If there was any reason to veto a requirement that the judicial branch hold meetings open to the public, it should have been because such meetings were governed by an ineffectual rule of court and not codified in statutes. Without disclosing sound reasoning, governor Jerry Brown line-item-vetoed the requirement that the judicial branch open up to public scrutiny so that we all could get a glimpse of their behind the scenes deliberations that cause them to meet on days like today, feign governance and speak with one voice with little to no meaningful debate on the issues.
As much as we wish this institution would open up to public scrutiny, the pieces of the why are beginning to coalesce together to tell a disturbing story. Recently, our friends at the Dayton Public Policy Institute contacted us and explained that they have been tracking the judicial council’s use of project labor agreements because much like our progressive-centrist organization, project labor agreements make no sense to conservatives either. We learned that this is the second such PLA that has been put in place by the AOC. The first one was not disclosed because the AOC felt that since they’re just a renter, they felt that the project labor agreement on the Long Beach courthouse was not a public record because the AOC is not constructing the long beach court. A private developer is constructing the long beach court. And it was a private developer that entered into the PLA with contractual provisions in the now posted Long Beach Contract that permits the developers to pass through the costs to the government.
It also appears that the person pushing these PLA’s is none other than the AOC’s former lobbyist Curtis Child and that he is doing so to discourage the BCTC (Building & Construction Trades Council) from being up in arms about other courthouses that will now never be built. While it does not appear to be in anyones’ best interests to build one and mothball 11, it was the PLA on Long Beach that encouraged politicians to look the other way for the BCTC remains among the top donors to political campaigns in the state. As we’ve stated before, sometimes PLA’s seem to make sense because they eliminate labor unrest. It does not help the workers on these projects but it does help the trade unions and those contractors who are union contractors while virtually eliminating non-union contractors from even bidding on these projects.
Jerry Brown dealt another blow to open government. Unfortunately, he will not have the opportunity to reverse his decision much like he did concerning the public records act. It’s unfortunate that there exists a virtual assault upon public information and good government here in California and that the judicial council and the AOC lead the way as yet another “sovereign” in state government and remains out of touch with its constituents, labor, judges and the public at large. It is powder kegs like this that currently threaten the viability and effectiveness of governments worldwide and it appears that California may not be too far behind.
Related articles
- Project Labor Agreements give unions unfair advantage (napavalleyregister.com)
- Another AOC back room deal underscores yet another boondoggle (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
- Project Labor Agreements expand in Illinois (illinoisreview.typepad.com)
- Governor_Wont_Make_Judicial_Council_Open_Meetings (Law.com)
Judicial Council Watcher 
unionman575
June 28, 2013
Shh…it’s a secret.
😉
wearyant
June 28, 2013
Yeah. Best that the unwashed common masses not know. They wouldn’t understand.
Wendy Darling
June 28, 2013
Also published today, Friday, June 28, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
Judicial Council Reforms Legal Office
By MARIA DINZEO
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – At its meeting Friday, the Judicial Council unanimously adopted reforms to the legal arm of the Administrative Office of the Courts, over a year after the release of a report that recommended restructuring the legal office to become more service-oriented toward the trial courts and less of a policy influencing gatekeeper to the council.
The head of a committee that recommended reforms said he approved of the proposed changes, but he warned that the council should take a closer look at its use of outside lawyers who racked up $6 million in bills last year.
Changes were recommended by the Strategic Evaluation Committee, a group of judges commissioned by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye. In their report last year, they said the former Office of the General Counsel, recently renamed the Legal Services Office, had grown too bloated and top-heavy.
The judges also recommended that the legal office’s use of expensive outside law firms in litigation undergo a cost-benefit analysis, and that expenditures be strictly monitored.
The reorganization will split the office into three departments, each headed by a managing attorney. The move is an effort to streamline the office, found to be too disorganized with too many supervisors. The departments will handle litigation and labor, business operations and legal opinions.
Justice Douglas Miller and attorney Edith Matthai, both on the council, presented the proposed changes, noting that the council will receive a report next year in March to determine whether the changes are holding the office accountable, particularly when it uses outside counsel.
“This will be the template next year to hold their feet to the fire,” Miller said.
The reforms come as current Chief Counsel Mary Roberts prepares for retirement at the end of the year. The office has already seen some changes in the reduction of its staff, from over 50 attorneys to 38, with 29 in San Francisco, six in Los Angeles and two in Sacramento. Eight attorneys telecommute.
Presiding Judge Brian McCabe of Merced County, a member of both the SEC and the Judicial Council, said the SEC’s report was about changing the culture at the administrative agency, and its legal office.
“Culture change-that is really but the report has done. It has people talking and changing the way that we do business,” McCabe said.
He added he wanted to see more analysis of the cost of retaining outside counsel for certain legal subject areas in the next year.
“And a year from now what I would expect and I would be almost demanding — what kind of analysis have you done? I don’t want to see the Ouija board. I want to see an analysis,” he said. “Then, I think under that framework and coupled with a new person who will be at the head of that, let’s see what they can do next year.”
Assistant Presiding Judge Charles Wachob of Placer, head of the SEC and a council member, said he approved of the changes, but added that the extensive use of outside counsel should be strictly scrutinized, noting that the legal office spent $29 million from 2006-2011 on outside counsel.
“This is not a small deal,” said Wachob. “Obviously there is a need for some type of monitoring of how that goes. The focus of the recommendations wasn’t not to have outside counsel or not to use them or not to have anybody looking over a case, but it was to focus on a total cost benefit analysis across the board. So, what is being recommended is that there is a managing attorney charged with responsibility for looking to see if outside counsel is being used appropriately. I would not want to miss an opportunity for a little tighter oversight by the council as a whole on the total amount of outside counsel expenditures,” Wachob said.
Friday’s council meeting follows Governor Jerry Brown’s signing of the 13-14 budget bill, giving $60 million in additional funding to the judicial branch for the trial courts. Brown blue-penciled a budget provision passed by the legislature requiring the Judicial Council to open all of its meetings to the public, including those of its many sub-committees and advisory groups. Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye told reporters that she had lobbied against that provision, but would look into opening more meetings next year.
On Friday, Justice Miller said he and the chief justice were committed to transparency on the council, and that his Executive & Planning committee, one of the council’s four internal committees, would see that commitment through. “The chief justice and I gave a commitment to work as fast as we could in this regard. This is a commitment that we both made and that E&P will follow through on.”
The council also passed a recommendation to let the state’s presiding judges elect their own committee chair. The head of Trial Court Presiding Judges Advisory Committee is currently chosen by the chief justice, but the committee has been pushing for elections by majority vote since last year. Its chair also sits on the full Judicial Council as a voting member.
“The TCPJAC believes this rule change is important to ensure that the presiding judges have an opportunity to identify their choice for chair, that all presiding judges have an equal opportunity to serve as chair, and that the entire membership have an equal vote in electing its leaders,” a report submitted to the council said.
The changes were not up for discussion on the council’s agenda, but was passed by a unanimous vote of the council as a consent item.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/06/28/58956.htm
Long live the ACJ.
courtflea
June 28, 2013
the AOC is into PLA’s as an attempt to placate and silence the unions anger at them on other issues. I wash your back you wash mine. At least the AOC hopes thats the way it goes.
Wendy Darling
June 28, 2013
Note to Governor Brown: this is what you get when you leave “transparency” and “accountability” up to those running the show at 455 Golden Gate Avenue. Published today, Friday, June 28, from Courthouse News Service, by Bill Girdner:
Judicial Council Overrides Press Objections to New E-File Rules
By BILL GIRDNER
The Judicial Council on Friday overrode objections from California’s newspapers and open government groups that said a “definitional sleight of hand” had been slipped into proposed electronic filing rules with the apparent intent of delaying access to public records.
In adopting the objectionable rules by unanimous vote, the Judicial Council added on to a list of moves made by California’s court bureaucracy that are criticized by legislators for shutting the door to open government.
Those measures include a bill to tack a $10 fee onto every file request made by a journalist and anyone not a party to a case. The bill was proposed by the Judicial Council and shot down by the Legislature earlier this month, after Assembly member Bob Blumenfield lectured court administrators on wasteful spending.
The Legislature then included a provision in the state budget requiring the Judicial Council and its committees to open their meetings to the public. After lobbying by California’s Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Governor Jerry Brown on Thursday “blue penciled,” or eliminated, that transparency provision.
“The veto is a mistake,” said Blumenfield, the powerful chair of the Assembly budget committee. “The public has a right to know the decisions affecting access to justice and the inner workings of an entire branch of government.”
In Friday’s vote, the Judicial Council adopted rules proposed by the council’s technology committee, rules that were debated and formulated in secret sessions, precisely the sessions that Blumenfield and the Legislature sought to open up.
The press groups objected to the proposed electronic filing rules because they could be ripe for exploitation by local court officials to delay access to court records until they are “officially filed,” meaning “processed and reviewed” by court workers, a series of bureaucratic tasks that can take weeks. By that time, the new cases are no longer news.
For the Los Angeles Times, Karlene Goller wrote to the council, “The suggestion that the public’s and press’ ability to access judicial records can be delayed until a document is deemed ‘officially filed’ is inconsistent with well established constitutional principles.”
The press groups objecting to the rules’ tricky set of definitions included the Bay Area News Group, the California Newspaper Publishers Association, The Press Democrat Media Company, Courthouse News Service, Californians Aware and the First Amendment Coalition.
“The Judicial Council should not countenance the definitional sleight of hand when the public’s access to court records — a right that is fundamental to the transparency of the judicial branch of our government — is at issue,” wrote Rachel Matteo-Boehm, Roger Myers and Katherine Keating with Bryan Cave on behalf of the press groups.
The press comment added, “The proposed rule change would thus give court administrators unbridled discretion to delay press and public access to fundamentally public records until administrators decide such access is appropriate — even if it is days or weeks after the ‘filed’ date,” said the Bryan Cave lawyers.
On Friday, council members voted to adopt all the rule changes the press had warned about.
“They did not address our request to clarify the rules to say they are not designed to affect public access and the written response to the press groups continued to suggest the fundamentally unconstitutional notion that a new filing is not public until it’s processed,” said Matteo-Boehm.
The technology committee that proposed the e-filing rules is also the committee that pushed the now-defunct Court Case Management System, recently seeking to pour more money into the cumbersome software. The CCMS project cost the state a half-billion dollars before it was halted at the direction of California’s Legislature.
The two projects, CCMS and e-filing, are inextricably mixed in California. The two courts that are pushing e-filing, Orange County and San Diego, are among the very few California courts that adopted the controversial software.
In his testimony Friday before the Judicial Council, technology committee chair Justice Terence Bruiniers answered the criticism from the press saying, “The reality is that paper filings that come over the counter will sit on a desk in a back office waiting for a clerk to have the time to be able to review and file those and put them in the public record.”
Newly filed cases are indeed normally placed on a desk to be processed.
But journalists currently have access to the new actions on the day they are filed, in other words, delivered to the court, in many California courts, including the superior courts of Los Angeles, San Francisco, Alameda, Fresno — and formerly in Orange County.
Bruiniers continued, “It is interesting that Orange County’s experience with mandatory e-filing indicates that some of the filings were turned around in under two hours — 22% of the filings. Most of their filings are completed within 24 hours.”
That statement is categorically at odds with the direct, daily experience of reporters in Orange County who review the new cases every court day.
When a case is electronically filed in that court, as determined by its file stamp, it is sorted into an electronic bin, not unlike paper filings that go to desks. A court worker must then process them, a set of tasks that in the cumbersome CCMS takes longer than processing a paper case in a simple case management system.
The time it takes for that processing varies tremendously.
Last week, it was taking roughly 72 hours or three days, said reporters covering the court. This week, the court has been catching up and, towards the end of the week, most of the cases were taking one day to show up.
“This is their pattern,” said Joanna Mendoza who reports on Orange County for Courthouse News. “They start falling behind and then somebody pays attention and they get caught up. From past experience, it will stay this way one or two weeks and it will slowly drift back to 48 hours.”
What reporters have been able to determine is that the time between when all the processing is completed and the time an image shows up on the court computer is roughly two hours, and that may be the statistic Bruiniers is referring to. But it masks the usual multi-day delay between when a case is filed with the court and when it can be seen by press and public.
Still referring to Orange County, Bruiniers said, “There is no distinction between internal or external users.” That statement is incorrect.
He added, “In other words, once they are filed, the media has access at the same time that any bench officer has access to those files.” That statement is correct.
Judges are not the only internal users. The staff has access to the new cases in the electronic bin where they are delivered. Court workers must have immediate access to newly filed cases in order to process them.
Journalists, including Courthouse News, have asked for access to that bin – an access provided to the press in state courts outside California — and Orange County’s clerk has refused.
Bruiniers continued, “So, e-filing would provide far greater and more convenient and more immediate access to these files than any of the courts that don’t have e-filing can currently provide.”
That statement is incorrect. It is in fact the other way around.
Courts that do require e-filing for some or all cases, San Diego and Orange County, generally delay press access from one to three days, sometimes longer.
In contrast, courts that do not permit e-filing, in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Alameda, Contra Costa, Fresno and Bakersfield, provide journalists with same-day access to the newly filed cases, on the day they cross the counter into the court, in other words, on the day they are filed.
Years ago, prior to electronic filing and other electronic processes such as scanning documents, Orange County also provided journalists with access to the new cases on the day they were filed, allowing for fresh news coverage of new legal disputes.
When the court began to delay access, journalists among the group of papers that covered the court, the L.A. Times, the Orange County Register, Courthouse News Service and City News Service, noted the immediate decline in coverage of new actions. Most reporters abandoned coverage of the new filings, as a result.
“We’re in the news business, not the history business,” said Milt Policzer, a journalist who has covered Los Angeles Superior Court for 30 years for a range of news organizations, including the Daily Journal and Courthouse News.
“News, in general, is supposed to be reported as promptly as possible for intelligent reaction,” he added. “We don’t want to learn that a dictator has been overthrown two days after it happened. Lawsuits may not be quite as dramatic, but if you have a stake in them, you’re going to want to know immediately.”
The rules adopted by the Judicial Council dance around the notion that the public record is not public until court officials deem it be — by scanning it, typing an electronic docket, or simply putting it in a stack on a desk, a set of procedures that take days in general and ironically much longer for some of the most newsworthy cases.
A survey of cases filed in Ventura, for example, showed that while delays on ordinary filings run from two days to one week, the delays on big cases, such as environmental challenges, a class action against a pharmaceutical manufacturer, and water rights disputes, run to a month or more.
Ventura is another CCMS court, like Orange County and San Diego.
In their written comments objecting to the e-filing rules, the press groups said, “At best the proposed changes are confusing without serving any meaningful function. It appears the true purpose of introducing the concept of an ‘officially filed’ document into the Rules of Court is to provide the administrators with justification for denying public access to records that have been ‘filed,’ under the long-understood meaning of that term, until after they have been “officially filed.”
Specifically, rule 2.254(c) says, “An electronically filed document is a public document at the time it is filed unless it is sealed.”
But rule 2.250 (b)(7) amends the definition of electronic filing to say, “This definition concerns the activity of filing and does not include the processing and review of the document and its entry into the court records, which are necessary for the document to be officially filed.”
The definition for e-filing, rule 2.253(b)(1)(7) says, “Any document that is received electronically must be processed … to be filed as an official court record.”
In attacking those definitions inserted into the e-filing rules, the press groups said they were open to exploitation by local officials resisting public access.
“It appears the primary — and perhaps sole — purpose of the ‘officially filed’ concept is to justify arguments by court administrators that the public has no right to access a court record until court staff deem it fit for public viewing,” said the press comments.
“Rights fundamental to the democratic process — like the right to know what goes on in the courts — are meaningless if they can be disregarded when they become inconvenient,” their comment concluded. “As history has taught us, rushing forward without taking the time to assess how these systems will actually work for all concerned is quite likely to result in a system that is worse rather than better.”
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/06/28/58955.htm
Long live the ACJ.
Michael Paul
June 29, 2013
The rule of court pertaining to e-filing also has a more insidious aspect to it not mentioned elsewhere in other accounts or objections. It permits and even encourages media favoritism.
Cover a court continuously in a good light and you’ll find yourself able to get a hold of those public records just a little faster than your competition. It’s no secret that journalists and reporters cover beats. With journalists that cover the courts, rocking the boat regarding unfavorable media coverage tends to have real consequences. If I’m best friends with the public information officer, they’re more likely to provide the information that I seek. If I’ve covered the court in an unfavorable light, I’ve compromised the PIO, who is less apt to return my calls.
There is no good that can come from this new rule. Electronic access to pre-processed records is as easy as leaving a case in a pre-processing bin box for a journalist to review. Of course that doesn’t bolster Bruniers argument or change the rule of court. The muppets have spoken. What they couldn’t get in the legislature in the form of control over public information they got as a rule of court under a ruse of pre-processing.
wearyant
June 29, 2013
Very good coverage by both Bill Girdner and Maria Dinzeo of the bozo foibles. Thanks for posting, Wendy Darling. And SacBee blogs report that Ana Matosantos is leaving. Hope she didn’t ingest any AOC Kool-Aid …
http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2013/06/finance-director-ana-matosantos-leaving-brown-administration.html
Judicial Council Watcher
June 29, 2013
It was force fed and IV dripped. She’s probably leaving the Brown Administration for the AOC…
unionman575
June 29, 2013
Dollars to donuts Ana J. Matosantos will be the new AOC Finance Director…
😉
wearyant
June 29, 2013
Agreed, JCW and Unionman575. One of the reasons the AOC is such a strong survivor in the face of their ridiculous bamboozles. They size up anyone who may be a threat to their continued elitist and lavish existence. They find out what the person or questioning entity wants or needs. Next thing ya know, depending on the circumstances, the threat to the AOC has been neutralized. “You have been absorbed by the thing called the AOC blob.”
Recall The Tani! De-fund the AOC now! Long live the ACJ!
unionman575
June 29, 2013
wearyant
June 30, 2013
😀
Great find, Unionman575! Yeah, it’s kinda like a mass that just keeps getting bigger and bigger! Scary as hell and it’s totally relevant today! Perfect description of the JC/AOC. McQueen’s best movie …
The OBT
June 29, 2013
I can’t get enough of the spin that comes out of the crystal palace. HRH-2 and J Miller chair of the “powerful” E and P committee both claim yet again they want all to be transparent and open. If that is the case then why do they object to democratizing the Judicial Council ? Honestly how can anyone including them be against making the leadership group of the branch more open, responsive and accountable which elections actually insure. Their latest re org of OGC is meaningless and their objection to opening Advisory committee meetings shows you what they really think about transparency and open government.
courtflea
June 29, 2013
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaK2VIDN5fI&feature=youtube_gdata_player I know I am repeating myself but….
unionman575
June 29, 2013
courtflea
June 29, 2013
thanks for the boost unionman! 🙂
wearyant
June 29, 2013
The old chestnut, some things are worth repeating, my friends.
unionman575
June 29, 2013
Please hand me a tissue…
http://www.courts.ca.gov/22629.htm
The OBT
June 30, 2013
Please hand us a resignation letter.
Wendy Darling
June 30, 2013
I second that request OBT.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
June 30, 2013
How to Write a Resignation Letter
😉
Lando
June 30, 2013
It is time for the Chief Justice to resign. 1.Under her rule, she attacked the integrity of many legislators for voting for AB 1208. Didn’t she see that there was no long term gain in attacking the very people that determine your budget ? 2. She approved appointing a weak and unqualified head of the AOC , J Jahr . ( Does anyone believe J Hull’s claim that J Jahr is the most qualified person in the entire United States to run the AOC?) J Jahr in turn undermined the Chief Justice’s rule with the incredibly poor idea of charging the press and public for access to their court records. 3. The Chief Justice and her incompetence regarding branch budget details apparently led to the legislature reducing a proposed 100 million dollar branch add back to only 63 million. How many branch employees will lose their jobs due to this blunder ? 4. The Chief Justice sanctioned and authorized a top down review of the branch operations, the SEC report. Despite the hard work of the SEC, few if any of their major reform recommendations have been adopted. 5. The Chief Justice used valuable political capital beating back a sound and fair legislative proposal to open up Judicial Council and related proceedings to public view. So much for the ” transparency ” she and J Miller always talk about. 6. The Chief Justice has wasted millions on CCMS and to this day has no coherent plan to replace CCMS. 7. The Chief Justice has resisted any and all efforts to democratize the Judicial Council. 8. The Chief Justice has approved the use of J Hull to delay or suppress reasonable requests for branch public information from ” dissenting ” Judges. The word in Sacramento is that the Chief Justice lacks the competence and political ability to run the branch. This is just a snapshot in time of the Chief’s most glaring defects. The above described make a strong and compelling case for her resignation so the branch can move forward with new open, fair and politically astute leadership.
The OBT
July 1, 2013
Within the last month I attended an event with a number of influential legislators, judges, and union and bar leaders. The consensus was that the CJ has totally failed and let the branch down. The calls for branch reform now extend way beyond the ACJ who the CJ has chosen to arrogantly ignore. Now what needs to happen is that a coalition of branch representatives from the judiciary, legislature, court employees, and public seek to meet with her honor and respectfully ask her to step down. Thanks ACJ , JCW and all who contribute here for speaking the truth and educating the people of California about the high handed and failed rule of our CJ and her self appointed anti-democratic Judicial Council. Change is in the air everyone. We just need the courage to continue pressing on for total branch reform.
Judicial Council Watcher
July 1, 2013
We’re talking judicial council-
In that twisted world where there are no truths, there is no facts but just data to be manipulated, isn’t all you outlined ample reason to issue awards, offer special recognition, commendations and pass out bonuses and golden parachute pensions for a job well done?
There is a marked lack of leadership coming from the office of the chief justice, there’s no doubt about that. Instead, she wishes defer to her leadership team, and I use that term loosely, to guide the branch through troubled waters.
You’re just supposed to turn a blind eye to the fact that it was this same bunch of yahoos that put us here. Sure, they’ve managed to pool a few more actors but they haven’t cleaned house or democratized the judicial council.
unionman575
July 2, 2013
The council expects to address specific budget allocations to the courts, utilizing the newly adopted funding allocation methodology, at its special budget meeting on July 25.
😉
http://www.courts.ca.gov/22655.htm?print=1
Judicial Council
FOR RELEASE
June 28, 2013
Overview of Judicial Branch Budget for FY 2013-2014: The council received an informational overview of the newly signed state budget, which includes new funding of $63 million over the Governor’s proposed budget for the judicial branch. The augmentation includes $60 million designated for the trial courts and $3 million in total for the Supreme Court, the Courts of Appeal, and the Habeas Corpus Resource Center. (No additional funding was provided for the Judicial Council/AOC.) Even with this augmentation, after successive years of budget reductions and actions by the Judicial Council and the courts to offset those cuts, the overall net reduction in branch operational funding since 2008–2009 now stands at $472 million. The council expects to address specific budget allocations to the courts, utilizing the newly adopted funding allocation methodology, at its special budget meeting on July 25.
unionman575
July 2, 2013
Time to pack the house in SF on 7-25-13.
😉
sunlight
July 2, 2013
Unionman, that is a great idea. We need an organized effort here. Enough is enough.
unionman575
July 3, 2013
Thought Of The Day
“ Those who expect to reap the blessing of freedom must undertake to support it. ”
— Thomas Paine
😉