| Please click here to view a document signed by the Chief Justice on July 3, 2013. This memorandum grants 3.5% pay raises to employees of the Administrative Office of the Courts, the Supreme Court, the Courts of Appeal, and the Habeas Corpus Resource Center.You might recall that the Legislature was poised near the end of budget negotiations to appropriate $66 million dollars to the trial courts. This was intended to help ameliorate the devastating cuts that have resulted in closed courthouses and courtrooms, thousands of laid off local court employees and reduced hours of service for the public. After heavy lobbying by Branch leadership, $6 million of those dollars were siphoned off. We now know why those funds were taken and what they were used for: pay raises.It is unconscionable and politically tone deaf for our Branch leaders to have expended what little credibility we have left in Sacramento for pay raises — money that will not reopen a single shuttered courtroom. What message does this send to our sister branches of government? Is money no object for those at the top? The Chief Justice is promoting a civics curriculum for our public schools. Perhaps our branch leaders would benefit from a course in how a bill becomes a law. They could become reacquainted with the concept that the Legislative Branch has the “power of the purse.”We ask again: If the AOC were to be eliminated tomorrow, would any member of the public be inconvenienced? Would any litigant not have their day in court? Would a person seeking a domestic violence restraining order not receive one? Would a single mother or father be unable to get a child support order?The Alliance of California Judges will not allow this 4th of July gift to go unnoticed. It has become all too clear that keeping our local courts open is not the first priority of the Judicial Council or Branch leadership. We call upon the Legislature to direct that a top to bottom audit of the AOC be conducted.
One final note, do not be surprised if our branch leadership claims once again that an increase in pay is not a pay raise. If these were step increases there would be no need for the Chief Justice to authorize them. These are discretionary pay raises.
Directors, Alliance of California Judges |
Judicial Council Watcher 
Wendy Darling
August 23, 2013
While judicial branch leadership continues to try and return to the past (“No questions asked, please.”) at all costs, the stupidity emanating from 455 Golden Gate Avenue isn’t going completely unnoticed in Sacramento. Also published today, Friday, August 23, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
State Finance Director Signals Continued Oversight of Judiciary Branch Budget
By MARIA DINZEO
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – In a meeting with members of the governing body for California’s courts, the incoming director of the governor’s finance department said the old days of simply accepting the judiciary branch’s proposed budget are unlikely to return.
Michael Cohen, who is taking over from outgoing finance director Ana Matosantos in September, met with the Judicial Council on Thursday for a rundown of the budget process.
“We’ve turned the corner on having our budget balanced, but it’s very narrowly balanced. We’re only looking for those requests that meet the strict guidelines of the letter in terms of being the absolute, most critical needs,” Cohen said, referring to the budget change proposals that are due on September 13, a process through which the judicial branch can request more money.
“Is there ever any special opportunity given to the leadership of the separate branches of government to make the case to the governor, to the Department of Finance, as to increasing the amounts for them to be included in the governor’s budget?” Justice Marvin Baxter asked, pointing out that during times of prosperity, the governor would simply sign off on the budget submitted by the judiciary.
Baxter asked Cohen if he could see the return of that system.
“Assuming that the corner has been turned, do you envision — based on the separation of powers — that the governor would accept the budget submitted by the judicial branch as that portion of the governor’s budget?”
“To be quite honest, I wouldn’t recommend it,” Cohen replied.
He continued, referring to the governor, “Part of his responsibility in proposing a budget is to review the budget of the judicial branch, and so it certainly is his prerogative to pass it on. But from a budgeting prospective, it makes sense for my department to review it and make recommendations for any changes. I would expect that to continue.”
“Does our branch enjoy any priority or sensitivity with respect to a budget change proposal?” Judge David De Alba of Sacramento asked,
While Cohen said both the Legislature and the judicial branch are given deference, the governor gets the last word.
“There is obviously a level of respect given to the legislature and the judicial branch,” he said, later adding, “In terms of priorities and where the dollars go, that is the governor’s priority. His priorities are my priorities,” Cohen said.
Some judges were more specific in their concerns, such as the governor’s plan to sweep the trial courts’ reserve funds, used to meet obligations like payroll, into one statewide pot. Under the plan, courts are to keep only one percent of their operating budgets in reserve.
“Trial courts are very unique in California. You have 58 trial courts that are independent and have to operate their own budgets, if you will,” Judge David Rosenberg of Yolo County said. “They have to be responsible for their own cash flow, payroll and all the things that a court has to take care of. Our single greatest concern is not having sufficient funds for cash flow. We are talking about paying the bills. Our concern is without a reasonable reserve, we will not be able to pay the bills. We will literally have to shut courts down. What are we going to do about that?”
Cohen suggested that he may be receptive to changes.
“As we continue down the road of implementing the reserve policy, anything on that cash flow side, we’re open to making any changes,” he said. “Certainly we have no interest in creating a situation where courts cannot pay the bills.”
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/08/23/60561.htm
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
August 23, 2013
Michael Cohen, who is taking over from outgoing finance director Ana Matosantos in September, met with the Judicial Council on Thursday for a rundown of the budget process.
Here is the rundown on Michael Cohen at DOF…
😉
Click to access Michael_Cohen_bio.pdf
Michael Cohen serves as Chief Deputy Director of the Department of Finance for Governor Jerry Brown. In this capacity, Mr. Cohen advises the Governor on the state budget and serves as the department’s lead contact with the state Legislature.
From 1997 to 2010, Mr. Cohen worked at the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO). Most recently, he served as Deputy Legislative Analyst and advised the Legislature on a wide range of matters relating to state government including the state’s overall budget situation. He previously served as the LAO’s Director of State Administration and as a local government finance analyst.
Mr. Cohen earned a Master’s Degree in Public Affairs from the Lyndon B. Johnson School at the University of Texas and a Bachelor’s Degree in Urban Studies from Stanford University
Nathaniel Woodhull
August 23, 2013
While up to 40% of the trial court staff throughout the State is being laid off, this i**** gives “raises” to people that work for “her”????? How do you face the troops in the field?
What is wrong with this picture????
Wendy Darling
August 23, 2013
The truly disturbing thing, General Woodhull, is she actually thinks this is good “leadership.” She thinks she is doing a great job leading the branch.
You just can’t make this stuff up. Really.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
August 23, 2013
What is wrong with this picture????
Everything!
😉
unionman575
August 24, 2013
Fewer service in Inyo…
Click to access 68106-Inyo-20130816.pdf
unionman575
August 24, 2013
Fewer services in Tulare…
Click to access 68106-tulare-20130816.pdf
The OBT
August 24, 2013
Unmitigated arrogance says it all. HRH-2 is handing out pay raises to her insiders while the trial courts lay off employees and cut back valuable services to the public. The legislature needs to act. I really doubt they allocated funds to the branch for this purpose. They need to get behind legislation to gut the budget of the JC and AOC so this type of reckless decision making is put to an end. At the same time the case for recalling the CJ gets stronger every day. Defund the JC and AOC and recall Tani .
Lando
August 25, 2013
I am sitting here from a remote and secure location in a state that actually still believes in democracy. The problem here is that this Chief Justice is a dictator and a bad one at that. No reasonable person having presided over the massive cutbacks to the trial courts could with a straight face turn around and give out pay raises to her loyal minions at the AOC and Court of Appeals. Having watched the pain on the faces of so many trial court employees who have been let go, all I can say is what a disgrace. What a total disgrace to the once proud and strong California judicial system this Chief Justice has been and continues to be.
MaxRebo5
August 25, 2013
Great posts all. I agree this is absolutely disgraceful. Raises for the AOC yet trial courts got massive staff layoffs and courthouse closures over the last five years. These perks at the top have gone on way too long unchecked by the other branches.
Recall the AOC lobbyists were saying earlier in the year they had to raise fees on the press to keep the doors open at the trial courts. The Legislature ponied up some money in order to help the trial courts stay open and the Judicial Council then went and directed 6 million be taken for raises at the AOC. Shameful “leadership” from Team George (again) and hopefully the Legislature and Governor won’t be fooled anymore but I’m not holding my breath.
Lando
August 25, 2013
Max Rebo , Our paths have crossed . Your awesome. I am proud of you and all you have accomplished and represent. Thanks for fighting the good fight in the fair, compelling and articulate way you have . One of these days I look forward to saying thanks in person when it is safe to do so. Until then we hopefully will fight on to restore justice to our once proud branch of government.
The OBT
August 25, 2013
HRH-2’s attitude to the trial courts. Let them eat cake.
Wendy Darling
August 25, 2013
Actually, OBT, the Chief Justice believes that cake is too good for the trial courts. Her actual attitude toward the teal courts is: Let them eat sh-t.
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
August 25, 2013
Apologies for the errant typo . . should have said: Her actual attitude toward the trial courts is: Let them eat sh*t.
Note to self: No blogging before morning coffee.
R. Campomadera
August 25, 2013
In light of the continuing layoffs and service reductions in the trial courts, this is another one-fingered salute from the Chief Justice to every judicial officer and employee of the California trial courts. Teflon Tani and her cohorts truly believe they can do anything they want and no one can do anything about it. The peasants may be starving, but the good life goes on in the Crystal Palace. It’s really medieval in its callousness.
Wendy Darling
August 25, 2013
It isn’t called “Tani’s Follies” in Sacramento without good reason, R. Campomadera.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
The OBT
August 26, 2013
Your so right Wendy the word out of Sacramento is that the Chief Justice is a complete light weight and joke. Her arrogance is what I find astounding. She has no clue as to how she is perceived. She loves the adulation, the awards and the limelight. Meantime the rest of the ” slobs on the bus” to quote a song, suffer through her incompetent administration. Tani’s Follies indeed. What a mess. A total and complete mess.
Wendy Darling
August 26, 2013
“Tani’s Follies” is what is said in polite company. In not-so-polite company, less polite descriptive terms are used. Either way, her “leadership” of the judicial branch is the laughingstock of Sacramento, and the branch in general, and the trial courts in particular, all suffer for it.
Ron George in a skirt.
Long live the ACJ.
Delilah
August 26, 2013
My question is whether anyone “in the know” thinks that HRH1 would have been so clumsily tone-deaf and in-your-face as HRH2 demonstrates herself to be at this point in time. Also, it strikes me that HRH1 was much more savvy, a power player who knew exactly what he was doing at the inception of his power-grabbing takeover, and ever after, even before Guv Arnie came along and HRH1 and Guv Arnie passed the mantle to the current CJ cuz she was the perfect out-of-her-depth sycophant who would do anything to protect HRH1’s legacy in return for her anointment and the glory it brings, all else be damned..
Thoughts?
Wendy Darling
August 26, 2013
Ron George in a skirt . . and out of her league, Delilah. And you got it exactly right. She’s only there because she’s a rabid Ron George panting sycophant, who will let the branch go down in flames to protect George’s “legacy.”
Ron George viewed the trial courts as things to be controlled into subservience. Just take a look around the State at the current state of the judicial branch, and see the “legacy” she is protecting. “The House that George Built.” Her own words.
As the saying goes, when you lie down with dogs, you’re likely going to get bit by fleas. Same thing with snakes.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
August 26, 2013
http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202616871612&kw=Capital%20Accounts%3A%20Chief%20Raises%20Hackles%20With%20Latest%20Pay%20Hikes&et=editorial&bu=The%20Recorder&cn=20130826&src=EMC-Email&pt=News%20Alert&slreturn=20130726093404
Capital Accounts: Chief Raises Hackles With Latest Pay Hikes
By Cheryl Miller Contact All Articles
The Recorder
August 23, 2013
SACRAMENTO — Sometimes good policy is just bad politics. It’s an old saw that Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye must be pondering these days.
Late Thursday a document surfaced showing that Cantil-Sakauye authorized what are effectively 3.5 percent pay increases for hundreds of employees of the Administrative Office of the Courts, the appellate courts, the Supreme Court and the Habeas Corpus Resource Center. The order, dated July 3, was signed just six days after the governor enacted a state budget giving the judiciary an extra $63 million — and clear instructions to spend that money on keeping local courtrooms open.
News of the pay increases has not been received warmly in one legislative corner.
“It’s like keeping cable when your lights are being turned off. It is crazy to me,” said Fredericka McGee, general counsel to Assembly Speaker John Perez.
The pay raises are more precisely referred to as step increases, which boost workers’ income as they advance from one level to the next due to years of service and satisfactory work evaluations. The annual step increases have been available to eligible judicial branch workers for years, minus a one-year budget-related hiatus in 2009.
Cantil-Sakauye saw no justification for stopping them in 2013 despite the ongoing budget drama.
“Step increases occur in all three branches of government and at all levels throughout the state,” the chief justice said through a spokesman on Friday. “I see no reason why employees who work for the chief justice, the appellate justices, or the Judicial Council should be treated any differently.”
But McGee and others remember the months California’s judicial leaders spent this spring and summer painting for legislators a horrific picture of the pain years of massive budget cuts had wrought upon their constituents.
Inland Empire residents were being forced to drive hours through the desert to find an open courtroom. Unable to obtain a protective order from a budget-strapped court, a woman and her child had to sleep in their car, too afraid to return home to an abuser. San Joaquin County Superior Court had simply stopped processing small claims cases.
Sympathetic lawmakers and the governor, lobbied heavily by judges, lawyers and local nonprofit advocates, allocated the extra $63 million to the judicial branch. The money came with a caveat, however, as the chairman of the committee overseeing the judiciary’s budget explained.
“It cannot be used for raises, it cannot be used for construction or infrastructure projects,” Assemblyman Reginald Jones-Sawyer, D-Los Angeles, said in June. “It can only be used to keep the courts open and provide access to justice.”
Branch leaders say that added money is going where it was intended. The $1 million price tag to give step increases to 402 employees will be covered by other funds. And those workers will still be taking unpaid furlough days, although the number has been cut from 12 a year to six.
But to McGee, the distinction doesn’t matter.
“When you’re talking about who has immediate contact with the public, it’s the trial courts,” she said. “You have to frontload your resources where the greatest need is.”
Behind the scenes, some AOC and Judicial Council members grouse that any legislative criticism is hypocritical. They note that lawmakers got a 5 percent pay raise this year — courtesy of the Citizens Compensation Committee. And more than 1,000 legislative employees enjoyed a salary hike last year.
That’s true. But the Legislature still holds the ax over the judiciary’s budget. And the optics of the chief justice handing our pay bumps amid such judicial misery just sharpens her critics’ blades. The Alliance of California Judges issued a press release Thursday night promising that its members would not let the step increases “go unnoticed.”
“It has become all too clear that keeping our local courts open is not the first priority of the Judicial Council or branch leadership,” the judges’ group said. “We call upon the Legislature to direct that a top to bottom audit of the AOC be conducted.”
There’s little chance the Legislature would do anything in reaction to the pay order this year. But lawmakers, most now serving under extended term limits, may have longer memories during budget negotiations next year.
😉
Curious
August 26, 2013
“It cannot be used for raises, it cannot be used for construction or infrastructure projects,” Assemblyman Reginald Jones-Sawyer, D-Los Angeles, said in June. “It can only be used to keep the courts open and provide access to justice.”
Unbelievable. This statement strongly implies that the Chief Justice and her coterie explicitly promised that they money would not be used for raises. The promise has been broken. Their ridiculous argument that they took the money from “other sources” will undoubtedly be met with the derision it deserves–there are no “other funds”–there is ONE amount of money to be used, period. Taking the money from the left pocket rather than the right means nothing. Smooth move, Chief Justice. Look for cuts next year.
unionman575
August 26, 2013
Call me old school, but I’ll take an OPEN EXISTING COURTHOUSE THAT IS FULLY STAFFED TO SERVE CALIFORNIANS to this new Taj Majal anyday…
http://www.appeal-democrat.com/articles/years-127230-county-sutter.html
Off Beat: California comes to Sutter County’s rescue
August 25, 2013 12:24:00 AM
Now that they’ve broken ground on the new Sutter County courthouse, it’s instructive to look back at what county folks were talking about years and years ago.
For judges, they thought the courthouse would never be built in their lifetimes.
Ten years ago, in an interview about his retirement, Judge Tim Evans — remember him? — reminisced about his failed efforts.
During his 25 years as a judge, Evans said he spent 20 years on the courthouse project. He never got anywhere.
“About five years ago, I figured spitting into the wind was not particularly productive; be happy with what you’ve got,” he said.
Underlying all of this, of course, was the county’s inability — or unwillingness — to pay for a courthouse upgrade. County officials just waited for the state, which they often criticize, to do something.
Back in December 2000, the Board of Supervisors chatted about the county’s future building needs.
A consultant said the county would need a three-story general government building and a
three-story courthouse, both on Civic Center Boulevard, and a Human Services complex on
Live Oak Boulevard.
Total price tag? $155 million, including debt service.
What did the consultants say about the courthouse?
“In the absence of significant state funding, it is difficult to envision the county alone having the resources to build a new courthouse anytime in the next 20 years,” the consultants, Lionakis Beaumont Design Group, said.
County Administrator Larry Combs (another name from the past) acknowledged judges “feel like they need their space now and don’t want to wait for whatever happens with the state of California.”
The courthouses at 446 and 463 Second St. are “aged and present a number of operational and office-space issues,” the study said.
“Until a new courthouse can be constructed at the Civic Center property, the county will face an ongoing issue of determining how much money to invest in their two buildings to address these shorter-term needs.”
If state funds aren’t available, the study said, “the county will probably have to commit significant amounts of revenue to the Second Street complex to address shorter-term needs.”
Luckily for Sutter County, the state came to the rescue.
So what happens to those aging courthouses that have been obsolete for decades?
Once the courthouse at 446 Second St. is vacated, Lionakis Beaumont said, it can be converted into a museum or art gallery. The annex would be torn down, creating a greenbelt or garden between the courthouse and the Hall of Records.
The properties at 463 and 433 Second St. could be torn down to develop what the consultants called a “high-end multiple unit residential” development “that would enjoy the renewal of the downtown Yuba City area with riverfront access …”
fifth amemdment
August 26, 2013
I bet you those 29 employees that were laid off last June are saying to themselves- “Oh I get it, I had to be laid off so that my co-workers could keep their jobs and get a pay raise”. Yeah, “cost savings measure”……………
Wendy Darling
August 26, 2013
Published late today, Monday, August 26, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo. Note to the Office of the Chief Justice: “Stupid is as stupid does.”
Labor and Judges Blast Raises for Central Bureaucracy of Courts
By MARIA DINZEO
(CN) – California Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye’s approval of pay hikes for the central bureaucracy of the courts has drawn harsh criticism from trial judges and labor representatives who question the 3.5% raise for administrators when the trial courts have laid off staff, closed courtrooms and shuttered small courthouses.
A document released by the Service Employees International Union late last week shows the chief justice has authorized a 3.5 percent pay increase for 402 employees in the Administrative Office of the Courts, the Supreme Court, Courts of Appeal and the judicial library.
“At a time when courts are shuttering their doors, reducing hours, discontinuing services, laying employees off, and cutting the pay of rank and file court employees providing direct services to consumers, it is mind boggling that some top management employees were granted discretionary pay raises,” said Liberty Sanchez with the Laborers’ International Union of North America said.
“How can the AOC continue to say with a straight face that they are making budgetary determinations in furtherance of the interest of justice,” Sanchez continued, “while handing out nearly a million and a half dollars in additional pay to highly compensated employees, while simultaneously cutting direct services to the public?”
In an email statement, Cantil-Sakauye defended her action.
“We will be able to reduce furloughs to six days this fiscal year, so the employees will receive a 2.31 percent pay cut. Only those employees who have been eligible for 3.5 percent step increases — that is, those who have not hit the top of the salary range they were hired at — were able to partially offset the pay cuts,” said the chief justice.
“Step increases occur in all three branches of government and at all levels throughout the state,” she added. “I see no reason why employees who work for the Chief Justice, the appellate justices, or the Judicial Council should be treated any differently.”
The yearly pay bumps were suspended in 2007 and reinstated in 2010 by former Chief Justice Ron George, after he set up an accountability committee that voted for restarting them.
Cantil-Sakauye chaired that committee. It was the first she chaired after being appointed chief justice by outgoing Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Although the chair has discretion to open a committee hearing, the incoming chief justice refused a request by Courthouse News to open the meeting to the press.
“I’ve struggled over whether this is a pay raise,” Cantil-Sakauye said in her presentation to the Judicial Council at the time, noting that accountability committee members discussed it for two and a half hours.
In the years since that 2010 reinstatement of the yearly raises, they have continued to be a subject of criticism from trial judges and union reps, while the bureaucrats defend them as normal government operation.
“Step increases — also known as merit salary increases — are the general practice in all levels of government,” said Curt Soderlund, head of the court administrative office, in a statement. “They’re not raises — such as the ones the governor just approved for many state workers.”
“I’ve been tracking this kind of information through my 38 years of public service and step increases are suspended in only rare instances and it’s never happened in the executive branch to my knowledge,” he said. “Both represented and non-represented employees receive step increases.”
Sanchez with the laborers international shot down the distinction.
“Raises, step increases — that’s a question of semantics,” said Sanchez. “You know what’s not a question of semantics: a million and a half dollars, that could and should otherwise have been expended on keeping court doors open, and employees who provide direct services to consumers employed.”
A trial court judge in Sacramento, Maryanne Gilliard, made a similar point.
“These are discretionary pay raises which required the Chief Justice to personally approve them,” she said. “Playing word games may be a way to spin what is an indefensible decision. We happen to believe that the Governor and members of the Legislature won’t be fooled by those semantics.”
“The bottom line is this: local courthouses have closed, thousands of valued court employees have lost their jobs, and hours of service to the public have been curtailed,” she concluded. “And then we learn that public monies, which could have gone to the local courts, instead were used to hand out raises over the 4th of July holiday. What is wrong with this picture? Everything. An audit must be conducted of the AOC and Judicial Council budgets.”
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/08/26/60606.htm
Long live the ACJ.
The OBT
August 27, 2013
So true Wendy.Chief Justice Gump. At least Forrest had some decent qualities. How could HRH-2 be so out of touch with reality ? Does she dream this stuff up on her own or is she misadvised by Patel and the figurehead Jahr ? In any case we are witnessing a complete breakdown in the credibility of so called ” branch leadership “.
unionman575
August 27, 2013
http://www.inyoregister.com/node/5021
CUTS COMING TO INYO COURTTS
August 26, 2013
By
Mike Gervais/Register Staff
mgervais@inyoregisterr.com
Effective Oct. 17, residents will have access to fewer service hours at the Bishop (above) and Independence court offices.
Inyo County courts are facing drastic cutbacks due to state budget constraints.
Effective Oct. 17, the Bishop and Independence offices of the Superior Court of California will begin reducing hours of service for the public and will be reducing its staff by 40 percent. These cuts are taking place as the State Administrative Offices of the Courts prepares to move forward on a multi-million dollar court construction project in Bishop.
Before the reductions take effect, residents have an opportunity to comment by mail to Tammy L. Grimm, court executive officer, Superior Court of California, Inyo County, 301 W. Line St., Bishop, CA 93514, by email at tammy.grimm@inyocourt.ca.gov or by fax, (760) 872-4984.
“Due to severe, permanent budget reductions and a reduced workforce, the Superior Court of California, County of Inyo, will decrease available hours of public counter/in-person access as well as hours for public phone calls,” Grimm said. “Through attrition, the court clerks’ office staff will be reduced by 40 percent as of December 2013, with no replacement staff being hired due to fiscal constraints.”
Grimm said that the 40 percent reduction in staff translates to 8.75 staff positions. She said the positions being eliminated are all court clerk staff members except for one, an Information Technologies assistant.
She also said that she believes the reduction in staff can be achieved without any layoffs or furloughs.
“The current savings of those who have vacated their positions is $139,880.64 in salaries only,” Grimm said. “We anticipate four current employees will voluntarily retire this fiscal year, which will be an additional cost savings of $229,430.35 in cost savings.”
While the court is reducing staff hours, Grimm said that the number of filings that the court receives is consistent and will not be going down with the reductions.
“I cannot stress enough the strain that the loss of employees presents to the Court and the staff that remain,” Grimm said. “Everyone is currently doing the job of two people to keep access to justice and the court process available. With the loss of four more essential individuals that we cannot replace means more stress and backlog. We are doing our best with constant decreases in funding. We anticipate that this is how things will be for at least two years, but we do hope that there will be a silver lining eventually, and the economy improves, so that the courts can receive the proper funding that it needs to operate. Staff is essential to the success of this Court, and their work and spirit is what makes this Court so effective.”
According to Grimm, the courts will be reducing its hours for phone calls regarding traffic issues. She explained that traffic calls will be answered between 1 and 4 p.m. “A message will greet court users who call in at alternate times directing them as to when to call back, or how to access the court via email,” Grimm said. “Court users will be alerted, in the court’s call tree, that these reduced telephone hours are due to staffing reductions and court service operational limitations.”
Also, public counters where court clerks help serve residents will be open from 8:30 a.m.-noon and 1-4 p.m. Grimm added the caveat that the clerks offices may be closed from 8-8:30 a.m., noon-1 p.m. and 4-5 p.m. “when clerks are unavailable.”
The courts will also establish document and payment drop boxes at the courts, which will allow residents to turn in court documents while the clerks offices are not staffed.
“All drop boxes will be checked throughout the day and at 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. each court business day,” Grimm said. “Documents and payments will be received and filed and entered the day they are dropped. However, any document or payment dropped after 4 p.m. will be received and filed or applied to the account the following court business day.”
Grimm also said that Department 4, in Bishop, will close its clerk counter from noon to the close of business each Friday and Departments 1 and 3, in Independence, will close their counters from noon to the close of business each Wednesday.
Grimm said the cuts also mean that payments and document processing will be delayed. “Payments, traffic school and citations may take up to 10 business days (from the date received by the citing agency) to enter,” Grimm said. She added that courtesy notices, the court’s phone tree and the court’s website will provide information to give residents an idea of how long processing will take.
“We’re living on our reserves right now, and we have to expend that money this year,” Grimm said, explaining that local courts received a “minimal amount of money” from the State Administrative Offices of the Court his year, and are expecting to see only $600,000 for court operations next year.
Inyo County courts currently have $1,428,373 in reserves. The governor has signed legislation ordering the courts to deplete all reserve accounts by June 30, 2014 with the exception of 1 percent of each court’s fund balance and those funds that are restricted.
“While the calculation of what 1 percent is based upon has not yet been completely determined by the state, the Superior Court of California,
County of Inyo anticipates that 1 percent will equal approximately $21,000,” Grimm said. “Restricted funds that are permitted to be kept in the account are $475,606.” That means Inyo County courts must spend a little less than $1 million out of its reserves this year, or that money goes back to the state on June 30, 2014, she explained.
“These permanent service reductions … are necessary for the courts to continue to provide continued and effective court operations amidst the fiscal crisis that was imposed upon the judicial branch.” Grimm said.
As the local court offices prepare to absorb the impacts of the cuts, Grimm said the AOC is wrapping up appraisals on several pieces of property in Bishop to prepare for site selection for the construction of a new court facility. Grimm said the appraisals should be complete in September, at which time the state office will begin site selection for the new building.
Grimm said site selection should be completed in November.
unionman575
August 27, 2013
Long Beach on my mind again…
We can all think about this white elephant for the next 35 years…my, my, my…
http://www.presstelegram.com/general-news/20130826/public-gets-outside-view-of-long-beachs-new-george-deukmejian-courthouse
Public gets outside view of Long Beach’s new George Deukmejian Courthouse
The fencing around the Governor George Deukmejian Courthouse in Long Beach was taken down last Saturday. The $490-million structure in downtown Long Beach is set to open on Magnolia Avenue in fall 2013, and will replace the nearby Long Beach Courthouse, completed in 1959 and considered overcrowded and obsolete. (Stephen Carr / Staff Photographer)
By Phillip Zonkel,
Long Beach Press Telegram
Posted: 08/26/13, 5:10 PM PDT | Updated: 4 hrs ago
The fencing around the Governor George Deukmejian Courthouse in Long Beach was taken down last Saturday. The $490-million structure in downtown Long Beach is set to open on Magnolia Avenue in fall 2013
The curtains have come down on the new Gov. George Deukmejian Courthouse.
The plastic mesh tarp and chain link fence that were obstructing the public’s view were recently removed, exposing the six-acre glass courthouse, which sits in the city’s West Gateway bounded by West Broadway, Maine Avenue, west Third Street and Magnolia Avenue.
Opening Sept. 9, it replaces the more than 50-year-old downtown courthouse at 415 W. Ocean Blvd., considered by the state to be one of the worst courthouses in California in terms of security, overcrowding and physical condition.
The L-shaped building will house 31 civil and criminal courtrooms and occupy roughly 80 percent of the overall 531,000 square feet.
The courthouse was built as a public-private partnership. Unlike more traditional means for building a public project, a public-private partnership places the responsibility of designing, building and financing a project on the developer. In return, the public agency repays the developer over the long term.
In Long Beach’s case, the state’s Administrative Office of the Courts entered into a 35-year pact with Long Beach Judicial Partners, a private team consisting of architects, builders, financiers and facility managers, to build and maintain the courthouse.
Once the project is complete, the state will start making payments based on the success of the building’s operation and maintenance. The state owns the land and the building throughout the contract’s 35-year term and will continue to retain title at the end of the contract.
State and local officials have lauded the public-private partnership concept as an innovative, cost-effective way to build the courthouse, but the concept may not have been the best approach, according to November study from the Legislative Analyst’s Office.
Contact Phillip Zonkel at 562-714-2098
😉
unionman575
August 27, 2013
Click to access 080813.pdf
😉
unionman575
August 27, 2013
http://www.alameda.courts.ca.gov/Pages.aspx/Proposed-Amendments
unionman575
August 27, 2013
Click to access FY13-14ProposedBudget.pdf
unionman575
August 27, 2013
Click to access Public_Notice_Aug-19-2013_Court_Budget.pdf
MaxRebo5
August 27, 2013
Step increases — also known as merit salary increases — are the general practice in all levels of government,” said Curt Soderlund, head of the court administrative office, in a statement. “They’re not raises — such as the ones the governor just approved for many state workers.”
“I’ve been tracking this kind of information through my 38 years of public service and step increases are suspended in only rare instances and it’s never happened in the executive branch to my knowledge,” he said. “Both represented and non-represented employees receive step increases.”
I agree with Curt’s point about step increases being common in the Executive Branch but that is where my agreement ends. This money could have gone to help keep trial courts open. Those raises are inconsistent with “access to justice” for the public which the Chief has been saying to get support from the other branches on the budget..
Curt cities the Executive Branch as cover for this action but there are many things the courts do that are not in line with the Executive Branch. The courts have very very loose education and court work experience standards for managers and analysts . If these AOC employees deserve merit increases then they better have real educations and court skills to back it up. They can’t all be your buddies and yes men!!!!
An analyst (AGPA) in the Executive Branch makes between $4,400 and $5,348 a month max. Lets say an analyst in the Executive Branch does get a step increase to the max level they might begin to approach the staring salary of an analyst at the AOC. Curt is making a very unfair comparison given the huge salary differences between the branches.
You can’t have it all. Either you keep the higher starting salaries and lose the step increases or lower the salaries to match the Executive Branch and keep the step increases. This is a total shell game and they are masters at playing it on Team George.
Bring on the audit.
R. Campomadera
August 27, 2013
Max, I agree with you, but think the relative merits of the raises granted by the CJ is entirely beside the point. When the organization that you lead is bleeding and unable to effectively accomplish its mission because of devastating budget shortfalls, it sends entirely the wrong message to the troops for the general staff to be enriching itself, especially when the wherewithal to do so comes from funds that were supposed to be provided to the courts to stop the bleeding. It’s unseemly and callous in the extreme. But hardly surprising, considering the self-serving rabble that is represented by the current leadership of the State’s judiciary. They are a disgrace.
unionman575
August 27, 2013
http://www.bakersfieldcalifornian.com/columnists/lois-henry/x740580729/LOIS-HENRY-As-courtrooms-close-some-workers-get-raises
Tuesday, Aug 27 2013 10:00 PM
LOIS HENRY: As courtrooms close, some workers get raises
By Lois Henry
I’m sure you will all be pleased to know that a bunch of state judicial bureaucrats just got a 3.5 percent raise while Kern County has closed down one of our outlying courts entirely, is preparing to shut another on all but a single day of the week, and continues to have to cut back hours that clerks can take filings or even talk to the public on the phone.
Yup, makes me feel all warm and fuzzy too.
Lois Henry appears on “First Look with Scott Cox” every Wednesday on KERN 1180 AM from 9 to 10 a.m. The show is also broadcast live on http://www.bakersfield.com. You can get your two cents in by calling 842-KERN.
Kern County Superior Court cutbacks
Starting Sept. 9:
* Taft court open only on Thursdays for local traffic infractions, small claims and limited civil cases up to $25,000. Dropbox available Thursdays for submitting local civil and traffic filings. All other cases shifted to Lamont/Arvin branch.
Since June 10:
* Lake Isabella court closed. Felony cases shifted to Bakersfield, misdemeanors and all civil cases shifted to Ridgecrest. No drop box available.
* Clerk’s window and telephone hours for all courts are 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. Monday through Thursday; 8 a.m. to noon on Fridays. Drop boxes installed at all open court locations. Documents dropped by 5 p.m. are deemed filed on that date.
* Court reporter services for family law and unlimited civil matters no longer provided. Litigants may pay for this service on their own. Check http://www.kern.courts.ca.gov for protocol on contracting with reporters.
California’s judicial branch has taken hit after financial hit from the state budget.
That’s a problem.
But even worse, the courts’ own administrator, aptly known as the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), seems hell bent on spending what little money the Legislature has carved out for local courts on, well, administrative claptrap.
It’s been a years-long problem that only recently received a withering eye from the Legislature as reports have uncovered unbelievable waste within the AOC.
Still, California’s Chief Justice recently approved 3.5 percent raises for hundreds of AOC, appellate and Supreme Court employees.
In the world of government funding, the total is chump change really, only about $1 million.
But it’s the principle, said Kern County Superior Court Judge David Lampe, who also works as the executive director of the Alliance of California Judges.
The Alliance has struggled to shed light on how the AOC’s spending has affected the public’s right to access its court system.
“We’ve lost 2,500 jobs and had to close 80 courtrooms throughout the state,” Lampe said. “Yet the oversight staff in San Francisco gets a pay raise.
“It sends the wrong message.”
California Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye authorized the pay raises July 3, less than a full week after the governor relented to give the judiciary an extra $63 million this fiscal year. That money was specifically to be spent keeping local courts open, according to an Aug. 23 article in The Recorder, a publication that focuses on legal happenings in California.
“It cannot be used for raises, it cannot be used for construction or infrastructure projects,” Assemblyman Reginald Jones-Sawyer, D-Los Angeles, was quoted by The Recorder as having said in June. “It can only be used to keep the courts open and provide access to justice.”
The Judicial Council, which oversees the AOC, has defended the raises as not really raises at all. They are “step increases,” for employees advancing from one level to another.
Besides, the money doesn’t come out of the same pot as trial court funding, the Council said.
I hate it when government agencies try and tell us a duck isn’t a duck.
More jingle in your paycheck is a raise, plain and simple. And these raises were discretionary, by the way, not required by any contract.
That the Judicial Council used its discretion to fatten the wallets of bureaucrats rather than put that money toward providing as much public access to the courts as possible is telling, not to mention disturbing.
Kern County has fared better than its sister counties in finding ways to tighten the belt without too much public impact, until now.
The Kern court system, which operates several courts in outlying cities, has had its budget whacked by $9.7 million, or 27 percent of its base funding, since 2008, according to Kern’s court administrator Terry McNally.
Costs were cut through a number of voluntary early retirement programs, hour reductions and by simply not filling open positions, McNally said.
But the cuts went deeper this year.
As of June 10, the Lake Isabella court was closed (see sidebox for more info). And starting Sept. 9, the Taft court will only be open on Thursdays to hear local traffic infractions, small claims and some civil cases.
All of this means it’s going to take longer for cases to be heard, it’s going to be harder to file cases and more difficult to just get basic information.
McNally did say he’s hoping to use Kern’s share of the extra $63 million from the Legislature this year to increase services.
But don’t get too excited.
“Unfortunately this funding falls well short of the cumulative cuts that have piled up over the last five years so the impact will be very modest,” he said.
Meanwhile, the AOC has 68 people in its “center for judiciary education,” Judge Lampe said.
“The judges teach those classes for free,” he said. “What are those 68 people doing?”
He also noted the District Attorney’s association, with 4,000 members, has two people administering its continuing education program.
The AOC also still has 156 people in its information technology office.
It still has that many people, Lampe said, even after the bungled and hugely expensive computer case management system was killed. (This computer system, which was supposed to link courts up and down the state to share case information, cost taxpayers $500 million before it was deemed a failure in 2012.)
“What are those 156 people doing?” Lampe wanted to know.
And while the AOC has reduced staff since the 2011-2012 fiscal year, its budget has increased by $30 million.
Why?
“No one ever goes back and reevaluates programs,” Lampe said. “It’s ‘once funded, always funded.'”
The Alliance of California Judges has estimated there is as much as $150 million languishing in failed or unnecessary AOC programs that could instead be used by trial courts, Lampe said.
The Alliance is seeking an audit of the AOC.
Now, that’s the first reasonable thing I’ve heard in connection with this agency.
Opinions expressed in this column are those of Lois Henry, not The Bakersfield Californian. Her column appears Wednesdays and Sundays.
Comment at http://www.bakersfield.com, call her at 395-7373 or e-mail lhenry@bakersfield.com
lobstahsmaht
September 17, 2013
Those that are maxed out are not getting raises. That is a good amount of AOC employees. We have not had a raise since 2007. We, in fact, have our salary decrease every January when our medical goes up. I now make far less money than I did in 2007.
Anonymous
September 17, 2013
Glad you still have a job at full pay. Many of those who worked for years in the trial courts don’t.
Delilah
September 17, 2013
Amen, Anonymous. Many who worked for years and years and years, thrown out the door.
lobstahsmaht
September 19, 2013
I am thankful to have a job. I merely stated a truth for many. And no, I don’t get full pay and haven’t had full pay for years due to furloughs. that’s the problem with this blog. If you dare to comment and aren’t one of the chosen few here, you get immediately get attacked. I dare say many insiders would comment if it wasn’t for that feature here, which is too bad for this blog. I have seen many half truths here. And there are many, many things you have not discovered. And yes, I am fully aware that I will now get attacked on this.
Michael Paul
September 20, 2013
Lobstahsmaht, you and other AOC employees need to gain some perspective. I would encourage all of you to correct the half-truths or help to disclose all of the other sins of the crystal palace. If anyone has a problem posting them directly, feel free to submit your thoughts to the private and secure encrypted message window JCW offers. If you need something more personable in your delivery but still wish to submit information in confidence, feel free to contact me directly. michael dot paul at yeninteractivemedia dot com Text me a message or call me at five one zero six eight four eight seven zero six.
What is being attacked is not AOC employees, rather some of the messages a few of those AOC employees bring.
For as long as I’ve followed this site I could probably find a half dozen or more employees that have posted here and were not attacked at all. Many of your posts are not attacked. Sure, there is the likes of Mr. Denton who mistakenly leaves his name embedded in his avatar that comes here and blows smoke and gets lit up over it, there is Mr. Dredd who likes to show up and incite but the majority of AOC employees who contribute to this site are not attacked.
I doubt you will be for your last two posts either.
As far as raises: There is always the option of finding another place to work. It worked for me. I don’t work anywhere near the justice system these days.
I make far more money and I don’t have to witness every sign of fraud that the federal government taught me to look for in all of that FW&A mandatory annual training being exhibited by AOC management. I’m sure that other former federal employees that work at the AOC that had to also take the mandatory FW&A annual training can attest to many of those observations themselves.
Delilah
September 19, 2013
All of us who still have a job are thankful. I am glad for the good fortune of anyone that still has a job, including you and other AOC staff. The remaining trial court workforce has also suffered years of furloughs, overwork and abuse. But the fact remains that thousands of trial court workers have been tossed out like garbage in favor of lavish pet projects and massive monetary waste perpetrated by AOC management, and rubber-stamped by (or unbeknownst to) the JC. Those replies are just a statement of fact, and I certainly did not intend it as an “attack” on you personally.
There is way more truth than half-truths here. There are facts. And the full truth of things that may not yet be “discovered” is due to the duplicitous and underhanded nature and power of the cabal that has high-jacked the judicial branch. I don’t see anyone coming in here to set things straight if there has been some distortion or fabrication about the practices and priorities of branch “leadership.”
In solidarity.