Few of us have the time or the attention span to follow the machinations of the Judicial Council’s various advisory bodies. Judging by the press releases that clutter our email inboxes, many of these committees simply approve staff recommendations and pass out awards. But the latest developments at the Trial Court Budget Advisory Committee (TCBAC)—the Council’s largest, most representative, and most transparent advisory body—do deserve our serious attention, as they could have a profound effect on our local court budgets.
Last May, the Judicial Council tried to strip the TCBAC of its authority to allocate money to the trial courts from their main funding sources. The Council planned to transfer that authority to the insular and secretive Committee on Accountability and Efficiency (A&E). Our message to Justice Miller opposing the move is reprinted below.
The Alliance was not alone in speaking out against this attempt to demote the TCBAC. Among the most vocal opponents of the proposal were key members of the TCBAC itself, including its chairperson, Judge Laurie Earl of Sacramento. Judge Earl wrote to Justice Miller opposing the proposed change; we attach a copy of her message as a PDF file. Committee member Judge Dodie Harmon from San Luis Obispo also took a stand by moving that the committee formally oppose the Council’s plan. In the face of this forceful opposition, AOC Director Martin Hoshino soon announced that the proposal had been scrapped.
But the story didn’t end there. Not long after Judge Earl sent her message to Justice Miller, she was removed from her position as TCBAC chair. Judge Harmon and Contra Costa County Superior Court CEO Stephen Nash—who, along with Judge Earl had also raised questions about the Council’s IT budget after the demise of CCMS—were thanked and excused from the committee after just one year. Judge Harmon was replaced with longtime CCMS supporter, Judge James Herman, who has served on at least four other Judicial Council advisory committees over the last six years. Other committee members who did not speak out against the Council’s TCBAC proposal or question the IT budget received extended terms, including one member who has already been on the committee for six years. So much for new faces and fresh perspectives.
With the purge of the TCBAC as a backdrop, we note that the Council was presented with a report at its meeting last Tuesday—Item N on its agenda—regarding recommendations from the TCBAC to shift various court expenses currently borne by the Trial Court Improvement and Modernization Fund (IMF) to the Judicial Council’s general fund. Not one of these recommendations was adopted by the Council, even though the IMF is operating at a deficit and most likely can’t fund these ongoing expenses for much longer. The AOC contends that the trial courts can continue to bear these costs until the Council finishes its ongoing efforts at re-evaluating its operations, a process which will take another 18 months.
We wonder whether the Council intends to take seriously the recommendations of what was once its most representative committee. Trial court trust funds that have been drained by the Council’s past mistakes continue to shrivel while the Council reviews its operations on its own timeline. We’re not sure our courts can survive the wait.
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
(Link)Invitation to Comment.SP15-03 (1)
nettiemarieblanco
November 4, 2015
Once again, thank you for keeping those of us who truly care informed. You are awesome!
Sent from my iPhone
>
unionman575
November 4, 2015
Thanks ACJ and JCW.
😉
sharonkramer
November 4, 2015
“The Council planned to transfer that authority to the insular and secretive Committee on Accountability and Efficiency (A&E)”
If the make-up of THIS committee was changed, it could go a long way to restoring accountability, efficiency and ethics in the branch.
There’s a joker on there who claims the trial court judges are clowns — leaving us all stuck with the legacy of Team George.
Wendy Darling
November 4, 2015
“We wonder whether the Council intends to take seriously the recommendations of what was once its most representative committee.”
Answer: No. Just No. Not now, not ever. No.
So not surprised by this.
Mirror, mirror
On the wall,
Who is the biggest hypocrite
Of them all?
Why, you, Queen Feckless.
By every measure
In all the realm,
You are, and remain, by far
The biggest hypocrite
Of them all.
You just can’t make this stuff up. Really.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
November 5, 2015
SALARY RANGE: $14,834 – $16,514 per month
Job Title: Chief Administrative Officer
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
unionman575
November 5, 2015
https://www.linkedin.com/jobs2/view/81819362?trk=jserp_job_details_text
THE SELECTION PROCESS
😉
This is a confidential recruitment and will be handled accordingly throughout the various stages of the process. Candidates should be aware that references will not be contacted until mutual interest has been established. Candidates are encouraged to apply immediately, with the first review of resumes to begin following the closing date of November 21, 2015. This recruitment is considered open until filled. Electronic submittals are strongly preferred and should be submitted to the Judicial Council Human Resources offices at felizia.nava-kardon@jud.ca.gov. Submissions should include a compelling cover letter, comprehensive resume, salary history and professional references.
HR Disclaimer: Classification and Compensation Study
😉
In an attempt to remain an employer of choice, we consistently review our practices, policies, and procedures to ensure we are current and comparable with other similar employers. To that effort, the Judicial Council recently completed a top to bottom classification and compensation study through a third party vendor, Fox Lawson and Associates.
A classification and compensation study is primarily designed to focus on the internal and external equity of both the structure by which employees are compensated and the way positions relate and compare to one another across the organization. The Study has resulted in some changes to employee’s job titles, duties, FLSA status and salary. These changes will be implemented on January 1, 2016.
Based on the results of the Classification and Compensation Study, this position has been allocated to the new Chief Officer Zone 1 classification, with a salary range of $12,328.00 – $18,492.00. To ensure all candidates are able to make a well-informed decision about employment with the Judicial Council, we are informing all potential new hires of this study during the recruitment phase so that if you are selected as the successful candidate, you are fully aware of the changes to this position, effective January 1, 2016.
Therefore, the successful candidate hired for this recruitment would be reclassified on January 1, 2016 to the Chief Officer Zone 1 classification.
😉
The Judicial Council of California is an Equal Opportunity Employer.
Judicial Council Watcher
November 5, 2015
Another reorg, another raise for senior management. We did say that would happen well before the classification and compensation study was released.
unionman575
November 5, 2015
The rich get richer and the rest are screwed.
katy
November 5, 2015
“The rich get richer and the rest are screwed” Peshaw you say! Only if you let them. There are severe ethics problems in the CA judicial branch, with some key players in dire need of being prosecuted for criminal acts. I’m speaking on the subject at a medico-legal conference next week.
Wendy Darling
November 6, 2015
Today’s installment of Tani’s Follies. Published late today, Friday, November 6, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
CA Court Admin To Close LA Office But Move to Sacramento Rejected
By MARIA DINZEO
(CN) – In the wake of a state audit criticizing its spending, California’s statewide court bureaucracy plans to shut down its Southern California offices in 2017, but rejected moving the bureaucracy’s headquarters to Sacramento.
Judicial Council staff director Martin Hoshino sent an email to employees Friday, saying that closure of the Burbank office outside Los Angeles will save $10-$12 million over ten years.
The staff in that office has been reduced, Hoshino said, so paying for the space no longer makes sense. But, addressing another bone of contention, he said the headquarters of the bureaucracy formerly called the Administrative Office of the Courts, and now simply the staff of the Judicial Council, will remain headquartered in the heart of downtown San Francisco, next to the federal courthouse.
Hoshino’s announcement followed a January audit that questioned spending on office space, and suggested that the bureaucracy look into moving its San Francisco headquarters to Sacramento, the seat of state government. San Francisco real estate is the most expensive in California.
The staff director’s given reasons for closing the Southern California office, argued Judge Maryanne Gilliard, are simply a reflection of the decision by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye to disregard the auditor’s recommendation and keep the administrative offices in San Francisco. Gilliard is a board member for the Alliance of California Judges, a longstanding critic of wasteful spending and questionable policy judgments by the court bureaucracy.
“Any justification is meaningless,” said a statement from the Alliance. “This was a result-oriented exercise once the chief justice indicated her opposition to any move.”
State Auditor Elaine Howle’s January audit highlighted the amounts spent on excess office space and other spending issues including executive perks, a big fleet of cars and trucks, and high salaries. Hoshino, who took over the director’s job a few months before the audit’s publication, moved quickly to trim the fleet of 66 cars and trucks, and eliminate remaining lavish pension plans for top executives.
In many ways the audit echoed the findings of the Strategic Evaluation Committee, a group of judges appointed by Cantil-Sakauye in 2011 to make sure that the staff was fulfilling its intended purpose of serving the courts without wasting funds.
Like Howle’s audit, the SEC report recommended downsizing the staff’s offices and moving to cheaper space in Sacramento.
Hoshino took his time with Howle’s recommendation, employing a consulting firm to perform a cost-benefit analysis of the move. In his email, Hoshino said, “None of these decisions were made lightly.”
“Given the potential impact on our employees’ lives as well as on our organization, we required a comprehensive and rigorous analysis,” Hoshino said, adding that the firm looked at multiple scenarios, including the payoff of a lease revenue bond at its San Francisco office.
“Looking purely at the fiscal data, potential cost-savings of approximately $10-12 million may be realized over the 10-year period from the consolidation and relocation. The San Francisco location will see the most significant rent savings when the current lease revenue bond is fully paid off in 2021,” Hoshino said.
Besides, he noted, keeping the San Francisco office “preserves critical institutional knowledge and maintains service continuity for our customers and clients statewide.”
Hoshino’s email also said the staff’s lobbying arm will permanently relocate to Sacramento from San Francisco by August 2017.
The consulting firm’s report should be made public within ten days, Hoshino said. But the Judicial Council still must accept its findings in order for them to be adopted.
The Alliance, on the other hand, suggested that Hoshino’s decision to keep the headquarters in San Francisco be rejected. The judges’ group has also argued that the governing Judicial Council would make better decisions if its members were elected by California’s judges rather than appointed by the chief justice.
“The recommendation to relocate to Sacramento from the State Auditor and the Chief Justice’s own Strategic Evaluation Committee should be implemented, with cost savings redirected to the local courts,” the Alliance judges said in a statement.
“We call upon the Judicial Council to reject the position of the AOC and instead follow the well reasoned and objective opinions contained within the reports of the State Auditor and SEC committee. A democratically elected Judicial Council is needed if for no reason other than to safeguard the public’s funding of its judicial system.”
http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/11/06/ca-court-admin-to-close-la-office-but-move-to-sacramento-rejected.htm
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
November 7, 2015
AS ALWAYS, still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
wearyant
November 7, 2015
“Besides, he noted, keeping the San Francisco office ‘preserves critical institutional knowledge and maintains service continuity for our customers and clients statewide.’”
HAW HAW! Yeah, pull the other one. And when in doubt and arguing from a weak position, resort to bureaucrat-speak. Little Tani digs San Fran so San Fran it is.
Tani and her George thugs cry bitterly over all these mean audits, but there’s always tax dollars for another one to reach their honed conclusions. Who is the consulting firm this time?
Still serving themselves at the rest of our expense. Thank goodness for Howle, the ACJ and JCW.
unionman575
November 7, 2015
Still living large at the JC while the Trial Courts get this:
http://www.courts.ca.gov/12973.htm
Delilah
November 7, 2015
Mono County Superior Court begs for funds
by Mike Bodine in News — 6 Nov, 2015
http://thesheetnews.com/2015/11/06/mono-county-superior-court-begs-for-funds/
unionman575
November 7, 2015
http://www.courts.ca.gov/pclc.htm
http://www.courts.ca.gov/tcbac.htm
Judicial Council Watcher
November 9, 2015
A little bird whispered to us:
Apparently when Mr. Hoshino announced the closure of the Burbank office, he did so by renting a meeting room next door at the Burbank Airport Mariott hotel next door to hold his meeting for the 20 or so people working in Burbank instead of holding it in the office. Although the office will close in 2017, he indicated that people should not wait to find other employment elsewhere.
Oddly that same little bird disclosed something else we would love to confirm. The little bird implied that Hoshino’s office is not in the executive offices of the AOC on the 5th floor but is in a separate high rent facility overlooking union square…,…
Oh, the irony – but it does not end there. Mr. Hoshino will allege that too much institutional knowledge will be lost by moving AOC offices from San Francisco to Sacramento so it will never happen.
unionman575
November 10, 2015
http://www.loopnet.com/locations/judicial-council-of-california,-the/listings/4/
Judicial Council Of California, The has been a past or current tenant within the buildings involved in these sale and lease transactions….
unionman575
November 10, 2015
And more here:
http://www.loopnet.com/locations/judicial-council-of-california,-the/properties/5/
unionman575
November 10, 2015
http://www.manta.com/mb_54_F30D3_24G/courts/san_francisco_ca?pg=2
Maxrebo5
November 9, 2015
Here is the story from CourthouseNews:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/11/06/ca-court-admin-to-close-la-office-but-move-to-sacramento-rejected.htm
anonymous
November 10, 2015
Since when did the AOC start renting the 18th floor of 50 Fremont Center? That’s some damn expensive real estate.
unionman575
November 10, 2015
Yep!
unionman575
November 11, 2015
http://www.manta.com/c/mb0wwjg/the-judicial-council-of-california
The Judicial Council Of California
Habeas Corpus Resource Center
50 Fremont St # 1800
San Francisco, CA 94105
wearyant
November 11, 2015
The reprobates live by the old adage, “don’t ask permission, if caught simply apologize later.” It has worked well for the thugs in the past so “if it ain’t broke, why fix it?”
They are still happily serving themselves at the expense of the beleaguered taxpayers. The California citizens continue to lose big-time. So sad and too bad for all the trial courts as far as the JC and its “staff” are concerned.
Wendy Darling
November 11, 2015
As has been repeatedly stated by administration and senior management at 455 Golden Gate Avenue: “It’s better to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission.” Usually in conjunction with “We can do whatever we want. We’re not answerable to anyone.”
Long live the ACJ.
katy
November 12, 2015
New Center for Public Integrity Survey. California gets an F for judicial accountability.
http://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/11/09/18342/california-gets-c-grade-2015-state-integrity-investigation
unionman575
November 12, 2015
http://www.courts.ca.gov/itac.htm
Information Technology Advisory Committee
November 16, 2015 ITAC Action by Email
http://www.courts.ca.gov/itac.htm
itac@jud.ca.gov
In accordance with California Rules of Court, rule 10.75(o)(1)(B), public notice is hereby given that the Information Technology Advisory Committee proposes to act by email between meetings on Monday, November 16, at 4:00 p.m. The Chair has concluded that prompt action is needed. A copy of the agenda for the meeting and a copy of the proposed action are available on the advisory body web page on the California Courts website listed above.
Written Comment
In accordance with California Rules of Court, rule 10.75(o)(2), written comments pertaining to the proposed action may be submitted before the Information Technology Advisory Committee acts on the proposal. For this specific meeting, comments should be e-mailed to itac@jud.ca.gov or delivered to 455 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102, attention: Jackie Woods. Only written comments received by Friday, November 13, 2015, at 4:00 p.m. will be provided to advisory body members.
Posted on: November 12, 2015
katy
November 13, 2015
Dear All,
For $99 you can watch me live at 3 o’clock this Saturday explaining WHY the California Judicial Branch deserves the “F” given to them by the Center for Public Integrity. I feel certain that you will recognize some of the names in my presentation. 🙂
http://survivingmold.cleeng.com/state-of-the-art-in-mold-wet-buildings-cirs-sponsored-by-crbai/E651731905_US
Sharon Kramer
Judicial Council Watcher
November 14, 2015
Curious: How many people paid $99.00 to watch you live?
katy
November 15, 2015
I don’t know how many watched it televised. Will ask tomorrow.
I got a standing ovation of a crowd of about 150. I think they paid something like $1200 to attend the three day conference in person.
The gist of it is here: https://katysexposure.wordpress.com/nov-15-american-college-of-medical-toxicology-choose-wisely-to-sunset-your-mold-statement/
unionman575
November 16, 2015
http://www.progress.org/article/taxation-by-citation
sharonkramer
November 16, 2015
JCW, the answer is: a little over 300 paid to watch it televised and about 150 were there in person.
Want me to find out how its done for $99 p/head? I’d pay that much to see Ca court employees tell what they know of why the judicial branch got an “F” for accountability.