May 19, 2015
The Judicial Council and its staff are seeking to amend a rule of court to take authority for decision making regarding the allocation of trial court funds from the Trial Court Budget Advisory Committee (TCBAC), instead giving it to the Judicial Council’s Committee on Accountability and Efficiency (A&E Committee). This is the committee, you will recall, that approved lavish raises for top AOC officials as its first official action under its then-chair, Justice Cantil-Sakauye. That committee is currently chaired by longtime Judicial Council insider, Justice Richard Huffman, and its meetings are for the most part “conducted electronically” and closed to the public.
The proposed rule amendment did not come to you in an “eblast” from the Judicial Council — it was quietly placed on the Judicial Council’s website for comment. Fortunately, it came to the attention of the TCBAC and others, including directors of the Alliance, who launched an aggressive campaign to crush this obvious power grab. In addition to taking budgetary authority from the TCBAC, the proposed rule would also eliminate the role of the A&E Committee in reviewing compensation for AOC employees, ostensibly because the Council is already conducting that review with the help of a hired consultant.
The TCBAC met yesterday in San Francisco and, although it was not an action item, voted to oppose the proposed amendment to Rule 10.63. We thank Judge Dodie Harman from San Luis Obispo for her motion that the committee take a formal position in opposition to the rule change, as well as TCBAC Chair Judge Laurie Earl, whose leadership helped to energize that opposition. The lone vote opposing the motion came from Orange County CEO Alan Carlson, never one to rock the AOC boat.
Below we have reprinted the comment in opposition to the rule that we submitted yesterday. We encourage you to submit your own comments in opposition in the event there are arguments that we omitted or that require emphasis. One might suspect that the proposed rule is dead now that so many have voiced opposition to it, but we remain concerned, at a minimum, that the Council will still push to take responsibility for overseeing AOC employee compensation from the A&E Committee. While we question that committee’s ability to exercise independent oversight, considering its past inability to do so, some committee oversight is better than none and the Council should not be allowed to “compromise” on the issue regarding the TCBAC while leaving intact the portion of the proposed amendment that takes responsibility for AOC oversight away from the A&E Committee.
We will keep a close eye on this proposed rule and any other proposal designed to make the operations of the Judicial Council and its staff less accountable and transparent. The results of audits conducted by State Auditor Elaine Howle demand it.
Directors, Alliance of California Judges
________________________________
Alliance of California Judges
May 18, 2015
Hon. Douglas P. Miller
Chair, Executive and Planning Committee
Re: Proposed amendments to Rules of Court, Rule 10.63 (SP15-03)
Dear Justice Miller:
We write to express our opposition to the proposal to give the Advisory Committee on Financial Accountability and Efficiency (the A&E Committee) the authority to determine the “appropriate uses” of expenditures to the trial courts from their main funding sources. In doing so, we add our voice to the voices of the many represented court employees who also oppose what can only be described as an unwarranted power grab. This new grant of power to the A&E Committee would come at the expense of the Trial Court Budget Advisory Committee (TCBAC), which currently performs that oversight function.
In opposing this proposed rule change, which was publicized only on the Executive and Planning Committee’s website and has been “fast-tracked,” we also join with the chair of the TCBAC, the Honorable Laurie Earl. We agree with Judge Earl that this proposed rule would strip authority from the committee that has gained expertise in budgetary matters and give it to a committee that lacks such expertise. We understand from multiple sources that this attempted power grab is being pushed by Chief of Staff Jody Patel and other members of the Judicial Council. The proposed rule change is a giant step backward in the Council’s movement toward greater transparency and accountability.
We note at the outset that we take issue with the entire “judicial council model” of branch governance, under which the Chief Justice appoints most of the members of the various bodies that make vital decisions for the entire branch. Under the current system, the same small unrepresentative cohort is chosen time after time, term after term, to committee after committee. Dissenting voices are squelched; innovation is tamped down; “speaking with one voice” is the watchword. The result has been a lack of transparency; the takeover of key decision-making processes by the bureaucracy that was meant to serve the branch, not govern it; and catastrophically bad decision-making, of which the CCMS debacle is only the most conspicuous example.
Within the current flawed system, however, the Trial Court Budget Advisory Committee is the advisory body in the best position to speak for the trial courts. Its 34 members include a healthy mix of representatives from large and small counties. A&E, by contrast, has only 14 members. Its chair and vice-chair are appellate court justices, not trial court judges. The chair, Justice Huffman, is the ultimate Judicial Council insider, having served on the Council for 14 years. His is not the voice of reform. Nor would we expect that replacing him or other members of the committee through the usual appointment process would lead to a different result.
Moreover, the A&E Committee has failed to carry out its current charge, which does not bode well for its ability to handle any new responsibilities that the proposed rule change would confer upon it. As the State Auditor pointed out in her recent report:
“The Judicial Council did not ensure that the financial advisory committee fulfilled its intended purpose. . . . It is unclear how the financial advisory committee can ensure accountability of the AOC when it does not exist independently of the AOC, it does not review the AOC’s expenditures, and the AOC can override the financial advisory committee’s recommendations to the Judicial Council.” (California State Auditor Report 2014-107, p. 45.)
None of the proposed rule changes address any of these basic criticisms. Moreover, the A&E Committee is among the most secretive of the Judicial Council’s advisory bodies. According to its website, the committee met twice in 2014 and twice in 2015. Each of those meetings was conducted “by electronic means,” and a portion of each meeting was closed. By contrast, the TCBAC meets far more frequently and its meetings are open.
We also note one area in which the proposed rule change would actually strip authority away from the A&E Committee. The amendments to the rule would remove any A&E responsibility to review the AOC’s compensation structure, ostensibly because “[t]he Judicial Council already is involved in review of Judicial Council staff compensation.” It appears that the AOC’s “classification and compensation study,” farmed out to a private vendor, is already behind schedule. The State Auditor’s report uncovered rampant bloat in AOC salaries. Somebody outside the inner circle really ought to have some say in how the AOC pays its staff.
When the State Auditor recommended changes to the Rules of Court that would bolster the advisory committee’s responsibilities and composition, she did not envision the removal of authority from an open, more responsive body to a reclusive and ineffective one. The proposal, if enacted, would serve as cover for the transfer of power to a less representative, less responsive body that conducts its business in secret and that can more easily be dominated by the AOC. Given the many failures of governance identified by the State Auditor and the Strategic Evaluation Committee, that is a terrible idea.
Sincerely,
Directors, Alliance of California Judges
Alliance of California Judges
1817 Capitol Ave., Sacramento, CA 95811
wearyant
May 19, 2015
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/video/category/news/11507212-tonight-on-cbs2-news-at-11pm-in-harms-way/
Is the above story related to power grabs? My disclaimer is that I admit believing the JC Staff, formerly known as the infamous AOC, is evil incarnate.
Thanks, JCW and ACJ, for all you do.
sharonkramer
May 19, 2015
If Chief Justice Cantil-Sakayue was sincerely intending to demonstrate to the legislature, the governor and state auditor that the branch can better manage their funds under her leadership — then why would she leave the old bull, Richard Huffman, as chair of an accountability oversight committee?
The role he played along with George in past power grab/branch funding mismanagement is widely known within the legislative/legal communities.
So the question is: What motivates Cantil-Sakayue to leave Huffman in a position of influence and even attempt to give him more power?
Surely, she must know that undermines confidence in her abilities to properly manage, which translates into less funding for the entire branch.
unionman575
May 19, 2015
I am glad ACJ & JCW got the word out on this…
😉
sharonkramer
May 19, 2015
And I am glad there is a person who goes by the name of “Unionman 575” who peruses the Judicial Council website on many a Friday night!
anonymous
May 19, 2015
Darth Huffman & Co. want to play favorites and the only way they can successfully get away with it is moving the redistribution of additional funding to their back room secretive committee.
unionman575
May 20, 2015
https://www.aclunc.org/blog/ca-chief-justice-agrees-traffic-courts-can-t-charge-fees-advance-trial
unionman575
May 20, 2015
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2015/05/18/cbs2-investigation-finds-124-california-courthouses-likely-to-partially-collapse-in-an-earthquake/
sharonkramer
May 20, 2015
With all due respect, I have to disagree with this statement, “Darth Huffman & Co. want to play favorites and the only way they can successfully get away with it is moving the redistribution of additional funding to their back room secretive committee.”
The only way “Darth Huffman & Co.” can successfully get away with sneaky power grabs to control/misdirect trial courts’ funds — is if Cantil-Sakayue lets them.
Does she think that legislators, the governor and auditor don’t remember Justice Huffman referring to the trial judges as “clowns” as they sounded the alarm of their funds being squandered on CCMS — while Huffman was Chair of the Judicial Council Executive and Planning Committee?
His accountability committee’s latest slimy tactics to control the courts’ coffers, send a clear message: The branch’s underlying mismanagement problems have not been rectified under the leadership of Cantil-Sakayue.
anonymous
May 20, 2015
She let them misdirect trial court funds to CCMS. Now they want to do a power play and make sure that any additional money goes only to those who play nice with them.
sharonkramer
May 20, 2015
So, she’s not able (or willing?) to stop the conflicts of interest and cronyism which have devastated CA’s judicial branch before and during her reign as chief justice. Eh?
Seemed to me that the writing was on the wall when Huffman was curiously named chair of this committee upon leaving his Judicial Council E & P position.
I’ve always thought it was just a matter of time before this committee was used to gain/keep JC tight control of the trial courts’ coffers.
unionman575
May 20, 2015
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/cfac-20150528-agenda.pdf
Wendy Darling
May 20, 2015
Today’s installment of Tani’s Follies. Today’s episode is titled “The Old Bait & Switch.” Published today, Wednesday, May 20, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
Judicial Council’s Plan to Shift Oversight of Trial Court Spending Stirs Dissent
By MARIA DINZEO
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – California trial judges on a statewide budget committee fiercely oppose a move to strip their oversight power for trial court spending and give that power instead to a another committee that regularly meets in secret.
This week, judges and court clerks on the Judicial Council’s Trial Court Budget Advisory Committee took a strong stance against a proposed rule change that would give a different council committee the authority to go back and review how the council and its staff spent judiciary funds on behalf of the courts.
“I think this is a complete diminution of the authority of this committee,” said budget committee member Judge Dodie Harman of San Luis Obispo. “This branch has a history of problems with credibility and transparency. I think we’ve worked on that, but this goes backwards. It reduces transparency.”
Under the amended Rule 10.63, the council’s Advisory Committee on Financial Accountability and Efficiency would audit the Judicial Council and its bureaucratic staff’s past spending on anything related to the courts, from the judiciary’s overall budget to sources like the Trial Court Trust Fund and Improvement and Modernization Fund, which finances court technology projects.
At a meeting on Tuesday, budget committee members said the rule change made no sense. They reasoned that if any committee should be looking at how the council spends money for the courts, it should be them.
“We have to have the ability to review the spending of staff. That’s the very reason we’re here,” Harman said.
The budget committee meets frequently and always openly – in sharp contrast to the accountability committee, which meets only occasionally and usually in private.
“We already as a body meet pretty frequently; in fact we seem to meet a lot,” Judge Cynthia Ming-mei Lee of San Francisco said. “In enlarging this charge to Accountability and Efficiency, it’s simply really duplicating the efforts this committee is making and it also denigrates our authority. And there’s a tension that will be created between this committee and A&E that will tend to muddy the waters. We need to have a clear line of decision-making.”
The rule change comes in the wake of a scathing report by the California State Auditor, who in January published findings that the Judicial Council’s staff, formerly called the Administrative Office of the Courts, spent $386 million over four years on statewide services that nearly half of California’s 58 trial courts don’t use – including $186 million on contractors and consultants.
While the proposal is a direct response to the audit, judges questioned whether it was what the auditor actually intended when she wrote, “The Judicial Council should create a separate advisory body, or amend a current committee’s responsibilities and composition, to review the AOC’s state operations and local assistance expenditures in detail to ensure that they are justified and prudent.”
Judges on the budget committee said the move to give another, more secretive committee authority over spending review jeopardizes the credibility they had built over the years. The accountability and efficiency committee is headed by Justice Richard Huffman, a 14-year council member appointed by former Chief Justice Ronald George, and often meets in private.
“I have had conversations in the wake of the audit with legislators assuring them of the integrity of the decision-making process in the Trial Court Budget Advisory Committee. I felt there was good deal of acceptance in that. We are risking that credibility,” Judge Carolyn Kuhl of Los Angeles said.
In an interview, budget committee chair Judge Laurie Earl said she had frequent discussions over the idea of her committee reviewing bureaucracy spending with both Judicial Council Staff Director Martin Hoshino and Justice Miller, who sits on the council and heads its Executive and Planning Committee where the rule change originated.
In the beginning, Earl, Hoshino and Miller had decided that the budget committee should do the review. “That’s where we thought we were heading,” Earl said, adding, “I had already announced to the Trial Court Budget Advisory Committee that we would be doing this work.”
She continued: “There was a change in that decision.”
While Hoshino had initially supported Earl’s idea, he changed his mind. Or, as he told Earl and later the budget committee, his thinking “had evolved over the course of time.”
At the budget committee meeting, Earl said Hoshino knew her position. “He knows through many discussions that I am not in favor of this, that I do not support this. I believe our committee has the expertise and is best equipped and poised to do this review. I think it deprives the trial courts of important oversight and it has significant opportunity, if we were to do it, to add to our credibility and transparency especially in the eyes of the trial courts.”
Hoshino explained his change in thinking to the budget committee, noting that it currently has authority over trial court spending but not spending on behalf of the appellate courts, the Supreme Court or the habeas corpus resource center.
“This is not any reflection of the capacity and ability of this committee to do the work,” Hoshino said. “But we’re confronted with the aspect that you’re talking about the entire branch operation and so I became persuaded that you can’t begin and end the analysis of the entire thing in one committee. The A&E committee seemed to be the confluence or the convergence of all of those interests, so it seemed the logical place to be able to do it.”
The Judicial Council and its staff are also under a lot of pressure to show the State Auditor and the Legislature that they are taking the audit seriously, especially after a lukewarm reception to its 30-day progress report.
“Maybe they questioned the seriousness and the diligence and the speed at which the Judicial Council was actually able to respond to their audit,” Hoshino said. “We want to be able to have something to say candidly about the progress of our response to the audit on the sixth-month report, due July 7.”
Later in an interview Earl said she understood the concern that the trial court budget committee has no oversight over the other courts, but added, “I really thought they could separate this.”
Hoshino did not respond to a request for comment. Earl said of Hoshino, “I think Martin Hoshino is a thoughtful man and I think that he listened to what folks had to say and perhaps he got a new appreciation the position that the committee members find themselves in.”
The budget committee ultimately voted to formally oppose the rule change in a written comment, which the full Judicial Council will consider at its June meeting.
“The important thing for the budget committee is to have the opportunity to express our opposition to it,” Earl said. “It’s up to the Judicial Council to decide what to do with it, but I think our voice will be heard.”
http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/05/20/judicial-councils-plan-to-shift-oversight-of-trial-court-spending-stirs-dissent.htm
If history repeats itself, as it usually does at 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Judge Earl and Judge Harmon are probably toast.
Long live the ACJ.
courtflea
May 20, 2015
Ya think Wendy? And probably everyone else on the committee. Same old bullshit just a different day. But it is irritating that the Assholes get away with it all the time. No one gives a Shit, even those folks that claim to be aware of it, including the legislature and the governor. So yeah, vote for Kamala Harris for the US Senate. POS.
Wendy Darling
May 21, 2015
I’d vote for Bernie Madoff before I will ever vote for Kamala Harris. At least with Madoff you get someone who has actually admitted they are a fraud.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
wearyant
May 21, 2015
I totally agree with WendyD and the Flea in their observations. The machine continues to roll on devouring those in its path that don’t swear allegiance to it. Pretty Kamala is completely worthless to the great unwashed. They have a vote. Will they use it? Meanwhile, I wonder why we have to put up with these obvious crooks still in power over the meager monies plopping down from the legislature. I think ol’ Jer could call an emergency regards the state of our third branch. Bring in a receiver now, preferably under Elaine Howle’s direction, at least until her recommendations are followed.
sharonkramer
May 21, 2015
“we’re confronted with the aspect that you’re talking about the entire branch operation and so I became persuaded that you can’t begin and end the analysis of the entire thing in one committee. The A&E committee seemed to be the confluence or the convergence of all of those interests, so it seemed the logical place to be able to do it.”
Persuaded by whom? Why is a committee which meets in secret “the confluence or the convergence of all of those interests” for the branch operations? NOTHING has changed to thwart the lack of transparency, cronyism and branch mismanagement.
March 9, 2011 “Who REALLY runs California’s judicial branch? Justice Richard Huffman – Appellate Justice, 4th district court of appeals, San Diego” https://judicialcouncilwatcher.com/2011/03/09/who-runs-californias-judicial-branch-a-parody-of-sorts/
Where is that $500M that went missing from the construction funds under Huffman’s reign as Judicial Council Executive Committee Chair?
Maxrebo5
May 21, 2015
Team George members are masters at turning a critique of their mistakes into a means to consolidate or even gain power. Goodbye to any local judge voices on budget priorities. The Chief and her appointed team members control the budget priorities 100% for the branch. The PJ’s of local trial courts can either get on board, so they can be on the committee, or they can speak in the 1 minute public comment section at the Judicial Council meetings like everyone else.
It is sort of funny to me that this betrayal comes as a surprise to Judge Earl and the other PJ’s. They should have known given how so many other groups have been excluded. Judge Earl and other local PJ’s are finally getting a clue that they have zero say in the budget. The PJ’s somewhat accepted no control over the AOC but now it is sinking in that they have NO control over the budget priorities for their own local trial courts. It is a complete stab in the back moment. Trust me I have been there as have many others on this blog.
The PJ’s are finally learning that they are just as voiceless in the decision making process as the court reporters, the court clerks, honest court administrators, the press, and the public. Policy is going to be made by the Chief’s inside team only. It stings to learn someone who you thought was your partner views you as a problem. I feel for Judge Earl and the other PJ’s for this betrayal but at least they know the truth now and they have plenty of company. I hope this can be a rallying point for judges, staff, and the other branches to stop the consolidation of the Chief’s power.
Remember how the AOC tried to slip language into a budget trailer bill a few years ago to control the selection of PJ’s. They got caught and even tried to blame the Department of Finance for their horrible actions. This new budget committee just proves Team George still wants to control everything at all levels of the branch. PJ’s will soon be 100% irrelevant in the budget priorities for their own courts. A trial court PJ will be left only to assign cases nothing more (till that too is controlled).
Perhaps I am being too cynical. After all, there is still a way for a PJ or TCE to be included in policy making. Simply play along with the Chief then maybe she’ll appoint you to a committee seat. You’ll have to vote exactly as told but they’ll set you up in a nice hotel in SF for the meetings, provide a catered lunch, and there may even be some Grey Goose cocktails in the evening. Welcome to the Chief’s team! If you sell out long enough you might get a distinguished service award. 🙂
wearyant
May 21, 2015
“The PJ’s are finally learning that they are just as voiceless in the decision making process as the court reporters, the court clerks, honest court administrators, the press, and the public.”
———————————————————————
Ahh, Maxrebo5, one of my favorites. I must harp again on the betrayal of the valued court interpreters too by the evil empire. The court interpreters believed the ethically challenged creeps when they spoke of how the interpreters were valued employees, vital to the machine of justice, highly skilled and rare in their capabilities. They believed because all that is true. But the sad fact of the matter is, the ethically challenged creeps didn’t believe it and all they wanted was the interpreters’ income stream from the legislature. Once control of the public funds was secured, witness what happened to the court interpreters. They really were fucked without the romance. Their funds were literally grabbed and utilized for what the ethically challenged deemed appropriate. Ambitious projects that they wanted input in and were duly silenced were forced down their throats; and to add insult to injury, possibly financed with funds meant for them. The evil empire always denigrates people with skills that they do not possess, understand, control or value! Again I say, how long must the citizenry and the third branch of California suffer these money-grubbing — I mean money-grabbing dregs?
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
May 21, 2015
You are on the money Max.
😉
wearyant
May 21, 2015
I always heard the terms “confluence” and “convergence” in relation to water flow, mainly with regard to water treatment, i.e., sewer systems and effluent. Hoshino is edging closer to the mark.
sharonkramer
May 21, 2015
When he said he was “persuaded”, did he actually mean “coerced”?
unionman575
May 21, 2015
How about “Shit Storm”?
😉
unionman575
May 21, 2015
When is an open meeting NOT open?????…hmmm…
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/aecomm-20150608-agenda.pdf
OPEN MEETING WITH CLOSED SESSION AGENDA
😉
Advisory Committee on Financial Accountability and Efficiency for the Judicial Branch
June 8, 2015 Meeting
12:00 – 1:00pm
Public Call-in Number: 1-877-820-7831
Public Participant Code 4045700
Santa, Tooth Fairies Unicorns and California Court Justice
May 21, 2015
Welcome to America …. https://youtu.be/5tu32CCA_Ig
Santa, Tooth Fairies Unicorns and California Court Justice
May 21, 2015
unionman575
May 24, 2015
http://www.rocklintoday.com/news/templates/community_news.asp?articleid=14334&zoneid=4
$900,000 Window Project: Placer County Courthouse Auburn
Placer County / Saturday, May 23, 2015
Work is under way on a construction project that will restore and repair aging windows at Placer County’s Historic Courthouse in Auburn.
The project is being managed for Placer County by the Judicial Council of California, the policymaking body of the state’s courts.
The Placer County Museum and Placer County Superior Court share the courthouse building, with the museum occupying the first floor and the court using the upper floors.
Both the museum and court will remain open during the repair work. Beginning next month, workers will start using scaffolding on one section at a time as they make their way around the building.
The courthouse’s existing windows have deteriorated to the point where water is leaking into the building. Restoring and repairing windows will fix the leaks and contribute to energy conservation in the building.
The project will include window sash upgrades and repairs in keeping with the original fabric of the building. The project has received approval from the California Office of Historic Preservation and follows the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.
The project is scheduled to be completed by the end of the year. The total cost is projected to be about $900,000. The Judicial Council is providing 77 percent of the funding and Placer County is responsible for 23 percent.
😉
wearyant
May 24, 2015
I’m glad Placer is getting some well deserved attention to their courthouse, but $900,000?! How many stories high is this historic building? Multiple, I’m guessing, at that price. Are lavish JC staff luncheons thrown in there to “justify” short of a hot million for windows that stop leaks? Seriously, the construction business must be taken out of the hands of these shameless bozos who have been proven to mess up royally when dealing with the real world of business and finance. I am thinking of the Long Beach courthouse and CCMS just for starters. Is common sense dead and buried forever from the third branch boondoggle bozos?! Thanks for posting this, UMan.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
May 24, 2015
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/eandp-20150601-notice.pdf
Executive and Planning Committee
June 1, 2015 Meeting
12:10 p.m.
Public Call-In Number: 877-820-7831;
passcode 846-8947 (listen only)
😉
In accordance with California Rules of Court, rule 10.75(e)(1), public notice is hereby given that the Executive and Planning Committee will hold a meeting open to the public on Monday, June 1, 2015, at 12:10 p.m. A copy of the agenda for this meeting will be available on the advisory body web page on the California Courts website listed above by Wednesday, May 27.
😉
Public Comment
In accordance with California Rules of Court, rule 10.75(k)(2), members of the public may directly address the advisory body about agenda items. The Chair will establish speaking limits at the beginning of the public comment session. While the advisory body welcomes and encourages public comment, time may not permit all persons requesting to speak to be heard at this meeting.
Note: members of the public requesting to speak during the public comment portion of the meeting must place the speaker’s name, the name of the organization that the speaker represents if any, and the agenda item that the public comment will address, on the public comment sign-up sheet. The sign-up sheet will be available at the meeting location prior to the meeting start time.
😉
Written Comment
In accordance with California Rules of Court, rule 10.75(k)(1), written comments pertaining to any agenda item of a regularly noticed open meeting can be submitted up to one complete business day before the meeting. For this specific meeting, comments should be e-mailed to
executiveandplanning@jud.ca.gov or mailed or delivered to Judicial Council of California, 455 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California, 94102-3688, Attention: Cliff Alumno. Only written comments received by 9:00 a.m. on Friday, May 29, 2015, will be provided to advisory body members.
😉
Audio Recording
Members of the public seeking to make an audio recording of the open portion of the meeting must submit a written request at least two business days before the meeting. Requests can be e-mailed to executiveandplanning@jud.ca.gov.
Posted on: May 22, 2015
To request special accommodations in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, please contact the advisory body at 415-865-7737, or at executiveandplanning@jud.ca.gov, at least three business days before the meeting
wearyant
May 24, 2015
Full County – 20150524
Governor backs court fees relief – Ventura County Star
Follow the link below to view the article.
http://venturacountystar.ca.newsmemory.com/publink.php?shareid=0f09da875
Ahh, the great, roiling unwashed, fighting to stay alive, to keep their nostrils above the swamp waters, lining up to pay their dues to the royals ensconced aloft in the crystal palace in The City” eating their crustless sandwiches and sipping Grey Goose. Another day, another seven cents for the great, roiling unwashed.
MaxRebo5
May 24, 2015
The “Hellhole” of traffic fees is heating up in the press. The LA Times is covering it as is this ABC News story:
http://abc7.com/politics/ca-chief-justice-wants-to-stop-huge-fines-for-traffic-tickets/736500/
I laughed when it said the public should have input with the Judicial Council on the new rule. Clearly this reporter hasn’t followed how the JC is run. The Chief’s control of the Judicial Council is how this hell hole got created in the first place. They intentionally raised all these fees and Chief is falsely blaming the problem on the recession.
It was 100% Ron George and his JC followers who dramatically raised all these fees to pay for the 5 billion in new courthouse bonds. They lobbied hard to get get those bonds. Recall that the recession was already used as their excuse to lay off 2,500 court employees. The fee issue has NOTHING to do with the recession and everything with their intentional spending spree to push for new buildings. I hope the press shines a light on that spin job by the Chief.
I also hope the US DOJ does intervene as the story alludes to. Perhaps if the Feds step in this mess will finally be fixed. Where is Kamala Harris on any of this? The Governor is all over it in the papers so where is she?
What a record of failure the CA Court “leaders” have over the last 15 years. Amazingly, despite all their many many failures, Team George today has a stronger control over the CA Courts than they ever did. The CA State Auditor tried to get them to reform and warned the Legislature that the JC would not change. Hoshino said himself it is going to take 12-15 years to change the “culture”of the Judicial Council. That was an insane timeline to me so hopefully the Feds and the other California branches of government will get involved to force change now. The fees are simply a symptom of a corrupted Judicial Council which is the true problem. Real reform means throwing out the Team George members and letting ACJ’s members to be included on the Judicial Council. This corruption of the CA Courts is now impacting 38 million people (not just the court staff). It has to stop and I am starting to be hopeful that it will.
Santa, Tooth Fairies Unicorns and California Court Justice
May 27, 2015
“Culture Change” is the only solution… will only come with transparency and accountability. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0jYx8nwjFQ
Adrasteia
May 24, 2015
This move is all about the fact that the bond money for courthouse construction is all dried up. The AOC has overspent and misspent 1407 funds. These funds are supported entirely by a $30 fee for every criminal count in every criminal case and by an added fee on top of “penalty assessments” for traffic tickets. The AOC doesn’t want to fess up about how the bond funding is at risk. The Chief is diverting attention from the problem that was created by the Judicial Council Staff. Don’t think for one second that the Chief actually cares about traffic matters and the high fees. By advocating for a cut in the fines/fees/assessments (which includes the $30 for the stream of $$ that funds 1407) the AOC/Chief can appear to take a principled stand while avoiding the devastating news on the horizon that 1407 funding has vanished.
MaxRebo5
May 24, 2015
Well said. I have said many times that the bond money is running short. There are two problems. One is the criminal case filings are way down statewide since 2009 and will continue to decline as crime rates in CA fall to historically low levels. The AOC projected growing cases and more money for the branch when the bonds were issues and they were way off. The second issue is collections and the fact that the tickets are being given out to so many poor people who can’t afford to pay. It is a double whammy of ibcomthat is killing the 1407 money that Team George said would be there. I am very pleased to see them screwed. I agree with your point though that the Chief could care less about these fees and is spinning the issue now as a way to get more funding from the Legislature. They have no shame.
Stuart Michael
May 25, 2015
The courts should never been allowed to take over court facilities from the counties – iIt should have gone to the State GSA. Same thing for information and communications technology. Ditto for indigent juvenile defense and dependency cases. Also interpreter services – what a convoluted mess that’s turned out to be.
Courts should not have been given such complete control of personnel administration, salary setting, or labor relations. Many other AOC functions and programs also duplicate state services much less efficiently and at far greater cost, or are unnecessary altogether.
Somehow the courts managed to operate without so many out-of-town meetings and functions at expensive digs. Meal allowances didn’t provide for crustless sandwiches. County auditors actually scrutinized expense claims and required records and receipts.
This could all have been done despite the “third branch” rubric used as a shield from outside eyes, but would never have been allowed by George or his co-conspirators, or Phil Eisenberg who sold this to the Legislature and the Counties.
This was the game plan of George & Vickery all along. In hindsight, I’m sorry to have had any part in it, as I’m sure many others feel, but it seemed better at the time than staying under the County’s control.
But the grass is not always greener on the other side.
sharonkramer
May 25, 2015
“Senate Bill 1407 is a major step forward that will help ensure the safety and security of our courthouses for all Californians, including litigants, jurors, lawyers, employees, and other members of the public.”
–Chief Justice Ronald George
“Improving our state’s aging court facilities has been an integral part of my promise to Californians to rebuild our infrastructure and increase public safety. This bill not only delivers on that promise to finance desperately needed construction projects, but it will also help create thousands of jobs for California workers.”
–Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
http://www.courts.ca.gov/2027.htm
Santa, Tooth Fairies Unicorns and California Court Justice
May 27, 2015
Thanks for being heroes … https://youtu.be/AEotwCGwI2E?t=10m10s
sharonkramer
May 28, 2015
The Court of Appeal, First Appellate District (San Francisco), has announced its intention to destroy Criminal and Civil records, case numbers listed here, pursuant to Rule 10.1028(d) of the California Rules of Court. Anyone who knows of a reason why any of the records listed should be retained, whether for historical or other reasons, should notify Diana Herbert, Clerk/Administrator.
– See more at: http://www.noodls.com/view/7C94F533567B3E3CBB29F76A4888343FEA6D06BD?3664xxx1432765737#sthash.5cWoQhp3.dpuf
wearyant
May 29, 2015
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/asm/ab_0051-0100/ab_85_bill_20150415_amended_asm_v98.html
Put this one in your hats, AOC creeps!
Long live the ACJ.
sharonkramer
June 4, 2015
Hey Guys, Beginning next Monday on the Facebook page of “Justice for Sharon Noonan Kramer is Justice for US Environmentally Disabled” I’m going to start telling what I know of corruption in gov’t and private sector policy writing orgs causing severe illness from Toxic Mold exposure. Please sign up to follow and please add comment where you feel is appropriate.
The story goes in and out of Washington DC and the California Judicial Branch at its highest levels. Its a tale of mass betrayal by those elected, appointed, hired and paid with tax dollars to protect the health and safety of the American public; and by those in the private sector who suck up to them for profit, ego and credibility. I never would have believed that such heartless corruption could exist in the good ole USA, had I not been living the fallout for exposing it for the past decade.
I’m writing a book entitled “The Void Judgment”. Feedback on this FB page by those in the know is part of my research. Your input would be greatly appreciated.
THIS is what the Cal court officers, including Justice Richard Huffman and Judith McConnell, concealed has been happening to people and the liability for those responsible for causing it, by their falsification of documents in ten years of SLAPP suits.
https://www.bulletproofexec.com/moldy-movie-coming-soon/
Because the story is one of judicial officers acting w/o subject matter jurisdiction while defrauding the US public and taxpayer, its a criminal matter — that is in dire need of prosecution by the CA Dept of Justice and/or the USDOJ. Peshaw! I have NO FAITH in Kamala Harris or the USDOJ stopping the mass corruption.
But, I do have faith in you. As you dilligently work to stop cronyism at the helm of the CA judicial branch from wasting tax dollars on conflict filled policies wrought with special interests that adversely impact the entire United States, remember this: They got Al Capone for tax evasion — AFTER they were forced to acknowledge it was happening!