It seems to us that a new pattern is beginning to develop. With judicial council critics statewide pointing out the obvious, namely that you can’t govern by meeting six or seven days a year we’re beginning to see more two and three day judicial council meetings so that the anointed can say they put in the time into responsible governance. Of course, they remain spoonfed by the AOC and the two dozen or so people who have ostensibly run the branch for the past 15 or so years but hey at least they can say they spent more time at governance.
.
.
Other now familiar patterns are beginning to develop as well. Patterns where the judicial council and AOC has been caught with their pants about their ankles, yet they try to convince us that this was all in the past – a snapshot in time about 50 weeks ago and a whole lot of change has come to the AOC in those 50 or so weeks. Nearly all of the inept management of the AOC is still with us. The AOC tells us they eliminated thirty six jobs that no one can seem to verify and by the end of this month, the inept management will have eliminated a whole 235 jobs including temps, consultants, voluntary separation incentive program participants and people who have announced their retirements ( but haven’t necessarily retired…)
The inept management has only made a token effort of looking at their own issues and has circled wagons against the SEC recommendations. Recommendations that target management and director jobs – the top of the AOC food chain where all of the inept management exists. They’re being joined by the same insiders that have run the branch for the same 15 or so years.
In another thread we heard about how the legislature is about to give the AOC the right to hijack another fifty million dollars in trial court trust funds for obligations already on the books for FY12-13.
Yet elsewhere in that same thread, Michael Paul suggests that this is not the way the AOC operates and Michael’s opinion has now been backed up by a few email to JCW that indicate that the AOC is obsessive about contracts and obligations not extending into the new fiscal year because the AOC has no spending authority without the legislature passing a budget.
So what gives?
Is the AOC trying to create a 50 million dollar slush fund to fund new ipads for remaining employees? The people from the ministry of truth are simply not credible. If the AOC has fifty million dollars of TCTF money already obligated in a year that hasn’t yet commenced we suggest that the AOC be obligated to prove those funds are already obligated in FY12-13. We would also suggest that if it were true, it would underscore allegations of fiscal mismanagement and the AOC needs a regime change. If it’s not true, then the AOC is lying to everyone and needs a regime change.
Rock, meet the hard spot.
And what of the sixteen million dollar refund from Deloitte that has yet to materialize? How does that money, Trial Court trust funds being refunded back to the AOC figure into things? Is this sixteen million now what the AOC will now use to decommission and dissect CCMS with the Senate smartly unfunding 7 million the governance wizards intended on paying to decommission CCMS?
_________________________________________________________________________________
Courtesy of our friends over at AFSCME local 575
As most of you already know, the Los Angeles Superior Court lost a very valuable and loved employee on Friday, June 15, 2012, Gregory Nemo. Greg had started his career with the Los Angeles Municipal Court over 28
years ago and has touched the lives of many employees over the years as part of Facilities and the Central Stockroom.
Funeral arrangements for Greg are Sunday, June 24, 2012 at 10:30 a.m.
Seventh Day Adventist Church
4491 Kansas Avenue
Riverside, CA 92507
Greg’s wife has asked that we let those who knew and loved Greg, that the family would like financial assistance with the funeral arrangements. Therefore the following are two ways you can send support to the family:
Send gifts of condolences directly to:
Ms. Lossie Nemo
5017 Manitoba Drive
Fontana, CA 92336
-OR-
s. Lossie Nemo
c/o Tony Humber, Warehouse Supervisor
Stanley Mosk Courthouse/Central Stockroom
111 North Hill Street, Room 325
Los Angeles, CA 90012
A very large sympathy card will be placed outside the Stockroom customer service window until Friday, June 22nd at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse in Room 325 if you would like to express your thoughts and prayers to the family.
__________________________________________________________________________________
une 20, 2012
Dear Members and Others,
We attach an article by Courthouse News reporter Maria Dinzeo regarding
the controversy surrounding the results of a vote by our state’s presiding
judges undertaken by the current chairman of the Presiding Judges
Committee. In short, it appears that an attempt has been made to undercut
the recommendations of the Strategic Evaluation Committee by means of a
“push poll” type ballot. We applaud the incoming chair of the Presiding
Judges Committee, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Laurie Earl, for
demonstrating leadership by challenging the manner in which this “vote”
will be presented to the Judicial Council.
On that note, we want to remind you that the council will be meeting on
Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday of this week. Alliance director, Judge
Steve White, has been granted permission to address the council regarding
the SEC report on Thursday. You can listen in to his presentation by
clicking on this link <http://www.courts.ca.gov/18413.htm>.
In the next day or so we hope to provide you with an analysis of the
judicial branch budget, provided the Governor and legislative leaders are
able to come to a final agreement. Please know that we will keep you
updated on all important developments.
Directors, Alliance of California Judges
__________________________________________
Presiding Judges Debate Vote on Reform of CA Court Bureaucracy
By MARIA DINZEO
SAN FRANCISCO (Courthouse News) – California’s presiding judges are embroiled in
debate over a vote on whether to push forward with extensive reforms
recommended after a year-long investigation into the central bureaucracy of
the courts. Some trial judges say the vote, which is to be presented at a
Judicial Council meeting Thursday, was skewed in order to protect the
bureaucracy.
The proposed reforms came in a report last month from the Strategic
Evaluation Committee, an independent group of judges appointed by Chief
Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye. The report blasted the Administrative Office
of the Courts for hiding its finances and number of employees, and
exercising a “culture of control” over the state’s trial courts. It called
for sweeping reform with over 100 recommendations, including cutting the
staff by one-third and eliminating entire divisions.
“It seems to me that our branch is at a pivotal point where change is
imminent,” said Presiding Judge Laurie Earl of Sacramento County.
In an email debate among the presiding judges, she added, “I encourage
ALL PJs to not let this opportunity to get involved pass us by. We should
support our colleagues on the SEC and roll up our sleeves.”
The email exhortation was part of a vigorous debate among the state’s
presiding judges over a recent survey sent out by Presiding Judge David
Rosenberg of Yolo County. The manner in which he was interpreting the
results was seen as an attempt to dilute the hard-hitting conclusions of
the SEC report and protect the administrative office from the sweeping
changes recommended in the report.
Rosenberg is the current chair of the Trial Court Presiding Judges
Advisory Committee, made up of the 58 presiding judges from all of
California’s far-flung counties. Earl is the incoming chair.
In the survey, Rosenberg asked the presiding judges to say first if
they want to implement the recommended reforms “with all deliberate speed,”
and second if they support the reforms “in principle.”
The first survey question asks, “Should the TCPJAC recommend to the
Judicial Council that the Judicial Council endorse and adopt the SEC Report
in its entirety and make every effort to implement all of the
recommendations with all deliberate speed?”
The second question asks, “Should the TCPJAC inform the Judicial
Council that the TCPJAC supports, in principle, the thorough analysis and
recommendations for change contained in the SEC Report?”
A final question asks, “And if you answered both of these questions
with a ‘yes,’ which of the two is your preference?”
A tabulation ( http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/19/survey.pdf ) of
the votes shows that, of the 40 presiding judges who voted, 4 voted yes
only for option 1 — full speed ahead, 12 voted yes only for option 2 —
support merely “in principle.”
But fully 24 voted yes for both 1 and 2. Of those who voted for both,
only 2 said they preferred the “in principle” option, while a huge majority
of 22 voted their preference for option 1 — “all deliberate speed.”
Earl declined to be interviewed about the debate over the vote. “The
discussion was one that could and should be resolved by the PJs rather than
debated in the press,” she said.
However, a lengthy email exchange discussing the vote was widely
circulated among the state’s judges and forwarded by judges who are not on
the presiding judges committee. The email exchange shows that Earl
advocated vigorously to include the tally for question 3 where judges who
showed their preference between the “all deliberate speed” and “in
principle” options.
In that exchange, Rosenberg argued that question 3 was only meant to
kick in if neither the full-speed or the go-slow option received a
majority. “The third question would have only kicked in if BOTH Option 1
and Option 2 had received at least a majority vote,” he wrote in the
emails. “But that did not occur.”
That method of tallying the vote would favor the “in principle” option
rather than the “all deliberate speed” option.
Earl countered, “First, the crafting of the language of Questions 1 &
2 lend themselves to a particular result, in that almost everyone
preferring Option #1 would also predictably vote for Option 2, (since
Option 2 is almost subsumed within Option 1) while the converse would not
be true: People preferring Option 2 would not normally also vote for Option
1.”m”However the bigger problem lies in the way the data has been chosen
to be interpreted and reported,” Earl continued.
“40 PJs voted, 26 of them indicated a preference for Option 1 by
either voting for that option alone, or by voting ‘yes’ on both questions,
but indicating Option 1 as their preferred option,” she wrote. “The
remaining 14 judges indicated a preference for Option 2 either by voting
that option alone, or by voting ‘yes’ on both questions, but indicating
Option 2 as their preferred option.
“The way you are choosing to report the data, as indicated below,
makes it appear that a majority of respondents preferred Option 2, which is
incorrect,” Earl wrote. “Without a doubt, of 40 PJs voting, a majority
clearly indicated a preference for Option 1. For those of us who voted for
both, but expressed a preference for Option 1, our ‘yes’ vote on Option 2
essentially erased our vote for Option 1.”
She concluded, “As a result, I believe it is more accurate to report
to the council, that the TCPJAC recommends to the Judicial Council that the
Judicial Council endorse and adopt the SEC Report in its entirety and make
every effort to implement all of the recommendations with all deliberate
speed, as reflected by the majority vote.”
Judge Daniel Goldstein of San Diego commented with some disbelief on
the judges who voted for supporting reform “in principle” but voted against
reform at “all deliberate speed.” “Who voted against implementing remedies against waste, mismanagement
and abuse of taxpayer dollars? That is what’s striking,” he said. “That a
presiding judge would vote against saving their budget and stopping waste,
mismanagement and abuse of taxpayer dollars, that’s amazing.”
He also took issue with the way the “in principle” question was
phrased and the way the vote was tallied.
“It’s really an ambiguous question,” he said. “You can’t look at two
without looking at one. Question one is an objectively verifiable question.
It has an answer — either you’re for implementation or against
implementation. It is clear. Question two is amorphous. It doesn’t require
action.”
“Further complicating the matter is a erroneous computation of the
vote,” he added. “I would assume the presiding judges who voted yes on
question one are going to take issue with this.”
The disagreement has led some presiding judges to ask for another vote.
Presiding Judge Beth Freeman in San Mateo County wrote in the email
exchange, “I think our voting procedure has caused an anomalous result. I
would request a re-vote on question 1 — to urge the Judicial Council to
adopt the SEC Report and Recommendations.”
Rosenberg answered, “I do not intend to have a revote. I do intend to
present the voting results of BOTH option 1 and 2 to the JC so that all
votes yea and nay can be presented.”
However, in an interview on Tuesday, Rosenberg said he will present
the numbers on all three survey questions to the Judicial Council on
Thursday, adding “It would have been a lot less complicated if we only put
one issue out there.”
“It’s my intention simply to present everything, the raw vote on all
three issues that were put before the presiding judges,” Rosenberg added.
“I’ve also urged all presiding judges to write their letters to the
Judicial Council if they support the report, if they oppose certain
portions, whatever their position is,” he said. “That’s what the members of
the SEC requested. These simple yea or nay votes don’t mean that much —
it’s more significant if people address the substantive issues.”
Presiding Judge Sherrill Ellsworth from Riverside is one of the
authors of the SEC report that recommended sweeping reforms to the
Administrative Office of the Courts.
In the email exchange over the vote, she says, “I agree with Earl’s
comments and appreciate them. In many respects a report such as this is a
pretty thankless labor. It is far too easy to Monday Morning Quarterback.”
“I can tell you no one on our committee had an axe to grind. I can
also report that our chair Judge Charlie Wachob and our vice chair Judge
Brian McCabe were consummate professionals capturing the information we
were given and translating it into the report I hope you have all read.
This report was labor intensive, thorough and the result of hours and hours
of work.”
“To me it is simple, we were given a task by our Chief and we
fulfilled that task,” she said. “Some may not like the findings or the tone
but, the report is neither diluted nor inflated. It is a tool for change,
self-examination and restructuring the future of the branch.”
Ellsworth also declined to be interviewed on the controversy.
Presiding Judge Richard Scheuler of Tehama County voted “no” on
question one, but “yes” to the second question, supporting the committee’s
report only in principle.
“I have great confidence in the chief justice and great confidence in
the Judicial Council and the vote gave them the discretion to do what they
do best, which is governance,” said Scheuler in an interview Monday. “I
appreciate the hard work that went into that report. I appreciate that the
chief justice asked for it. They’re in the best position to implement the
recommendations.”
Related articles
- You’re suggesting that the budgeting authority should go to the self-dealers? (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- Two new ACJ articles for discussion: The fallout and the CJ’s response (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- Need a Job? AOC is hiring; Editorial – A long way to go; Zombieware Demo is back on for today (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- Legislative action now needed – Contact your legislators (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- The Strategic Evaluation Committee Report and “The Great Whitewash of 2012″ (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- Tuesday afternoon – ACJ message to members : SEC report urges total overhaul of the AOC (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
Judicial Council Watcher 
unionman575
June 21, 2012
More nice work JCW!
Guest
June 21, 2012
The SEC report recommends eliminating the Director position and creating a CAO, COO and Chief of Staff structure over the AOC. The chief appointed Patel as interim director and made a big deal that Patel did not want the permanent job. You don’t think the chief and Patel knew what the SEC report was going to say, do you? Just a coincidence that a new director will be hired and Patel will be COO and Soderlund will be Chief of Staff? The chief didn’t know all this when she made all these “interim” appointments while waiting for the SEC report? Right?
Judicial Council Watcher
June 22, 2012
Bite your tongue guest! It is only purely coincidental that Patel is COO and Curt is Chief of Staff. (Any competent CAO would give those two an escort out the door as well.)
Nonetheless our esteemed chief never read the report. Executive and planning still has not read the report. Patel never saw the report and her dog spot remains clueless.
By the way… JCW has been raising funds for our annual send our boss to Siberia party.
In this years package deal: The Golden Gate, Angel Island, Alcatraz, Pier 39, Forbes Island and the Bay Bridge – they can all be yours if you have enough jingle in your pocket to send our boss to Siberia.
unionman575
June 22, 2012
A dream vacation for scumbags!
I love it!
🙂
wearyant
June 21, 2012
Here’s the first of my humble attempts to capture realtime portions of the JC meeting today.
These are remarks from the CJ:
>> This practice allows for wide broad participation. It
also brings fresh perspective to counsel. I want to give you
the substance of my report now and I’m going to start with
receipt of the SEC report which we’ll talk about later and which
I have some introductory RASHGS later this afternoon. On May
25th I received the final report. I immediately made the report
public. This meeting, this afternoon, will be the first
opportunity that counsel will have to be formally briefed on the
report by the chair and vice chair of the SEC. I tell you that
the SEC I know you all agree with me has submitted a remarkable
document that’s part of an extraordinary process. It is part of
the evaluation of the branch, it is the first time they are
taking a frank look of the AOC. As all of you know. Last
Friday, the legislature approved the 1212 — 2012-2013 budget
act. The legitimate stature passed and will pass to the
governor. The major elements are very similar to those proposed
by the governor, and that department of finance director shared
with the council at our special session. Many of you know and
are working on several refinements to proposals and more details
will be coming as those are ironed out. Jody Patel and Kurt
will provide an update of the status on the 2012-2013 budget.
>> I know along with many of you I spent many hours on call
and in meetings representing the branch’s budget interest. I
want to recognize them and all of the members of the ad hoc
budget group that I appointed at our last …
wearyant
June 21, 2012
Continuing with the section capture of the CJ remarks:
iscussions will be on going, we will provide updates to the
branch.
>> I’ve had a schedule of meetings with court leaders and
legislators, as well as many appearances at public forums. I
would like to highlight a few and first on my list, several
council members and bar leaders attended the first judicial
sponsored law day event in Sacramento on May 8th. Law day
represents new opportunities for civics education. Emphasizing
the role of the judiciary in a free society. I hope this
commemoration will become a tradition for us. For its
outstanding service to the judicial branch during the continuing
funding crisis. I also met with some bar groups around the
state, including here in San Francisco, the lawyers club for the
annual Supreme Court luncheon. Also the count Bar Association
celebrating law day. I later visit with the judges and most of
the staff. It is a well-run court with enthusiastic jurorists
and staff. Kudos to you’re running that court.
>> I had the pleasure to attend the California academy of
appellate lawyers annual meeting in Carmel. I also had the
pleasure of sitting on a panel on judicial independence with
Sandra Day O’Connor and a representative of the united nations
and civil liberties internationally. Later in the month I was
in orange county with Joe Dunn of the state bar. Speaking to
the orange county forum luncheon in Irvine. We …
wearyant
June 21, 2012
The third capture of the CJ’s remarks:
Finally this is graduation season. Hoping to join the
ranks, I accepted invitations to deliver commencement addresses.
University of Pacific in Sacramento, chapman university school
of law in orange and John F. Kennedy college of law in Walnut
creek. Before I close with my activities. It is my pleasure to
present and a little bit of sadness counsel resolutions, they
have provided extraordinary service to the branch in our many
decades. Very impressive and we’re sorry to lose them.
>> One of our advisory members. This month he concludes a
remarkable 47 year career in the justice system that began in
the sheriff’s department and municipal court. Took him to the
Los Angeles municipal court and then clerk administrator.
Numerous on hours statewide and nationally for outstanding
public service. Distinguished service awards in 1998 and the
Judicial Council in 1999. He’s been in an invaluable advisor
and hist storen to us. This is his last meeting as a counsel
member. Fritz, please step forward, so I may present this
resolution from us to you and with all of our sincere thanks.
My note to self: Fritz was from Ventura. Several bad things came out of Ventura …
wearyant
June 21, 2012
CJ remarks re Chris Patton:
Also. A woman beloved to all of us. She concludes 24
years of outstanding leadership and public service to the
judicial branch this month. Chris began his judicial branch
career as a research attorney. She subsequently served for 14
years as court executive for that county. And she’s become one
of California’s most respected court leaders. She served as an
advisory member of the counsel. Court executives advisory
committee. Subordinate judicial officer working group and the
faculty and planning committee of the center for judicial
education and research and I know from experience that these are
only a few of the many things you’ve served and done for the
branch. In 2002 Chris joined the AOC as the first regional
director of the bay area. In recent years she took on interim
positions of director of the appellate and trial court judicial
services division and chief deputy director of the AOC. Please
join me to receive a small token of our respect and gratitude
and best wishes.
[Applause]
wearyant
June 21, 2012
CJ remarks re Diane Nunn:
>> Before I end my remarks, I want to commend Dianne, I
don’t know that Dianne is in here, but she usually is.
Congratulations Dianne, the director of the center for families
and children’s in the courts as many of you know, she has
received a recognition from the American Bar Association, she’s
received an award. She’s the recipient of the first annual Mark
Hardin award for child welfare scholarships. Improving the
lives of families in California. Congratulations and well
deserved, Dianne.
[Applause]
wearyant
June 21, 2012
Patel remarks:
… organizational changes that the AOC has implemented, and will be
implementing to achieve efficiencies, I’m going to keep my
report right now extremely brief, because you’ve got it in
writing and at your leisure you can take a look at that report.
The one thing I do want to share with you is a very positive
event. The new Susanville courthouse was completed under budget
in May of this year with three courtrooms and one hearing room.
The courthouse consolidates and replaces other facilities.
Scheduled for early part of August of this year, my sincere and
congratulations and best wishes to the presiding judge and the
court executive officer on their new facility and on our staff
for their outstanding work on this project, and ensuring that
the project came in under budget. So kudos to you, Lee.
>> In my written report, it also recapped actions from
advisory committees and task force meetings that have taken
place since the last Judicial Council Meeting and it provides an
overview of all of the judicial and court employee education
programs, as well as recent appointments by the bench and
governor. I encourage you to take a look at that written
report. With that, I’m going to conclude my remarks?
>> Any questions?
wearyant
June 21, 2012
First capture of Baxter remarks:
In addition to a policy meeting that was held this
morning, I was unable to attend because I was double booked with
another council meeting that took place, and on the meeting
today, Judge Herman will, as vice chair of the policy committee,
he will be reporting on that, in addition to that meeting. The
policy committee has met five times since the last council
meeting. Once in April, three times in May, and once in June.
Taking positions on behalf of the Judicial Council on 12
separate pieces of legislation, approving two legislative
proposals to go out for public comment and adopting
recommendations on 18 proposals for Judicial Council
sponsorship. On April 26th, the policy committee directed staff
to forward the document entitled suggested areas of realignment
clean-up legislation, that document is dated March 23, 2012,
directed to the legislature for its use, and also reviewed 24
proposals for Judicial Council sponsored legislation on
operational efficiencies, cost-savings and new revenue. Of
those proposals, the policy committee adopted 17 recommendations
for Judicial Council sponsorship through the budget process,
rejected six and deferred one proposal to the May 4th meeting,
at which time the committee rejected that particular proposal.
The committee also approved circulation for public comment of a
legislative proposal from the court executives advisory
committee regarding modernization and improvement of statutes on
trial court records retention and management.
At the May 4th meeting, the policy committee took a no
position on AB 2381, which would make the bills act applicable
to quote an employee of the Judicial Council or the
administrative office of the courts. But directed OGA to work
with the author to seek amendments to create a parallel act for
AOC employees, not to simply include them in the act and to
address differences between the executive branch and the
judicial branch and their employees. At the same meeting the
policy committee acted to approve sponsorship of a legislative
proposal from the criminal law advisory committee, aligning
supervision revocation procedures …
wearyant
June 21, 2012
Second capture of Baxter remarks:
legislative proposal from the court executives advisory
committee regarding modernization and improvement of statutes on
trial court records retention and management.
At the May 4th meeting, the policy committee took a no
position on AB 2381, which would make the bills act applicable
to quote an employee of the Judicial Council or the
administrative office of the courts. But directed OGA to work
with the author to seek amendments to create a parallel act for
AOC employees, not to simply include them in the act and to
address differences between the executive branch and the
judicial branch and their employees. At the same meeting the
policy committee acted to approve sponsorship of a legislative
proposal from the criminal law advisory committee, aligning
supervision revocation procedures. The committee was also given
a budget update by staff on discussions with legislative staff
regarding the efficiencies, proposals, I referred to earlier,
which was approved by the committee at the last meeting. On May
17th the committee met in person and considered five bills. The
committee supported the following bills, first of all, AB 1712,
containing clarifying amendments to implement the provisions of
the California fostering to success act, an act in 2010 related
to dependent children. Second AB 2299, relating to the
redaction of names of public safety officials, including judges
from property records for safety purposes. Third, AB 2393,
dealing with the low income adjustment and child support
calculations and, finally, SB 1433, relating to firearm
relingishment in cases where a protective order has been issued
under the domestic violence prevention act.
>> The committee also supported bill language related to
court security funding realignment clean-up and acted to oppose
AB 2242 which establishes the California hope public trust
created to control and manage state-owned property including
court facilities to maximize revenue. And Judge Herman will be
reporting on that issue as that was the issue that was addressed
this morning. At its May 25th meeting, the committee met to …
NOTE to self: Yes, when there are multiple layers of committees and the same people on all these committees, there may be an overlap in scheduling appearances problem.
wearyant
June 21, 2012
Baxter remarks on to Herman:
At its May 25th meeting, the committee met to
discuss pending legislation regarding mortgage foreclosure with
no action taken at that time. At the June 14th committee, the
policy meeting voted to support relating to rules and practice
proceedings. AB 2106 which seeks to clarify the time for
bringing a motion for a new trial and a motion to set aside and
vacate a judgment. AB 2274, dealing with litigants and AB 2073,
concerning electronic filing and service of document in the
trial courts. The policy committee also considered AB 2076
relating to fees for court reporter services which the committee
previously acted on at its April 12th meeting. The policy
committee took an oppose in part and no position in part subject
to the outcome of the work of the trial court budget working
group. The committee also approved for circulation for public
comment, a legislative proposal from the probate and mental
health and family and juvenile law advisory committees regarding
probate guardianship, and finally, two Judicial Council
sponsored bills regarding E discovery and notice to creditors
and claims regarding decdants estates. That completes my
report.
>> Any questions or comment on the justice Baxter report?
Seeing none. Justice Herman.
>> California hope public trust for the benefit of
community colleges, the state university, and the university of
California. The bill would require that there be an annual
inventory of properties owned by or managed, rather, by state
agencies which would include the courts and would determine on
an annual and then a bi-annual basis, which of those properties
are quote unquote under utilized. Transferred to the trust. We
have been working with the author to try to exempt the judicial
branch from this process and discussions are ongoing at this
point there is some discussion about exempting courts,
courthouses, parking, and court — and other court facilities,
and, again, those discussions are ongoing, the vote of the
committee this morning was to continue to oppose that
legislation.
>> Thank you, chief.
>> Thank you Judge Herman. Any question or comment?
>> Seeing and hearing none, I ask Justice Miller to report
on ENP.
>> On April 24th and again on May
wearyant
June 21, 2012
Hull remarks:
Thank you, chief, ladies and gentlemen, good morning.
We have met once since the April 24th Judicial Council Meeting
on May 3rd. RUPRO met by telephone to review proposed recisions
to the civil jury instructions. Item A-1 on today’s consent
agenda. RUPRO also approved a proposal on a special cycle.
Following public circulation and further review by the advisory
committee and RUPRO this proposal is expected to come before the
Judicial Council at the October 2012 business meeting. In
addition, RUPRO communicated by e-mail on one matter. They
considered correction of a form to conform to statutory changes
relating to installment payment plans. RUPRO recommends
approval of this proposal which is item A-2 on the consent
agenda. In addition, as justice Miller alluded to, RUPRO has
asked for input from the advisory committees and task forces
that it oversees concerning the committee’s composition and
number of members. Like ENP, we are looking at whether or not
the numbers and the composition of the advisory committees and
the task force are what appropriately they should be.
I should note, also, chief that RUPRO will be meeting soon
regarding a request to advisory committees and task forces to
consider rules that may be amended, suspended or repealed, in
order to achieve cost-savings. As the year goes on, we will
expand that inquiry beyond the advisory committees and task
forces, and attempt to make the same inquiry to the trial
courts, to the appellate courts and to others to see if rules
that we have — we have instituted in the past may be changed to
use the universal term, so that the courts can save costs in the
future. We also will be meeting to consider our rule-making
process in general terms. Including canvass presently underway
of other state processes as to their rule making procedures.
We’re looking in particular, not solely, but in particular, at a
procedure for asking trial and appellate courts for their
comments on rule proposals early on in the process, so that we
can have their input before we go forward and wait until the end
to have the courts advise us on the advisability of rule
proposals and we anticipate that will be worth it. We are
turning to as we speak. Chief, unless there are any questions
that is the RUPRO report.
>> Thank you. Any question or comment?
>> Thank you.
>> Next, we’ll hear from Judge Herman, who is the
California Case Management System
wearyant
June 21, 2012
Miller remarks:
At its May 25th meeting, the committee met to
discuss pending legislation regarding mortgage foreclosure with
no action taken at that time. At the June 14th committee, the
policy meeting voted to support relating to rules and practice
proceedings. AB 2106 which seeks to clarify the time for
bringing a motion for a new trial and a motion to set aside and
vacate a judgment. AB 2274, dealing with litigants and AB 2073,
concerning electronic filing and service of document in the
trial courts. The policy committee also considered AB 2076
relating to fees for court reporter services which the committee
previously acted on at its April 12th meeting. The policy
committee took an oppose in part and no position in part subject
to the outcome of the work of the trial court budget working
group. The committee also approved for circulation for public
comment, a legislative proposal from the probate and mental
health and family and juvenile law advisory committees regarding
probate guardianship, and finally, two Judicial Council
sponsored bills regarding E discovery and notice to creditors
and claims regarding decdants estates. That completes my
report.
>> Any questions or comment on the justice Baxter report?
Seeing none. Justice Herman.
>> California hope public trust for the benefit of
community colleges, the state university, and the university of
California. The bill would require that there be an annual
inventory of properties owned by or managed, rather, by state
agencies which would include the courts and would determine on
an annual and then a bi-annual basis, which of those properties
are quote unquote under utilized. Transferred to the trust. We
have been working with the author to try to exempt the judicial
branch from this process and discussions are ongoing at this
point there is some discussion about exempting courts,
courthouses, parking, and court — and other court facilities,
and, again, those discussions are ongoing, the vote of the
committee this morning was to continue to oppose that
legislation.
>> Thank you, chief.
>> Thank you Judge Herman. Any question or comment?
>> Seeing and hearing none, I ask Justice Miller to report
on ENP.
>> On April 24th and again on May …
wearyant
June 21, 2012
First capture of Gerst remarks:
if it’s okay, chief, I would like to ask justice Gerst if she
could report on her visit to the Superior Court.
>> Thank you.
>> I briefly reported last time about my visit to Ventura
and to Mono. I first met with judges eller and Magit and with
their executive officer. Afterwards I spent some time just
speaking with Hector. As with my visit to Ventura. I know
Erica had the same kind of experience. It was important to them
that somebody from the Judicial Council cared enough to be there
and sit down and talk with them. I found it informative,
totally enjoyable and they were as welcoming as they could
possibly be. We had a wide range of discussion about the AOC
and the various committees of the Judicial Council. As with the
other smaller courts, they have received needed assistance from
the AOC for human resources, legal, education, technology, and
the assigned judge’s program. They express their concern about
the budget and how it will seriously impact those services that
are provided to them. They pointed out in particular that they
were in need of help from legal, they apparently had a very
important investigation which they could not have done on their
own until it was done in an excellent matter. They believe
their function is important to them, they cannot provide
educational programs themselves. They did comment that it was
too bad the program was at the same time at the primary and
education program, they would have preferred to have been able
to attend those and not have the overlap. It assisted them in
setting up their new courthouse. The AOC sophistication was
needed to help them with the servers and routers. Also they
also commented that the AOC contracting services …
wearyant
June 21, 2012
Second capture of Gerst remarks:
the AOC for human resources, legal, education, technology, and
the assigned judge’s program. They express their concern about
the budget and how it will seriously impact those services that
are provided to them. They pointed out in particular that they
were in need of help from legal, they apparently had a very
important investigation which they could not have done on their
own until it was done in an excellent matter. They believe
their function is important to them, they cannot provide
educational programs themselves. They did comment that it was
too bad the program was at the same time at the primary and
education program, they would have preferred to have been able
to attend those and not have the overlap. It assisted them in
setting up their new courthouse. The AOC sophistication was
needed to help them with the servers and routers. Also they
also commented that the AOC contracting services with AT&T was
most useful for them. Critical for them is the assigned judges
program. When they have a long trial, the two judges there
cannot handle it on their own. In fact, they have a 30-day
complex construction defect case coming up. Maybe we should
transfer — they are going to need an assigned judge for that
case. They regularly need assigned judges when they have cases
like that. All three of them were very happy about the changes
in RUPRO that we have instituted the past few months. They’re
happy that RUPRO has reevaluated the need for rules and changes
and has revised the invitation to make it more user friendly for
the courts.
>> One concern they have involves fines and fees and they
have asked for help in this area. They said their CMS has a
hard time keeping up with the changes. State of the art as far
as security. Excellent building. But they would just remind
the office of court construction to be cognizant of who the
consumer is and please be sure that local input is sought in
these kinds of projects. Bottom line, it was a pleasure
spending the time with them and I look forward to seeing them
again soon.
>> Thank you. We enjoyed that report. Any questions or
comments regarding the reports?
>> Hearing and seeing none. I turn the internal report now
to rules and projects. Justice Hull.
>> Thank you, chief, ladies and gentlemen, good morning.
wearyant
June 21, 2012
Herman defers:
>> Next, we’ll hear from Judge Herman, who is the
California Case Management System chair of the internal
committee.
>> Thank you, chief. I’m going to defer our report until
item M on tomorrow’s agenda.
>> Thank you.
wearyant
June 21, 2012
NOTE re excerpts of JC meeting: “Judge Jahr” probably should be “judges.” It’s probably a brief form used in a prior transcript to more easily stenotype “Judge Jahr.”
wearyant
June 21, 2012
Judge White:
Next, Judge Jahr Steve white. Alliance of California Judge Jahr Judges. Alliance of California Judges.
>> Good afternoon. Madam Chief Justice, members of the counsel, thank you so much for allowing me the ten minutes today to talk but about this extraordinary document, the Strategic Evaluation Committee report. To the Chief’s considerable credit, the Strategic Evaluation Committee, under the leadership of Judge walk on and McCabe, had a truly remarkable document. One of the most significant contributions that the Chief made in making this happen was not only the initial decision to establish such a committee but [Inaudible] To it, Judge Jahrs of such integrity that they would do the kind of job that they did. Judges of such integrity. I’m not sure that it would have happened before. One of the epitomizing at effects of the report is the observation that the committee made that the Judicial Council was not at the top of any of the AOC harts. This is not, of course, an accident. It happened because it was allowed to happen. The SEC’s call for transparency, accountability, and efficiency, and change in tone and attitude must be for this council an urgent priority. For too many years, the AOC has actively and aggressively usurps the power of the courts and has been found to be dishonest with with budgeting, staff levels, pretend hiring freezing, major projects reflecting AOC priorities and the list going on. This happened because the Judicial Council let it happen. The docility and compliance of previous councils agrandize the powers of the AOC and the Chief Justice alike. This was possible because the council was never democratically elected and never represented the judiciary itself. I speak for the alliance of California Judges, several hundred Judge Jahrs who know this all too well. Change much came. It will not occur until the council is elected by the Judges of California and is accountability to the Judges of California instead of to a one person appointing authority. In many times addressing the council in watching interaction betweened members I know that healthy debate and dissent have not been well received. I think that under the Chief Justice now, it’s beginning to change. Healthy debate and dissent are cornerstones of democracy and group decision-making. Many decisions which have brought great grief could have been avoided had.
>> Been debate, dissent permissible and independent votes without fear of recrimination. The current system is broke and needs mending. Making the council truly representative of the California judiciary is fundamentally necessary. While the years of what was essentially one Chief, 21 votes may be over, the council ever never be representative of the judicial branch federal it, in fact, represents the Judges of California. And representation by definition is assignment Congress ferred by those being represented it’s not imposed by those who would be represented. Though democrat advertising — for all concerned, change must start now and with you. For too many years it has been far more about the will of the A over C and the appointing authority than about the responsibilities 6 an entire branch of government. Your responsibilities and my responsibilities and those of every Judge in California, we are state institutional officers obliged under the constitution to run the Judicial Branch. We don’t meet the obligation by delegating this to an untethered AOC, one that prefers it’s own agenda over our commitment and responsibility to keep courts open for the people of California. And if you don’t believe this is exactly what has happened, reread the SEC report and examine the AOC budgets and the 58 trial courts, and the 6 Appellatte Courts in the state. See where resources were added, added, staff cut, and see where it was added. The entire judiciary is watching with great interest to see how the SEC proposals will be dressed by this body. — addressed by this body. Will they be endorsed and made to happen or will we instead have more committees and study. Will its opponent swallow chunks of it or simply nibble it to death. Regaining it’s lost credibility it must regain the SEC’s recommendation at a speaking pace. The alliance — Lee smally’s approach that the Judge Jahrs who supposed the extraordinary SEC document be charged with the tracking of the progress of the undertaking. Courts downside sizing now for more than three years, and courts are closing every week, and court staff laid off daily while the AOC grew and gave enhanced benefits and raises, the council must substantially downsize the Administrative Office of the Courts so it’s entire function is core services to courts, especially in the rural counties and the freed up resources must be redirected to keeping trial courts open. Now [Inaudible] Of access to Judge Jahr is access to courts. Courts that are closed are inaccessible. The entire judiciary is watching and I suspect the other two branches are as well. Thank you.
>> Tani Cantil-Sakauye: Thank you, junk white. And Santa Clara County, Judge white.
>> Thank you, Chief. Chief Justice, members of the Judicial Council
wearyant
June 21, 2012
CJ remarks reconvening p.m. session:
… service I think speaks volumes about the gravity with which the SEC approached the mission and the depth and scope of the mission. What they provided to the council, I think is a very helpful tool that we’ll employ as we move forward despite a very challenging fiscal environment. When I became Chief Justice, it continues and became important and remains urgent to me to be be sure that the council uses every talent available to assess the needs of the public, judicial branch, and every court in the system to deliver on the promise of equal justice for all. When I began, and even to this day. — responsibilitys for our court states, we knew that they assumed greater duties and the AOC had accordingly grown in responsibility, complexity, and size. I felt we needed more information on if the AOC as operating with the council’s priorities. That’s why I appointed the SEC in March 2012 weeks after I was sworn in and after I — March 2011. Through surveying all the trial Judge Jahr trial Judge Jahrs. — gather data and assess prioritys to determine what is is used to in order to best serve the courts and the public. Such a report has not been previously undertaken. It reflects the historic willingness to take a hard look at ourselves particularly working with the public and the branch and the middle of a unstable and grim financial reality over which we have little to no control. The Judicial Council has been and continues to be an enthusiastic leader of positive change. The AOC has been historically the implement that we lied upon for the council es commission. You’ll be hearing more from Jody on changes that have been made and underway. We have an invaluable tool with this report. And we continue to re-examine our practices and the activities of the OAC to ensure that they’re still write for our court — right for the courts, and in the constantly changing environment. Lastly, I released this report in May and even before the mention to the council so we could all read it together and so council could gain insight into the further reflections on the implementation of the report. Today the report will be formally presented to the council in the same way all critical reports are handled. Council can hear from the SEC, discuss the report, and discuss how we proceed. As I look how, and based on the e-mail, and the letters I’ve received, I’m heartened to see such great interest in the subject as evidenced by all of you who are hear to comment and those who have submitted letters and e-mails offering views. It shouldn’t come as a surprise to any of us that in our branch of trained critical thinkers, Judge Jahrs, lawyers, court execs, that the has generated intense dialogue. Conflicting opinions in the branch, but I look forward to a spirited dialogue conducted professionally and civilly as befits our branch and as a Judge Jahr. I anticipate it will help to yield change for the better and advance and improve our ability, both the Judicial Council and the branches as a whole to provide equal justice. Once again I thanks the members, including art cuffman who started the work, former member of the SEC and for all of your hard work. Later on, as you know, justice Miller, as the chair of the committee I have asked to recommend a process regarding the recommendations made. Based on the discussions we’ll have after the presentation of the report, I suggest that council discuss the report after hearing from the chair and the Vice Chair and then justice Miller. Before we start that, we have many interested people who come to speak on the report. And I will call first upon our colleagues who have come here to speak to the report. And I will start with justice Lori zeallon. From the — Zelon speaking on the commission of access to justice. G and H have been merged, you have 10 minutes to present views.
wearyant
June 21, 2012
Requests to comment, Zelon (sp?):
… that the Chief just spoke about. The — the ability of the council to consider this is going to be, I hope, assisted by the comments of people whoo came here today. But there are many, many people who couldn’t be here today. I think it’s important to have their voices heard as work goes forward. I start by saying on behalf of the commission, and that is the position in which I am hearing today, the report has very little focus on the significant and positive efforts of the AOC to carry out this council’s policy in terms of ensuring access to justice in our courts. And that’s the core of our function as a branch, of course. And it’s where the work of the branch, the work of the council, overlaps the work of the commission and access to justice. So I hope today to talk about some of those issues. Just as background, I have been privileged to be part of access to justice before it was formed. I was on the committee that looked into whether we would have one, and I was honored to serve as the fir chair and I continue as an adjunct role. They said it was like hoe tell California, you toco get in and never leave. Apparently that was true. And unlike many other states, it was not formed as an entity of the Supreme Court. It’s independent that has very broad membership from the public, the Legislature, from labor unions, religious organizations, but from the giving, from the very first moment, the commission partnered with this Judicial Council and with the AOC to carry out it’s work because of the mutual interest. That partnership enabled very significant achievements in making our courts accessible to the people that we are all here to serve. Just a couple examples to be specific, first in language accities, the commission has — access. They have submitted a report in lane access. Now more than ever with the continuing interest of the justice department with language access as a civil right and the investigations of all the states in terms of what they’re doing. Without the work of the AOC on interpreter standards and education and expanding the base of interpreters, the significant impact of the commission’s report The recommendation to go forward could not have been carried out. The commission doco not have done it by itself and that positive has allowed it to move forward in significant ways in providing access to those who don’t speak English as their first language. The second example is self-help. The self-help efforts began with attendance at a national conference in Arizona. Members of the commission and AOC formed a team that went to Arizona to learn. From that came the access man, The litigants task force and today we have self-help centers in every court in California. # had the commission was able to have input on the important guide lines which guide and regulate those centers. Those guide lines ensure quality, they ensure uniformity, and cost effectiveness of the self-help centers. They make sure that it doesn’t matter to the litigant whether they’re in Sonoma Orioleo county, the candidates will be the same. These are enforred through the terms of the contracts which the AOC enters with each of the courts and those contracts are an important way to make sure that justice is equal across the State of California. The commissions role in this has been not only to support but to do work on un-bulgedling. When the commission recommended that unbundling was a way to provide services to people who could use help in self-representing, the AOC staff drafted rules. With non-bundling they worry that the Judge Jahr won’t let them out of the case when they’re done. For the lawyers to get in and out, and for the Judge to know what is done, and to get in and out. And this work in putting that together was incredibly important. Let me turn now to specific issues about the recommendations themselves that we would like to highlight. There were a number listed in the letter. I am going to talk about two. One is a suggestion that limiting rules changes and forms changes today is required by statute or by case law. It would seriously hinder the development of policies that serve litigants. The unbundling procedures I just talked about were not required by the legislature, they were not required by a case, it was a case where the comforts and the commission working together saw a need to make access available to litigants in a new way and led the legislature. That’s happened time and time again where the people on the ground recognized the problem well before the legislature does. If we cannot act without the legislature telling us to, we’ll lose the opportunity to innovative and protect those who come to our courts. By the way, these rules also improve courthouse efficiency. We’re beginning to see these efficiencies pay off as the rules are implemented. Another area where this work was [Inaudible] Delay reduction many years ago. That too, most of the changes not mandated by legislation but led by the branch. The second area that I wish to express concern about on behalf of the commission is the emphasis on the case analysis for new initiative.
Concept of the core function of access to Judge Jahr should be subject to a cost-benefit analysis based on financial terms strikes me as odd. Not that we do not want to increase efficiency and make our courts effective, of course we do. But access sometimes required up front expenditures. For example, the self-help projects and centers require an infusion of cash to get them going and get them operating. We are now beginning to understand in real dollar terms what that means in terms of savings to the court and hours in the courtroom and staff time. But at the beginning, there was no way of knowing that. And yet it was the right thing to do because the litigants needed that assistance. And so I think when we think about how we are going to analyze business case, when we talk about access to justice, the driving force must be the needs of the litigants and the our focus must be needs of the litigants rather than some more abstract cost-benefit analysis. So I would ask the council, as it considers how it wants to act on 24 very important report that has been received, when and how to implement the recommendations, whether they need modification —
>> You have one more minute.
>> I’m finishing up. Thank you. I would ask you to consider the needs of the litigants as the priority as we go forward as a branch and I thank you for your consideration.
>> Thank you, justice Zelon. Next, Judge Steve white.
wearyant
June 21, 2012
Comments from Brian Walsh:
Thank you, Chief. Chief Justice, members of the Judicial Council, AOC staff and guests, I’m Brian Walsh here to speak for the Santa Clary county superior Court I’m the presiding Judge Jahr. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you and doing the difficult work of the Judicial Council and entering into the discussions of hard choices that you must make. I was on the Judicial Council as an attorney member for four and a half years in the mid-’90s. I know your pain. But we’re hear to discuss the SEC report. Our court certainly believes that every successful organization must be re-evaluated from time to time. And for the AOC, now is the appropriate time. I have read the SEC report and I want to compliment its authors and the committee for its valuable and thorough report. It contains some excellent, excellent ideas and recommendations including greater clarity to budget reporting. Wouldn’t it be great if we normal last year’s budget compared it this year’s budget, comparing apples to apples. Wonderful. It recommends that the AOR participate in absorbing some of the kinds of budget reductions that we in the trial court it’s must endure. On behalf of our court, we urge that any downsizing any consolidating, any budget cutting, be done thoughtfully. The goal should notten simply downsizing but right sizing so that the AOC organization that results from your decisions can properly fulfill its mission. The SEC report points out that many smaller courts benefit directly from AOC services but I want to stress that our court, a larger court, benefits directly from AOC services. We just lost our general counsel, a phone call away was the journal counsel’s office from the AOC seamlessly stepping in giving guidance and their work and help office of — affairs in Sacramento, helps us to work through our issues. The office of construction has been invaluable in helping us with the courthouse we’re attempting to build in the difficult budgetary times that we badly need and could not succeed on getting without the talent they provide, talent we could not get anywhere else. We need those services but we agree with the SEC that those services must be provided with a service provider mentality and that the AOC staff must serve the trial courts not run the trial courts. We also agree with the SEC recommendation 4-1 which states, quote, the Judicial Council must take an active role in overseeing and monitoring the were OC. We have no doubt that this council is doing so and that that active role will continue. There are some who claim that the Judicial Council should simply — and that the physician has failed its role and should adopt the recommendations of the SEC in whole. That seems to me inscient. If you must adopt a leadership role, by all means do it, in doing it, that means you must make the final decision. When I was on the Judicial Council, we had many important reports, the race and ethnic bias, report, and jury improvement, excellent people got together and made thorough recommendations. We didn’t just adopt it, we vetted each and every one of them. That must be the case here. .
>> You have 30 seconds.
>> And finally I urge that do you it quickly. I agree that the correct of the entire project is not just in the quality of the decisions but making the decisions now with all deliberate speed. Not too much public input. You’ve had plenty of that. The decision is yours. And we urge you on behalf of our considerate to make it now.
>> Thank you, Judge Walsh
Curious
June 21, 2012
The transcript is very very rough, and obviously machine generated. The names are wrong throughout, as usual. Hope you could listen. Judge White of the Alliance was great, and Judge Wachob of SEC was absolutely compelling.
One Who Knows
June 21, 2012
Recorded transcripts are never reliable and fraught with inaccuracies and inaudibles. This streaming of the the JC meeting makes a good point about why recording court proceedings is bad and if you want an accurate record, you need a court reporter.
Commercial IT
June 21, 2012
OneWhoKnows, you are incorrect. Current technology permits recording of up to 12 simultaneous tracks and can be so accurate that every word can be transcribed accurately even if several people are talking at once. The equipment is manufactured by Sony, Lanier, and other companies.
Michael Paul
June 21, 2012
I’ll be more than happy to use Judicial Council meetings as the benchmark of reliability. When they can produce a clean transcript of JC meetings I’ll consider that they might be able to produce a clean transcript of a trial.
Commercial IT
June 21, 2012
Michael, what you see on-line in respect to the JC meetings bears little relationship to what is possible with transcripts of trials. The matters are essentially unrelated. The transcription attempts for the JC meetings are in real-time. That has tremendous significance. I’m surprised that you would not instantly understand the night/day difference between that and digital multi-track recording of a trial with Lanier or Sony equipment, followed by transcription. Demonstration transcriptions of trials with modern equipment were so accurate they triggered lawsuits by court reporters in both California and Florida to try to stop the process. The reporters succeeded, unfortunately, in California.
Part of the solution to the California courts’ financial problems is to replace court reporting with digital multi-track recording plus transcription. It is only one of many technology changes that could and should be made.
wearyant
June 21, 2012
You’d get the transcript in several weeks after a transcriptionist laboriously plowed through it. The court reporters who realtime are using state of the art electronic equipment. Microsoft (I love to call them Mickey$oft, but they’ve cornered the realtime equipment market) has just released their version of an iPad. The court reporters are thrilled. It will replace their laptops! Great, huh?
wearyant
June 21, 2012
More comments:
Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today. Family allow and domestic practice attorney practices. One of the largest court systems in the state. A law school instructors, a mentor of faculty, and pro bono, board member of legal service agency and member of the domestic council of Santa Clara County. I see first hand the tremendous contribution the AOC and it’s programs have made and I want to tell you how consistently I rely on their materials, training, and support to the infrastructure, to my practice, teaching and training. The SEC report did not seem to accurately reflect the enormity of the positive contributions that the AOC was made. I would not like to see them canceled without the — knot the acknowledged need for effective management, the AOC’s efforts are vital.
It has improved the family court system in my county are incredibly important and substantial, the efforts include access to visitation grams for supervised visits as well as the — my county was an early participant in the CCPO protective order law registry. It’s so much more than IT. It helps to increase the safety of domestic violence victims because Judges know who is standing in front of them when they have information. I presented to justice court training and it’s an important leverage and training it instills in college students a mind set for the court. The AOC and the family children’s for the courts provides self-help information for litigants including domestic violence information translated into several languages. As Ang attorney, where the other side is not represented, I appreciate that self-represented litigant can get the information to represent themselves in an effective manner. This helps to avoid costly delays in the courts. As an aside, a law school faculty member, the self-help encourages newed a might Mittees into the bar and more into the courts is going to be a good thing for operations and it’s administration of justice. The AOC supports facilities offices — all of these are vital functions that enable our courts to serve families without unnecessary delay and expense. Mediators and facilitiers keep them from coming back to court time and time again. And the training of judicial officers is crucial especially in domestic violence matters with the lack of judicial education on the nuances and complexities of domestic violence can be dangerous. And cutting edge issues. I was privileged to be part of training that looked at the impact of emerging internet technologies and domestic violence 3459ers. The Judge Jahrs needed to understand how technologies could be used. The evidentiary problems and risk assessment that may need to accompany the cases. I use AOC materials on a regular basis. High quality and accurate publications. Bench guides, firearms, working with litigants. They help make sense of complicated statutory schemes. The AOC’s research help scrutinize the batters. And the result was a substantial research publication that I have I signed to my law students, infernalled the bench, bar, and students to remediate domestic violence. Participated invitations to comment and I’m thankful that knowledgeable AOC attorneys are working on the forms update especially related to domestic violence, juvenile, and family law. The variety means that forms revision is extraordinarily complex. I appreciate the involvement of the AOC. Their lawyers are incredibly skilled and have experience if family law, seven help, education and training and many other ways. The SEC report appears to criticize the AOC but neglected to mention how important accuracy and coherence of forms is and how challenging it is to get it right —
>> You have 30 seconds
>> I am not commenting on the structure or staffing, to conclude I hope that these recommendations are reviewed on a case by case basis. Thank you very much.
>> Tani Cantil-Sakauye: Thank you. Next we’ll hear from Mr. Paul freeze. Vice president and public council.
wearyant
June 21, 2012
Comments from Frieze:
>> Tani Cantil-Sakauye: Thank you. Next we’ll hear from Mr. Paul freeze. Vice president and public council. Paul FRIE were ZE
>> Thank you, your honor. And if I could in-AGle ten minutes?
Law.
>> No, denied.
>> We are the nation’s largest provider of pro bono legal services. Singular dynamic force in promoting specifically the [Inaudible] Court model. If I don’t mind, I frame my discussion with a quick story, how the times have changed. My wife is a family physician taking our sons to a female physician. One day she was talking to David and said, so, what would you like to be when I glow up? A lawyer like daddy.
she was kinded kind of hurt, don’t you want to be a Doctor like mom? No, a male Doctor? When I grew up never saw a homeless person, and in 1970 they indicated that there were less than 20,000 home -8S people. Now there are triple that number in LA county alone. 18 years of public council searching for best practices help to prevent and alleviate homelessness. And I have to say, the court model does more to break the cycle of homelessness and poverty than any service delivery model I have personally witnessed. They play a dynamic role promoting this dynamic model.
AOC convened a homeless summit attended by [Inaudible] Leaders, judiciary, criminal judgment system, and public interest committee. And it commenced with you, your honor, and you touted the role California has played. You made it clear that access to justice is ensuring that we don’t enable those who belong — who don’t belong in the criminal justice it will from ending up there, the homeless, criminally ill, and those returning with the traumas of war. The court model has emerged to — and the AOC has played a critical role. This conference was the most impactful in terms of rallying.
wearyant
June 21, 2012
Comments continuing with Pico:
very effectively through the summit. . The summit raised awareness of homeless courts and how dramatically they can alleviate the administrative burden. And providing alternative sentencing options. I had a the privilege, a number of years ago, in seeing the great work of the AOC when they organized a leadership summit promoting the model. It led to Santa Monica — the homeless provider provided alternative sentencing options for those afflicted with mental health and other disorders. . This local courts identifying local, federal, and private funding. Local and statewide house benefit. — the government accountability office for its rigorous standards. Showing the processing. With reduced recidivism —
>> You have 30 seconds.
>> Okay. We have grown from less than 100 to a handful of jurisdictions to more than 400 serving 40,000 cases a year. To conclude, those of you who know me, know I’m more likely to quote Jimmy Buffet than Warren. He said his success was not — it was by investing in good people. Forward thinking, visionary dynamic individuals dedicated to shaping the administrative of justice. I urge you not to take action that would weak. Their leadership or vital role they play in helping to provide the court with such effectiveness [Inaudible] T. we hear next from Mr. Anthony PICO. Children in foster care commission.
>> Thank you. Esteemed members of the council, I’m 23 years old, a student at Loyola University trying to finish an undergraduate degree. I have spent over a quarter of my life as a commissioner on the blue ribbon commission on the foster care commission. We have roughly one fifth of the — we have gone from roughly 80 thou to 60,000 in my time on the commission. The report makes me extremely sad because it doesn’t show the strengths we have in the state and in the AOE. Over the years I have spent a lot of times thinking how we can improve justice. I didn’t know we had a lawyer until I was 15. I was born in the foster care system. The work that is done with our experts that are staffing the EOC is invaluable. We have people sought after nationwide for their knowledge, for their time in the field. I fear that the report is throwing the baby out with the bath water. There’s ways of maintaining our expertise and our values without having to increase funding. There’s ways that we can address the issues that the public see. I worked in the legislature for four years so I am well aware of the but thary restraints we are facing. — budgetary restraints. I’m here to say as a foster youth I’ve even Mance pated and I will enter the justice system, as a lawyer. I have worked across the country on improves for thing care and I can attribute that to watching as a young teenager lawyers who tirelessly sacrificed their time, energy, to improve the courts. They have a passion. Yes, there are broken systems. Yes, there’s fat that can be cut, but to say that we have is a full-on abuse of the system I feel that’s overreaching.
CFCC has literally become my family. When people died in front of me that were my caretakers, they stepped in. They sacrificed their time. Ensuring their work was still done, but making sure a member of the community, a client of their system, was being provided services was at the top of their agenda. Now, I can’t speak to the entire [Inaudible] Report because it’s so long and intricate. There are definitely things that should be done from the report, but I should say you need to go through and examine whole heartedly because, yes, we can go back to 1992 standards, but could — do we want to? Do we want to go backwards in time and see ourselves facing the issues that we were fighting in the ’80s and in the ’90s. I go to Loyola University, in their mission is the pursuit of justice. I hope that with this we do have to make drastic cuts, we have to make the hard decisions, but we need to do it in a thoughtful and meticulous manner. The services that are offered I’ve seen time and time again are necessary. I don’t want to see the state turn into north versus south, urban versus rural. I don’t want to hear in ten years if I become an attorney, well, you should really practice in X county, they have a lot of great services, you don’t want to practice in this other county. We shouldn’t have 58 separate institution under one branch. We should have one institution united. And I thank you for your time.
>> .
>> Tani Cantil-Sakauye: Thank you, you are wise beyond your years. Thank you for that moving presentation. Next we’ll hear from Mr. Mark WAZAK.
wearyant
June 21, 2012
Comments from Wazak:
Next we’ll hear from Mr. Mark WAZAK. An attorney.
>> Mr. Pico is always a difficult act to follow. Along with my two law partners for the last to years I represent parents and children in the juvenile dependenciesome it. For the past two years we have represents the minors Marin county. We have come in county with our slice of the AOC in the center for families, children, and the courts through the draft program. Although CFCC and draft in particular didn’t appear to be primary targets of the criticism in the SEC report, I wanted to relate to you our experience in dealing with CFCC. I should point out, for the work we do, we’re not shapers of policy like many people who are here today. We’re really more foot soldiers interacting with clients, individual clients on a daily basis. When we were selected to provide the representation in Marin county, we didn’t know what support we would get through the draft program. It soon became apparent because we were selected by the liaison — our experience with CFCC and Marin has been extremely positive and very beneficial to the jobs that we do. Besides regular ongoing access in person, on the phone, by e-mail with our liaison attorney, I would like to talk about three specific interactions with CFCC that have been beneficial. The first is that the CFCC facilitates our participation in the blue ribbon committee on children and foster care. This has resulted in active participation in developing new initiatives in Marin County that here to foredid not exist. Fore, we develop it’s a peer-parent mentor program which pairs up parents going through the juvenile dependency system and helps them navigate a very difficult process to get their children back. There’s a development of a program of early intervention team to get involved in cases early and perhaps prevent filing of juvenile dependency petitions at all. There’s been a county-wide review and revision of local visitation guide lines for the parent clients and their children. And these are all things that I don’t think would have moved along at all or as quickly as — without the involvement of our CFCC liaison. Secondly, our involvement with CFCC has led to greater interaction with various stakeholders throughout other counties in the juvenile dependency system. That has led to us, for example, providing special immigrant juvenile status training to bench officers and social workers and attorneys in Stan is loss county. And we’re going to be involved in training in dell merit county and this is with the draft program involvement. One of the things that the CFCC does particularly well is rolling out a coordinated comprehensive trainings across the state on existing law and new legislation that’s coming online that affects how we provide legal services to our clients. A prime example — recent example of this — the massive and coordinated effort to education and train multiple stakeholders in the sweeping changes brought by AB12. Extending services to depend minors when they’re 18 and giving them the option to remain in system and receive services as non-minor dependents. We’re passionate about our work, and our clients and deeply committed to providing zealous REMs representation. Our involvement with CFCC in Marin has furthered in order goal and see them as beneficial partners in continuing our work.
>> Tani Cantil-Sakauye: Thank you. Mr. Christopher Dolan on his own behalf. Before you start and I start the five-minute clock. I want to thank you for bringing to the president the letter chronicling the difficulties that the Judicial Branch is facing. I appreciate you conveying that on our behalf.
>> Before my five minutes, the president was in shock that there were no court reporters in the courtrooms and as constitutional scholar he made a personal note on his paper to the fact that there was no court reporters. And he heard your message. And Haugh for allowing me to deliver it.
>> Tani Cantil-Sakauye: Thank you.
>> An attorney, plaintiff’s lawyer, trial lawyer. My attorneys need the trial courts like they need air. I want to say to Mr. Pico, met him in an airport ten years ago probably not even in high school. We spent a half hour chatting on the bench how to make a difference in law, and the world, and we talked about law. I want to tell him, you need a job, my office. [Laughter] Any day. Okay. So I have to make a disclaimer, I’m not here on behalf of any organization. I’m the past president of consumer attorneys in California, and the executive board of the trial lawyers association, it was so long ago I met him I didn’t need …
wearyant
June 21, 2012
Comments from Attorney Dolan:
>> An attorney, plaintiff’s lawyer, trial lawyer. My attorneys need the trial courts like they need air. I want to say to Mr. Pico, met him in an airport ten years ago probably not even in high school. We spent a half hour chatting on the bench how to make a difference in law, and the world, and we talked about law. I want to tell him, you need a job, my office. [Laughter] Any day. Okay. So I have to make a disclaimer, I’m not here on behalf of any organization. I’m the past president of consumer attorneys in California, and the executive board of the trial lawyers association, it was so long ago I met him I didn’t need these glasses. I have served on numerous EOC committees and read the entire report and every comment and needed several cups of coffee. It was valuable. It’s extensive. In so far as it can provide more money to the trial courts, I’m all for it. The main message I heard was reorganization and service to the branch. But there’s another element that needs the service, it’s the ultimate person, the ultimate consumer, it’s my client. — I have to tell them about the delays in the court process that will probably mean that there’s case will not be hatred for three and a half years while they lose their home. Will not be heard for three and a and a half years. This is the reality that we’re dealing with. Not just the issue between the branch, AOC and the Judicial Council. There’s some very valuable services. I’m here to carry AOC’s water, there are some very valuable services. I sit on the small claims working group, court efficiencies group, budgetary and financial groups and somehow I manage to practice law too. I want to tell you about a service the AOC provides that’s not in that report. 100 some million dollars to the judiciary over the past four years. How do I know this? I was in the negotiations regarding fee increases and other items that led to money coming from my clients and myself as a commitment to this court system to help back fill. The money that’s in SB1406, $207 million part of the gap, came from a fee increase in the filing piece. I pay the filing fees on behalf of my clients. That money is now available to back fill. That came from a meeting in the AOC in this building, down that hall, and I think it’s called the red wood room. If it’s not, I’m mistaken but I spent so much time in that room trying to hammer out a fee increase plan providing access for justice. Curt childs and I have been on the phone with other members parts of leadership trying to hammer out a package. Ideas we spoke about two years ago is now coming to fruition. That’s because the AOC is here. I just have you look at what the AOC does. A1 through A2, jury instructions. Statewide jury instructions are invaluable so that the Appellatte Courts are not bogged down by different types of arguments. That’s an aefficiency issue. That came out of the AOC from lawyers like myself who sit down with an unlikely group of allies call the chamber of commerce for us. We sit in the room with them. The only person who puts us in the room is the AOC. We talk civilly and come up with plans that we work together with to accomplish the joint mission we have. E discover. That’s been worked out to keep people out and in front of courts and having motions to compel. Court call. That brought money. That Court Call came out of the consumer attorneys of California, and the defense council sitting down in how can we be more efficiency and bring money to the council. The whole idea of jury reform, one day, one jury, came from meetings in the AOC. The preases various of inventory deer, and all of that came from meetings with the AOC. How can he save money and trim lawyers, if there were not lawyers in the meetings, nothing would have happened. I can’t talk to a paralegal about a legal process they have never been involved in. I just can’t. I have to tell you. We’re here to work day and night. I sacrifice my practice. I have a a home in Sacramento because I spend so much time there. Judge white gave me a hard time because the lawn was a mess but I picked.
As particular who practice in the local courts, the AOC in this council is the only place there’s that voice. There’s no requirement that the open courts have those meetings. The only way we can make the change is here. In closing, item 6-8, the recommendation, a better process to address the fiscal and operational impacts of the — amen. Do it here. Take the report but could — do what is in the report. Assess not only who the immediate changes are but what the multiplier effect of those changes as it causes inefficiency throughout the branch and the inability to come together to help keep the ship afloat. I thank you for your time and all the work that do you.
>> Tani Cantil-Sakauye: Thank you, Mr. Dolan. This ends our public comment period. I urge you, if you have not already done so, to go to the website and look at the written comments we have received. Approximately 15 letters, maybe more, they have not been added to the written comment agenda. Very thoughtful letter like the thoughtful comment we received today posted on the website …
wearyant
June 21, 2012
Hon. Wachob:
>> Thank you. Good afternoon, Chief. I’m Charles WACHOB, current chair of 9 SEC, and next to me is Brian McCabe, Judge Jahr of the Superior Court in a set. I was thinking that it was not that long ago that SEC was not in everybody’s lexicon. SEC used to bring to mind the southeastern conference or maybe the security and exchange commission, but that’s forever changed. As recognized in the report, the AOC has played a vital role in achieving monumental changes in the state court funding, trial court unification, and other efforts to strengthen the Judicial Branch. And to make it a truly independent branch of government. Also as recognized in the SEC report, the AOC is an essential organization because it fulfills a variety of functions, many of which are mandated by state statute rule of court or Judicial Council directive. However, the charge given to the SEC by the Chief Justice when she formed our committee was not to detail or list many of the positive contributions of the AOC of which there are numerous but at the request of the Chief to undertake an in-depth, comprehensive examination of the role, functions, organizational structure, methods of operation, and staffing of the administrative office of the courts and to make recommendations to ensure that the AOC performs only essentially functions in an appropriate, beneficial, cost effective, and transparent manner. Accordingly, the SEC’s report by it’s very nature focuses on problems rather than on many of the positives that we see from the AOC. At the outset, the SEC wishes to acknowledge that the AOC employs many dedicated, skilled employees. That was acknowledged on the very first page of the report. It may glossed over, but on behalf of the committee, I would like to restate that. I don’t intend to cover all the findings and recommendations in the report. I’m sure you’re glad about that. Many have read the report, it speaks for itself in many ways. I would like to talk to you about the process. It’s not discussed? The report specifically. How we went above our work, what we did, how we came together as a group of Judge Jahrs to make the recommendations and findings that we’re presenting to you today. First the committee comes from all parts of the state, and with incredibly diverse backgrounds, from the largest court, literally, to the smallest court, and with incredibly different perspectives. This committee was dedicated, and spent many long nights, weekends and hours away from families and from their courts. I’m sure many of the courts that were involved here will be glad to get their Judge Jahrs back. I know I’m looking forward to returning to my day job as a trial court Judge Jahr. The thing that I would like to do too is talk about the members of the committee just briefly to acknowledge them and to demonstrate to you the diversity of background and perspectives that were brought to this task.
First of all, the Chief appointed justice art Scotland, former administrative presiding Judge of the third district of Court of Appeal to be the chair of our committee. He served probably through about three quarters of our work until about February when he stepped down. He had incredible experience both on the trial court level and on the Appellatte Court level. I think that I can speak for all of the committee members and specifically for myself that I was sorry when he stepped down. I was made chair. That was not something I envisioned when I started and Judge McCabe stepped in as Vice Chair. Judge McCabe, numerous exhibits and attachments in the back, all of those were a product of Judge McCabe’s work. Those were not charts, numbers, statistics, pulled from an an OC shelf. We fought for the numbers, dug for those numbers and they were assembled. And I think that speaks to the diligence of our committee in trying to get to the bottom of some of the issues that we were looking at as we moved along. Also in the committee, Judge Jahr Verna Adams. I don’t know if she’s here? She can wave her hand. There we go. And Judge Adams was a trial Judge Jahr for over 13 years including a didn’t as a presiding Judge Jahr of the Marin County court. The first domestic violence court — and what she was most proud of as Judge Jahr was that she was a pioneer in establishing ADR.
The first interdin minutary settlement for high conflict custody cases in which volt tear mental health professionals are included as part of the process with astoundingly successful results. Also in the group, Judge Angela Bradstreet superior considerate of San Francisco back there. This was part of the brilliance, I think, in the Chief Justice in appointing members of our committee that came with backgrounds with long experience as Judge Jahrs and shorter experiences as Judge Jahr Judges. She was the part of the women lawyers and the bar association. She was honored with the state bar’s diversity award, honored to only one attorney, advanced women and legals in the profession. Overseeing an organization with approximate mayly 2400 people. And a refired LA county Superior Court Judge with over 20 years on the bench. Her years are too long to detail. Served on task forces, member of procedure, and interestingly, she taught legal issues and judicial administration for over 20 years at the Judicial Administration program at USC. Judge Ron Christianson is the presiding Judge of the San Bernardino court is here
>> You’re doing something funny.
>> And came to our committee with background as to former prosecutor for the attorney. And Judge Cheryl Ellsworth seated to the left is the current presiding Judge of the river side Superior Court served on numerous advisory committees, task force, work groups, etc., concerning areas including domestic violence and family law. Also on the group we have people flash to Justice Scottland who has served on the Judicial Council, and Judge kingsberry, she was the judicial council member from 2004 to 2007. She chaired the rules and projects committee for two years.
On the trial court pesiding advisory committee since 1999. I asked her how many work groups she had been on and she said zillions and I don’t have reason to doubt here. Not here today due to prior planned vacation, Judge Jahr McLaughlin. Long time hand in the Judicial Branch on the LA superior for over 20 years and served on numerous Judicial Council committees. Was on the Judicial Council itself for several years I think in 2002 or so. Brought a perspective of someone who has served on a large court. Moving from the largest to the smallest court, bringing a small court perspective, Judge William pangman, retired Judge Jahr of the — served for over 14 years. And served on a variety of Judicial Council committees including the presiding Judge executive committee and several turns on the budget working group. Also here, member of the committee, is Judge Richard CEOCHI came from a civil litigation background. And a new Judge Jahr, someone not tieed into the system for a long time. I’ve been on a number of committees with other Judges and I have to say I was honored personally to serve on the group. It was an incredibly hardworking diligent group. Our committee was assisted bay pretty amazing group of advisory committee members. This was not detailed. Jim Tillton had 32 years of experience working in a variety of positions with the State of California, including 28 years in executive management positions. And overseeing the state of California Department of Corrections which employed at that time more than 55,000 peace officers and other staff members who worked in the prisons. And he has a background with the Department of Finance as did all of our advisory committee members. So when we talk about recommendations about the budget process, it’s a pretty solid group to be talking to, they know their stuff. Not here today is Diane Cummins, a long time state and government veteran, and also a veteran in the Department of Finance. Served multiple governors and administrations. And Dave calferty. Served with several positions. When he was done with the career in government, he became a management consultant. All of those types of experiences helped the committee with the analysis of the organization that we genetic took. Not here today is Mary McQueen, a advisory member of the committee. Current president for the national center no state courts. She brought a perspective of other states, what they do in terms of their Judicial Administration. And additionally, she had the experience of having been a director of the Washington state court system. I point that out not to Brad brag about the committee members but to highlight the experience they bring to the task. This was a reasonable cross section of Judge Jahrs in our state and we were well served by well experienced advisory members. I can attest to the fact that we came with no hidden agendas, no preconceived notions, only the promise to be objective, fair, and hardworking. I want to talk a little bit about what our task was and what it wasn’t. Because if you read and listen to comments, I sort of get the impression that not everyone understands precisely what it was we were to do. We started with a charge given to us by the Chief Justice when the committee was formed back in 2011. The Chief Justice asked the committee to conduct an in-depth review of the administrative offices of the courts and the organizational structure to promote transparency and accountable for provide services to the courts and make findings and recommendations to improve the efficiency of the courts and AOC. Now whether is the report not? Somewhere along the line the Chief was quoted as saying the SEC report was going to be the bible. Thanks for not creating too great of an expectation [Laughter]
wearyant
June 21, 2012
Wachob continuing:
The Chief Justice asked the committee to conduct an in-depth review of the administrative offices of the courts and the organizational structure to promote transparency and accountable for provide services to the courts and make findings and recommendations to improve the efficiency of the courts and AOC. Now whether is the report not? Somewhere along the line the Chief was quoted as saying the SEC report was going to be the bible. Thanks for not creating too great of an expectation [Laughter] , Chief, it’s not. Nor is the report a formal audit. It’s not that. Nor is the report a classic statistical or quantitative analysis of data that we collected. The report itself indicates in the introductory part limitations we faced in approaching our task as a committee. We were not provided resources, other than the consultants and experienced advisory committees that we had with us. We were not asked to conduct employee workload studies, extensive fiscal analysis, job classification studies or other types of studies like that. Although, our report recommends that those occur, those are necessary, but that was beyond our charge. The information that we received also was — at least from the AOC — was self-reported information. I want to talk about the timing of the report because I think you’re entitled to know how we went about the report in terms of our own deadline and what happened to that. First of all, our committee received a two-year assignment. The committee was formed at the end of March, 2011. We 4 our irrelevant neating in May of 2011. — our first meeting in May of 2011. Someone thought it would take up to two years. We were not given a deadline by the Chief or anyone else. No external deadline. Our deadline was our own. You have to remember that the Judge Jahrs on the committee were working in the court and had day jobs. The advisory empty members some whom were retired but some were not retired so we had to work with that. I would like to dispel a rumor that there was some time of interim report. There’s one report. That’s the report that you have. It was the one that was delivered to the Chief at the end of May of this year. We had our last full committee meeting on May 9, 2012. Our report was issued self-weeks after that. We continue to do interviews including that of the finance director of the AOC, up to the last week before our report was completed. Some have suggested that we held our report until after the May revise budget appeared. That would be an utter coincidence. Our report was turned in when we completed it. Some have suggested that we turned in am the report before the state budget was acted on to somehow influence the budget, and that’s also not correct. The report was given to the Chief on May 24. I suggested — which happened to be before the long weekend and my suggestion to the Chief was that this report needs to be made public. It’s going to be public. Get it out there, start the comments on it, and we need transparency. That’s one of the themes of the reports. There’s your chance and the Chief immediately put it out there. As a committee, we think it’s unfair she was criticized for releasing the report when it was that was simply when it was done. When the report began, we didn’t spend time on this in the report necessarily. The introduction to the report talks about the broader historical context in which the AOC developed and how it grew some of the monumental legislative things that happens such as trial court unification, taking over court employees, court facilities, and the like. The triggering event, as we all know probably for this report, is dissatisfaction and unrest in the branch with the handling with the CCMS project. That’s what brought things to the boil and we state that in the report. When the Chief came along in 2011 and asked us several months into her tenure as Chief Justice to perform the tack task, what was the environment, what was it like when we were there. The Chief made mention of it in her opening remarks. She said she sent out questionnaires to the presiding Judge Jahrs. The Chief posed two questions to the Judge advisory committee in March 2011 before our committee when it’s first meeting asking two questions. One, in your opinion, what if any are the specific problems with the operation of the AOC, and second if you identified any problems, what do you recommend in terms of specific solutions to the problems. So those questions were asked and those questions were answered before our committee met. To to those questions, the Chief received 108 pages of responses which was the first material we were given as a committee when weasel about our work. The responses are interesting. When we set about our work. The responses are interesting. When our committee started, all the themes and issues virtually that were reported are referred to or mentioned or implicated in the answers that were given to the Chief in those responses. Our report identifies several overarching themes. One is that the AOC is a top-heavy organization. Two, that the AOC internal management systems were deficiency in various ways outlined in the report, and that AOC was oversized and should be down charged and another was that the focus on the service to the courts was losing out to a culture of control. And finally, another overarching theme that we identified in our work, which was reflected in the preliminary responses that we received before we even started as a committee was that the AOC needed to take steps to restory it’s credibility. A lot of those themes and concerns presented to us in the packet of information were concerns and issues that were present in this branch for a long time. They were masked or not seem because at that time the Judicial Branch was more financially stable. The lack of financial stability and issue such as CCMS brought to a head the need to take a look at the AOC and how it operates. The questions that we sent to hundreds of trial Judges and others in the state as part of our work, we told those folks those are your confidential responses. But what I will do is share with you the responses that were given to the Chief before we started our work because it set the groundwork for what we later did and they mirror to a large extent the concerns that were expressed in the course of one year work that our committee did. They were many favorable comments to the AOC from the presiding Judges and the comments
from the courts. And the comments that the small courts need services. That was a theme identified frequently that’s mentioned in the report. Many people felt there were no problems at all with the AOC and those are reflected. And the very successful programs in the AOC including procedure. The theme about performs essentially functions was also reflected in some of the answers and comments given to the Chief by various trial Judges such as as the AOC has gotten out of hand, should be a better definition, the AOC appears to be performing nonessential functions. Many persons commented on the fact that they felt that the AOC was top heavy and had too many layers. Of management and that there was a lack of accountability because of that. Many people commented and had the perception — and I’ll talk about how we pierced the perception — many had the perception that the AOC was oversized citing the growth over a ten-year period and this it expanded at a rapid rate when trial courts were struggling with budgets similar to the comments you heard here today. And an issue that was festering and present for a long time was the whole issue of whether or not the amp OC is a service agent or a control agent. One person stated as the Chief stated ream, the AOC is not a control agency but one could sure not tell that from the trial court level. The AOC needs to be trim, and the new bill Vickery needs to understand that it works — and not the other way around. These are the comments. It formed one of the themes we were trying to look at in thes or of our work. Other issues surfaced regarding the restoration of credibility. Many people did not trust the AOC. They did not trust certain aspects of the operation. They didn’t like the culture. Because our committee was …
wearyant
June 21, 2012
Wachob continuing:
The AOC needs to be trim, and the new bill Vickery needs to understand that it works — and not the other way around. These are the comments. It formed one of the themes we were trying to look at in thes or of our work. Other issues surfaced regarding the restoration of credibility. Many people did not trust the AOC. They did not trust certain aspects of the operation. They didn’t like the culture. Because our committee was asked to do a top to bottom review of the AOC that necessarily included a look at the AOC divisions. Many people in the Judicial Branch commented about various criticisms they had on specific AOC divisions including people that worked in the — including the comment on the screen in front of you. People in the advisory committee with comments regarding their experiences with the AOC. In the course of our work, the SEC did not single out any particular division but there were divisions that raised more concerns than others. Those comments are reflected in some of the comments regarding the office of general council. There was questions about how many offices they had, how many people that were working there and whether or not there were conflicts in representations and a number of specific problems. There were problems or comments raised regarding divisions until the AOC that are popular, such as CFCC. Several speakers spoke here before we talked. To the uninitiated, the Judges that came to the committee without prior experience of the CFCC, that was an eye opening. The point that I’m making here this — is that we came to the task withage open eye, trying to figure out the criticisms and concerns, trying to figure out if they’re popular, whether the divisions or notern popular, our task was to look at the efficiency and the transparency of the various parts of the AOC. The criticism was not spade. The SEC also received criticism. Criticism was not spared. The creation of the Strategic Evaluation Committee staff by the same loyalists who serve on other council nothing more than –t the SEC has taken pot shots like you do here in the Judicial Council. I don’t know what it means to be considered an AOC loyalist or not, but I can vouch for our committee. Everyone on there is a Judicial Branch loyalist who came to the branch with passion and dedication to try to make the AOC lienor, nimble, more effective, so the branch can succeed in its core mission of providing access to justice for people who need to get to the courtrooms and resolve the types of disputes such as Mr. Dolan talked about before I spoke. I want to talk very briefly too about the process that we used. This was not talked about in the report. Our guiding principles when we evaluated information was to be objective, inclusive, thorough, and fair. We hope that that surfaced when you read the report. We decided at the beginning what our methodology was going to be, which was to gather as much information as possible and to verify as much information as possible. In the course of our work, we certainty out surveys or questionnaires to every sitting Judge or judicial officer in the state, both Appellate and Trial Court level. And past Judges. We felt we owed a special obligation to court executive officers. Our committee did not include a court executive officer. We made special attention to reach out to them because they’re on the front lines with the relationships between the trial courts and the AOC and they deal with the problems on a day-to-day basis when men of the Judge Jahrs do not. Discovering information, analyzing information, and preparing a report is what we set out to do. I want to tell you that the information that we received was voluminous. We talked to anyone and everybody that had something to say about the AOC. When we heard something, that didn’t mean it was true, but it was considered. Some people have asked about the way in which the SEC came about with its recommendations and findings. How did you get a room of a dozen or so Judge so reach decision on anything? It’s a fair question. And I just have to say, it was incredibly simple. The information that we received was so powerful and so consistent and so voluminous that it could not be ignored. Our committee, the entire committee interviewed — the former director, Bill Vickery, Ron Overholt, as a committee we interview each division director and that was followed up with written requests, more e-mails and requests for information than the AOC probably thought it would get. We know we were a pest but we will felt we needed to be thorough and diligent in our information finding. We interviewed as many court CEOs as we could. Broke up into groups of three. Talked to CEOs of presiding Judges together. What I have to say about the interviews is this. They were incredibly candid. Many people expressed that they had been wanting someone to tell their concerns to for a long time in a safe way and there would be no possibility of any retribution …
wearyant
June 21, 2012
Wachob continuing:
interviewed — the former director, Bill Vickery, Ron Overholt, as a committee we interview each division director and that was followed up with written requests, more e-mails and requests for information than the AOC probably thought it would get. We know we were a pest but we will felt we needed to be thorough and diligent in our information finding. We interviewed as many court CEOs as we could. Broke up into groups of three. Talked to CEOs of presiding Judges together. What I have to say about the interviews is this. They were incredibly candid. Many people expressed that they had been wanting someone to tell their concerns to for a long time in a safe way and there would be no possibility of any retribution or financial consequences to their courts or whatever. It was almost like a confessional at some point, but they were very, very candid conversations. The conversations often ended that we not divulge their comments and assurances of confidentiality. I think one of the strong suits of the report is the objective and thorough manner in which the Judges on the committee and the advisory members sifted through the information to find out, not only what the themes were, but what was the verifiable information. What I have said before is that any reasonable cross section of a dozen Judges in California when confronted with the same information that we were given from all of the multiple sources of information that we derived would have come to probably 95% of the same recommendations and findings that we did. It was not the members of the committee that were speaking, it was the information that was speaking. It was the Judicial Branch speaking. There were questions — I’ve heard it here today — about the tone of the report. And I would like to say that I believe based on the information that we have that the tone was completely appropriate. When you are looking at problems, when you are looking at personnel rules that are ignored, efficiency management systems which he outlined in the report, and various problems that we saw, they had to be discussed. Sometimes there’s just not a really pleasant nice way to talk about those other than to identify them and say that there are problems. I can say, too, that the tone of the report could have been much harsher but it wasn’t. At the end of the day, we felt that the report was a judicious, fair, reasonable assessment of the information that we were provided. I want to talk, too, because it’s only giving lip service in the report, I want to talk about the difficulty in getting information. You would expect that any organization, not just this one, that is being investigated or examined would have some reluctance, some resistance to providing information, that would be a normal thing in a management review. That would be expected. And we encountered that. Our report, if you will notice, never made a conclusion that the information was withheld intentionally or to onfy skate or derail us. But the information that we received was the result of a lot of digging, a lot of requests. The interviews with the division directors and the managers of the AOC, some were very candid, some helpful, some very forthcoming, and some were not, flat out not. That was to be expected and it was a fact that we had to work around. The other thing about acquiring information, whether it had to do with staffing levels or budgets is this, the information that we asked of the AOC was not often kept in a consistent, organized manner. The charts that you see at the end of the report detailing staffing levels and budget for each division, that information did not exist in the form that we have presented it to you. We have given that as a gift to AOR. That was our work. That information did not exist. It had to be extricated from the organization. And, again, we make no judgment about whether or not it was withheld in any wrongful or purposeful manner, it just often did not exist in a consistent manner. Some of the answers, some of the responses that we received from AOC staff in
response to our questions for information, were simply nudge responsive of people. People on the committee would joke sometimes that if we were in court and heard that answer and someone objected that the answer was nonresponsive, all 12 of us would have sustained the objection. A question, for example, about whether or not a division used a cost-benefit analysis is — in trying to decide which programs to offer seems like a fairly straightforward question, but it often diverged into multiple e-mails, request for clarifications, letters, correspondence, and at the end of the day, the answer was no. So this is the kind of tension, the kind of difficulty that we sometimes face. And, again, not across the board, but it did happen. One of the tremendous advantages to our process is that a lot of the critical information regarding the operation and functions of the AOC came from the AOC itself. It came from the AOC division managers who were candid about the decision-making process, the operations, and functions of AOC. I want to a talk just a little bit about the perspective of our report. There’s a — perhaps a natural tendency to say, well, this is backward looking report. We’re looking back at things that happened. We’re looking back at 1256ing levels. We’re looking back at what the budget was. Looking back at staffing levels and what the budget was. Really, what the point, as far as we were concerned for the committee was to develop a strategy. The name itself, Strategic Evaluation Committee, implies that we were trying to develop a strategy for the organization to move forward and succeed. The committee was asked to under-ever undertake a strategic evaluation for the Administrative Office of the Courts. And the organizational structure, management, processes, and size. Also stated in the report was that consistent with the goals of transparency, and efficiency, the intent of the report was to recommend an organizational structure that would better position the AOC for future success and which would be leaner, nimblerrer and more responsive to the Judicial Branch. That’s as forward looking as we could get, the …
wearyant
June 21, 2012
Wachob continuing:
the information services division. And divisional office retired and management responsibilities were transfered to another director. Placed in the executive office. In late 2011 and the council made a sea change in regards the technology division in March when it stopped the statewide employment of CCMS for statewide for case management. That was in the report. We reviewed the divisions and functions that attached to the different divisions and parts of the organization. We also made a judgment on whether or not that was a solid way to move forward or not. We characterized the AOC’s change in the last year as inching towards consolidation and functions and not necessarily as one that came through a predetermined game plan. The organizational consolidations that occurred in the last year many of which we felt resulted from extraneous events, retirement, attrition, that type of thing. I think the AOC is moving towards the predetermined game plan and structural reorganization but I don’t think that that has occurred yet. And our committee commented on that. That’s our view. We commented on changes in staffing levels that occurred in May 2011. I will tell you that in many points in the recent history was the most difficult thing we tried to accomplish in the report. That’s because the information ever information did not exist in a consistent unified fashion. It had to be pulled and many of the directors had different understandings of what temporary employees were, what contract stuff were, and the like. Those are talked about in the report. We found that, obviously, as mentioned in the report, the AOC sustained tremendous growth as a result of the monumental changes that occured in the organization start, in the late ’90s with the trial-court unification and those types of events. As of December, which we use is a benchmark in our report, we found the total staffing positions were approximately 1008. All numbers came from the AOC. They’re self-reported numbers. We have no ability to count 1008 people but that’s the information. We note 9 it was a decrease. We tried to make the report as current as we possibly could. We turned in the report on May 24. May 11, ten or 1 is days before the report or so we sent an e-mail and said please tell us the current staffing level of the AOC. As — the staffing level at that point was 883 and that’s not much of a drop from the 1008 that existed at the end of the year. My personal belief, I know this is shared with other members of committee is that no one really knows how many people worked at various points in time and that’s just the way it is in our view. It’s a little unnerving to come and give you the report and tell you that you need to do something. It’s unnerving to tell you that our committee found that the Judicial Council has to exercise greater oversight but because it’s a top to bottom review of the AOC necessarily the review starts at the top and I’m looking at the top right now, which is the Judicial Council. We made various findings about that. We feel that’s a critical part of the entire endeavor because the tone of the AOC, it’s mission, whether or not it’s a service or control agency, and those types of things are determined in a large part by the actions and oversight of the Judicial Council. We specifically recommend that the performance of the Administrative Director of the Courts be reviewed. And reviewed in a very specific regimented way. I’m not going to spend time going over the organizational structure. It’s in the report. But I want to make just a couple of comments about it. What you see before you is the organizational structure of the AOC when our committee began it’s task. A picture tells a thousand stories in this case. This is a picture of an orange that is top heavy. When we started it, it had 17 separate direct reports to the Administrative Director including various divisions, specialized offices, and regional offices. The difficulty in decision-making whether it’s fiscal processes or not, was rendered very difficult by the manner in which the organization was established. In a trial, there’s always a few phrases that stick out in a case and when talking to some of the divisional directors during the course of our interviewers of the division directors, one of the things that stuck out was a characterization that went like that. The AOC has green in its organization like a coral reef without seeming function or shape. And this is what happened. This is where it ended up. That’s where we started. Our recommendation, which is simply that, a recommendation, was to streamline and reduce the number of divisions and basically if I could describe it in a sentence, to push down the organization to make it less top heavy, to make it more streamlined to put it more in line with other organizations in state agencies and the like which would include basically operation site and administrative side. And in this case, the Chief 6 staff would be charged with some of the policies, legislature matters, and also to elevate trial support and liaison services to make that at the top of the organizational chart. Someone else here, I think, already noteed that we found it interesting that when we started the organizational charts, and we received many, that reflects the organization of the AOC over years never showed the Judicial Council at the top. That says a lot. It says a lot about Judicial Council oversight but it also talks and speaks about the elperspective or a viewpoint of the organization itself. That it’s an organization unto itself and that has to change. Very briefly, in addition to analyzing the organizational structure, we took a hard look at some of the management systems and processes. The — and those are detailed in the report. I won’t reiterate those. We found the decision-making process to be unclear. This information came from administrative managers, division directors and high level managers who were saying that to us. We found that the program and project planning and monitoring system needed improvement. There was a lack of system wide fiscal planning and processes and a lack of buy-in from courts on a number of important projects. The performance appraisals and personnel policies, that part of the organization is broke. We were surprised to learn that with few exceptions the divisions were not conducting and had not conducted a regular personnel evaluations of their employees. It’s important for a
number of reasons of which are set forth in the report. Personnel policies were violated or ignored. One of the most noteworthy was the telecommute policy. I want to — just as a side note — tell you right there that when we see these types of policies and identify them it’s hard not to do that without sounding overly critical and not having a tone, but these are the facts. We looked at the physician classification system. We found that to be out of balance and not applied in a consistent manner. And followed by problems with the compensation system which we noted. One of the more significant problems we found was when we talked with the people running the finance division and charge of the financial policies in the organization. We found they were frozen out.
wearyant
June 21, 2012
Sorry. Here’s where I experience some technical difficulties.
Wachob continuing:
to be consistent, verifiable,
and noteworthy.
We made recommendations for
improvement.
And looking at the divisions, we
did not accept a single ain’t
doat of a complaining Judge or
complaining CEO about a problem
with a particular division.
We tried to identify patterns
and problems that were
reappearing.
We also looked at the budget
process.
I told you we were blessed as a
committee with a high level of
expertise and experience on our
committee with advisory members
that were there to guide us.
They found that there’s a big
problem with the transparency in
the budget.
I know that steps are being
taken to fix that, and that’s
one of things that has to happen
before the AOC starts to regain
credibility with its budget
process.
We made specific recommendation
regarding tracking systems,
information displays, and
tracking appropriations and
expenditures so members of the
public, members of the judicial
branch anlz others can look at
the AOC budget, can look at the
judicial branch budget and make
an apples to apples comparison
of one year to another.
On staffing levels, again, we
didn’t start with the pre con
veefed notion that the AOC was
too big or that it had too many
people.
I shared with you some of the
comments we received, some of
the perceptions that were widely
shared perceptions amongst
judicial branch, but we set out
to try to find out what staffing
level was.
We noted that it was consistent
data on staffing levels, because
neither the HR division or AOC
division regularly maintained
complete information about that.
That was the hardest area to get
data.
None of the charts in the
appendix as I mentioned existed
br. I would say this, too.
That if the report is viewed as
a snapshot in time, as to
staffing levels, I would tell
you that if it is a snapshot, it
contains a panoramic view.
It looks at ten years or so what
the staffing levels were with
the budgeting levels were for
the various divisions in the AOC
as a whole.
We made a recommendation that
was limited in my view, and by
the committee, based on the
information that we had.
We did not have workload studies
that would tell us whether or
not there should be three
employees in a division unit
instead of two or four.
We didn’t have that information,
but we did have what I think is
also better information than a
metric or a piece of data, and
that is we had the conversations
candid admissions of many of the
directors and managers within
the AOC who said, look, there’s
too many people here.
We don’t need that unit.
We have too many people there or
one unit talking about another,
and it helped focus our
examination of those issues.
We think that the whatever the
staffing level is at the AOC, it
must be made more transparent
and understandable.
It needs to be as with the
budget information, something
that anyone can look at and made
some suggestions about that.
I think that the budget, state
budget situation is
out-stripping the
recommendations that we made in
terms of staff size.
What the budget crisis is
forcing the AOC to do, probably
should have been happening all
along, which is this, to examine
your most critical, essential
functions that serve the trial
court and the public, to put our
resources there.
You have to make some hard
decisions about some of the
functions that are not
essential, given limited
resources.
Our proposal on staffing levels
was really modest.
We simply said don’t exceed the
number of authorized positions
that the legislature gives you,
that’s where 880 came from.
That’s in the governor’s budget.
We suggest that after that, that
a reorganization of the AOC with
efficiencies and some of the
other recommendations that we’re
making would result in a much
smaller organization, and we
took our best stab at that.
The final thing I’d like to say
is this.
People wonder whether or not the
SEC report is a landmark
document or it’s a blueprint for
the future, and a number of
other things, and I think the
answer is we don’t know.
It could be, or it might not.
That depends on what you want to
do with your power as members of
the Judicial Council to move the
branch forward, and to take a
look at the organization as we
see it.
If I was critiquing the report
in hindsight, and judges need be
to accountable, I would say that
we did not properly emphasize
the strength of the services
provided to the appellate courts
by the AOC.
By definition, though, as I
tried to say earlier, our focus
was on the problems that we were
seeing not necessarily on the
positives and to the extent that
we didn’t emphasize that
particular strength, I give
myself a demerit and our
committee a demerit, that was
not intended.
Our focus was on the trial cowrs
which is where the bulk of the
criticisms were coming from.
In 2006, they were given a
consultant report K p.m. G, it
made changes and recommendations
regarding the administrative
infrastructure of the AOC it
made recommendations to the
state technology.
It recommended that there be a
business case analysis.
It recommended a number of
things.
It critiqued the office of
general counsel.
It did a number of things, and
that report gathered dust to be
blunt.
So our concern is that many of
the recommendations that we’re
stating have been stated
previously, and that we hope
that they are not only
considered, but that some of
them are implemented.
That would could be include my
comments, Judge McCabe.
>> I’ll keep mine brief, noting
that the Judge …
Wendy Darling
June 21, 2012
Thank you for posting the rough transcript, Ant. For those that couldn’t listen live, it’s helpful to be able to read your postings and follow along. 🙂
Long live the ACJ.
courtflea
June 21, 2012
wow Weary Ant thanks!
wearyant
June 21, 2012
Folks, I am a weary ant and it’s starting to show in these offerings. Sorry about the mistakes. As pointed out above, it’s very, very rough. Yes, it’s a rough draft. I’m glad to help those who cannot hear it live.
Curious
June 21, 2012
Weary One, thank you for manning the laboring oar on this one. It was VERY hard to listen to, once the Council got involved. What a bunch of ninnies. They couldn’t even get two votes today to adopt the SEC provision that states their duty to oversee the AOC. How decisive and inspiring! NOT!!
wearyant
June 21, 2012
I meant sorry about MY mistakes. Whoever realtimed this wrote very, very cleanly. I suspect this was a realtime reporter.
Wendy Darling
June 21, 2012
It contained all the necessary information, Ant! Thanks again on behalf of those of us who couldn’t listen live, but could follow along on our “portable electronic devices” because of your rough transcript.
Long live the ACJ.
wearyant
June 21, 2012
Curious, Courtflea and Wendy Darling, thanks for your comments. I was happy to be of some service. It was a cut and paste job. someone was doing the heavy lifting online.
wearyant
June 21, 2012
McCabe 2:45
If I was critiquing the report
in hindsight, and judges need be
to accountable, I would say that
we did not properly emphasize
the strength of the services
provided to the appellate courts
by the AOC.
By definition, though, as I
tried to say earlier, our focus
was on the problems that we were
seeing not necessarily on the
positives and to the extent that
we didn’t emphasize that
particular strength, I give
myself a demerit and our
committee a demerit, that was
not intended.
Our focus was on the trial cowrs
which is where the bulk of the
criticisms were coming from.
In 2006, they were given a
consultant report K p.m. G, it
made changes and recommendations
regarding the administrative
infrastructure of the AOC it
made recommendations to the
state technology.
It recommended that there be a
business case analysis.
It recommended a number of
things.
It critiqued the office of
general counsel.
It did a number of things, and
that report gathered dust to be
blunt.
So our concern is that many of
the recommendations that we’re
stating have been stated
previously, and that we hope
that they are not only
considered, but that some of
them are implemented.
That would could be include my
comments, Judge McCabe.
>> I’ll keep mine brief, noting
that the Judge took and
addressed the bulk of what we
wanted to present to the
council.
Chief counsel and members of the
public, thank you for the
opportunity to speak with you.
Briefly, our mission was to do
an in-depth review and I think
the F.E.C. accomplished that
mission.
Two, our purpose was Ales to
initiate discussions.
I think we succeeded in that
area, as well.
Our report, it’s toned, it’s
objectivity, of not meant to be
a feel-good report, and we had
discussions about this.
We had discussions from
everything about how long the
report should be.
Fifty pages.
To everything we want in it.
800 pages.
And so the committee had to draw
a line on accomplishing our
mission in somewhat of a
reasonable fashion and using the
resources that we had,
remembering that we didn’t have
staff.
Those charts, I now know how to
build charts with the best of
them and I can build charts
again, and it was a fascinating
process, but we did the best we
could with the recourses that we
had.
We do not profess that this is
the blueprint for the future.
It’s a tool that we hope each of
you will analyze in moving
forward.
It’s not meant to be take
everything or leave T it’s to
initiate the thinking process,
the discussion process, and we
hope that our point of view in
the end is some semblance of
what should be done, but we’re
not perfect.
It’s an imperfect process in an
imperfect world, so it’s there
for you to consider.
I want to start there.
Next, our intent is not to
restrict or tie the hands of the
new A dock.
When they come in, whoever that
individual is has got to have
some freedom to put in their
vision.
Again, it’s a tool.
Tools is whatever you want to
make of it.
It really appears to me and I’m
going to keep this short, that
it’s based on perspective.
If you have a perspective about
a certain role or the AOC and
how interacts with you, how it
helps you, you have to remind
yourself that, that may
influence your prospective.
How do I know that?
Because we struggled with that
for months.
Sat around the table, bickering
and arguing with each other, and
it was a family atmosphere.
I have kind of brothers and
sisters that we’ve had some
drag-out arguments, but in the
end of the day, not personal,
went and had a cup of coffee or
wine or two, and we kept it in
prospective.
So it took us a long time,
trained professionals to remove
that influence, every one of us,
and there’s there is a knee jerk
reaction.
I’ve sat here and I hope I’m not
disrespectful to anybody if I’m
grinning, because I’m hearing
what we’ve all ready lived
through and we’ve all ready
struggled with.
Wow, they’re going through the
same thing that we went through,
expect we had 55 weeks to do
this.
So in closing, I hope that you
receive it for what it is.
It’s a constructive criticism of
issues affecting AOC.
We’ve all ready identified the
essential role of the AOC in the
branch, and I think our report
is very clear on that, that they
are a necessary component.
There are a lot of hard working,
quality employees at the AOC,
and no apologies for not going
into that in the report, but I
will put that out there as a
side note.
I speak on behalf of the
committee and our chair has
emphasized that point as well.
There’s a lot of folks here that
should be proud of their work,
but this is about figuring out
what our core and essential
functions are versus
aspirational.
We’d love do a lot of things and
we had those discussions over
months, and we 180-degree, I
mean it was one against some and
then it was five.
It was almost like the movie 12
angry men, starts out one, then
it builds, because it was a
process.
I welcome the Judicial Council
reviewing this report.
I welcome the opportunity to
have the three members that are
now on the Judicial Council
being apart of that as an
advisory members.
We’re here to serve, we’re here
to help, and we’re here to
provide whatever input we can to
clarify what we did so that you
have a better understanding,
then you can make an informed
decision.
With that, thank you very much
and are there any questions?
>> before we begin the question
period, I first want to thank
the judges for the illuminating
presentation of behind the
scenes.
Very helpful.
I think it answers a lot of
questions an helps us understand
I think the bonding and the
pain, quite frankly, but what
I’d like to do is field
questions after we hear how the
report will proceed because I
think questions and process are
going to merge, and I don’t want
to artificially distinguishing
between questions or comments
what people may have.
I don’t think what justice
Miller wants to say will take
long, or maybe a short break and
then comment.
>> who am I to argue with the
Chief.
>> I’ll turn it over to justice
Miller.
>> I also wanted to join the
Chief Justice in thanking the
judges, and all of the members . . .
wearyant
June 21, 2012
Miller remarks at 2:54
It’s now the job of executive
and planning to propose a
process for consideration and
implementation of the
recommendations that we have
heard from the F.E.C. report
today.
I would like to note that while
the F.E.C. performed its
important work, the Judicial
Council over the last 18 months
has been making changes to
governess, to leadership and
oversight, and that work will
continue for projects all ready
started, and for those that will
be apart of the F.E.C.
recommendations.
When Jody Patel became
Administrative Director,
interim, the Chief Justice
directed her to fast track plans
of the AOC.
Under the leadership of Jody
Patel and Curt Soderlund, they
have reduced their size.
Additional plans are underway as
we know.
I’m also policed to see that
several of these efforts are
included in the F.E.C.
recommendations that are in the
report, and I believe in fact
that we’ll find out that at
least later today or tomorrow
that about a third of those
issues identified in the F.E.C.
report had been discussed and
identified by Jody Patel and her
team, and they have all ready
begun to make steps to address
them.
But, as the report, there’s
still work to be done.
As a result of the F.E.C. report
being provided to the Chief
Justice and in the interest of
transparency, and really mindful
of some of the impacts that we
have heard about today with
regards to the F.E.C.
recommendations, the findings,
if it’s approved by the Judicial
Council, that the report be
posted for public comment for a
period of 30 days.
In our executive an planning
meeting where we discussed this,
we heard from P.J.’s, from court
executives, from appellate
justices, and from attorney
groups that they wanted to have
that opportunity to publicly
make comment, so we are going
recommend that those be
collected, that once they are
received, this they immediately
be posted on a public website,
and then we will bring it back
to council those particular
comments.
I’ll tell you more about what
our actual recommendation in
that regard is.
We also understand the many
branch-wide concerns involved in
the F.E.C. record and the
recommendations, and therefore
we are recommending that ENP
take full responsible for
preserving the integrity of the
F.E.C. report and bringing back
to the council recommendations
with regards to each of the
F.E.C. recommendations.
We also as we’ve heard today,
appreciate the urgency of taking
action in the current budget
environment.
We are also mindful that we are
actively recruiting a new
Administrative Director and one
of our recommendation also be
that there be will an
expectation that once that new
director is selected or if not,
then the interim director will
be charged with the
responsibility for implementing
what we as a Judicial Council
recommend with oversight from
executive and planning in a
process I would like to review.
Our recommendation from
executive and planning is going
to be that as of today, we send
it out for a 30-day public
comment period, that those
public comments will be public
and be posted on the web page,
that the report will be assigned
to executive and planning for
our ownership and for our review
and consideration of each
recommendation, that ENP will
evaluate, prioritize each
recommendation, and also
determine if there is additional
information that ENP needs with
respect to any of the
recommendations.
We are recommending that we not
assign any of the
recommendations to another group
for any further evaluation, but
that if we have questions or
concerns, we will ask people to
come to us and we will discuss
those with them.
It may be the interim director,
the new director, the Chief
Justice, litigation management,
the construction committee, the
Internal Committee for
technology, whomever it may be,
but our intention is not to
assign it to anybody, but to
keep that to ourselves.
We’ll ask the three F.E.C.
member who’s are incoming new
advisory members and a voting
member on the council to serve
as liaisons to our committee, to
help us in the prioritization,
the timeline, the evaluation,
and the implementation of that.
Again, ENP has all ready
scheduled an August 9th meeting,
and at that time we will review
the public comments, we will
prioritize the recommendations,
we will create a timeline, and
we plan to report back to the
council at its August meeting
with regards to that.
We don’t intend to wait until we
have reviewed all 147 as we make
progress through this them, then
we will report back on an
interim basis at the Judicial
Council meetings.
Lastly, we believe it will be
the administrators to report
back to the council and
executive in planning with
executive and planning and the
council providing oversight
along with our three F.E.C.
February who’s will remain in
that advisory meet for the
implementation.
Chief Justice and Judicial
Council members, that is the
recommendation for the review of
the F.E.C report from executive
and planning.
>> thank you.
What we’ll do is come back after
our 15-minute recess break to
discuss, have you field
questions about the report, here
from Council members about the
report and how to proceed, so
we’re going to take a break in
15-minutes and come back at
approximately 3:05.
Thank you.
wearyant
June 21, 2012
After the break 3:23
Are you
finished Judge Wesley?
>> I’m not going to make a motion until the appropriate time when you
tell me it’s time to make a motion.
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: Judge Miller, justice Ruben and — please
remember your order.
(Laughter)
>> Mine’s easy. I’m first. I appreciate those comments because I
agree with them. I also agree that the first start has to be
commitment. And I can only tell you that for the last 16 months, E and
P has been given the charge, to look at the governance of the initial
council, to look at the oversight of the AOC, and we have had a number
of meetings which I have talked about where we have had closed session
meetings without staff, without AOC to talk about those. We came up
with different ideas. And we have reported back on a number of those,
and we have many, many more that we are still considering and now will
even consider in a broader sense that aren’t being — were not a part
of the SEC. So I can only give you my personal commitment that we look
at this serious. That’s why we didn’t want to commit — create an SEC
committee II. That’s it’s going to be E and P’s responsibility. And
we’re going to put the public comments on the Web page, we’re going to
report back at every meeting; and it will be transparent and
accountable. And you can hold me and my committee members accountable.
So yes, there’s a commitment. And yes, we’re going to do the things
you talked about. Prioritize, timeline. We hope to have that all
ready by August. And we’re going to monitor and implement. And we’re
going to do it with — put an additional purd burden on the three of
you to help us in that regards.
>> Thank you, chief. I too want to say thank you to all the members
of the committee for a year of really hard labor outside of your day
jobs.
As you know, I’m chair of the presiding judges advisory committee for
another two months, 23 days, and six hours.
(Chuckling)
>> And as the chief mentioned and as Judge Wafrnlts chob mentioned,
the PJs have been really actively involved in this process, both at the
inception and also most recently. The PJs under my predecessor, Judgen
Wright provided about 180 pages of input, that the chief read, through
it, all the pages and input, that was provided to the SEC as they
started. And the PJs at that time I think were very reflective, both
pro and con, of issues that were of concern to them.
So I guess I have a comment and then I have one question.
My comment is there is a memo that the PJ committee sent to all of …
wearyant
June 21, 2012
Folks, here’s another excerpt of the scrolling realtime from the JCC website that I … well, fouled up. I think it goes … here, just from the ADOC references and mentions about PJs.
(Chuckling)
>> And as the chief mentioned and as Judge Wachob mentioned,
the PJs have been really actively involved in this process, both at the
inception and also most recently. The PJs under my predecessor, Judge
Enwright provided about 180 pages of input, that the chief read, through
it, all the pages and input, that was provided to the SEC as they
started. And the PJs at that time I think were very reflective, both
pro and con, of issues that were of concern to them.
So I guess I have a comment and then I have one question.
My comment is there is a memo that the PJ committee sent to all of
you. We wanted to provide input. We posed at the request of the PJs
several questions to the PJs. And I presented to you the — as the raw
votes, if you will. I can tell you my sense is that the PJs are
united, frankly virtually unanimous. And I only say virtually because
I haven’t heard from each and every one. But from the ones that I have
heard from, they are all supportive of the SEC report.
The only division, if you will, is a substantial number of PJs want
to have this council immediately adopt and implement the report; and
substantial number of PJs want a more deliberative process in tracking
and implementing the report.
I think the end result would be the same.
But that’s the dividing line. And frankly, that’s what we heard
today in the public comments. Those two different approaches.
On balance, I will say that I agree with Judge Wachob, and what I
heard from the members of the SEC, with the recommendation that has
been made by justice Miller. I sit on the E and P, I can assure you
that I will keep the SEC recommendations front and center. Will track
them. Nothing will be swept under the rug. We’ll deal with them
straight up.
So here’s my question.
Judge Mckaib, you mention the something that really threw me for a
loop a little bit. And I want to get your feet back on this.
>> Is that a first?
>> First of many. You — you said that you don’t want to tie the
hands of the new ADOC, the new administrative director, that that
person should be involved and that person’s vision should be
implemented in running this agency; the AOC.
In a sense that’s inconsistent with the council just adopting the
recommendations. Because for example the recommendations clearly lay
out a restructuring. This is the new structure. Now, there can be 10
different structures. But you’ve laid out a particular structure and a
plan.
So how — how are we going to involve the new administrative
director, how are we going to implement that person’s vision if this
council were to adopt those recommendations?
Number —
>> Frankly, if we were to adopt them today, we would really be tying
that person’s hands.
>> Not necessarily. And here’s why. And let me …
wearyant
June 21, 2012
Captured at 3:29
>> First of many. You — you said that you don’t want to tie the
hands of the new ADOC, the new administrative director, that that
person should be involved and that person’s vision should be
implemented in running this agency; the AOC.
In a sense that’s inconsistent with the council just adopting the
recommendations. Because for example the recommendations clearly lay
out a restructuring. This is the new structure. Now, there can be 10
different structures. But you’ve laid out a particular structure and a
plan.
So how — how are we going to involve the new administrative
director, how are we going to implement that person’s vision if this
council were to adopt those recommendations?
Number —
>> Frankly, if we were to adopt them today, we would really be tying
that person’s hands.
>> Not necessarily. And here’s why. And let me expand on what I
said.
It has to be a collaborative process. And don’t kid yourself, the
new ADOC, which is administrative director of the Courts for those
watching on camera and don’t know what we’re talking about, ADOC, the
new ADOC has to work with the governing body, in a corporate structure,
this is the board of directors, and they are the CEO of the
corporation.
And every one of those private sector relationships, and as here in
this governmental organization, it’s a collaborative process. They
have to work with each other.
So there’s going to be some give and take. This is the body that
passes policy. Like every other board of directors. But they’re going
to come in and tell you, well, here’s my vision and here’s what I’d
like to do. It may be inconsistent with what you’ve already approved,
but I’d like to modify this by doing this.
And this may result in a little different result, however, maybe the
spirit is the same, close result, et cetera.
And I would say, this board — this council needs to be flexible.
But they shouldn’t tie the AD’s hands to sweeping reforms before
they’ve even arrived.
I don’t think that’s fair to them because, quite frankly, you may get
somebody who is very intuned to all the elements that are necessary to
run this organization. Managerial, political, leadership, right down
the line.
And they may have a different perspective that requires folks to bend
a little.
And so, what — that’s what I’m saying is this should not tie their
hands. This body should be flexible enough and open enough to be
receptive to any suggestions from the new director and those are in a
collective wisdom appropriate, or meet the spirit of it, so be it.
Then you modify. So even if you for whatever reason adopted every
recommendation today, I would tell you if the new director comes in,
two months, three months, six months, whenever, and says I’d like to
change this, be open to it.
I don’t have a problem with that. Of course I’m nonvoting advisory
member, so I don’t have a vote.
(Laughter)
>> But I don’t have a problem with that. And I hope you don’t
either. So I hope that answers your question.
>> Yes, thank you.
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: After Judge Rubin, Judge Friedman,
Alexander, then Jody, then Judge Kaufman.
>> Thank you, chief, I wanted to make a statement on behalf of CJA,
which I am lame duck president as of yesterday or the day before.
The SEC report the CJ feels is an important contribution to this
branch. Looks critically at the AOC with an eye towards improving its
service to the court, the public, and making it more efficient. And CJ
wants to start …
wearyant
June 21, 2012
Captured rough draft at 3:34:
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: After Judge Rubin, Judge Friedman,
Alexander, then Jody, then Judge Kaufman.
>> Thank you, chief, I wanted to make a statement on behalf of CJA,
which I am lame duck president as of yesterday or the day before.
The SEC report the CJ feels is an important contribution to this
branch. Looks critically at the AOC with an eye towards improving its
service to the court, the public, and making it more efficient. And CJ
wants to start out by congratulating the chief for her leadership. And
undertaking this difficult and important process.
We also feel that the branch and everyone in it owes a great debt of
thanks to Charlie W — I’m sorry, Judge Wachob, jj McCabe, and all the
SEC committee judges who took a lot of time out of their day jobs and
wrote this outstanding analysis.
Of the AOC, our colleagues are to be commended for their hard work.
We also want to recognize the hard work of Jody Patel and Curt, Curt Soderlund, and just as Judge Wachob, and Judge McCabe talked about today. We don’t see this report
as an attack so much as an important look at AOC structure and
management.
As it describes — and as we’ve heard, we’ve discussed around this —
this room in the past, there are some past management decisions
attitudes that have had a negative impact on the AOC’s important work
and on the branch, and the processes that allow that occur, we’re now
looking at and obviously going to be taking efforts to make some
corrections.
As everyone here knows, CJA for a long time has advocated for greater
role of the council in terms of its oversight over the AOC. And the
beauty, we think, as you look at this report, is that it starts that
conversation without intending to be the last words we’ve just heard
from Judge McCabe, and Judge Wachob. Has to be some discussion and
input from all the stakeholders including the 2600 or so members of
CJA.
On the thoughtful presentation of the 147 — 1-some — many, many.
Proposals gives us all that opportunity to assist in the modernization
of the council staff agency.
CJA supports the work of the SEC committee and its report and
encourages the Judicial Council to move as quickly acticable to
implement the appropriate recommendations obviously after input from
the different stakeholders, and we look forwards to the opportunity
during this comment period to actually make some suggestions on some
particular proposals that we would like to weigh in on. But thank you
wait a second Wachob, Judge McCabe.
wearyant
June 21, 2012
Captured at 3:38:
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: Sue, then Jody, Judge Kaufman, and then
Kim —
>> Sue: My question is for justice Miller.
In the past we have — when we had some concerns about CCMS, they set
up the internal committee, who made — was a regular reporter for every
judicial council meeting.
And gives a report of what’s happening and led to the meeting we had
where some decisions were made and ongoing now with regards to IT
services. Is the expectation of E and P that the review of this and
maybe some piecemeal recommendations regarding specific —
recommendations regarding recommendations — regarding some specific
recommendations would come up at each meeting that we have, or is
your — are you thinking of some other process?
>> Our intent was clearly not to look at all 147 and whenever that
time may be come back to you with all of those at one time.
So our goal was to meet August 9th, to prioritize, go through the
public comments, and create a timeline. And maybe even come up with
some recommendations at that time of …
wearyant
June 21, 2012
Captured at 3:43: (Did Kim Turner really say “awash with money”? Woo-hoo! Those were fun times, indeed!
>> Sue: I was just thinking that for the idea that if it doesn’t get
pushed under the rug and people aren’t paying attention, is that if it
was something as part of your regular report —
>> I’ll do it.
>> Sue: That said this is what we are considering, we don’t have any
specific recommendations for this meeting, but this is where we are and
this is what we’re working on, would go a long way for people thinking
it’s being paid attention to.
>> Great identify yachlt.
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: Yoedy, you’re next.
>> Jody: Thank you, chief. I don’t have a question, I just wanted
to say and join in with everyone else who’s spoken so far, thank you to
Judge Wachob, and juj McCabe, as well as the SEC committee for your
informative report.
I can say confidently that my executive team and I, as long as I’m
interim director here, and I’m confident that whoever the permanent
ADOC is, will do the same thing. But that the executive team and I are
committed to working closely with justice Miller and executive in
planning as well as the judicial council to continue to further the
priorities and goals, not only of the Judicial Council but of the
judicial branch in its entirety.
So we — you have our commitment as well on behalf of the executive
team.
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: Thank you. Judge Kaufman, Kim turner, then
justice Baxter, then Alan Carlson.
>> Two areas. One is, joedy, how many employees do we have in AOC
now?
(Laughter)
>> 300 and what?
>> 884.
>> So we have amade a 20 percent cut since —
>> We’re making significant progress, yes.
>> Since the last four months.
Okay. I’m listening to everything and I think we all share the same
goal, and that is we need to make this work.
We started 15 years ago, and we got to where we are today.
And the point is, it didn’t get broken in one day, we’re not going to
fix it in one day. So let’s take our time and do it right.
This is an opportunity. This is an excellent opportunity. The chief
has created a — the SEC, we have the report now.
Now it’s Judicial Council obligation to ensure that nothing happens.
Although justice Miller and I have disagreed and how it should happen,
I’m now convinced that his alternative is appropriate. Because
somebody has to own it, and I have the utmost faith in justice Miller
and the other members of the E and P to do something, and to make —
and not let them drop the ball.
And I think the reason I say we have to take time was — is
demonstrated by two — one — one area. Is that Judge McCabe says we
should start with implementing changes and let the ADOC, when he or she
comes in, make some suggestion and make some changes. But in today’s
package, dated June 20th, a letter from Clark kel sew, and when he says
something, I read it. I don’t always agree but I read it. His take is
a little different than yours. AI certainly urge everybody to read the
letter and then take into consideration when Judge McCabe is saying
venlth not saying whether it’s right or wrong but demonstrates why we
need to take the time to do this right. Different views, different
ways of doing things. And it’s not a question of — of the SEC was
right or wrong. It’s a question how do we work together to correct it.
And get there. And it’s the old saying, is you may be wrong, and I
may be right, but come let us sit down and talk, and then maybe we’ll
find the truth. That’s what we have to do.
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: Thank you chlths Kim turner. ?
>> Kim turner: Thank you, #k450e6. And I want to join the chorus of
accolades for the work you did, the significant contribution for
helping us to chart the course for the future. But I also wanted to
just piggy back on some of the comments that Judge Friedman made.
Because what was interesting to me today — I’m grateful for the
testimony we heard earlier today, from Mr. Peeko, and Wacach, and
others. We taushged about some of the pieces of the AOC’s work that
are are outside of what AOC does specifically and directly for trial
courts.
Back in 2006 when the Judicial Council adopted the strategic plan
that is currently in place for six years — this is the final year of
this plan — we were really awash in money. And we identified at that
time many, many important aspirational goals for the council. Some of
which had direct impact on trial courts, and some of which had more of
an impact on equal access and how our citizens are served, and how the
branch would function to be a really public service responsive
organization.
And I think I was really pleased to hear Judge Wachob, that at the
beginning of your comments you talked about how your focus was really
on the services to the trial courts. And perhaps not on some of the of
these other aspirational areas. So I want to make sure that we go on
the record and say that the council set the course for the AOC. The
AOC does not on its own decide what projects it’s going to do. And
doesn’t decide which things to do and how to prioritize and which
things not to do. (.
But that’s the council’s work. The council does that in a public
way. The council did that in 2006, in 2008 the council adopted an
operational plan that — gave further guidance to the AOC and what to
be doing with its time.
And in fact, over the — over the course of this down turn, over the
last three or four years, the council had an obligation to, I think,
reset the priorities of the AOC if there were things that the AOC
should stop doing. And it’s more focussed to be on direct service to
the trial courts and less focus on other things.
So I wanted to make sure that I got that comment on the record. And
I also want to just make one further comment about the issue of tone.
Because you — you commented on it, I know you’ve heard from a few
people that they thought the tone was somewhat harsh. And you don’t
believe that it was overly harsh. And I appreciate that.
But I do want to say is that for the many, many people that are
listening today, that read that report, especially current and former
employees of the AOC, I think they felt somewhat hurt and devalued by
the tone of the report.
And I want to say publicly that I think every employees, whether
they’re providing direct service to the trial courts, or whether
they’re providing service in some other area, needs to be recognized by
this council as having provided amazing contributions to the quality of
justice.
And I would like to make that comment.
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: Justice Baxter?
>> HON. MARVIN BAXTER: As the senior statesman here —
(Laughter)
>> HON. MARVIN BAXTER: Not only in terms of tenure, but also in
terms ….
wearyant
June 21, 2012
Captured at 3:46:
>> Sue: I was just thinking that for the idea that if it doesn’t get
pushed under the rug and people aren’t paying attention, is that if it
was something as part of your regular report —
>> I’ll do it.
>> Sue: That said this is what we are considering, we don’t have any
specific recommendations for this meeting, but this is where we are and
this is what we’re working on, would go a long way for people thinking
it’s being paid attention to.
>> Great identify yachlt.
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: Yoedy, you’re next.
>> Jody: Thank you, chief. I don’t have a question, I just wanted
to say and join in with everyone else who’s spoken so far, thank you to
Judge Wachob, and juj McCabe, as well as the SEC committee for your
informative report.
I can say confidently that my executive team and I, as long as I’m
interim director here, and I’m confident that whoever the permanent
ADOC is, will do the same thing. But that the executive team and I are
committed to working closely with justice Miller and executive in
planning as well as the judicial council to continue to further the
priorities and goals, not only of the Judicial Council but of the
judicial branch in its entirety.
So we — you have our commitment as well on behalf of the executive
team.
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: Thank you. Judge Kaufman, Kim turner, then
justice Baxter, then Alan Carlson.
>> Two areas. One is, joedy, how many employees do we have in AOC
now?
(Laughter)
>> 300 and what?
>> 884.
>> So we have amade a 20 percent cut since —
>> We’re making significant progress, yes.
>> Since the last four months.
Okay. I’m listening to everything and I think we all share the same
goal, and that is we need to make this work.
We started 15 years ago, and we got to where we are today.
And the point is, it didn’t get broken in one day, we’re not going to
fix it in one day. So let’s take our time and do it right.
This is an opportunity. This is an excellent opportunity. The chief
has created a — the SEC, we have the report now.
Now it’s Judicial Council obligation to ensure that nothing happens.
Although justice Miller and I have disagreed and how it should happen,
I’m now convinced that his alternative is appropriate. Because
somebody has to own it, and I have the utmost faith in justice Miller
and the other members of the E and P to do something, and to make —
and not let them drop the ball.
And I think the reason I say we have to take time was — is
demonstrated by two — one — one area. Is that Judge McCabe says we
should start with implementing changes and let the ADOC, when he or she
comes in, make some suggestion and make some changes. But in today’s
package, dated June 20th, a letter from Clark kel sew, and when he says
something, I read it. I don’t always agree but I read it. His take is
a little different than yours. AI certainly urge everybody to read the
letter and then take into consideration when Judge McCabe is saying
venlth not saying whether it’s right or wrong but demonstrates why we
need to take the time to do this right. Different views, different
ways of doing things. And it’s not a question of — of the SEC was
right or wrong. It’s a question how do we work together to correct it.
And get there. And it’s the old saying, is you may be wrong, and I
may be right, but come let us sit down and talk, and then maybe we’ll
find the truth. That’s what we have to do.
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: Thank you chlths Kim turner. ?
>> Kim turner: Thank you, #k450e6. And I want to join the chorus of
accolades for the work you did, the significant contribution for
helping us to chart the course for the future. But I also wanted to
just piggy back on some of the comments that Judge Friedman made.
Because what was interesting to me today — I’m grateful for the
testimony we heard earlier today, from Mr. Peeko, and Wacach, and
others. We taushged about some of the pieces of the AOC’s work that
are are outside of what AOC does specifically and directly for trial
courts.
Back in 2006 when the Judicial Council adopted the strategic plan
that is currently in place for six years — this is the final year of
this plan — we were really awash in money. And we identified at that
time many, many important aspirational goals for the council. Some of
which had direct impact on trial courts, and some of which had more of
an impact on equal access and how our citizens are served, and how the
branch would function to be a really public service responsive
organization.
And I think I was really pleased to hear Judge Wachob, that at the
beginning of your comments you talked about how your focus was really
on the services to the trial courts. And perhaps not on some of the of
these other aspirational areas. So I want to make sure that we go on
the record and say that the council set the course for the AOC. The
AOC does not on its own decide what projects it’s going to do. And
doesn’t decide which things to do and how to prioritize and which
things not to do. (.
But that’s the council’s work. The council does that in a public
way. The council did that in 2006, in 2008 the council adopted an
operational plan that — gave further guidance to the AOC and what to
be doing with its time.
And in fact, over the — over the course of this down turn, over the
last three or four years, the council had an obligation to, I think,
reset the priorities of the AOC if there were things that the AOC
should stop doing. And it’s more focussed to be on direct service to
the trial courts and less focus on other things.
So I wanted to make sure that I got that comment on the record. And
I also want to just make one further comment about the issue of tone.
Because you — you commented on it, I know you’ve heard from a few
people that they thought the tone was somewhat harsh. And you don’t
believe that it was overly harsh. And I appreciate that.
But I do want to say is that for the many, many people that are
listening today, that read that report, especially current and former
employees of the AOC, I think they felt somewhat hurt and devalued by
the tone of the report.
And I want to say publicly that I think every employees, whether
they’re providing direct service to the trial courts, or whether
they’re providing service in some other area, needs to be recognized by
this council as having provided amazing contributions to the quality of
justice.
And I would like to make that comment.
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: Justice Baxter?
>> HON. MARVIN BAXTER: As the senior statesman here —
(Laughter)
>> HON. MARVIN BAXTER: Not only in terms of tenure, but also in
terms …
wearyant
June 21, 2012
captured at 3:54:
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: Thank you, justice Baxter.
Alan?
>> Alan: Thank you, chief. I want to thank the SEC committee for
what you’ve done, add to whatever everybody else said, I got paid to
do, it was my job. And you did a great job considering it wasn’t your
day job, to do that.
I also think that what you said today, the two of you, signific
adds to the report itself. I would ask assuming this was recorded that
the recording, the whole thing, not edited be made available because I
think if we send it out for public comment we ought to cite the —
where it is on the Web page you can listen to this rart as part of it.
I’m going to tell all my colleagues, I don’t want to hear their
comments until I know they’ve listened to this, because I think this is
a relevant part of what’s going on.
Also, wearing my hat as chair of CIAC, CIAC has talked about this and
our response was we have a lot of positions, the same as the presiding
judges do, but we’re — stand ready to help the committee or anybody
else on suggestions and implementation. There was a lot of enthusiasm,
let’s go forward and do some taking off that hat and putting on a
personal hat, I have a question — and I think it’s probably whether
this was discussed in your committee. I’m trying to reconcile a little
bit of what I heard today from the speakers and what’s in the report,
and I maybe have to go back and read it again. I hear two diff
themes here about what the role of the AOC is. One has to do with the
core value and services to the trial courts, which you talked about
something it you focussed on. But there was a lot of discussion —
Judge feedman and Kim in particular, and several speakers about the
role of the AOC on a bigger — beyond just helping the trial courts.
Did your committee get into that at all?
Did you see part of what needs to be happening is a narrowing down to
the services core functions, or did you talk about that in your —
split up as the rest of us are on that?
>> We talked about that for days. That was the kickoff question for
the whole study, was what are the essential functions of the AOC. And
we started — you’ll notice in each division report in the SEC report,
that one of the first things we talked about and tried to identify was
what are the statutory and other obligations of each division?
That’s a starting point.
And we were actually surprised as a committee when we started fresh
to see the sort of consolation of statutory requirements all over the
place that impose these different obligations on divisions and on the
AOC as a whole, that we never knew about. (.
And I think the public doesn’t know about. And maybe some of us
don’t know about. But there’s a lot out there.
And so the — I think the — the starting point was to try to
identify what are the — what are the essential services; recognizing
that it is this body, it’s the council, decides what goes with that.
But we didn’t think that there had been a concerted effort to try to
identify what were the core functions, what are the required — let’s
start there. Let’s see what we need to do. Especially in this budget
time where I think the budget is going to make everybody pear down to
that question anyway. But starting there, and really it’s the
council’s choice. We didn’t make policy decisions. We didn’t say
services for — or services provided by CFCC were a bad thing or a good
thing. We just talked about the efficiencies and so forth, recognizing
the policy decisions that have already been made.
CFCC is there for a reason, just to use the speaker’s examples. So I
don’t know if that’s answering your question, but we did try to
identify as a starting point what were the minimum statutory imposed
requirements, the rules of court, directives from the Judicial Council.
And then sift out where we thought the divisions and the activities
of the AOC had sort of just grown; without a rudder, without a clear
direction, without a clear policy statement.
Because just like any other bureaucratic agency, things just tend to
grow. And that was our starting point.
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: Judge ewe and then —
>> It feels presumptuous but I’d also like to thank the members of
the SEC for this report. It was so clearly and precisely written.
I’ve started reading it over that weekend when I first got it, and I
was amazed that it was so easy to read, you assimilated so much nchgs,
and you didn’t have staff support or secretarial support. And I want
to thank you for not making it 800 pages.
(Laughter)
>> Judge Yu: I also want to add my comments to thank the chief. It
really is fearless that the chief is giving this branch the opportunity
at this time to take a hard look at ourselves, to kind of appreciate
whether a we’ve done, and then to move forward.
I think that when we come out of this process, we’ll find that it’s
been therapeutic and cathartic. I thank the speakers who came this
afternoon. And I really can’t add to what they said about the issues
of access, self-help, serving self represented litigants, language
access. There’s some things that haven’t been mentioned that I want to
make sure that as we move forward and we assimilate the recommendations
of the SEC, and then the further statements or comments of the public
who will look at this and comment in either the 30 days or the rolling
comment period, there’s some things that I think that I’d like to make
sure is — they’re considered, because I’m going to be going off this
council.
So then as the grants piece. Because my understanding is that some
of these grants are things that the AOC did not apply for but they’re
provided for by statute.
For example the violence against women education project. That’s
through a fund set aside by the federal government under the VOLA. In
addition, there’s other — the equal access funds grant, for example,
the family law information center, the five model self-help pilot
project. Those are all statutory monies that we get that are in the
state budget Act. So in terms of the comment that the SEC has made
about grants, I’d like us to just pause there and take more stock and
get more information behavior the council takes any action on deciding
whether or not to pursue grants. Because certainly we’ve heard today
about all the great work that was done through that seed money, for
example Judge Biorn said you can’t start a self-help center without
seed money. Another thing we haven’t paused on today is the work of
the Judicial Council implemented by the AOC in the area of diversity
and recognition of bias.
That’s actually mentioned in the first goal of the six strategic
goals of the council. Access and diversity.
In 1987 actually, chief justice bird started the advisory committee
on gender bias in the courts. That committee came up with 68
recommendations, which were then adopted by the council.
In 1991 the Judicial Council established the advisory commit at this
on racial and ethnic bias in the court. I believe that’s what Judge
Walsh mentioned. So he was on the council quite a long time ago. In
1994, the advisory committee on access and fairness was established.
In April of 2002, the first statewide conference in race and ethnic
bias in the courts was held in this state. And I was there. And it
was really a remarkable thing.
In October of 2006 the first summit on increasing diversity on the
bench was held. And last fall a five-year subsequent
issue was convened …
wearyant
June 21, 2012
Captured at 3:59:
In October of 2006 the first summit on increasing diversity on the
bench was held. And last fall a five-year subsequent
issue was convened here in this building with the help of the hard work
of the AOC employees.
While the state bar also took leadership role in that, none of the
strives that we’ve made with respect to diversity on the bench could
have happened without the leadership of the Judicial Council and the
hard work of the AOC staff. In fact all the pipeline projects
dovetailed extraordinarily well with sific education because as we’re
going out there trying to increase the pipeline for minority students
to understand the potential of a legal career, were also educating our
citizenry about the courts and the judicial branch.
A couple weeks ago I spoke at the pathways to justice conference.
And I realize even small little things, or seemingly small things that
AOC staff does have extraordinary impact on meaning for some people.
So for example now we post the report for judicial vacancies on our
website. And I heard at the pathways to justice conference that for
legal services attorneys, that was an extraordinary step, it was very
meaningful. Because otherwise they wouldn’t have any idea as to when
there were vacancies and when they could apply.
And in terms of diversity, we would like to see, you know, including
more lawyers with legal services backgrounds, as branch officers in the
state.
So I think that there’s many things that we can’t foresee right now
that will be impacted once we start implementing some of the
recommendations that come from the SEC report.
Another thing that I think is probably going to be impacted as we cut
staff, but I think would be too bad and I hope that the council keeps
sight of as we move forward is just the level of responsiveness that
many of us in the state have enjoyed when we deal with people at the
AOC.
We’re not just dealing with lawyers who are experts, we’re
actually — it comes through that they have a love of their job,
they are really purpose driven. I taught a few weeks ago at the
national judicial council. And when I was there as an aside, every
judicial Judge from all over the country said you guys are leaders in
judicial education. Your procedure is great in terms of what it does
in judicial education.
But there were two co-faculty members who — not from the California
judicial system, and they didn’t have what they needed in terms of
teaching this class. So I said oh, I think I can get that. So I sent
an e-mail to Bonnie Huff, and within 60 minutes she sent me five E.
#345i8s that had attachments, reports, procedure and the AOC had
promulgated. That level of responsiveness is actually I think legend,
that the AOC staff has been Herculean, to respond quickly. I get
e-mails from people on holidays, late at night, on weekends.
So I would hate to see that get lost as we move forward and make
cuts. And I hope that we can be thoughtful in that process.
Lastly, we heard from very eloquent speakers today, and they had
important things to say. But unfortunately we didn’t have any court
customers come forward. And I know a number of years ago a survey was
done of people who have been users of the self-help center. Or
self-help centers across the state. There’s just two comments out of
really I think almost 100 that I’d like to highlight. Because I want
the court customers or the clients voices also to be part of the mix
when we consider what we’re going to be doing in the next few months.
One was from a person who says, the family law center has helped me
every step of the way. I don’t know where I’d be without it. The
people are very helpful. I’m a single mom with low income. And
without this center, I would not have been able to accomplish anything.
The other is: I have not taken care of divorce for three years
because of financial and lack of knowledge and procedures. Staff
guided me through this kindly and intelligently. Extremely helpful.
Without it, I probably would have just taken the paper home, paperwork
home and put it aside for three more years.
So thank you so much for the report. And I’ll be listening and
watching after October when I’m no longer a member of this body. But
I — I — I know that you have a hard task before you. And I’m in some
ways relieved that I won’t be here.
(Laughter)
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: We know where you are.
(Laughter)
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: Thank you for those very thoughtful
comments. We’ll hear from Mariam Krinsky and then judge Earl.
wearyant
June 21, 2012
Captured at 4:06:
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: Thank you for those very thoughtful
comments. We’ll hear from Mariam Krinsky and then juj Earl.
>> I’m another part of that group. I wish I were going to be there.
I think there’s no dispute that these are incredibly challenging times.
And that there’s some difficulty issues that the council needs to
grapple with. But in my mind, one of the biggest take aways from this
report is that it’s the council that needs to grapple with these
issues.
I think we’ve heard the message increasingly over time that
leadership ends with the council. I mean, it starts and ends here.
That we are — that presence that you all criticized wasn’t on the org
chart. And for us to simply adopt a report en mass would be
inconsistent with that. And I think that the chair and vice chair of
the committee have acknowledged that and made that clear.
For us not to have a process that includes the transparency and the
input of all users, legal services organizations, clients,
stakeholders, and hopefully I’m sure the public comment after it would
be a very robust effort to include all of those voices.
For us not to engage in that kind of a process, again, would be
shirking our responsibility.
And so I think this is kind of our moment to step: And the way we
step up is not — is to start the conversation, not to end the
conversation with simply taking work that’s been done and adopting it
without engaging and forcing ourselves to grab l with what it sounds
like the committee grappled with, namely what should be the vision of
the AOC.
And I just — I have to say in that regard, challenging times force
you to reevaluate when is an organization, what is an entity, what is a
branch about. And obviously there has been problems over time. And I
think some of the problems may be as much perception as they are actual
problems. I think many of the problems have been communication
problems. That’s not to say that there aren’t things that could be
done better.
And I think the chief, you’ve done so much in a short period of time
to move things forward. And Jody, you know, her Herculean severities
have been to try to implement changes and not simply keep the chair
warm in the meantime.
But I think that I have a little bit of pause and concern with the
notion that even in tough times, that what the AOC or what leadership
of the branch should be about is simply a business model. I mean, you
all have presented a phenomenal business model. And I understand and
you’ve acknowledged today, a lot of limitations in terms of what you’ve
viewed as your charge and what you did or didn’t have access to, and
the resources you did or didn’t have.
And it wasn’t about applauding good things that are being done, it
was about identifying problems with, you know, limited resources, with
self reporting, with information, you know, that you viewed as not
always giving you what you needed.
But I think it’s a time to grapple among the council, what is the
right model?
Is it purely a business model, or is it one that acknowledges that
access to justice, that, you know, the needs of the most vulnerable
people in our community may not be a business-minded decision, but it’s
the right decision.
So I think that not simply as the process that justice Miller
suggested, the right process — and I would encourage part of the
send-out to include Alan’s suggestion that not just the presentation
today — which I think was phenomenal, and added richly to what I had
read in the report — it added very mend us layers to it in my mind.
But I think also that audio that includes the public testimony of the
morning is equal — was it the morning or the afternoon?
It’s running together.
After lunch.
Feels like a year ago.
(Chuckling)
>> I think that’s equally valuable.
And I think that the other part I would add in addition to the
importance of underscoring in a public comment send-out, the link and
that people be encouraged to listen to all of it.
I also think to make clear that we take seriously and we are
committed to this process, and we’re committed to grappling with what
we are about, that when this comes back in August, that we should put
front and center a discussion of chapter 4. And that that needs to
be — that needs to start. And that that should start quite soon.
Because for this council to really start to think about where does it
come out and are there, you know — why can’t we start to really commit
to how do we define our role?
And I think that there needs to be a sooner rather than later
discussion about that.
The only other thing I would add is — and again, maybe it’s easy for
those of us, you know, who are sort of going to be moving on — I work
with some incredible people at AOC over the years. And I also know
that there have been concerns over the years. And I think that this
report well articulates those concerns.
But I frankly did find parts of it — and I know it wasn’t intended
to be viewed that way — I found parts of it to be ju
troubling in their tone for the committed people who work in this
building, who are, you know, dealing with the tough times. There are
obviously people in our trial courts who are dealing with the tough
times as well. And I think if one went out and looked to study, you
know, things that have been done wrong throughout, one could do it.
But I think it’s important for this dialogue to occur in a way that
acknowledges not simply the problems, but also to try to capture what’s
of value that — in what’s been done; so that as we try to move in
tough fiscal times to a more dollars and cents approach, we don’t get
rid of what we need to be valuing, but that we have an adequately —
haven’t adequately at times known about or captured through a
business-type analysis.
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: Thank you, Mariam.
And this is available on the Web, as are most — in fact
Judicial Council meetings.
wearyant
June 21, 2012
Captured at 4:12:
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: Thank you, Mariam.
And this is available on the Web, as are most — in fact
Judicial Council meetings.
>> For the insomniacs.
>> Judge Earl: I want to thank the members of the SEC for your
report and the way you offered the report and chief, for your courage
in demonstrating your leadership in forming this committee.
I have a different take on the tone of my report than some of my
colleagues. Perhaps the beauty of having multiple people that sit on
the Judicial Council with various experiences. I got the sense that
the tone of the report was the author’s conveying the tone and feelings
of those they interviewed; not that the — the tone of the authors’
themselves.
And I think to not have included that would have given us an
unrealistic impression of the feelings that exist among trial court
judges and trial court employees, and the frustrations that exist among
them as well.
So I think it is important for us to consider that, that those
feelings do exist among trial courts.
And I don’t believe that the tone itself lends itself to devaluing
any of the work of the AOC employees. I think the — the report itself
reflects perhaps some shortcomings of those who are responsible for
oversight of AOC employee, including the council.
And I think we do have a good opportunity here for change; I —
justice Miller, applaud you for welcoming the SEC members of the
council into the E and P committee. I think that that will be
important as we move forward in looking at the recommendations. And I
do think — I’m sorry that we’re losing some folks from on the council,
but I do think is a good time to be involved. And I look forward to
working with everybody on this. Thank you.
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: Thank you. Judge Herman, then Judge Wesley.
>> You know, I am very concerned for the AOC employees, because I
think I’ve shared the experience that many have expressed here. The
experiences I have have been by and large extremely positive.
The other side of the coin, though, is the report is here. And as
judicial officers by and large, on the council as well as lawyers, as
well as court professionals, you know, we’re — by training we look
past tone. And I think we got to get past the tone issue, look at and
evaluate substance on a go-forward basis. Just my thought.
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: Thank you, Judge Herman. Just Wesley.
>> HON. DAVID WESLEY: I’d like to make a motion, but I don’t want to
cut off discussion, chief.
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: I was looking around and it seems I would
call the question in terms of motion.
>> HON. DAVID WESLEY: I have two motions. The first motion is that
the council accept the SEC report with gratitude; and endorse the
report, acknowledging its significance and timeliness. And allowing
free public comment period before discussing implementation.
That is my motion.
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: Is there going to be only one motion?
>> HON. DAVID WESLEY: I have a second motion after that. If you
want me to make it now, I can.
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: I’d like to hear it too.
(Laughter)
>> Bradley amendment to your first one.
>> HON. DAVID WESLEY: My second motion is that the council f
Mariam Krinsky’s advice and that it step up, and that it also take the
advice of the SEC commission and show commitment by endorsing and
implementing recommendations 4.1 through 4.4. And I’d like to take
them up one at a time.
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: We’ll first take the first motion. I
second. Off of this side of the room.
>> Over here.
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: No, no, no. Who — Sue, you seconded.
Any discussion on the acceptance —
>> I have a question for Judge —
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: Yes?
>> Use your mic —
>> Can you repeat again what it was?
We accept it, we endorse it —
>> HON. DAVID WESLEY: Endorsing the report, acknowledging its
significance and timeliness and allowing for a 30-day comment period
before discussing implementation.
>> I wasn’t sure what you meant by endorse.
>> Yeah.
>> HON. DAVID WESLEY: What I mean is I endorse the report, doesn’t
mean you endorse every single one of the recommendations, but endorse
the report received from this committee as a — as a significant,
important report for this council.
>> Question.
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: Okay. So Judge Kaufman?
>> HON. IRA KAUFMAN: How does that conflict with what you’re asking
the E and P committee to do?
>> Doesn’t. Coff I’m not sure I agree with you, Judge Wesley.
>> I think there has to be a joint motion that —
>> I agree.
>> That entails some of that and the recommendations of E and P.
>> I made my motion, if you have —
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: I have a second through commissioner
Alexander, correct?
That is accept, endorse, acknowledge, with a 30-day comment period.
Notwithstanding other discussion.
Okay. Judge —
>> I make a substitute motion. I would adopt — I would support
Judge Wesley’s motion without the word “endorse.” So my substitute
motion is delete “endorse” from his motion.
>> Point of order. That would be an amendment. It would not be a
supplement —
(Laughter) cant can either a friendly amendment or you
reward it to have a substitute motion.
>> Chief, wait a minute.
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: Is it a friendly amendment?
>> He’s not going to accept a friendly amendment.
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: It’s a substitute motion?
>> It would be a motion to amend.
>> That would be a motion to amend. Thank you.
(Laughter)
>> In other words, if that passes, then the main motion is on the
floor as amended.
wearyant
June 21, 2012
Captured at 4:21:
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: Okay. Judge O’Malley.
>> I would like to add at least comment at this time about justice
Baxter’s recommendation that it not be strictly a 30-day comment
period, but a rolling comment period depending upon the issues as they
arise. Certainly it’s going to be at least initially a 30-day period
but leave it open as issues arise, not closing off completely the —
the comment period after 30 days.
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: That sounds like a friendly amendment too.
Judge Wesley, are you interested in that friendly amendment?
>> HON. DAVID WESLEY: My only — and — my only problem is that if
we don’t have some place where we say, okay, we’re going to move
forward with this, we discussed this at E and P, and we thought a
30-day comment period because it’s been out for discussion already, was
sufficient.
But I — it’s clear to me that when we get into some of these
recommendations, there’s going to be further comment.
I don’t know how you phrase that without having some specific cut-off
period so we can move on.
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: Judge Hull and then Mariam Krinsky.
>> HON. HARRY HULL: Thank you, chief. I don’t think this is in
nature of a further froendly amendment. I’m confused on the
Parliamentary procedure enough. But I think that — the difficulty I
have with Judge Wesley’s motion at least is it’s somewhat in the nature
of a compound question or a — violates the single subject rule or
something like that.
(Laughter)
>> HON. HARRY HULL: So if it is put to a vote as moved, I agree
with — I agree with parts, don’t agree with other parts. And I’m
going to be in a difficult position whether I should vote yes or no.
Cant can Mariam Krinsky and then Judge baker.
>> MS. MIRIAM KRINSKY: Could the motion — could you reread it one
more time, Judge Wesley?
>> HON. DAVID WESLEY: I don’t know if I could. I think — I think
the motion was that the judicial council accept the SEC report with
gratitude and endorse the report, acknowledging its significance and
timeliness, and allowing a 30-day comment period before implementing
the report.
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: What do you mean bkk.
>> MS. MIRIAM KRINSKY: Okay. I have a question and I think the
chief — I have a question and then I have a thought on the 30-day p so
maybe the thought.
It seems to me that the 30-day makes a lot of sense, makes good
sense. And justice Baxter, I understand your thought. I would assume
that as other issues over time come to the council, there’s still an
opportunity for people to comment, the way they have by coming today,
by writing letters.
But at least initially a 30-day period where this can be put out,
where individuals who want to give input have a chance to give input,
and they don’t feel that it’s rolling so they don’t have to give input
right now. They’re given a chance, it’s out there.
But if specific issues then in later months come forward, there’s no
prohibition on input on specific issues at a later time.
So I just think there’s some value to knowing that there’s an end
point so that groups aren’t misled by thinking, oh, I’ll wait, because
they haven’t gotten to chapter 7 yet or chapter 9, and that’s what I’m
really worried about.
I think we need to have a chance for people to see this, to give
input on it, and to not sort of rest assured that they’ll later have
that chance if that may not come up.
So — but the question I have is I’m not sure I understood the last
part, which is so we put it out for 30 days, and then we implement.
I — it didn’t seem to me like that sounded consistent with what E
and P is recommending. And I don’t know, Judge Wesley, if you’re
intending to be recommending that after the 30-day, it moves through
the E and P process, or after 30 days, it all comes to the council for
an up or down.
So I just wasn’t sure about that last part.
>> HON. DAVID WESLEY: Being on E and P and having discussed the
process, I have no problem with the idea that somebody has to oversee
this. And the agreement was I think from the E and P group that SEC
committee members on the Judicial Council would be advisory to the E
and P, and that the E and P would move the recommendations forward,
call that implementing — in a timely fashion. So somebody has to do
that.
>> Could the motion —
>> HON. DAVID WESLEY: I’m trying to get us to accept and endorse —
change the word “endorse” the importance of the recommendations, so
that we get this report before us. Because I can’t make my second
motion until we get this report before us.
And we have to accept this report. And then the procedural manner of
implementing is what I think E and P is talking about. That’s a
different motion.
>> No.
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: Judge baker, then Judge Jacobson, Judge
Elsworth, and justice back tore.
>> HON. STEPHEN BAKER: With respect, I think the current motion is
very ambiguous, overly broad, compound.
(Laughter) back back
>> HON. STEPHEN BAKER: And I think we should vote it down.
well intended I know. And I think alternatively we should accept the
report for consideration, without placing any value judgment on it. We
accept it for consideration. That motion then passes and then I would
think that the next — just hear what if anything appears to be a loose
consensus, I would think the next motion would be to move to adopt the
E and P recommendation subject perhaps to modification of the public
comment issue as outlined by justice BaxtKk.
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: So it sounds to me, Judge baker, that you
have an amended motion to accept the report for consideration at this
time. And so let me — so unless the other speakers wish to add to
this, I’d like to take a motion and get some of these off the table.
(Laughter)
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: I will hear from Judge Jacob
>> Jacobson: Thank you. One thing justice Miller said one thing E
and P would like to do between now and August 9th is set a priority
list of which of these many, many recommendations to deal with.
Perhaps the public comment period initially ought to be on the issue of
prioritizing these 147 or so recommendations. And then we deal in
groups later on. We’re now going to be addressing this grouping of
recommendations and get it out for another public comment period at
that time. That may be a way to deal with this complex issue of
needing a rolling public comment period. So that’s a suggestion that
I’m throwing out.
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: Thank you. Judge Elsworth?
>> I would hold my comment until we —
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: One of these votes?
Justice Baxter.
>> HON. MARVIN BAXTER: My comments on the comment period —
>> You have 30 days.
>> HON. MARVIN BAXTER: Were not restricted at all. I think the
comment period should start immediately.
>> Agree.
>> HON. MARVIN BAXTER: And perhaps 30 days is an arbitrary cut-off
date. In other words we just have an open comment period, the matter
will be coming up with justice Miller’s committee at a later date.
at that point the — the schedule as to which recommendations are going
to be focussed on, when, would then be public.
And the comment period would be adjusted accordingly.
But I didn’t intend at all to delay the comment period. I think the
comment period should be immediately. And I don’t think 30 days really
makes any sense, because why restrict it to that, especially when we
have as many — as we have in this report.
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: Sue.
>> Sue: Withdraw my second. Cant can thank you. There’s no second
on the original language of accept with gratitude, endorse,
acknowledge, et cetera.
But we’ll wait ’til we get there.
Judge Erica Yew, you’re up.
wearyant
June 21, 2012
Captured at 4:36:
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: Any further discussion?
Yes? Eddy Matthai:
>> As of yesterday I was on the fence of this question of whether we
should move forward at this time with any of these four recommendations
with regard to the council itself.
However, as I’ve listened to the discussion and as I thought about
this more, I’m no longer on the fence. For a couple of reasons.
I — I have not spoken today, so I haven’t had a chance to thank the
SEC for the very, very long hours that I know that it took to put that
report together.
Anyone in this room who’s worked on any such project knows that it’s
an unbelievable amount of work. And I don’t want anybody to think that
I don’t recognize and appreciate that.
But it is my understanding that the charge of the SEC was to do an
evaluation of the AOC and make recommendations to the council with
regard to changes that needed to be made.
I believe that every single person on this council is deeply
committed to making sure that we do the right thing and we make sure
that the necessary changes do get made.
The charge of the SEC was, in my opinion, not to direct the council
or put words into the council’s mind or mouths about what our
obligation is. We understand our obligation; it is set forth in the
constitution, article 6, and it is set forth in the rules of Court.
And I personally am committed to make sure that as a member of the
council I live up to those obligations. As a member of E and P, I
intend to live up to those obligations. And I believe that everybody
on this council intends to live up to those obligations.
And I think that is sufficient.
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: Thank you. I think the motion is there.
Summed up, we’ve had enough discussion. I call the question.
>> Yesterday I — I was actually interested in maybe taking up 4.1
and 4.2 today because they seem pretty uncontroversial and it’s
Edith has said they seem to reaffirm what is the role of this council.
And given the observations made by the SEC report, I think it is in
some ways proper for us to recommit and reaffirm our — our obligation
to carry out the role of the council.
One of the concerns I have about adopting these recommendations
now — and I think it’s a little bit problematic to take them one by
one, because I think they’re intended to be as a group and to endorse
one of them now but then have concerns about, say, 4.3, which is longer
and I think which many of us might want to wordsmith a little bit, I
think is quite possibly going to send the wrong message and send a
message of undercommitment. And undervaluing what I think everyone
agrees has been highlighted, which is the critical importance of
reasserting our authority and our accountability over the operations of
the AOC.
The concern that I have, though, about adopting these right now is
that — is the concern that was made — that was articulated very well
by representatives of the public interest organizations earlier today.
And that is that the recommendations are primarily toward efficiency
and the business model.
And I think also toward fulfilling the AOC’s obligations to courts
and to the trial courts.
The AOC has another ultimate constituency, which is the public. And
I’m a little concerned — I would wordsmith these, quite honestly, to
reintroduce back into them that commitment to the public interest. And
for that reason I’m not entirely comfortable with endorsing these
today. Because I don’t think they should be taken piecemealthink
they’re intended as a group. I am completely comfortable with and
eager to participate in reaffirming the role of the council and
dedicating ourselves and committing ourselves to that role; and not
letting the AOC become a run away organization and reigning it back in.
And all of those things. But I am concerned about how I would now
wordsmith these and taking them piecemeal, I think, is in some ways
problematic. (.
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: Thank you. Judge baker, then
Kaufman.
>> HON. STEPHEN BAKER: Trying not to be redundant. I too am very
grateful by the fine work done by the SEC. I think as these comments
illustrate, it’s important to put the report out for public comment.
And perception is everything.
This fine report was prepared by 12 judges. And it potentially
affect the millions of Californians, the people that we serve. And I
think that if we’re going to put the report out for public comment, we
should put the entire report out for public comment, let this process
play out in that fashion.
So I would disinclined to vote for the current motion.
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: Thank you. Judge Kaufman — then Judge
Rosenberg.
>> HON. IRA KAUFMAN: I agree with Judge baker. The motion puts us
in an awkward position. If we vote against it, I don’t want it to be
perceived we’re saying, stop, we’re hiding this thing. We’re not.
That’s nobody’s intention. Nobody here I’ve heard so far wants to
Bauer ri this thing. We want to make this work. And by voting against
this motion — which I will vote against it right now — I don’t want
to be perceived that I’m saying hide it or stop it or anything like
that. I want to do it right, take my time. And do it right.
And I trust the people on E and P will do it right. So this
motion — all four of them are premature at this point.
>> Point of order, can it be tabled?
>> I was going to make a motion.
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: We could do this, but first I take that —
it’s in front of my little — but I need Judge Herman —
>> HON. JAMES HERMAN: Judge Wesley did ask Judge Wachob, the chair
of the committee, what process he would recommend regarding this
report. And the idea was that in line with what the contemplation —
contemplated process was that it would go to the council rather than
being voted on either piecemeal or in whole today.
And you know, I think we all agree that this is a dlib bra tiff
process. We we need to go through.
So —
>> I must say, I listened too, and I think that the SEC committee was
looking for some kind of a commitment from this council. And these are
noncontroversial recommendations. They are already in our governance
model. And all they are is a reaffirmation of our commitment as a
council to do whether a we’re supposed to do as a council. And that is
act like a council.
So I — this motion made in good faith, to show a commitment, and all
it does is restate what’s already in our governing rules.
So I — I’m not going to withdraw this motion.
>> I would agree with that, but I believe if there’s a second made,
this is a nondebatable motion.
>> Right. Being can kk I was going to make a motion to table this
discussion ’til the August meeting. And let me explain why.
I firmly believe that these four — there are two sets of
recommendations from the SEC. 143 relate to the AOC. 4 relate to the
Judicial Council. These are the four. 4.1 through 4.4. Not a doubt
in my mind that this council will adopt 4.1 through 4.4.
I am convinced, however, as a result of this discussion that there
will be some wordsmithing. For example, Judge Wesley already
wordsmithed it by taking out the word “demanding” and putting in the
word “requiring.”
There may be a reason to put in the word “the public” in 4.2. There
may be other tweaking. We’ve discussed the business model versus other
models.
So with some tweaking, that may be appropriate. So I would move that
we table — and I think the E and P will bring this back at the very
first meeting — table this discussion on 4.1 to 4.4 ’til the August
meeting of the council.
wearyant
June 21, 2012
Sometimes David Wesley must feel like an unwanted, motherless stepchild.
JusticeCalifornia
June 21, 2012
Ant said:
“Sometimes David Wesley must feel like an unwanted, motherless stepchild. ”
Actually, Ant, I don’t think so. Yes, some councilmembers like being condescending, but Judge Wesley has been and is methodically making a record. As is the ACJ.
It is amazing really– notwithstanding the devastating nature of the SEC report, today was an AOC lovefest. Yes–I agree that self-help centers and the self-help info on the CA Courts website are wonderful resources for litigants — and that is what was trotted out today. And that is what will be trotted out again. Lots of hearts and flowers, and individual stories of hearts and flowers..
Indeed, the branch would not be having this debate if the AOC devoted itself to hearts and flowers service to the public. But it clearly has not.
Apart from Judge White and the SEC chairs, no one called out the AOC for its wasteful, irresponsible behavior, and no one on the JC except Judge Wesley was willing to force a commitment to require the AOC to clean up its act. Someone correct me if I missed something. . . .
Maybe in the end we will find out that top AOC members have simply been covering up for and/or carrying out the dirty work for branch leadership. Or that top leadership has been asleep at the wheel.
Seriously, if A hires B to off his wife, and there is an investigation of the death, is A going to finger B? I think not. Or if A fell asleep at the wheel and killed B, and C covered it up. . .would A finger C? perhaps not.
And yes! I did use criminal analogies. After a half billion of wasted branch dollars lined someone’s pockets in connection with CCMS with the approval of the JC, and untold hundreds of millions more have been or are in line to be spent on inexplicably expensive courthouses and courthouse maintenance for court supporters with the approval of the JC. . . ..the jovial tone of today’s meeting was troubling at best.
Wendy Darling
June 21, 2012
They just don’t get it.
Long live the ACJ.
wearyant
June 21, 2012
Captured at 4:28:
>> HON. ERICA YEW: Thank you, chief. I was wanting to address Judge
Wesley. The comments are kind of moot now that the second has been
withdrawn. My concern is that as a leadership body, the Judicial
Council can’t really look like it has an agenda with respect to that
motion. And your motion has an agenda attached to it. And that’s why
I couldn’t support it.
And when the council has accented other reports in the past, for
example, the fair courts I, or bias one, I doubt the council’s ever
passed a motion like that. Sewed that’s why I wouldn’t want to enter
into that area. (.
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: Eddy Matthai.
>> I would second Judge baker’s motion.
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: A second to a motion for accept the full
report for consideration.
Judge Rosenberg?
>> HON. DAVID ROSENBERG: I was going to accept the motion.
>> A substitute second would be in order.
>> HON. DAVID ROSENBERG: I just want to indicate if this motion
passes, it’s a powerful statement to accept a report is a powerful
statement. And I think the next action the council should take is to
adopt the recommendation of the E and P committee, which is a process.
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: Is that your motion?
>> HON. DAVID ROSENBERG: I will wait until this — baker’s motion
passes. Kanlt.
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: I’m going to call the question, in terms of
Judge baker’s motion to accept the report for consideration. All in
favor say aye.
(A Chorus of Ayes.)
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: Opposed?
>> No.
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: So noted. It passes.
>> I would move — I’m not sure I need to move it since it’s a
recommendation of the committee. We should just vote on that
recommendation. I don’t think it needs to be moved and seconds as a
committee recommendation.
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: Let’s have you restate it because you
indicated agreement to some of the comments on the round table about
changing the process a little bit.
>> The recommendation of executive and planning was as of today the
SEC report be sent out for a 30-day public comment, starting today.
I would agree that we should be flexible, but I kind of feel that we
need to start out with a defined period. So people in some sense take
it serious.
And then if comments come after that, we’re not going to throw them
away. They’ll be a public document. We will still have them. And as
we move through the process, if there are areas that E and P feels, you
know what, we’re kind of conflicted on this, and we’re getting mixed
information, we’ll start the process again. And we’ll come back to the
council and recommend — we need to have some public comment on this.
And we’ll specifically define what our concerns are. Like we do
sometimes with the rules and forms.
They have that information. So that would be the first part. The
second would be that E and P would be assigned to review and consider
each of the recommendations. I know there’s been some discussion
that — that Jody Patel has already gone through a list of the 140 and
indicated some that may have already been adopted in full or in part.
My motion is that we will go through each of the recommendations,
even ones that may have been indicated by Jody that they have been
instituted. We will go through each one. We’ll evaluate them, we will
at the August meeting come back with a summary of the comments. We’ll
come back with all of the comments for your consideration from the
public comment. We will prioritize them. And we will create a
timeline for them.
We will also seek additional input from other groups or individuals
who may have specific information. We will not assign to any other
group or create any other committee to do this work. It will be the
responsibility of E and P. We will ask the three SEC members who are
sitting on the council to be advisory members to the exec tich and
planning to help us in that process.
The responsibility will be of either the interim director or our new
administrative director to implement those with oversight — to
implement those that the Judicial Council recommends for adoption with
oversight by the Judicial Council. Executive and planning, with the
assistance of the three SEC members. That’s E and P’s recommendation.
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: Your recommendation.
>> Chief, may I make a comment on the recommendation?
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: Yes.
>> As a judicial branch loyalist, I would just like to say that those
that might read the transcript of this hearing later or who might be
listening to it, that referral of the report to the executive and
planning committee does not represent unnecessary delay of the report,
it does not represent some conspirator yal effort to kill the
recommendations of the SEC report, and I would just like to note that
this will be my first opportunity to vote as a council member. And —
>> No.
>> No, no, he’s June 1st.
>> June 1st.
>> Dave, don’t mess it up, okay?
(Laughter)
>> I believe I was appointed effect tich June 1st as a voting member,
for those that weren’t sure.
(Chuckling)
>> And I will take Judge Rosenberg’s advice that I won’t mess up my
first vote.
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: Okay. So on this E and P recommendation,
all in favor say aye.
(A Chorus of Ayes.)
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: Any opposed? (None).
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: Recommendation carries.
I don’t —
>> Have another motion.
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: Okay. Your motion, Judge Wesley?
>> My second motion was — now that the report has been accepted —
>> Microphone. Wes ws my second motion now that the report has been
accepted, and I was waiting for that, is that the council endorse and
implement recommendations 4.1 through 4.4, showing their commitment to
the SEC’s great effort.
And I’d like to take them one at a time.
So my first motion would be that the Judicial Council adopt the
recommendation, it says the council must take an active role in
overseeing and monitoring the AOC. I would offer to change the word
“demanding” to requiring.”
Transparency, accountability and efficiency in the AOC’s operations
and practices.
And I move with that amendment to adopt that recommendation.
>> I will second that motion.
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: Any further discussion?
Yes? Eddy Matthai:
>> As of yesterday I was on the fence of this question of whether we
should move forward at this time with any of these four recommendations
with regard to the council itself.
However, as I’ve listened to the discussion and as I thought about
this more …
wearyant
June 21, 2012
Captured at 4:43 (The End!)
this is a nondebatable motion.
>> Right. Being can kk I was going to make a motion to table this
discussion ’til the August meeting. And let me explain why.
I firmly believe that these four — there are two sets of
recommendations from the SEC. 143 relate to the AOC. 4 relate to the
Judicial Council. These are the four. 4.1 through 4.4. Not a doubt
in my mind that this council will adopt 4.1 through 4.4.
I am convinced, however, as a result of this discussion that there
will be some wordsmithing. For example, Judge Wesley already
wordsmithed it by taking out the word “demanding” and putting in the
word “requiring.”
There may be a reason to put in the word “the public” in 4.2. There
may be other tweaking. We’ve discussed the business model versus other
models.
So with some tweaking, that may be appropriate. So I would move that
we table — and I think the E and P will bring this back at the very
first meeting — table this discussion on 4.1 to 4.4 ’til the August
meeting of the council.
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: I’m going to ask you a point of
clarification on the rules. We have a second on this motion. You’re
the second —
>> Then I’ll second it.
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: On Judge Wesley’s motion. I believe. So
now you’re making the motion to table.
>> Correct.
>> Miss Davis had already made —
>> A person can make a motion or a second and then vote against it.
A person can make a motion — cant can I think we just saw that a
little bit earlier.
>> But I believe Ms. Davis made a motion.
>> That’s correct. I raised a point of order, can we table.
>> She didn’t make a motion, she asked a question.
>> Well, I raised the question. I would have raised the motion if
the point of order would have been yes you can. We don’t go by
Robert’s Rules here and I’m still getting used to that.
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: Go by Rosenberg’s rules. And I realize
there is a motion to table.
>> And I second that.
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: You secretary that. And I saw ought of my
corner of my eye, Judge Earl. Are you speaking to this nongee baitable
motion?
>> No.
(Laughter) cant can all in favor —
>> To table.
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: To table ’til August — our August
meeting —
>> You don’t table to a date certain.
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: I hear you mumbling over there.
>> Do we table to a date certain?
>> You can either table without a date or table to a date.
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: Are you being more specific, Ms. Davis?
>> Under Robert’s Rules if you table to a date uncertain, it’s hard
to resuscitate. So I would say I would table to August.
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: Our August meeting. So are you speaking to
the —
>> To Roberts —
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: It’s not debatable.
>> I know. But it’s —
>> A motion to table is nondebatable.
>> But after the 30-day period. I want to make sure that that’s
after —
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: Yes.
>> After the public comment period.
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: All in favor of tabling the motion please
say aye.
(A Chorus of Ayes.) Cant can all opposed?
>> Opposed.
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: Motion carries.
>> I think that’s two thirds. Is that by two thirds?
>> I think so.
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: So I don’t want — the Parliamentary
business is very important too. I think with everyone speaking, you
can see it’s important to how we proceed. And I don’t want it to take
away at all from the import of this report, from your fine
presentation. And again, with universal gratitude for the work you all
put in toward this report. And it will live with council for as long
as I’m here.
I asked for it. The hard look. I — I have to be a bit of a
masochist for this, but I intend to follow through with it. Thank you
very much.
(Applause)
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: We have on our agenda one other — well,
let me point out — I think given the — the items we were to consider,
item I and J, we moved item J to tomorrow. We’re also going to move
item I to tomorrow morning as well. But I want to, before you leave,
indicate for the record that there was nothing requested to be removed
from the consent agenda. Items A1 through A2 and through F. And so
those matters are passed by this council. And we will take up the
remaining two items on the agenda tomorrow morning at 8:30.
Thank you for all of your attention to this very important meeting.
-END-
Wendy Darling
June 21, 2012
A committee to study the report of another committee. That should take another year, maybe more. The Branch is doomed. Published today, Thursday, June 21, from The Recorder, the on-line publication of CalLaw, by Cheryl Miller:
Council Sets Up Committee to Study Report Critical of AOC
By Cheryl Miller
SACRAMENTO — Following a grueling, hours-long hearing, the Judicial Council on Thursday charged an internal committee with evaluating the 140-plus recommendations in a recently released report that was highly critical of the Administrative Office of the Courts.
Full article is subscription access only: http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202560427562&Council_Sets_Up_Committee_to_Study_Report_Critical_of_AOC
Long live the ACJ.
Judicial Council Watcher
June 21, 2012
That was quite the effort ant! I bet you’re weary after that! On behalf of our readers, thank you. And it is fascinating to note that the Judicial Council was addressing JCW directly with some of their communications. Of course setting everything off until August isn’t going to stop their budget from being gored like taking action might have but hey, they’re smart governors capable of drawing straight lines.
wearyant
June 21, 2012
Thank you for allowing me to “spam” your website, JCW!
JusticeCalifornia
June 21, 2012
It was an AOC lovefest. How did anyone ever survive without the AOC, I wonder. . . .
None of the recommendations were adopted today, not even Judge Wesley’s motion to adopt a slightly amended recommendation no. 4-1.
IMHO, the only SEC recommendations that are going to be implemented are those that CURRENT top leadership want implemented, in whichever watered down version it sees fit. If top leadership has its way, the rest are going to die a slow death in the land of public comment (and we know there will be targeted solicitation of same), process, discussion and studied thought.
What is interesting is that the SEC chairs made it VERY, VERY clear that the scathing report accurately reflects and did NOT overstate the OVERWHELMINGLY CONSISTENT views of those polled (judges, employees, and other stakeholders) about problems with the AOC.
No matter – according to councilmember Miriam Krinsky, leadership of the branch starts and ends with the [supreme unelected representatives of the unwashed judicial masses] Judicial Council, and a lot of this mess is a matter of perception.
Democratize the Judicial Council, and pass AB 1208.
AOC Tracker
June 21, 2012
For Krinsky, perspective is everything and the truth is a pesky irritant. In October 2010, when Tani as chair of the Accountability and Efficiency Committee recommended raises (that weren’t really raises) for the AOC, Krinsky accused the Alliance Judges, who opposed the raises, of misleading the public.
She first appeared at the AOC, thanks to her good friend Terry Friedman, as a “Special Consultant” working in the Southern Regional Office. This newly created consultant spot, made especially for her, came after she resigned as the Director of the Children’s Law Center in Los Angeles amid controversy, having been sued for wrongful discharge and violation of the whistleblower statute by two lawyers who she fired.
Thus, she became a perfect candidate for the AOC Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care (2006-2009), named to the post by none other than former Chief RG. Rotating through various AOC committees where her unique “perspective” and loyalty impressed RG, she achieved a Judicial Council appointment in 2009.
In her Judicial Council bio, she reported that she was a Loyola Law School Adjunct Professor and Lecturer at the UCLA School of Public Policy. Her bio on the ABA Youth at Risk website included; Faculty at the UCLA School of Public Policy/Affairs and Adjunct Professor at both Loyola and UC Irvine Law School.
In fact, before her Judicial Council appointment, she did teach one class at Loyola during the spring of 2009. In February of that year, she did speak at a UCLA program hosted by the School of Public Policy and in September 2009, she was a guest speaker at an Irvine School of Law event. Apparently these efforts justify her alleged academic credentials.
Next thing you know, she might actually claim that her work on the Judicial Council includes oversight of the AOC.
Wendy Darling
June 21, 2012
Fraudulently inflating one’s credentials is a common occurrence at 455 Golden Gate Avenue, AOC Tracker. The Fuentes & Sofa Man regime raised it to an art form in the AOC’s HR Division.
Long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
June 21, 2012
By the way Ant, thanks so much for your amazing efforts. I was able to check what I heard Krinsky say against what you posted.
wearyant
June 21, 2012
I’m happy to help, JusticeCalifornia. Yes, it was difficult to listen at times to the LoveFest. At least I could yell and holler at the computer screen at times.
Commercial IT
June 21, 2012
And everyone here, you might want to listen carefully to what gets said tomorrow in respect to the technology matters, particularly in regard to San Luis Obispo County. See if you can figure out what’s wrong with what is being said. 10:00 and 11:00 presentations. I don’t know what’s going to be said, but I will bet in the blind many of the statements will be incorrect concerning the technology. It is highly doubtful that any of the speakers will have any substantial technology knowledge and, in particular, will likely have little or no knowledge about writing software components for a system or about designing a system. It is likely to be both amusing and sad at the same time. Your tax dollars at work.
Our society cannot afford to have the court system fail due to financial considerations but it seems like the trainwreck is inevitable.
Official
June 21, 2012
Commercial IT:
When Justice California posted about court reporters in the earlier thread and you commented about the 12-track recording capabilities, I was pleasantly surprised to see the other bloggers taking an interest in court reporting. I’d love to have a discussion and hear from others regarding the changes happening right now in the world of reporting. Out of respect for JCW’s stated mission, I have tried to keep my comments relevant to the thread and haven’t gone off on my own personal agenda. At this time, since it’s been brought up by others, I will take this opportunity to say this: The “official” in my name stands for “official court reporter.” So if JCW chooses to start up a thread about court reporting… I’ll see you there!!! I am interested in what you and others have to share on this topic, and I’m always eager to learn.
Commercial IT
June 22, 2012
Perhaps there will be some more discussion on this. I am not some anti-court reporter person although a blogger or two earlier jumped on me a while back for suggesting that changes needed to be made. Court reporters could become transcribers, simply leveraging their acquired knowledge and experience into a somewhat different way of preparing the records. This would allow production of more records for the same amount of money. This is one part of what modern technology could do to save the courts financially.
As for whether it works, I have personal experience with records produced by multi-track recordings. The accuracy and “cleanness” (if that’s a word) of the record was astounding. The first one I saw was from Orange County. That project was stopped by lobbying against it.
But now the courts are broke. Listen carefully this morning to the San Luis Obispo situation. I know some of the background facts and use of modern technology could bail them out within a few weeks but I don’t think any of the people involved understand any of the technology that would help. Turning to modern, inexpensive technology is inevitable as a means to save the court system financially. All the politics and lobbying and defensiveness, etc. will eventually give way. The Legislature may have to force it. They are well aware of what could be done because they investigated it. They talked to many people, including myself in confidential investigations, and got virtually the same story from all the experts with whom they spoke. I was only a small voice in a chorus.
wearyant
June 22, 2012
Commercial IT:
I was an official court reporter and was very happy in the late 80s when CAT (computer-aided transcription) came into being — well, maybe not initially, it demanded a high learning curve. It has evolved with very good techie vendors listening to court reporters suggestions and complaints to today, it is state of the art in sophistication. I had a transcriptionist in my court reporting software. It resided in my laptop an connected to my stenotype machine, which was also a computer in itself. It was wonderful! As one types in stenotype, the computer works very hard to produce the realtime transcript automatically in real time, as was done for the judicial council meeting. I wouldn’t want to go back to the stone age and be a transcriptionist from an audio tape! NO! That is very labor-intensive. If you want any efficiency and accuracy in the finished product, it takes a very, very, very long time, mostly spent in re-listening to the audio over and over again. No, no, no, no, NO!
Official
June 21, 2012
Thank you so much, Ant, for your postings. You did a great job!
Now… JCW et al, would it be a good idea for JCW to start us a new topic thread so we can start the comments flowing? For my computer screen, when the thread gets this long it’s kind of burdensome to get to the end and find all the posts. Just my suggestion.
Wendy Darling
June 21, 2012
How about the AOC’s employing a banking regulatory attorney that “telecommutes” from Switzerland, and why on earth the AOC, or the Judicial Branch, would have ANY need to employ such a person, as a suggested topic?
Recall the Chief Justice.
Long live the ACJ.
anna
June 21, 2012
To launder money and deposit it for George and his ilk. Tani’s “Swiss” account is in the Philippines. Hello??
JusticeCalifornia
June 21, 2012
Agreed. We have serious business to discuss stemming from the JC meeting and the information Ant laboriously memorialized on this thread.
JusticeCalifornia
June 21, 2012
I agree with Official that we need some sort of general “JC meeting trainwreck” comment thread- . . Wendy, love that none of the really bad AOC $h$$ was mentioned by JC members today. Zero zip zilch nada. Pretty much just a hearts and flowers AOC lovefest. . . .
Wendy Darling
June 21, 2012
The only thing missing from today’s JC meeting, Justice California, was a chorus of Kumbaya from the Chief Justice and the JC members.
Long live the ACJ.
Commercial IT
June 21, 2012
As a closing note for the evening, tomorrow the Council will be discussing the plight of San Luis Obispo County. The background to their situation is that data on cases related to about half of their courtrooms is stored on an old mainframe. The data is in COBOL. The county runs the mainframe. When the Lockyer-Isenberg act kicked in, separating courts and counties, the counties started charging local courts for mainframe hosting. SLO court is paying over a million dollars per year to the county. They can’t afford that any longer. There is an easy answer to this but it is beyond the technical expertise of those involved.
Official
June 21, 2012
Closing note??? Commercial IT, don’t be silly! We can’t sleep after a day like this! Lol
Wendy Darling
June 21, 2012
Published late this evening, Thursday, June 21, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
California Judicial Council Inching Toward Court Bureaucracy Reform
By MARIA DINZEO
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – California’s Judicial Council voted nearly unanimously to move slowly on reforms to the central bureaucracy of the courts, deciding to put a critical report of the agency out for public comment for at least 30 days, without officially endorsing it.
While the report has been praised by many trial judges for recommending sweeping change to what it characterized as a “top-heavy” Administrative Office of the Courts, it has also drawn some criticism over its crisp wording and incisive tone, as it blasted the AOC for mismanagement, fiscal waste, hiring too many employees and hiding its budget process. The report recommended that the AOC downsize its workforce, eliminate unnecessary divisions and focus on serving the state’s 58 trial courts rather than influencing judiciary policy for its own purposes.
“Our report- its tone, its objectivity- it was not meant to be a feel-good report,” said Presiding Judge Brian McCabe of Merced County, one of the report’s authors.
At Thursday’s Judicial Council meeting, McCabe and Judge Charles Wachob of Placer County presented the findings of the Strategic Evaluation Committee (SEC), the 11-member group tasked with doing a top to bottom review of the AOC by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye.
“Some people have asked about the way in which the SEC came about with its recommendations and findings. How did you get a room of a dozen or so judges to reach a decision on anything? It’s a fair question,” Wachob said. “And I just have to say, it was incredibly simple. The information that we received was so powerful and so consistent and so voluminous that it could not be ignored.”
He added, “I believe based on the information that we have that the tone was completely appropriate. When you are looking at problems, when you are looking at personnel rules that are ignored, and various problems that we saw, they had to be discussed. Sometimes there’s just not a really pleasant, nice way to talk about those. I can say, too, that the tone of the report could have been much harsher but it wasn’t.”
The committee recommended that the council exercise greater control over the bureaucracy, ensure that the AOC understands its role as a service provider to the courts, demand that the agency provide the council with a business analysis for each of its projects and conduct periodic reviews of its administrative director. The council decided to table discussion on those recommendations until August.
Wachob said the SEC found it interesting that organizational charts on the structure of the AOC did not place the council at the top, even though the council is the head of the judiciary and the AOC is meant to be its staff agency. “It says a lot about Judicial Council oversight but it also talks and speaks about the perspective or a viewpoint of the organization itself- that it’s an organization unto itself. And that has to change,” he said.
Wachob said much of the committee’s information came from interviews with judges and trial court officials and described the conversations as confessional. “They were incredibly candid. Many people expressed that they had been wanting someone to tell their concerns to for a long time, in a safe way where there would be no possibility of any retribution or financial consequences to their courts whatever. It was almost like a confessional at some point,” he said.
To put together the voluminous report, the committee often had to dig for information. In his presentation, Wachob noted that the number of AOC employees was particularly hard to pin down. While the committee found the bureaucracy employed 1,008 people, by May 2012 the number had dropped to 883.
“That’s not much of a drop from the 1008 that existed at the end of the year. My personal belief, and I know this is shared with other members of committee is that no one really knows how many people worked at the AOC at various points in time and that’s just the way it is. That should change,” he said.
He added that even a simple question to the AOC often turned into a frustrating misadventure. “A question, for example, about whether or not a division used a cost-benefit analysis in trying to decide which programs to offer seems like a fairly straightforward question, but it often diverged into multiple e-mails, requests for clarification, letters, correspondence, and at the end of the day, the answer was no,” Wachob said. “Some of the answers, some of the responses that we received from AOC staff in response to our questions for information, were simply non-responsive. People on the committee would joke sometimes that if we were in court and heard that answer and someone objected that the answer was non-responsive, all 12 of us would have sustained the objection.”
But he also noted that other staffers were more helpful. “Some were very candid, some helpful, some very forthcoming. Some were just flat out not.”
The intention of the SEC’s report, McCabe and Wachob noted, was to provide an outline for restructuring the AOC and rebuilding its credibility. Over the past decade, the agency has so grown in size and scope that some courts have come to resent the bureaucracy for exercising what the SEC termed “a culture of control” over the courts it is meant to serve.
While the AOC has seen some changes in the past year, with budget cuts forcing layoffs and the retirement of its former director, deputy director and various other highly compensated AOC executives, Wachob said the changes have been incremental, and mostly circumstantial. “We characterized the AOC’s change in the last year as inching towards consolidation and functions and not necessarily as one that came through a predetermined game plan. The organizational consolidations that occurred in the last year we felt resulted from extraneous events, retirement, attrition, that type of thing. I think the AOC is moving towards the predetermined game plan and structural reorganization but I don’t think that that has occurred yet,” he said.
The council received dozens of pages of comments from judges and attorneys, either urging immediate action to accept the report’s recommendations or decrying the report as unfair to the hardworking staff at the AOC. “If the problem is not addressed, the AOC and the Judicial Council simply will not be able to lead our court system,” wrote Presiding Judge Lee Edmon of Los Angeles. “The best and most immediately effective way to address the lack of trust and confidence of the judiciary in the AOC is to endorse the SEC report and to ensure judges that concrete steps will be taken to implement the SEC recommendations.”
“The report has very little focus on the significant and positive efforts of the AOC to carry out this council’s policy in terms of ensuring access to justice in our courts,” said Appellate Justice Laurie Zelon during the council’s public comment period.
Speaking on behalf of the judicial reform group the Alliance of California Judges, Judge Steve White of Sacramento also urged the council to act quickly to implement the committee’s proposed reforms. “For too many years, the AOC has actively and aggressively usurped the power of the courts and has been found to be dishonest with budgeting, staff levels, pretend hiring freezes, major projects reflecting AOC priorities and the list goes on. This happened because the Judicial Council let it happen. The docility and compliance of previous councils aggrandize the powers of the AOC and the Chief Justice alike. Change must come,” he said.
Judge James Herman of Santa Barbara urged the council to move past the tone of the report and “evaluate substance.”
“You know, I am very concerned for the AOC employees, because I think I’ve shared the experience that many have expressed here. The experiences I have have been by and large extremely positive. The other side of the coin, though, is the report is here. And as judicial officers by and large, by training we look past tone. And I think we got to get past the tone issue, look at and evaluate substance on a go-forward basis,” he said.
In answer to critics on the tone of the report, McCabe said the committee struggled for months on its perspective. “We sat around the table, bickering and arguing with each other and it was kind of a family atmosphere. We’ve had some drag-out arguments, but at the end of the day, not personal and we kept it in perspective. So it took us a long time, trained professionals, to remove that influence, every one of us. And there’s a knee jerk reaction. I’ve sat here and I hope I’m not disrespectful to anybody if I’m grinning, because I’m hearing what we’ve all already lived through and we’ve already struggled with.”
Council member Judge David Wesley moved to accept and endorse the report before sending it out for further public comment, but the word “endorse” did not sit well with fellow council members. “It doesn’t mean you endorse every single one of the recommendations, but endorse the report received from this committee as a — as a significant, important report for this council,” he said.
Instead, the council decided to get further comment on the report, then send it to the council’s Executive and Planning Committee to review the report’s over 100 recommendations. Wesley’s was the only dissenting vote.
McCabe and Wachob were appointed to the council by Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye earlier this month, and will assist the council’s executive and planning group with its review. Wachob said he agreed with the move to refer the report to that group, but was concerned that the council was getting too fixated on the process, rather than the report’s recommendations.
“What concerns me is the focus seems to be on methodology, what type of committee do we want to have, what kind of process do we want to have. And it seems to me is that the first thing that has to happen is there has to be a commitment,” he said. “You know, here we are at this historic one moment in time for this judicial branch to get things right and to get things moving. And there has to be some kind of a commitment. And once you have that commitment, then there’s probably a number of ways, a number of ways to implement that will.”
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/21/47690.htm
Long live the ACJ.
Lando
June 21, 2012
Another sad day in the history of the judicial branch. The comprehensive SEC report should be acted on by the Judicial Council. Instead the report will be sent to the Council’s E and P committee for long term parking. While that goes on maybe the AOC will lay off another 7 employees and keep blundering along as usual. Still to this day, the AOC telecommuting lawyer is still in Switzerland working on? 100 employees still work in the Office of General Counsel and no effort has been made to vacate the dark hallways of the crystal palace to move to more modest housing in Sacramento. You really can’t make any of this up. We need to adopt 1208, democratize the Judicial Council and recall the Chief Justice.
Wendy Darling
June 21, 2012
And Vickrey and Overholt are still regularly seen in the dark hallways of 455 Golden Gate Avenue.
Nothing will really change without a legislative correction. Nothing.
Recall the Chief Justice.
Long live the ACJ.
Official
June 21, 2012
Speaking of the dark hallways in SF, did anyone notice the agenda item under the Policy Coordination and Liaison Committee Report:
AB 2501 (Garrick), as amended March 29, 2012 – State government
Requires the Supreme Court, by January 1, 2025, to move its location to the
Sacramento metropolitan area and only hear cases in this location and also
requires the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), along with all state
agencies, departments, and other state entities under the direction of a
constitutional officer to move its primary administrative office to the
Sacramento metropolitan area.
PCLC Action: Oppose.
Opposed by the JC Committee, of course.
George Washington
June 21, 2012
Thank you Justice Zelon for recognizing that California is a national leader regarding language access and models to assist self-represented litigants.
Official
June 21, 2012
GW, Justice Zelon’s comments were nice, but didn’t you think they were a little off topic? I’m just starting a discussion here, not being confrontational. In my thinking (as I was listening live to that portion of the comments) I was thinking what Wachob started out saying in his comments: The SEC’s job wasn’t to report on all the good things the AOC has done. And my tone is not to minimize their efforts at all in the areas you mentioned. But my impression was the comments by Zelon were irrelevant to the subject matter today. Maybe I’ve spent too much time in a courtroom, but it was like listening to the penalty phase of a capital case and hearing all the factors in mitigation. Yes, the AOC has done some good. But just because we have self-help centers in the 58 counties doesn’t mean we should let them spend another 500 million on CCMS. You can’t be critical of the SEC report for leaving out things they weren’t supposed to include in the report, right?
JusticeCalifornia
June 21, 2012
Right.
🙂
Reality Check
June 22, 2012
Why would 18 people give this comment a thumbs down?
It really demonstrates the type of folks who utilize this site. Sad.
Michael Paul
June 22, 2012
What it really demonstrates is that the ministry of truth has lost control of the message and is trying to regain that control by sending their minions over here.
It’s challenging when Donna and Curt don’t get very far with the legislature because of media pressure isn’t it?
My guess is that 18 people (now 22 people) who frequent this site can smell an AOC rat over the internet That’s why they gave the thumbs down to the irrelevant comment.
Judicial Council Watcher
June 22, 2012
Michael, in your own words, tell us how you really feel? 😀
Wendy Darling
June 22, 2012
Mr. Paul, in his own words, has eleoquently expressed the thoughts of many, JCW.
Long live the ACJ.
Curious
June 22, 2012
George W., perhaps the reason people gave you a big thumbs down is that Justice Zelon, like Judge (former) Friedman, Miriam Krinsky, and many others on the Council and within the AOC have forgotten that the AOC is not an all-purpose agency, especially when the money they use for projects favored by those folks is scraped off the top of funds meant for the courts. The AOC are ADMINISTRATORS. Their powers are CIRCUMSCRIBED, as are those of the Council. For crying out loud, they want to write the high school Civics texts on the theory that that will give us better prepared jurors. Some of this is just so attenuated from what they were designed to do! COURTS ARE CLOSING! What is it you can’t understand about that? Something tells me you spend very very little time in court, George. That is where the rubber meets the road, that is why they call it the COURT SYSTEM, and not the ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM. If people want to run the courts, they need to go to law school, practice for 10 years, and then get appointed by a governor or run for election, and put in some time learning about judging. It is not the place of the AOC to “lead” elected constitutional officers. If I’m wrong, please point out the portion of Article VI that says otherwise. Article VI does’t even MENTION the AOC–it merely says that the Council “may” retain an Administrative Director of the Courts.
If there is a need for a NEW agency to carry out functions of one sort or another, fine–get the legislature to create it, fund it, and set out guidelines for its operation. The problem is that AOC is out of everyone’s control. Please, read the SEC report if you haven’t done so.
These are the findings of judges, and non-judges, appointed by the Chief Justice herself.
Are you at all concerned that the bunch just wasted over 1/2 billion dollars and have zip to show for it? If you are concerned about access to the courts, the courts must be kept open. This thought is not original to me, for sure, but it is at the heart of the debate here.
What are the CORE functions of the judiciary. I say they take place within a courtroom, and nothing that does not directly and demonstrably and significantly contribute to those efforts is a luxury, at best. You want a cherry on your ice-cream sundae, my friend, and there isn’t even enough money to buy potatoes for the kids dinner.
courtflea
June 21, 2012
ok, I started skimming thru this after “out for comment” was mentioned. Please excuse me but shit, shit, shit, this report will be buried just like all of the others. I am so ready to puke. No judge, CEO or whoever is going to put their name on the comments to the SEC report. please lets gather round and mourn the loss. But for now, I am so on board with the legislaturetaking control of the branch budget. I never thought I would agree with that imposition on the branch but , for now far out!!
Wendy Darling
June 21, 2012
Hear, hear, courtflea.
Long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
June 21, 2012
flea, you were and are so right.
And really, all three branches know exactly what is going down.
That is why the branch is where it is.
And why we are all here.
unionman575
June 22, 2012
unionman575
June 21, 2012
courtflea
June 21, 2012
Not to mention the whole JC thing (to quote Charlie Sheen..gawd that is bad enough!) this is totally bad ju ju. When o when will the ju ju go the other way? Only when judges like those in the Alliance have the guts to speak up. I tell ya it ain’t gonna happen. I am sorry I have to puke again. Shoot, I think I need to have my head screwed off and reattached to believe the audacity of those on the JC to put the fricking SEC report out to comment.
JusticeCalifornia
June 21, 2012
courtflea, I do believe 65% of those presiding judges responding to Rosenberg/s questions thought there should be prompt action on adopting the SEC recommendations.
But hey, according to Team George judicial councilpersons, [the handsomely-rewarded handpicked appointed,annointed royal court] and their loyalists, the Judicial Council is the beginning and end of leadership of the branch. LOL.
Let’s see
Wendy Darling
June 21, 2012
According to the SEC report, countless people, including judges, Court Executive Officers, court administrators, every AOC director, current and former AOC employees, and numerous others, were interviewed as part of the SEC’s investigation. The Chief Justice and members of the Judicial Council have stated the SEC’s work was extensive and thorough. So, how much more “comment” could the Office of the Chief Justice and the Judicial Council possibly need at this point? It’s just another way to stall for more time, hope that everyone’s attention is going to wander off to something else, and do nothing.
Long live the ACJ.
Official
June 21, 2012
True, Wendy. Any member of the “public” who even knows about the SEC report or cares has had since the end of May to comment, and I’m sure they have. The “public” has spoken.
Official
June 21, 2012
Courtflea, I understand how you feel, but I just keeping hoping for change. I mean, this is rock bottom, isn’t it? We have to go up from here. Tani is on record as REALLY taking credit for the SEC report. Her comments at the beginning of the SEC presentation section were all “me,” “me,” “me,” and “I asked for this report.” We just have to keep the pressure on and hold her to the task. If she doesn’t follow through with reform, she will go down in history as a big disappointment as CJ.
unionman575
June 21, 2012
It is time:
https://recalltani.wordpress.com/
The OBT
June 22, 2012
Justice Zelon must live in a tower with some others that aren’t seeing the real world , kind of like the out of touch Judicial Council. Access to the courts? Are any of these members of the closed insular and anti democratic crowd that runs the branch caring about what is going on around them? San Francisco laying off most of their Commissioners. Fresno closing all of their outlaying courts. Los Angeles cutting employees at every level and reducing court hours . Many courts saying adios to court reporters in any civil case.Sorry Justice Zelon but in the real world ” access to justice” is being severely curtailed and those at your level aren’t getting why. Half a billion wasted on CCMS. Another 7 million to salvage it? Allowing 30 high level AOC management employees to not pay anything into their retirement. Paying perks like letting a OGC lawyer to live in Switzerland. And oh wow the AOC laid off 7 employees yesterday.
courtflea
June 22, 2012
I guess I forgot to mention due to illness 🙂 that why in the heck more comment? All of those that are going to be asked to comment (except perhaps the public), already did!!! And this crap about snapshot of the past or some such nonsense. Please!!! I am so sick of the AOC speak. Yes, Lando it is a dark day and I am getting really ticked that we have so damn many of them. I am still fried about this today! Someone has got to cut off the head of this serpent. It gets smacked down, eats it smacker and keeps coming back.
George Washington
June 22, 2012
I have no care if you do not like the message. Good work will stand, no mater what.
Michael Paul
June 22, 2012
Yup and that’s why you’re slumming over here instead of desk jockeying your next press release. 😛