On the first day of Christmas the JC gave to me, a data breach because of IT
On the second day of Christmas the JC gave to me, two more failed audits and a data breach because of IT
On the 3rd day of Christmas the JC gave to me, three new executives, two more failed audits and a data breach because of IT.
On the 4th day of Christmas the JC gave to me, four power grabs, three new executives, two more failed audits and a data breach because of IT.
On the 5th day of Christmas the JC gave to me, 5 golden parachutes, four power grabs, three new executives, two more failed audits and a data breach because of IT.
On the 6th day of Christmas the JC gave to me, 6 council lemmings, 5 golden parachutes, four power grabs, three new executives, two more failed audits and a data breach because of IT.
On the 7th day of Christmas the JC gave to me, 7 excuses for not paying juvenile dependency, 6 council lemmings, 5 golden parachutes, four power grabs, three new executives, two more failed audits and a data breach because if IT.
On the 8th day of christmas the JC gave to me, 8 overpriced courthouses, 7 excuses for not paying juvenile dependency, 6 council lemmings, 5 golden parachutes, four power grabs, three new executives, two more failed audits and a data breach because of IT.
On the 9th day of christmas the JC gave to me, 9 million recovered from an unlicensed contractor, 8 overpriced courthouses, 7 excuses for not paying juvenile dependency, 6 council lemmings, 5 golden parachutes, 4 power grabs, 3 new executives, two more failed audits and a data breach because of IT.
On the 10th day of Christmas the JC gave to me, 10 employee pink slips, 9 million recovered from an unlicensed contractor, 8 overpriced courthouses, 7 excuses for not paying juvenile dependency, 6 council lemmings, 5 golden parachutes, 4 power grabs, 3 new executives, two more failed audits and a data breach because of IT.
On the 11th day of Christmas the JC gave to me, 11 job vacancy announcements, 10 employee pink slips, 9 million recovered from an unlicensed contractor, 8 overpriced courthouses, 7 excuses for not paying juvenile dependency, 6 council lemmings, 5 golden parachutes, 4 power grabs, 3 new executives, two more failed audits and a data breach because of IT.
On the 12th day of Christmas the JC gave to me, 12 emails from courtcall, 11 job vacancy announcements, 10 employee pink slips, 9 million recovered from an unlicensed contractor, 8 overpriced courthouses, 7 excuses for not paying juvenile dependency, 6 council lemmings, 5 golden parachutes, 4 power grabs, 3 new executives, two more failed audits and a data breach because of IT.
unionman575
December 12, 2015
Happy Holidays!
😉
Judicial Council Watcher
December 12, 2015
You might be scratching your head regarding item 7. We’ve received emails from different parties that have expressed frustration over the AOC’s slow pay of juvenile dependency attorneys that, statewide, have not been paid since October. When these attorneys contact the AOC they are consistently told that the check is in the mail and it will arrive in 5 days.
wearyant
December 12, 2015
LOL! Don’t expect any remuneration until after the holiday celebrations by the “staff.” 🎄
Wendy Darling
December 12, 2015
“The check’s in the mail.”
“I’ll still respect you in the morning.”
Not.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
wearyant
December 12, 2015
Yay, UMan! Yes, 12 “presents” that just keep “giving” all year round. 💕 🤑 You should take it to the stage, m’man. 👍
Wendy Darling
December 12, 2015
“And a Chief Justice who is still the biggest liar and hypocrite of them all.”
Long live the ACJ.
Courtchick
December 13, 2015
Hahaha, funny stuff!
unionman575
December 15, 2015
Monday, December 14, 2015Last Update: 3:45 PM PT
Judicial Council Tosses Humboldt a Life Line
By MARIA DINZEO
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – Humboldt Superior Court will get a $110,000 loan to help cover the cost of trying 24 homicide cases filed this year in Humboldt County.
California’s Judicial Council voted at its year-end meeting to give the court the money it needs to get through the unanticipated volume of murder trials.
“I think it definitely shows a meeting of the unexpected and unanticipated emergency circumstances,” said council member Judge David Buckley of Los Angeles.
Humboldt’s head clerk Kim Bartleson told the council by phone that the court was looking at a case load of 20 homicide filings as of Nov. 3, 2015, but since then they’d had two or three more. Eighteen of those cases are currently headed to trial.
According to a funding request filed with the council, the county usually sees about eleven homicides a year. To meet the demand, the court consolidated non-trial hearings into fewer courtrooms, and judges are overseeing two trials a day simultaneously, in the morning and afternoon.
Bartleson said the county has given the court some additional space it was originally planning on leasing. “So we will have a place for non-jury, non-security-issue cases to move and free up some courtrooms,” she said.
The meeting was the first ever to be videocast online.
Earlier in the day, the council also heard a report from Judicial Council staff director Martin Hoshino, who recently decided to close the staff’s regional office in Burbank, outside Los Angeles.
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 move is also in response to findings by the Strategic Evaluation Committee, a group of judges appointed by California Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye in 2011 to make sure that the staff, then called the Administrative Office of the Courts, was fulfilling its intended purpose of serving the courts without wasting funds.
Judge Charles Wachob, who chaired the committee, said Hoshino’s decision squared with what the committee had in mind. “We are on track in terms of meeting the directives of the council adopted as a result of the committee recommendations,” Wachob said in an address to the council. The group had suggested that the Burbank lease be re-evaluated, and that the AOC should consider relocating its main offices based on a cost-benefit analysis.
Hoshino briefly shared the results of that 424-page analysis, discreetly posted on the council’s website almost two weeks before the meeting. He added that he planned to go into more detail at the next meeting in February.
The study done by consultant JBS Associates looked at six scenarios involving various configurations of the staff’s offices in Burbank, San Francisco and Sacramento. Hoshino said that while some appeared to be more immediately cost-effective than others, he was thinking long-term when he decided to recommend the council close Burbank but keep San Francisco open.
“When you start to move things around you think you’re solving one problem by moving into a space at a lower cost but you could be creating a liability on the other side, because you still have an obligation to be paying off the rent in the facility that you are leaving,” he said.
“I selected the scenario that I felt gave us some fiscal savings and in addition to that,
though, protected service levels for the courts that we support as well as the public. I understand some people just want to look at the fiscal parts of it but to me this is an operations and business decision and it is the most responsible decision in my judgment.”
Not all were pleased with the decision.
After the study’s release the Alliance of California Judges, a longstanding critic of wasteful spending and questionable policy judgments by the court bureaucracy, said in an email, “It’s obvious and commonly understood that it’s cheaper to do business in Sacramento than in San Francisco. No 424-page report can dispute that fact. The alliance stands in solidarity with the strategic evaluation committee and the state auditor in calling for the central planners to relocate to Sacramento and apply all cost savings to our struggling local courts.
“That move should have been done four years ago and we should not have wasted unknown amounts of money on a staff engineered and result oriented report,” the alliance said.
😉
http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/12/14/judicial-council-tosses-humboldt-a-life-line.htm
wearyant
December 15, 2015
“… staff engineered and result oriented report.”
So well said. Thank you, ACJ. Again, thank you, Maria Dinzeo, for fine reporting.
unionman575
December 16, 2015
AKA bend over and touch your toes…
😉
Nathaniel Woodhull
December 17, 2015
As HRH-1 used to say to his minions…Bend over, I’ll drive.
I’m glad to see Humboldt County got the needed money that they deserved. I’m sure that it required their administration to swear allegiance to Tani and the rest of the members of her Follies. Funny how other trial courts were told by both HRH-1 and Vickrey during their tenure that there were no “emergency funds” available when an unforeseen catastrophic events hit their court. This, while we would see other “amenable” courts receiving emergency funding on a routine basis.
Everyone should obtain a free copy of and read, “Committed to Justice: The Rise of Judicial Administration in California”. This book was published by the AOC about 1999 and the Forward was written by HRH-1 and William Vickrey. At the time every judge in California received a complementary copy, I actually received two copies. It essentially sets forth the blue print for the takeover of the California Courts by HRH-1 and Vickrey. As noted in the biography for Larry L. Sipes, “Mr. Sipes brought to this book a personal interest that flowed from being acquainted with Chief Justice Ronald M. George and having been acquainted with his five immediate predecessors.” Larry Sipes was a former “Western Director” for the National Center for State Courts and was the inaugural “Scholar in Residence” at the AOC. (For those on the Judicial Council, that means he wrote the book on the taxpayer’s dime.) Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, editors-in-chief of “Pravda” and even Goebbels would have been very proud of this book. Despite the mounds of revisionist history contained within it, the book does lay out HRH-1’s plan for taking over the California judicial system.
Those unfamiliar with history are condemned to repeat it. (Attributed to either Edmund Burke in the 1700’s or George Santayana in the 1800’s.) Absolutely nothing has changed within the walls of the Crystal Palace since 1996. The takeover is now complete, a bloodless coup d’etat, save for those few of us that stood up to HRH-1 in the daylight and quietly suffered the consequences. The faces may have changed, but the underlying philosophy is still the same. Tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth. (Joseph Goebbels) Have the Executive Director commission a 424-page report, replete with plenty of “jibber-jabber” and you wind up with a mind-numbing bowl of mush in support of your position that no reasonable human could remotely comprehend. (I especially enjoyed reading several of the appendices that had nothin’ to do with nothin’.) How much did that cost the taxpayers of California (and at the expense of the trial courts)?
Good luck my friends! Safe in my secure remote location, I remain obediently yours….
Brigadier General Nathaniel Woodhull
unionman575
December 17, 2015
Committed to Justice: The Rise of Judicial Administration in California
http://www.courts.ca.gov/7798.htm
katy
December 17, 2015
Sound like Mr. Hoshino is saying the AOC has a long-term lease in SF that they can’t break.
“When you start to move things around you think you’re solving one problem by moving into a space at a lower cost but you could be creating a liability on the other side, because you still have an obligation to be paying off the rent in the facility that you are leaving,’ he said.”
How long is the lease on the SF location? What efforts (if any) have been made to negotiate an early lease-release date? Could the offices be sublet?
If no efforts have been made to examine ways to reduce costs associated with the SF lease, how does one know it is less expensive to stay in SF rather than move to Sacramento?
The “can’t break the lease” argument carries no weight w/o evidence to back it ip.
Delilah
December 17, 2015
SF Chronicle
Caltrans official for disabled access accused of taking bribes
By Peter Fimrite Updated 6:06 pm, Wednesday, December 16, 2015
The statewide coordinator of disability access work for the California Department of Transportation was arrested Wednesday on charges that he took bribes in exchange for ensuring that almost two dozen contracts were awarded.
Alex Morales III, 54, of Sacramento was arrested on bribery charges the state attorney general filed in Placer County Superior Court after Morales allegedly accepted illicit payments totaling at least $100,000 in connection with 21 Americans with Disabilities Act projects in California between 2011 and 2014.
The work generally involved making bridges and public walkways accessible to the handicapped.
“Accepting bribes in exchange for awarding public contracts is illegal and corrupt, and violates the public’s trust in government,” said Attorney General Kamala Harris in a prepared statement after announcing the arrest. “My office will continue to hold this individual — and others like him — accountable for their crimes.”
Morales allegedly took cash bribes ranging from $1,800 to $12,000 and, in one case, accepted a year-old sports utility vehicle as payment for influencing the awarding of ADA contract work, according to the felony complaint. He could not be reached for comment Wednesday.
The arrest warrant, served Wednesday in Placer County, was the culmination of a nine-month sting by special agents from the California Department of Justice’s Bureau of Investigation who acted on a tip. Four search warrants were also issued Wednesday, including some at state office buildings, the attorney general’s office said.
The bribes were presented in monthly cash payments directly from individuals or company representatives, the complaint said. The criminal activity occurred in Placer and Sacramento counties, according to the warrant.
The contractors were not identified. Kristin Ford, deputy communications director for the attorney general’s office, would not say whether the people who allegedly offered the bribes or anyone else were being pursued.
“The investigation is still ongoing,” Ford said. “I can’t provide more detailed information about the investigation at this time or about the specifics of the projects due to the nature of our ongoing investigation.”
Caltrans officials fully cooperated with the investigation.
“We have a set of values that drive Caltrans and this behavior is not consistent with those values,” said Malcolm Dougherty, the director of Caltrans. “If an employee goes outside of those values, they don’t have a place in this department.”
Morales remains free after posting $50,000 bail.
Lando
December 20, 2015
What happened to the SEC report ? Has it been buried somewhere in the dark hallways of 455 Golden Gate? And the recommendations of the State Auditor? They must also have been lost with the minutes of the Judicial Council meeting when CCMS was approved. Isn’t it also fascinating that every time the insiders pay for a ” consultants” report that the results come out just as they want. The promise that things would be reformed when Hoshino arrived proved to be illusory long ago. His support for keeping the Crystal Palace in San Francisco strains whatever credibility he had left. Hoshino lives up to the operating theme at 455 Golden Gate which should be craved into the cherry wooded or crystal glass appointments in the Malcom Lucas Conference Room : ” We never failed to fail because it’s the easiest thing to do” .
unionman575
December 20, 2015
I think the SEC report and assorted other JC doc’s went here:
wearyant
December 21, 2015
To TheOBT: A very merry Christmas, happy Channukah, glorious holiday season! Hope I covered them all. Continually miss your comments and insights (as I miss the falling snow this holiday season, hint-hint) 😃 Your fan base is still here. Just sayin’.
Long live the ACJ.
Lando
December 23, 2015
Another year with no reform of a dictatorship that runs the largest judicial branch in the world. As a result the trial courts still suffer with huge layoffs of staff, traffic courts clogged into few facilities, and innovation remains stalled. In stark contrast at the Crystal Palace nothing has changed.HRH-2 is out of touch and still wastes incredible taxpayer dollars with her imperial excesses, Her minion Hoshino allowed an insider to abuse confidential e-mail and worse yet wants to waste millions of taxpayer dollars on preserving 455 Golden Gate.. As the year came to a close we got to be introduced to a new arrogant insider, J. Humes who claimed any questioning of a proposal for the insiders to hire all court employees statewide was somehow misplaced.Really ? Maybe the arrogant Humes should spend a month or two in the trial courts to see how the real world works. Thanks wearyant for your nice comments about OBT. He like the General escaped this mess and is doing well in a remote and secure location. To everyone here who stands for reformation of our once proud branch of government let’s hope for meaningful change in 2016. Maybe, just maybe HRH-2 will resign and Governor Brown will appoint one of his innovative and thoughtful Justices to replace her. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to JCW and all the great people who post here.
wearyant
December 26, 2015
Lando, the info on the great gentleman, TheOBT, is much appreciated! Thanks for taking the time to give the update. May all those ensconced in your various foxholes enjoy the season and have an even better new year.
katy
December 24, 2015
Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays. May the coming year bring great honesty to U.S. environmental public health and workcomp policies, and to our courts. Thanks for all you do!
Sharon Kramer
https://katysexposure.wordpress.com/2015/12/24/california-choose-wisely-to-stop-science-frauds-in-policy-over-mold-illnesses/
Sherrybaby
December 28, 2015
I cant believe someone hasnt posted about all of the directors being given pay increases after the class and comp study. Everyone below them took reductions which, of course, is great since all senior manager, manager, and supervisor levels were grossly overpaid. However, there was talk and emails from Curt Soderlund several months back regarding “heated discussions” with the Fox Lawson on disagreements for salaries of a certain class. Well come to find out they were fighting over their own salaries. How convenient! SEC report clearly stated ALL management levels were overpaid. These clowns now make almost as much as the governor!
Wendy Darling
December 29, 2015
Actually, quite a number of them are paid more than the governor. And not a single one of them are worth it.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
Judicial Council Watcher
December 29, 2015
The leadership was signing the nearly million dollar check. You don’t believe that they would sign a million dollar check if it meant they were getting a pay cut do you? This is precisely why the study should not have been commissioned by the AOC.
The fact of the matter is that the AOC has never had a reorg without a bump in pay for directors and it usually includes managers and above and we did report on the extra bump they got. Yes, many make more than Governor Brown, but so do some court execs.
Looking over from the other two branches what they see is a bunch of directors and court execs taking care of themselves while closing courts and courtrooms.
Wendy Darling
December 29, 2015
“Looking over from the other two branches what they see is a bunch of directors and court execs taking care of themselves while closing courts and courtrooms.”
And no one – absolutely no one – from the other two branches will do anything about that. Absolutely nothing. Or anything else about any of the very serious problems in the administration of the California Judicial Branch. In fact, they couldn’t care less.
Long live the ACJ.
Michael Paul
December 30, 2015
If you’re an AOC employee that got a hit in your pay (or your pay scale range) feel free to drop me a note @ michael.paul AT yeninteractivemedia.com (replace AT with @) and describe how you were affected by this reorg. Your information will be kept confidential.
The reason for the inquiry is because I’m not necessarily hearing about sudden hits in pay but gradual phase-ins and lowered pay scales where people will max out earlier.
If you feel a bit of apprehension, use the form at https:/forms.hush.com/judicialcouncilwatcher and they will forward the email. (use REORG as the subject, feel free to not identify yourself)
Of course an alternative is to follow the herd that has left the AOC where virtually all of them are making better money than they were at the AOC and I’m in regular contact with a few of them.
I currently work with 5 former AOC IT people, we’re all making better money and we’re hiring. 🙂
joe schmoe
January 6, 2016
You’ll be interested to know (or not) Michael Derr was recently promoted to a senior manager in IT, replacing Kyle Nishimura. Michael is loathed within his own team. He is a horrible manager, instead he chooses to micro-manage at levels beyond sanity. He believes he is the smartest person in the world and subject matter expert of everything under the sun within his IT unit, as well as outside if it. He gives himself admin rights anywhere he can and makes changes to things he should not, without notifying his team who then have to clean up after him. He talks AT his team and others outside of it. If an idea is presented, he will come up with any excuse to dismiss it for something he can take credit for. He ignores his actual managerial duties to pursue ridiculous side projects that will get him the most praise. Most of the other senior managers did not want him to be promoted for these very serious reasons but he brown-nosed Mark Dusman to the point of no return. The team has aleady suffered dramatically and will continue to deteriorate under Michael’s horrendous mis-management.
Michael Paul
January 8, 2016
You mean this guy? First time I saw the video, I thought for sure it was someone who knows Derr….
The balance of your analysis is very accurate and half of his seniors have walked.
unionman575
January 1, 2016
2016 JC Calendar
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/JC_Meetings_Calendar2016.pdf
😉
Judicial Council Watcher
January 1, 2016
Amazing: What feigns as governance happens only six times a year. It’s no wonder why and how the AOC tail wags the Judicial Council dog.
unionman575
January 2, 2016
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/68106-kings-20151203.pdf
unionman575
January 2, 2016
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/jctc-20160111-notice.pdf
unionman575
January 2, 2016
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/PCLC-20160107-notice.pdf
unionman575
January 2, 2016
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/tcbac-20160114-notice.pdf
unionman575
January 2, 2016
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
January 2, 2016
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
Nathaniel Woodhull
January 7, 2016
Isn’t nice that so many of the slugs at the AOC make sure that their salaries, let alone benefits, are so much higher than the judges of the State of California whom they presumably work for??????
What a joke!!!!!!!
wearyant
January 10, 2016
A subliminal message, my dear GeneralW, to the peonJudges that they WILL answer up to their superiors, the money-grubbing–oops–the fine, fine overpaid bureaucrats ensconced in their SF ivory tower. And the inexorable, steady march continues towards mediocrity in our once respected judicial branch. I wonder how the judges fare in your new place of remoteness and security? 🐜
wearyant
January 10, 2016
P.S. I will say in my anger and disappointment, if the judges prefer to be managed by these cockamamie woohoots known as the AOC out of laziness or ignorance, they damn well deserve their fate. Most of them appear to be fiddling whilst their fiefdoms burn. (The judges deserve their fiefdoms to which they were elected.) 🐜
Long live the ACJ!
Wendy Darling
January 11, 2016
I agree Ant. One of the wisest persons I have ever met once said to me “People deserve what they accept.” It is obvious at this point that, as a whole, the judges of this state have collectively decided to simply accept what passes for governance and leadership, or, more accurately, the absence thereof. Accordingly, they now deserve what they have accepted. Every bit of it.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
January 2, 2016
http://www.courts.ca.gov/jcc-salaries.htm
Judicial Council Salary Listings
Monthly Salary Listing
Effective January 1, 2016
😉
unionman575
January 2, 2016
https://calendar.google.com/calendar/embed?src=g49iuevlqiu72eks74q7u6hcfk@group.calendar.google.com&pli=1
katy
January 6, 2016
Is this true? Around 32 San Diego Superior Court judges are related to at least one other current or former judge by blood or marriage?
unionman575
January 6, 2016
http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2016/3322/criminal-fine-and-fee-system-010516.pdf
unionman575
January 7, 2016
http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/2016-17/pdf/GovernorsBudget/0010/0250.pdf
unionman575
January 7, 2016
Pages 11 through 15 here:
http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/2016-Infrastructure-Plan.pdf
😉
unionman575
January 7, 2016
Hmm…time to look at those branch trust funds again here:
http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/2016-17/pdf/GovernorsBudget/0010/0250RWA.pdf
😉
unionman575
January 7, 2016
JC “Claw backs”…tsk tsk tsk..
http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/2016-17/pdf/GovernorsBudget/0010/0250_fig2f.pdf
unionman575
January 7, 2016
Sometimes when I have a goose n’ tonic I feel inspired. You know what I mean…
http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/2016-17/StateAgencyBudgets/0010/0250/infrastructure.html
😉
unionman575
January 7, 2016
Let’s lift up the JC hood and see what we have here:
Judicial Council
Expenditures and Positions
By Office – 2014-15 and 2015-16
http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/2016-17/pdf/GovernorsBudget/0010/0250_fig3f.pdf
unionman575
January 7, 2016
Meanwhile back at the Trial Court Ranch…You know the place where our fellow citizens drive a few hundred miles round trip to go to court in many counties…
http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/2016-17/pdf/GovernorsBudget/0010/0250_fig1f.pdf
I am sure the Alliance will weigh in on this soon.
😉
unionman575
January 7, 2016
Uh huh.
Show the Trial Courts the cash.
http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/2016-17/StateAgencyBudgets/0010/0250/program_description.html
Consistent with the judiciary’s mission, the Judicial Council is guided by the following principles:
• To make decisions in the best interests of the public and the court system as a whole.
😉
• To conduct the Council’s business based on an underlying commitment to equal and timely justice and public access to an independent forum for the resolution of disputes.
😉
• To provide leadership in the administration of justice by planning and advocating for policies and resources that are necessary for courts to fulfill their mission.
😉
• To ensure the continued development of an accessible, independent court system through planning, research, and evaluation programs, and through the use of modern management approaches and technological developments.
• To provide leadership in the administration of justice by establishing broad and consistent policies for the operation of the courts and appropriate uniform statewide rules and forms.
• To promote a competent, responsive, and ethical judiciary and staff through a comprehensive program of judicial education and training for court employees.
• To contribute to the public’s understanding of the judicial process through a continuing program of public education.
• To provide assistance to the courts in developing action plans that are consistent with the Council’s Strategic Plan and that address local needs and priorities.
unionman575
January 7, 2016
I just love catchy slogans.
😉
unionman575
January 7, 2016
Time to hand this over to GSA…
http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/2016-17/StateAgencyBudgets/0010/0250/program_description.html
0145 – JUDICIAL BRANCH FACILITY PROGRAM
The Judicial Branch Facility Program administers the acquisition, planning, construction, operations, and maintenance of judicial branch facilities. This program is responsible for the development of long-term facilities master plans, facility and real estate management, and new courthouse planning, design, and construction.
unionman575
January 8, 2016
http://www.courthousenews.com/2016/01/07/courts-told-to-innovate-in-calif-budget-proposal.htm
Thursday, January 07, 2016Last Update: 5:56 PM PT
Courts Told to Innovate in Calif. Budget Proposal
By MARIA DINZEO
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (CN) – California Gov. Jerry Brown’s proposed budget sent another $146.3 million to the state’s courts, along with a message that the judicial branch needs to innovate.
In a statement shortly after the budget release, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye said, “The governor’s proposed budget would help make courts more accessible, efficient, and equitable for court users.”She added, “Much of the new funding would be focused on innovations to benefit court users at all levels of our court system. The proposed budget reflects a steady but cautious new investment in the judicial branch since fiscal year 2012-2013.”
Brown’s 2016-17 budget for the judiciary totals $3.8 billion.
Along with $75 million to offset shrinking revenue from fines and fees, $15.6 million for trial court employee benefit costs, and $20 million for discretionary trial court operations, Brown proposed a one-time $30 million to fund a grant program as an incentive for courts to find more modern and efficient ways of doing business.
“The projects funded by the grants must have measurable results or benefits that have a demonstrated impact on the court and the public it serves,” Brown said in his budget summary. He cited, among other programs, Fresno Superior Court’s holding of remote video proceedings for traffic violations.
“Additional innovative programs could include a self-scheduling system for traffic courts, the use of kiosks for traffic court proceedings, and the development of electronic recordings in family courts,” he said.
In his continued pursuit of cost-cutting measures for the judiciary, Brown also said he will look to reduce the number of peremptory challenges in misdemeanor cases from 10 to six.
This proposal has been broached several times in the Legislature, in the form of bills backed by the Judicial Council and groups like the California Judges Association. The most recent effort was SB 213, which stalled in the Assembly’s public safety committee and is now a two-year bill. A similar bill, SB 794, also failed to make it out of that committee in 2014.
Echoing arguments used by supporters of those past efforts, Brown said, “Six challenges per side is the current average, and additional challenges unnecessarily add delays to proceedings.”
In an email statement, Judge Eric Taylor, California Judges Association president, said, “We greatly appreciate Gov. Brown including peremptory challenges, something CJA has been working on for several years. We have had discussions with other justice partners on this issue, and those will continue.”
He added, “It is our hope that these proposals will be sustained through the budget process. We look forward to working together with the governor and our justice partners to restore stable funding for the courts.”
Brown’s budget package also touched on what has become a sore subject among trial court judges – a lack of individual reserve funds for the courts.
Three years ago, he decided to sweep individual trial courts’ reserve funds in excess of 1 percent into a statewide pot to be managed by the Judicial Council. That reserve consists of 2 percent of the total amount of money California sends to the trial courts in a given year. Courts are only allowed to apply for emergency funds from that statewide pot at the end of each fiscal year.
Judges and court clerks recoiled at the idea of having their carefully built reserves stripped away, but the measure passed as part of the 2012-13 budget package over their objections and remains a part of the judiciary’s statewide fiscal policy.
This year, Brown proposed a new reserve policy to send $10 million to the trial court trust fund for emergencies throughout the year.
Lando
January 8, 2016
I like what the Governor did. If there was direct funding to the trial courts, each court could develop innovations and cost savings that make sense and which could benefit the citizens we serve. Actually that was the way it worked before HRH-1 arrived to take over the entire court system. This is a great opportunity for the CJ to reach out and allow the local courts to each have a share of the new funds to generate new and different ideas for the local courts. Will this ever happen ? No, What we are likely to see is the same old approach where the insiders constitute yet another new Task Force or Blue Ribbon Committee made up of themselves chaired by J Miller to insure nothing more than the preservation of their own power.
Nathaniel Woodhull
January 8, 2016
Lando, Lando, Lando. Don’t you miss the days before the enactment of Proposition 220, the subsequent deification of HRH-1 and the empire that George built (let’s not forget Vickrey and Tonto too!)
Remember our friend, a long-since retired (and great) judge from Monterey County who had warned us all when then Senator Bill Lockyer trotted out Proposition 220 – Superior and Municipal Court Consolidation. Lockyer and other proponents rested their arguments on the need for consolidation to create efficiencies to deal with the prior enactment of the Three Strikes Law. Two years earlier, in 1994, “Three Strikes” was enacted and felony criminal dockets initially saw a dramatic increase as Courts, attorneys and defendants felt out the impacts of the new law and appellate specialists were bringing daily appeals, arguing that Three Strikes violated one Constitutionally protected right or another. Defendants did not simply want to plead under the new legislation out of fear that they would waive their rights to appeal if they pled. It took about four years for the dust to settle and Prop 220 to withstand all the various appellate challenges.
Our friend in Monterey had said that Prop 220 would be a vehicle for the take over and elimination of local trial courts. He said Trial Judges would lose autonomy and power, all of which would be consolidated in within 455 Golden Gate Avenue. Many of us scoffed at the time, knowing that then Chief Justice Malcolm Lucas was not the type of person to screw us over. Little did we know what great precognition our friend had! Who else could have foretold that HRH-1 was on the horizon, waiting to be elevated to the throne on May 1, 1996, a day that will live in infamy.
Prop 220 did do a few helpful things. It eliminated the dual administrations that each County (except Cow Counties) then had in place, one for Municipal Court operations and one for Superior Court operations. That was both an administrative efficiency and did result in some cost savings, estimated at about $3,000,000.00.
Elevating Municipal Court Judges to the Superior Court resulted in “promotions” for the 670 Muni Court Judges (there were 789 Superior Court Judges at the time). Each elevation resulted in a pay increase for Muni judges of about $9,320.00 per year. Proponents of the initiative said there would be cost savings up to $24,000,000.00 for the taxpayers (the math didn’t make much sense at the time).
Opponents argued that the “People’s Court” should not be eliminated and that many lower court judges were not then qualified to handle the more complex work of a Superior Court Judge. Superior Court Judges were elected Countywide and not in District elections. Opponents argued that Prop 220 would mean it would be almost impossible to vote out a “bad” judge. Proponents said with every judge being deemed to hear every type of case efficiencies were being created that would outweigh any problems.
On balance, in my experience consolidation has been a disaster. Apart from the administrative efficiencies, which I totally support, there has been more harm than good caused by the elimination of the old Municipal Court. Municipal Court is where judges learned and honed their craft. Ineffective Muni judges either were never elevated or left when they found that the job wasn’t what they expected. The stakes weren’t as high, either on the civil or criminal sides of the fence, so if something was messed up it was bad, but no where near as bad as it is under a consolidated system. Consolidation allowed many weaker judges to hide in plain sight and allowed Presiding Judges to put them in less desirable positions, but positions that were extremely important to members of the public. (Less desirable positions for many Judges include Family Law and Juvenile). In many courts there has been a defacto creation of civil and criminal divisions. Since the horizon in a consolidated court is unlimited, it is difficult for judges to learn the spectrum of judicial duties. Unless you are willing to roll up your sleeves and put in the countless hours necessary, it is easy to tell the PJ, “oh, I only know how to do civil” (or criminal).
Here is my next prediction. If you carefully examine Governor Brown’s comments regarding Judicial Branch funding in his recently proposed Budget, you will note that he refused to fund the 150+ new (and vacant) positions created by the Legislature over the years. Governor Brown said that five vacant judgeships would be “shifted” within the State to locations that are swamped and need additional judicial coverage. It is my belief that we will soon see Trial Judges being moved all over the State like it was a chessboard. Rather than have a Judge appointed to the Los Angeles County Superior Court, that Superior Court Judge could be assigned to Riverside, San Bernardino, Fresno, Stanislaus, Sacramento, even Modoc. This will give even more power to HRH-2 and her successors. What a great way to furture eliminate dissent and keep judges in line! Go ahead, express your personal opinion about any issue that is remotely critical or or inconsistent with the Chief’s position. I’m sure you would love the move to Redlands.
Lando I hope that you get to experience in the near future what I am finally enjoying. It is amazing after over forty years to have your First Amendment rights restored. No more looking over your shoulder to see if the Happy People are on their way for some perceived affront to the Chief or her inner circle. I do miss the people, and I miss the hard work that resulted in what I hope was a positive difference in people’s lives. Other than that, leaving has led to a tremendous reduction in stress, a better outlook (and attitude) and a feeling that it’s a pretty wonderful Country out here, at least outside of California that is.
Wendy Darling
January 8, 2016
What Lando said.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
Delilah
January 8, 2016
More Money for Judicial Branch, Strings Attached
Cheryl Miller, The Recorder
January 7, 2016
SACRAMENTO — Gov. Jerry Brown on Thursday offered California’s judiciary a fiscal year of financial goodwill, submitting a $122.6 billion state budget proposal that provides more than $200 million in additional money to the branch.
The governor’s 2016-17 spending plan includes $60 million for deferred courthouse maintenance, an ongoing $20 million boost for trial court operations and $21 million to handle the increased workload created by Proposition 47, the voter-approved initiative that allows those convicted of certain drug and property crimes to seek reduced sentences. There’s also more money for interpreters, a financial tracking system, statutorily mandated salary increases for judges, a $10-per-hour rate increase for appellate panel counsel, and higher trial court and state-level employee costs.
The governor is also proposing that five vacant judgeships—he didn’t say where—be moved to other locations in the state “where the workload is the highest.” And he’s allocating $30 million for a grant program rewarding courts that develop “programs and practices that save money and better serve the public.”
“The proposed budget reflects a steady but cautious new investment in the judicial branch since fiscal year 2012-2013,” Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye said in a prepared statement. “The governor’s proposed budget would help make courts more accessible, efficient, and equitable for court users.”
The document doesn’t include everything branch leaders and other court advocates are seeking. Although the governor proposes shifting a handful of judgeships within the state, he did not provide additional money for new bench positions. There’s no added money for dependency counsel despite continued case overloads in some parts of the state. There’s no increase in legal aid funding, despite pleas from legislators last year. And there’s no significant, discretionary increase in branch spending, something the Judicial Council has sought for years. In fact, most of the new funding comes with strings attached.
Brown repeated a familiar refrain on Thursday, telling reporters Thursday that, despite the state’s much improved fiscal outlook, lawmakers and interest groups must practice restraint.
“This is not a candy store where you can pick out whatever you want,” Brown said. “You’ve got to choose.”
The budget proposal reflects an administration that’s taken a greater role in detailed judicial branch operations. The document refers to the chief justice’s Commission on the Future of California’s Court System —state Finance Director Michael Cohen serves on a commission working group—where the idea of moving judgeships around the state surfaced before the governor’s budget was released. The budget also endorsed legislation that would cut the number of peremptory challenges in misdemeanor trials from 10 to six. (Judicial Council-backed bills to do just that have stalled over the last three years amid opposition from defense attorneys and some prosecutors).
The budget summary also endorsed specific trial court-level “efficiency” programs, such as Fresno County Superior Court’s remote video proceedings for traffic violations. And it suggested courts could use electronic recordings in family law departments, a proposal that unions representing court reporters have fought bitterly in the past.
Lawmakers will begin reviewing the governor’s budget plans later this month. The Legislature is constitutionally required to pass a budget by June 15.
wearyant
January 8, 2016
http://statescoop.com/california-judicial-council-lacks-sufficient-information-system-controls-audit/#.VpAuQgKmnHw.mailto
++++++++++++++++++
a little late, but WTH. Fresh orange juice from the local bodega with goose. Good!
Long live the ACJ
unionman575
January 8, 2016
http://www.metnews.com/articles/2016/budget010816.htm
Wendy Darling
January 8, 2016
Today’s installment of Tani’s Follies. Published today, Friday, January 8, from the Metropolitan News Enterprise:
California Chief Justice Hails Budget Earmarking $3.8 Billion for Courts
By a MetNews Staff Writer
California Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye yesterday expressed delight over the allocation in Gov. Jerry Brown’s proposed 2016–17 budget of $3.8 billion for the Judicial Branch, including $2.8 billion for trial court operations.
The total amount of the state budget is $122.6 billion.
Last year, Brown proposed $3.47 billion for the courts, a $180 million boost over the previous fiscal year. The current sum proposed for the courts is a $330 million increase.
Cantil-Sakauye declared:
“We welcome the Governor’s proposed budget for the judicial branch as it would provide $146.3 million in crucial new funding for our courts. Much of the new funding would be focused on innovations to benefit court users at all levels of our court system. The proposed budget reflects a steady but cautious new investment in the judicial branch since fiscal year 2012–2013. The budget contains ‘proposals to support efforts by the Judicial Council to improve court operations and increase access.’
“In addition to supporting local as well as branchwide innovations, the Governor’s budget would provide funding for statewide infrastructure needs, language access expansion in civil proceedings, and funding to assist trial courts facing increased workload related to sentencing reforms.
“The Governor’s proposed budget would help make courts more accessible, efficient, and equitable for court users. The Judicial Council looks forward to working with the Administration and Legislature as we seek to address state budget issues affecting access to justice for the people of California.”
The current recession began in December of 2007. The summary compares court funding for 2007-08 with court funding, under the proposed budget, for 20016-17, showing a 10.5 percent increase.
It provides this breakdown:
The summary contained an administration pledge to work with the Judicial Branch “on improving access and modernizing court operations through innovative approaches.”
It praised innovations that have already taken place, singling four of them:
“Fresno Superior Court’s remote video proceedings for traffic violations, Imperial Superior Court’s Binational Justice Project, Contra Costa Superior Court’s efforts related to online probable cause determinations, and San Bernardino Superior Court’s automated payment processing.”
The summary comments:
“Additional innovative programs could include a self-scheduling system for traffic courts, the use of kiosks for traffic court proceedings, and the development of electronic recordings in family courts.”
http://www.metnews.com/
Note to Queen Feckless: “More money” is not going to fix what is really wrong in and with the California Judicial Branch.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
January 11, 2016
http://www.courts.ca.gov/tcbac.htm
unionman575
January 11, 2016
http://www.courts.ca.gov/tcfmac.htm
unionman575
January 11, 2016
January 11, 2016 Meeting
12:00 – 1:00 p.m.
Call-in Number: 1-877-820-7831, Public Access Code: 3511860 (listen only)
😉
Judicial Council Technology Committee
http://www.courts.ca.gov/jctc.htm
unionman575
January 11, 2016
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/tcpjac-ceac-20160113-JLS-notice.pdf
unionman575
January 12, 2016
http://lao.ca.gov/reports/2016/3324/budget-overview-011116.pdf
Lando
January 16, 2016
Governor Brown has decades of credibility when it comes to reforming government. He missed a few however in his recent budget message. He should join in the judicial reform movement to ask why millions can’t be saved from moving the insiders out of the Crystal Palace at 455 Golden Gate to more modest surroundings in Sacramento. And speaking of arrogance at 455 Golden Gate the Governor should direct the State Auditor to look at the wasteful spending of the CJP staff for their increasing and abusive investigations that constantly harass our hard working trial judges. My guess is all this is sanctioned by HRH-2 and her clique concerned only about preserving their power.
anonymous
January 22, 2016
……..On the first day of Christmas the JC gave to me, a data breach because of IT….
courts.ca.gov : The California Courts website is currently unavailable due to a server issue. We are working on resolving the issue as soon as possible.
Please try again later. Thank you for your patience.