct this error. We do not recommend waiting until the April council meeting. RUPRO recommends this technical change. Justice Miller has approved action by email because of the need for prompt action. Please reply by the end of the day on Thursday, February 26, if possible, indicating whether you approve, on behalf of the council, this technical change subject to the council’s ratification at the April 17 meeting.
Lando
February 27, 2015
You have to love J Miller’s purported open and transparent ways. Now we will decide things by e-mail insuring that the public has no say or input. The ” insiders” have no interest in hearing from anyone other than themselves. Is it any wonder that our branch is such a complete mess? It really is time for the likes of Miller and Hull to get off the stage and resign so we can start all over again.
unionman575
February 28, 2015
Lando
February 27, 2015
And oh by the way, how ironic it is that J Miller may be concerned about the expense of printing up a bunch of forms. Where was he when the AOC gave away free retirement benefits, free cars, free parking , extra meal allowances and telecommuting from Europe ?
unionman575
February 28, 2015
http://www.courts.ca.gov/tcfmac.htm
Trial Court Facility Modification Advisory Committee
March 6, 2015 Meeting (Teleconference)
12:05 – 1:05 p.m.
Teleconference for Public Access 1-877-820-7831
Listen Only Passcode:4502468 😉
unionman575
February 28, 2015
February 19, 2015
Status Update of Judicial Branch Courthouse Construction Program, as required under Government Code section 70371.8
Attached is a table that comprises the annual status update on the
courthouse capital projects of the judicial branch’s Senate Bill 1407
courthouse construction program. This attachment lists the current status
of each capital project.
Please note that we are in the process of requesting a change to this
report’s submission deadline in order to provide the legislature with an
entire fiscal year’s accounting of actual revenues and expenditures of the
construction program’s Immediate and Critical Needs Account (ICNA).
Actual ICNA figures for fiscal years 2008–2009 through 2013–2014 were
submitted to you in October 2014. In fall 2015, we plan to submit an
update to this report containing actual ICNA revenues and expenditures
for fiscal year 2014–2015.
😉
😉
JAD
March 2, 2015
Amador Superior Court drank the Kool Aid and in 2011 hired a (I don’t want to be sued so just insert as many descriptive failure words as you like) CEO supposedly at the behest of the AOC. A small court of 35 employees had in less than 3 years 20 employees either resign or take early retirement due to her management style. Prior years there were maybe 1 resignation and one timely retirement in a year. Amador went from an award winning court to a dismal court according to a report by Commissioner Sue Alexander (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sbZiJLsOC0&sns=em).
Discovery in a couple of law suits by former employees revealed the CEO apparently did not actually have the BS degree she put on her application.
Now the employees have made the vote to strike, and sadly still nothing will change. Aside from problems with the Judicial Council, the CEO does not seem to be able to budget money, after all they hired her without a background check and with several collection cases pending, and subsequently she filed a personal bankruptcy. Don’t get me wrong, I understand bankruptcy is perfectly acceptable, I just do not think it is for someone put in charge of public funds.
“ SEIU
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
JACKSON, CA, February 27, 2015 — Amador County Superior Court clerks and other members of SEIU Local 1021 voted to authorize a strike on Thursday, February 26, 2015.
“Enough is enough,” said Lori Whitaker, a member of the Union’s bargaining team. “The Court and Judicial Council have not shown they’re doing all they can to improve service levels to the community and wages for workers.”
The Court’s reports to the Judicial Council for 2013 and 2014 show savings of more than $500,000 in wage cuts, pension and health insurance cuts and job losses, while the Court’s state-budgeted allotment for employee benefits has increased by nearly $24,000.
“The Court and Judicial Council have flatly rejected any increase in wages or benefits,” said Ann Mooney, SEIU Local 1021 Field Representative. “This is despite the recent State Auditor’s report showing that the Judicial Council has short-changed trial courts like Amador County’s. This community has a right to accessible justice and this Court needs to do more to bring trial court funding to Amador County.”
No strike date has been set yet. There are still two bargaining dates scheduled for March.
SEIU Local 1021 represents 17 employees, including clerks, court reporters and other court support workers. The Court has a total of 27 employees and two judges.”
Wendy Darling
March 2, 2015
Query: Who is representing the court in bargaining/at the contract negotiations?
Long live the ACJ.
courtflea
March 2, 2015
Private personal stuff to me is not a factor however lying and not performing well is another.
Humm didn’t sue Alexander use to be the Court exec of Amador/former AOC Employee?
Jimmy
March 3, 2015
She is a court commissioner and was on the Judicial Council.
JAD
March 2, 2015
The SEIU representative is Ann Mooney, and there are two clerks. Not sure who the court has from Judicial Council at the table, but has apparently promoted a fiscal officer to HR duties and she has been attending.
JAD
March 2, 2015
The Judicial Council employee on behalf of the court is Carey Corbilay.
Wendy Darling
March 2, 2015
It is assumed that you and the Amador court employees are aware that Carey Corbilay was personally chosen and hired at the AOC by none other than Ernie “Bluto” Fuentes and Ken “Sofa Man” Couch.
Long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
March 2, 2015
A Fuentes and Couch pick.
Good luck with that. More fruit from the poisonous Team George tree.
MaxRebo5
March 3, 2015
Who was the AOC regional director for the Northern Central Region in 2011 who suggested that failure of a CEO for Amador Superior Court?
That would be Jody Patel. http://www.courts.ca.gov/16034.htm
Jody and the Curts have got to go!!!! They have made so many bad decisions. Martin Hoshino lowered their pension contribution perk but they still remain in charge making huge salaries on terrible records. What about the point the state auditor made that theses top court administrators are paid more than state agency Directors (when they have far less staff) and that they make more money than the Governor? No reform there….What’s up with that Chief?
The Chief Justice just put Jody as the lead staff person to plan for the future of CA Courts. Does that seem like the appropriate person to be leading the branch into the future given the CCMS scandal, the SEC Report, the new audit of the AOC by the State Auditor, all on top of what has gone wrong with her HR selections to TCE positions in CA Courts?
Later this month the Chief will be giving the state of the judiciary address and talking of all the reforms made to the AOC but her actions show the larger truth which is she is resistant to all of these reforms related to her administrators. She has the same administrators, who all serve at her will, running the AOC despite multiple scandals. She gives them Vickery awards when she should be showing them the door (as Vickery was shown the door thanks to the Legislature). Few real reforms and no accountability for failed administrators at the top of CA Courts has been the walk for both HRH1 and HRH2. I hope Reggie and the Legislature are able to check her this spring but odds are Team George “leaders” will get away with it.
Wendy Darling
March 3, 2015
“But odds are Team George “leaders” will get away with it.”
Yep.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
JAD
March 4, 2015
Yep – in fact Jody Patel was on the (farce) interview panel.
JusticeCalifornia
March 4, 2015
Speaking of CEOs, how did I miss this game of musical chairs?
http://cclawyer.cccba.org/2014/01/superior-court-announces-new-ceo
JusticeCalifornia
March 3, 2015
As I understand it, Sakahooey bounced her “mentor” (stooge?) Justice Scotland from the Strategic Evaluation Committee, after he encouraged transparency and tried to bounce Sakahooey’s longtime BFF/Team George playmate Patel from the SEC proceedings.
Sakahooey’s bestie/playmate Patel must be having sleepless nights, wondering when and how and how terribly she will be publicly outed and punished for her longtime in-depth participation in this amazing and massive mess, the takedown of the biggest judiciary in the world.
JusticeCalifornia
March 3, 2015
Meanwhile, Sakahooey has knowingly and intentionally surrounded herself with well-compensated, historically compromised Team George playmates, which is an investigation and story in and of itself.
Lando
March 3, 2015
One of HRH-2’s worst moves was to promote and increase the pay of Ms Patel. Incredibly she did the same for the Curt’s, even though Curt Child had actively lobbied against the audit of CCMS . Does any one ever wonder where we would be today if the audit of CCMS had never taken place ? Now after the State Audit results have been made public we have learned so much more about the mismanagement of the AOC. The ball is now in Mr Hoshino’s court. If he means what he says he needs to clean house and thank and excuse Patel and the Curt’s without any further pay raises or side benefits. If he doesn’t take any action, he then needs to thank and excuse himself. The mismanagement of the Judicial Council and the AOC has led to the waste of hundreds of millions of dollars and the waste continues every day the insiders ignore the SEC and State Auditor’s recommendations. Therefore the problem runs deeper than at the staff level. HRH-2 needs to step up and accept responsibility for the mess she has presided over. If she doesn’t want to resign, she should at least allow the Judicial Council to be democratized to allow the branch to represent the core values of a court system including , making courtrooms accessible to the citizens we serve, spending valuable taxpayer dollars in an economical yet effective way, allowing the trial courts to maintain their local culture and traditions and to insure the branch values integrity, honesty. ethics, open proceedings and diversity, including respecting dissenting opinions.