We recently reported that the Judicial Council’s Executive and Planning Committee hastily tried to ratify a rule change that would have transferred oversight responsibilities for trial court spending from the Council’s most representative advisory body, the Trial Court Budget Advisory Committee (TCBAC), to the moribund and reclusive Advisory Committee on Financial Accountability and Efficiency. We joined with a number of other groups, including labor organizations and the TCBAC itself, in publicly opposing the proposal. In the wake of the State Auditor’s sweeping critique of the manner in which the Council and the AOC handle trial court money, we believed that the proposal would have represented a giant step backward in the campaign to make the AOC more transparent and accountable.
We are happy to learn that the E&P Committee is backing down. In the face of vocal opposition, E&P has decided to shelve the proposed rule change.
The Alliance has taken up the fight to reform the AOC and the Judicial Council on another front. Having fought hard to bring about the audit in the first place, we’ve been working behind the scenes in Sacramento during the budget process to bring about the State Auditor’s recommendations for restructuring the AOC. Toward that end, the Alliance has retained Aaron Read and Associates of Sacramento, a firm with an excellent track record and a solid reputation, to help us spread our message of reform. The AOC has 11 full-time employees at its disposal in its Office of Governmental Affairs, so we determined that a retained lobbyist was essential to bolster our presence at the Capitol and provide legislators with a more complete narrative. We remain confident that our work with the Legislature will result in increased funding, as well as greater autonomy and flexibility, for our locally based trial court system.
Directors, Alliance of California Judges
__________________________________________________________
A note from JCW: I’m going to speculate that there is some rule that prohibits these fine citizens from actively soliciting donations to pay for a lobbyist. A hint you already probably guessed at – we’re not one of them. We’re not under contract, paid by, sponsored by or bound to the ACJ in any way. We’re not members of the ACJ and we’re surely not judges. We’re a small, progressive, independent media company that donates both our time and money to fix this broken branch.
So we’re going to do what we’re speculating that they can’t do and that is to ask you paypal these fine citizens a few bucks to keep that lobbyist hammering away in Sacramento towards judicial council reform. It should be a relatively simple task against 11 judicial council lobbyists as it tends to be effortless to tell when they’re lying because their lips are moving. It’s time to send Darth Huffman and his brown-nosing old guard entourage packing back to the rocks they crawled out from under.
To our well to do friends at Google, Apple, Facebook, Yahoo, Oracle, Microsoft, Genentech and elsewhere: donate generously and often to this non-tax deductible cause to reform these broken systems with new blood, fresh ideas and democracy.
To our friends in the public service sector including the courts: Please contribute what you can or get your brothers and sisters on board to reform this train wreck.
On behalf of JCW we want to thank you in advance for your support!
____________________________
unionman575
June 19, 2015
Fine work ACJ and JCW.
😉
unionman575
June 19, 2015
sharonkramer
June 20, 2015
Excellent work, Alliance judges, et.al. You should be very proud of yourselves for this victory. The implications seem huge.
Video message for Darth Huffman:
courtflea
June 20, 2015
Sharon the LA Times ran the OC fixing ticket debacle today.
sharonkramer
June 20, 2015
Thanks, will read it. Did you see the scathing BSA audit of the State Bar? You can read it from their website. Here’s the OCRegister’s take on the matter:
Audit: Attorney discipline falls short at California State Bar http://www.ocregister.com/articles/bar-667422-state-audit.html
NewsViews
June 20, 2015
Reblogged this on News and Views Riverside Superior Court and National Family Law Abuse.
unionman575
June 20, 2015
http://www.courts.ca.gov/32496.htm
June 25-26 Judicial Council Meeting
Ronald M. George State Office Complex
William C. Vickrey Judicial Council Conference Center
Malcolm M. Lucas Board Room
455 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, California 94102-3688
Thursday June 25, 2015 1:45–4:25 p.m.
😉
Friday June 26, 2015 8:30 a.m.–2:05 p.m.
😉
unionman575
June 20, 2015
Follow the money…
sharonkramer
June 21, 2015
UMan, you really are the best!!
“Previous Council Action
On July 29, 2014, due to a projected shortfall of $22.7 million in revenue fine and fee revenue that supports trial courts’ base allocation the council allocated a $22.7 million reduction on a one-time basis and directed Judicial Council staff to submit a deficiency request to backfill the shortfall with an augmentation of General Fund monies to the Trial Court Trust Fund (TCTF).
Rationale for Recommendation
The deficiency request was not approved by the Department of Finance. The council allocated the $22.7 million reduction using the same method for computing courts’ contributions towards the statutorily required 2 percent reserve that is held in the TCTF.
To bring into balance the projected revenues that support courts’ base allocations, the council will need to allocate a $22.7 million reduction in 2015–2016. The council’s policy is to use the Workload-Based Allocation and Funding Methodology (WAFM) to allocate any new funding for general court operations. The TCBAC’s recommendation to allocate the net of any new funding and a $22.7 million reduction using WAFM recognizes that, in reality, the real amount of new funding in 2015–2016 is reduced by $22.7 million.
The Governor’s May Revise budget proposal is to provide $90.6 million in new funding for general court operations. If the Budget Act of 2015 provides $90.6 million in new funding, under this proposal $67.9 million ($90.6 million less $22.7 million) would be allocated using the WAFM on an ongoing basis.”
SUGGESTION: The Judicial Council allocates a $22.7M reduction in Judicial Council staff funding. Those tax dollars are then reallocated as new funding which is used to offset the deficit in the ability to serve the public with functional trial courts. It makes ZERO sense to keep the JC staff fat at the expense of the trial courts and the public.
unionman575
June 20, 2015
Follow the money II…
unionman575
June 20, 2015
Delayed maintenance while the Death Star continues to build new palaces…hmm….
unionman575
June 20, 2015
Page 4 Jahrhead…
😉
unionman575
June 20, 2015
Page 6:
“Mr. Hoshino reported that, since the February council meeting, he had the opportunity to visit the Superior Courts of Contra Costa, Marin, and Orange Counties, and he thanked the courts for the opportunity. With regard to the court site visits, he believes that they help him to not only be aware of the issues facing the courts, but to also understand them by having the chance to observe and experience the challenges faced by staff. More importantly, Mr. Hoshino believes that he is fortunate to observe the innovations at work in the courts and all the efforts made by staff on a daily basis.”
Get me a bucket!
😉
unionman575
June 20, 2015
Page 8:
“Justice Miller reported that the committee is seeking nominations for the council’s Distinguished Service Award. The Distinguished Service Award is the highest award presented by the Judicial Council. For over 20 years, the council has honored judges, court administrators, and justice system partners for their extraordinary service to the judicial branch.:
Here’s a great candidate: Hon. Steve White.
😉
Anybody from ACJ is ok in my book.
😉
courtflea
June 21, 2015
I think Jahrhead.
unionman575
June 21, 2015
You are killing me Flea!
😉
anonymous
June 21, 2015
Flea has a point: Since they always go to the insiders, his distinguished service was stepping down. ^-^
unionman575
June 20, 2015
Just say “YES”…
Pages 31 through 35:
anonymous
June 21, 2015
Last two votes were rigged if I read the sheet correctly. All these distinguished members voted “present” instead of yes or no but Mr. Hoshino recorded them as yes votes.
How much do we pay the gentleman that can’t read, comprehend or record a vote?
unionman575
June 22, 2015
http://www.publicpay.ca.gov/Reports/PositionDetail.aspx?employeeid=7606250
Position Detail
178537
Administrative Director Of The Courts
Entity: State of California
State Department: Judicial Council of California
Year: 2013
This employee is considered to be a Judicial employee.
$216,700 total wages
$216,700 regular pay
$0 overtime pay
$0 lump-sum pay
$0 other pay
$206,556 – $227,196 regular pay range for classification
$45,186 total retirement & health cost
$45,062 defined benefit plan
$0 employee’s ret. cost covered
$0 deferred compensation
$124 health/dental/vision contribution
2.00% @ 60 applicable defined benefit pension formula
Last Updated: 7/14/2014
😉
anonymous
June 22, 2015
I should also probably add: He can’t count. 13 people he marked as “present” in the last two votes but the documents indicate 12 people voted yes and none voted no.
Good thing he doesn’t work as the Secretary of State, California might be another red state.
unionman575
June 20, 2015
Still hiring away up there at Death Star Central:
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&
wearyant
June 20, 2015
My fat thumb again. Sorry, UMan. Good thing I’ve been put out to pasture …
unionman575
June 20, 2015
Don’t worry, I I know I am perfect.
lol
wearyant
June 20, 2015
Interesting (to me) that only the judicial secretary and/or JA position qualifications require the ability to lift 40 pounds. Still prefering paper over digital in the higher courts, are we? The quill and the Pony Express, as JHull prefers? 😁
Judicial Council Watcher
June 20, 2015
Nobody in California holds a candle to the level of deforestation that the Judicial Council does.
sharonkramer
June 22, 2015
How is it possible that a single clerk could fix cases in “courts across the county”? From the article: “Officials now say that about 1,000 DUI and misdemeanor traffic cases were “fixed” by a clerk, who has not been identified. The clerk apparently created fake plea deals with heavily reduced penalties. Jeffrey Wertheimer, legal counsel for the Orange County Superior Court system, said the cases date back to 2010 and include courts across the county.” http://www.latimes.com/local/orangecounty/la-me-oc-fixed-tickets-20150620-story.html
Auntie Bureaucrat
June 22, 2015
I can’t figure it out, Sharon. A thousand. Without anyone noticing. Across different venues. It boggles the mind.
It’s just shameful.
Auntie Bureaucrat
June 22, 2015
Also, it sounds like they’re just calling people into court and questioning them about their old, fixed case.
I can see them wanting to get to the bottom of it. Unless they’re offering full immunity, I don’t understand calling defendants in and having them admit to felonious behavior in order to straighten out their mess.
Fifth, anyone?
unionman575
June 22, 2015
5th!
😉
anonymous
June 22, 2015
One might think in retrospect that there should be a Miranda warning in there somewhere given by the court itself, especially with FBI agents waiting outside the courtroom doors.
anonymous
June 22, 2015
I wonder if computerized records were altered to reflect the corrections by someone who either shouldn’t have had that degree of permission or if there existed no workflow process that double-checks the work. And if it was a computerized system, did it happen to be CCMS? 🙂
courtflea
June 22, 2015
Courts like OC and LA are so huge I can see a mere 1000 cases easily being buried in thousands of the same. And who is checking for accuracy with computer entries on a regular basis? I’m sure their supervisors are not and neither is the DMV. If you know court ops think about it. Usually it is some anomaly that gets brought to the attention of management that leads to an investigation like what occurred in OC. I think the folks involved with paying to fix the ticket are lucky not being charged with that crime in addition to the original offense.
Auntie Bureaucrat
June 23, 2015
I agree, Flea. And actually think they should be prosecuted. I hope they are prosecuted.
I just wonder if they aren’t screwing the pooch by not having these people counseled about making any admissions. Or maybe they are being counseled and the stories just neglect to mention it.
anonymous
June 23, 2015
If you’re walking out of the courtroom directly into an FBI subpoena to testify, it’s a good bet that they’re saying “you want to testify rather than be prosecuted but it’s your choice…”
So these idiots ARE being penalized: one for paying the bribe and another for having to pay the fine\do the time in spite of the bribe.
sharonkramer
June 22, 2015
So I’ve done alot of research in this area. I am firmly of the belief that it is phsycally impossible for one, one clerk, to falsify CCMS records to cause multifple frauds in multiple locations within Orange County. It took a village.
CCMS data entries allegedly comes from one location. For example: if something occurred in the North San Diego Court, CCMS would state it on the Register of Action (ROA). BUT what most people do no know is that there is a second, stealth record of each case, deemed the “Case History” THIS record can only be seen by judges and court employees — NOT parties or their legal representation to the litigation. It is the Case History that judges rely upon in their understanding of what went on, prior to their involvement in the case.
If any of the honorable judges of ACJ would like to clarify this fact further beyond my layman understanding, it woud be greatly appreciated.
sharonkramer
June 22, 2015
K. To state the matter directly. Darth Huffman, he a Ho. And so is Judy McConnell and Patty Benke along with some members of the ACJ. In my humble opinion, you are in or or you out in stopping corruption in the CA courts — but you do not get it both ways while trying to decide who can best use tax dollars for the benefit of the public
I would like to use the phrase “asshole judges who profess to be holiier than thou being a major part of the continuing promblem while screaming THEIR rights are being violated” but I won’t!!
http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/audioPop.jsp?episodeId=983897&cmd=apop
Auntie Bureaucrat
June 23, 2015
I won’t swear to it, but I don’t think OC ever went live with CCMS for traffic or criminal. That’s the infamous, dead in the water, V4 travesty.
unionman575
June 23, 2015
Council Focuses on Efficiency Measures at Next Meeting
😉
FOR RELEASE
Contact: Teresa Ruano, 415-865-7740
June 19, 2015
Judicial Council Focuses on Efficiency Measures at Next Business Meeting
Agenda highlights include budget, court construction, water conservation, and progress on Judicial Council restructuring
http://www.courts.ca.gov/32513.htm
unionman575
June 23, 2015
Site Finalized for New Civil Courthouse in Menifee
FOR RELEASE
Contact: Keby Boyer, 415-865-7740
June 22, 2015
Site Finalized for New Civil Courthouse in Menifee
😉
SAN FRANCISCO—The State Public Works Board has approved the acquisition of a site in Menifee for the new Riverside Mid-County Civil Courthouse from site owner Regent Properties. The new courthouse will be located on 3.8 acres in the Menifee Town Center and will be a part of the City’s envisioned future government center.
“Much of the recent growth in Riverside County has been in the mid-county region, badly straining the courthouse in Hemet,” said Harold W. Hopp, presiding judge of the Riverside County Superior Court. “This new facility will help us to increase access to justice, particularly for family law and civil cases.”
The site was chosen because of its central location within the county’s growing population center where filings continue to rise, the reduced cost of the property, and access to public transportation and Interstate 215. Completion of site acquisition, expected by July 2015, will allow the project to proceed into architectural design, scheduled to take approximately two years. The Judicial Council, which manages the project, has engaged the architecture firm of Perkins + Will to design the new courthouse.
The new Mid-County Civil Courthouse will house nine courtrooms in over 89,000 square feet and replace the aging Hemet Courthouse. It will improve public access, increase efficiencies, and provide greater security for court visitors and staff by providing enhanced security screening and separate circulation for those in custody. The new courthouse will continue to handle civil, family law, probate, small claims, and traffic cases, providing a modern, secure civil courthouse for the residents of the mid-county region.
Construction of the new courthouse is currently scheduled to begin in 2018, with an expected completion date in 2021, subject to change. Ranked as an “immediate need” in the judicial branch’s capital outlay plan, the new courthouse is among the branch’s highest-priority infrastructure projects.
More information on the project can be found on the California Courts website at: http://www.courts.ca.gov/facilities-riverside-hemet.htm
unionman575
June 23, 2015
Officials break ground on $32.5 million Los Banos courthouse
😉
New facility at Gateway Center will host city, county government
Project expected to be complete in fall 2016
Merced County officials broke ground last week on a new multimillion-dollar courthouse in Los Banos.
The project is expected to cost more than $32.5 million, and is funded through trial court user fees approved by Senate Bill 1407, according to superior court officials.
It will replace the current obsolete and overcrowded Los Banos facility.
The new, roughly 29,000-square-foot, two-courtroom courthouse is part of the so-called Gateway Center, which will also host county and city government buildings, officials said.
Authorities expect to complete the project in the fall of 2016.
The new facility will expand court services for west county residents and will include criminal, civil, family, traffic, small claims, juvenile and probate proceedings, officials said.
For more information, visit the California Courts website at http://www.courts.ca.gov/facilities-merced-losbanos.htm.
Read more here: http://www.mercedsunstar.com/news/local/community/los-banos/article25179268.html#storylink=cpy
Auntie Bureaucrat
June 23, 2015
Wow, Uman. It’s like there’s unlimited funds for building court houses they can’t (or refuse) to afford to staff. Again, mind boggling.
unionman575
June 24, 2015
Prepare for another IT cluster fuck…I can see it coming…
July 1, 2015 Rules and Policy Subcommittee Meeting (Teleconference)
12:10 p.m. – 1:00 p.m.
Public Call-In Number 1-877-820-7831
Public Access Code # 4348559
😉
http://www.courts.ca.gov/ctac.htm
Wendy Darling
June 24, 2015
Published today, Wednesday, June 24, from Courthouse News Service by Bill Girdner:
“[T]he central administration of the California courts . . . has been repeatedly criticized by the state auditor and legislators over spending and policy decisions.”
“This should not require four years of litigation.”
Pretty sure those two things are interconnected.
First Amendment Case Against Ventura Clerk Reinstated by Circuit
By BILL GIRDNER
LOS ANGELES (CN) – The Ninth Circuit on Tuesday reinstated a First Amendment action brought by Courthouse News over lengthy delays in access to the public record in Ventura Superior Court.
A host of major news organizations, including the Associated Press, the Los Angeles Times and The New York Times, joined Courthouse News in appealing dismissal of the action by U.S. District Court Judge Manuel Real.
“The district court disregarded our mandate by erroneously ruling as a matter of law the filed civil complaints which have not yet been the subject of a hearing are outside the scope of the First Amendment right of access,” said Tuesday’s opinion by a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel.
In reversing Real for the second time, the panel also reassigned the matter to a different judge.
“The district court judge has expressed strong views, inconsistent with our prior opinion, on the merits of this case, failed to conduct the proper fact-specific inquiry, and dismissed this case before an answer was filed twice,” said the Ninth Circuit panel of judges, Kim McLane Wardlaw, Mary Murguia and John Noonan.
At stake in the litigation is the First Amendment right to prompt access to the public record, to report the news while it is fresh rather than being forced to wait until it is no longer news.
The Ventura court clerk, Michael Planet, and his staff were refusing to grant journalists access to new cases until various administrative tasks were finished. The delay lasted up six weeks, especially in more important or newsworthy cases such as those involving environmental and water disputes.
Courthouse News filed an action in federal court in Los Angeles in 2011 challenging those delays. But Real soon dismissed the case.
That first dismissal was reversed by the Ninth Circuit last year in a unanimous and strongly-worded opinion by the same panel of judges, Wardlaw, Murguia and Noonan, reaffirming the press’s First Amendment right of access to the public record of the courts.
“Open government has been a hallmark of our democracy since our nation’s founding,” said the 2014 opinion written by Wardlaw. “The news media’s right of access to judicial proceedings is essential not only to its own free expression, but also to the public’s. It is thus well-established that the right of access to public records and proceedings is ‘necessary to the enjoyment’ of the right to free speech.”
Despite that ruling, Real again dismissed the action by Courthouse News last fall, which led to Tuesday’s Ninth Circuit reversal and reassignment.
The Ventura clerk is represented by Robert Naeve with Jones Day who has handled a number of cases on behalf of the central administration of the California courts. The controversial bureaucracy has been repeatedly criticized by the state auditor and legislators over spending and policy decisions.
Courthouse News is represented by Roger Myers, Rachel Matteo-Boehm, Jonathan Fetterly and Leila Knox with Bryan Cave.
“The fundamental issue at stake is prompt access to information about new civil actions which many other courts around the county have no problems providing,” said Matteo-Boehm. “We are astounded the Ventura Superior has chosen to fight this litigation for almost four years and incur who knows how much in the way of legal fees to fight a practice that is common place in other courts.”
In pursuing the case, Courthouse News reporters pointed out that the standard routine for a journalist on the court beat is to check new filings at the end of the day. Most big courts in the nation, including the same federal court where Real sits in Los Angeles, have for decades allowed journalists to review the new filings at the end of the day on the day they are filed.
“Providing same-day access is a simple thing, courts do it all the time,” said Matteo-Boehm. “This isn’t that hard. All Courthouse News wants to do is see less than ten civil complaints per day that are sitting right there. This should not require four years of litigation.”
Because the issue at stake is a traditional right of access held by journalists, The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and 25 media organizations joined in challenging Real’s dismissal of the Courthouse News action.
The groups joining in the appeal include The Associated Press, Bloomberg L.P., Dow Jones & Company, E.W. Scripps Company, Gannett Company, Hearst Corporation, the Los Angeles Times, McClatchy Company, The New York Times, The New Yorker, News Corporation and Seattle Times Company.
“Having access to complaints is an important component of reporting on the legal system and the judicial branch,” said the amicus brief by the news organizations. “Civil complaints are most newsworthy the day they are filed, and, accordingly, the media is most likely to report on lawsuits of public interest and concern at that time.
After Tuesday’s reversal, the case returns to the federal court in Los Angeles to be reassigned to a different judge and follow the course started four years ago, with Courthouse News asking for an order requiring that the Ventura clerk provide the press with same-day access to the new actions.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/06/24/first-amendment-case-against-ventura-clerk-reinstated-by-circuit.htm
Long live the First Amendment. And long live the ACJ.
unionman575
June 24, 2015
And long live Wendy.
😉
Wendy Darling
June 24, 2015
🙂
wearyant
June 25, 2015
First Amendment Case Against Ventura Clerk Reinstated by Circuit
GOOD! Nice to have some good news. Thanks for posting, Wendy. That hayseed mentality by Ventura’s sycophant Planet is not helping the courts there or the tax paying public. Not to mention our news people.
wearyant
June 25, 2015
just a little good news today … JManuelReal, get a grip!
courtflea
June 25, 2015
Judge Real has been a disgrace to the judiciary for years. He needs to retire.
Wendy Darling
June 25, 2015
Truth, Flea.
Long live the ACJ.
Employee1
June 26, 2015
For those of you who don’t believe that courts should be allowed to privatize court services without ensuring any savings or that it’s in the public interest (think Placer who privatized court reporter services and then found out they actually have to pay the private reporters’ pensions, ended up having to pay two years of back pension payments, paying increased costs for transcripts, and with fewer cases actually being reported on) – SB 682 (Leno) is moving through the legislative process and the AOC appears to be running scared. The bill allows courts discretion on contracting practices but they just need to meet the same protocols as the state does when it privatizes services. See Judge So’ comments below:
Judge Ken So, Policy Coordination and Liaison Committee:
“We are still concerned about the contracting out bill. That Bill has passed the Senate and is now winding its way through the assembly.
Many of you will be asked to make calls and contact your legislative members. That is still out there.
We do have a strategic way of going about this. But we’re going to ask for your help because we know and we are afraid that the contracting out bill may have an adverse effect on the local trial courts budgets.”
If you think good government, accountability and transparency is important make calls or send letters to your Assembly Members in support of SB 682. The AOC is again using hyperbole and exaggeration to try and avoid any accountability. Shocking!
Judicial Council Watcher
June 26, 2015
It’s near impossible to collect gifts and kickbacks from employees. The judicial council and the balance of the branch is a self-policing organization without police, so it’s rather effortless to collect gifts, kickbacks, free remodeling jobs etc, etc from privatized contractors providing services that employees previously provided.
Sure, they have one of those worthless rules of court saying you can’t do it but there’s no one enforcing those rules or holding anyone accountable. And when the cat is away, the judicial council mice will play.
Lando
June 27, 2015
Great to hear from one of the ultimate insiders, J So who defended CCMS in the face of overwhelming evidence that it didn’t work in his own court. Maybe that is why he seems to have a permanent chair installed in the William C. Vickrey Conference Center along with J Hull and J Miller. Of course any proposed legislation that takes power from the insiders will always meet with their opposition. I am getting more interested in the various proposals to create alternative courts . I have long believed Family Law and Traffic court should be housed in an alternative administrative court that would move more quickly and economically. Civil issues could be moved to a private court system that the litigants could pay for.. Best of all these type courts could be removed from the oversight of 455 Golden Gate rendering the anti democratic overlords and insiders almost entirely irrelevant. How great would that be?
Judicial Council Watcher
June 27, 2015
Exactly the kind of person you can trust with contracting. His fine examples include a ten year billion plus dollar odyssey called CCMS and a courthouse in Long Beach that will cost billions and a contract that pretty much permits the vendor to charge whatever they like.
Today the AOC contracts out all the IT services on behalf of the trial courts. With virtualization and improved telecom capabilities both the courts and the AOC have the ability to bring it all in house at a lower cost.
Virtually every large private company that has contracted out all of their IT services are so dissatisfied with the level and expense of these services that they’ve brought them back in-house. Many courts and the AOC themselves have the ability of providing these services with a tiny increase in support personnel if they’re willing to take ownership and be accountable.
The fine example of contracting out court reporters in Placer county at a substantially higher cost and getting a lower level of service for it serves as another fine example.
Last but not least is the facilities maintenance and construction programs where courthouses are built and the courts can’t afford to occupy them. With the few precious dollars available to provide trial court maintenance, court employees all over the state were laid off and that money has been wasted on astronomically expensive, overpriced projects.
A fine example here would be the courtroom that Jon Wintermeyer built out for a little over 200 grand in Contra Costa vs. the other half of the room that was similarly converted at more than three times the cost.
One of the few items that the AOC should have leveraged but chose instead to completely abandon is a common platform for building management systems. Instead of running the courts on a common platform to save precious tax dollars, they’ve chosen to install different platforms in every new court and every remodeling job driving up all future costs astronomically and wasting tens of millions of dollars a year on utility costs.
Similarly, proposals for powering the courts with cheap, renewable energy such as solar array covered parking lots and buildings have been removed from most every new courthouse proposal.
Technology has the promise of delivering innovative solutions that could easily win public support if there is a will to change the way our courts operate today. We don’t need courthouses with expensive holding cells, security and a dozen clerk windows. What we need to be doing is opening up virtual court windows. The same clerks that man the real windows can man the virtual windows and this is not lost on this governor or legislature.
JCW fully supports Senate Bill 682 because court employees have a higher incentive to provide quality affordable services than overpriced contractors do and the above serves as a small set of countless examples. We would recommend that you call and write your representatives as well so you as court employees can begin to unravel this mess.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/sen/sb_0651-0700/sb_682_bill_20150227_introduced.html
The obvious reason that we support this bill is because of the examples above that have been mostly provided under Kenneth So’s fine leadership as one of the consummate re-appointed insiders that has been appointed to lead this branch of government – straight into the poorhouse.
unionman575
June 27, 2015
‘It’s all about the money:’ Iraq War veteran ends up homeless after $25 traffic ticket spirals to $4,000
• Casey Campbell, an Iraq War veteran, ended up homeless after a $25 traffic ticket grew into thousands due to various fees
• Critics are calling California’s traffic citation system a money-making scam that targets minorities and low-income residents
• The state’s Judicial Council approved a new rule allowing drivers to appear in court to challenge their ticket without having to pay a fine first
• Governor Jerry Brown called the traffic court system a ‘hellhole of desperation’ for the poor
Critics are calling California’s traffic citation system a money-making scam that targets the poor and places inappropriate fees on basic penalties from a citation.
Four million California residents — nearly 20 percent of the state’s adult population — currently have a suspended license because they failed to pay a traffic ticket, FOX News reports.
That’s what happened to Casey Campbell, who served two tours in Iraq. He told FOX that his $25 ticket snowballed into thousands, leaving the veteran without a license, a car, or a way to make a living.
Campbell said he got a $25 traffic ticket for driving without a seat belt and no front plate. With assessments and surcharges, the ticket jumped to $300.
The ticket rose to $600 when the man was unable to pay in full and then to $819 when he missed a court date — up until earlier this month, drivers were required to pay a fine before they could appear in court to challenge their traffic tickets.
Campbell said the ticket snowballed and that, along with a second ticket, amounted to $4,000.
The unpaid ticket was turned over to a collections agency and Campbell’s driver’s license was suspended. His car was impounded when he tried to drive to work on a suspended license, he told FOX.
Unable to make a living, Campbell ended up homeless.
‘It’s all about the money,’ he told the station. ‘That’s the only way I can put it. It’s all about the money.’
The Monterey Herald reports that a speeding ticket of $100 could easily end up costing a motorist as much as $500 after fees and penalties for failing to pay
.
Others told FOX of their experience with one man explaining how an unpaid ticket for $2,500 led to an arrest warrant.
Another, Adolf Barley said, as he waited among dozens of others to pay fines outside of the Los Angeles Municipal Courthouse, that he had a ticket reach $5,000 after he was unable to pay.
‘Once you lose your job, and you don’t have a license, you’re kind of screwed. It’s a huge problem. The state has been using traffic fees for far too long as a way to fund the system of justice here in California.’
The state is now taking steps to fix the problem.
Earlier this month, California’s Judicial Council unanimously approved a new rule that allows drivers to challenge their traffic tickets without paying a fine first, according to the San Jose Mercury News.
Gov. Jerry Brown called the state’s traffic court system a ‘hellhole of desperation’ for the poor.
In May, he proposed an 18-month amnesty program to bring relief to minorities and low-income residents that lawmakers say the state’s justice system is profiting from.
The program is expected to begin Oct. 1, the Mercury News reports.
Under the plan, motorists with minor infractions would pay half of what they owe and fees — which courts have grown reliant on as a result of budget cuts during the recession — would be cut from $300 to $50.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3141535/It-s-money-California-motorists-outraged-forced-pay-fines-800-25-ticket-critics-say-state-s-traffic-money-making-scam-targeting-poor.html#ixzz3eHwsd1lC
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
wearyant
June 27, 2015
Thanks for the excellent forum, JCW. Great posts, all. Lando tends to reinvigorate when he visits. So the news of the crystal palace exploits reach all the way to the UK? Slow news day there? Or are our classy creeps really that infamous. LOL!
There’s an infamous street in our neighborhood where prostitution, drugs, thefts, assaults, gang crime occurs. So the city leaders in all their wisdom change the street name to a nice, lovely sounding street name. That doesn’t change the underlying problem. We are all learning the new name is attached to the same old garbage. Enjoying your new image, thugs formerly known as the AOC, now known as the judicial council staff?