You might believe us to be one of King George’s harshest critics. We defer to his peers as being his harshest critics. Occasionally, the fog clears for legal and mainstream media see George and his sycophants for what they are. Supplied below for discussion are two recent Alliance of California Judges communiques to their members.
Both work together to underscore a perceived reign of dictatorship and score settling memoirs. One would think that if you were a former Chief Justice, you might want to put some significant distance between your reign and your memoirs as not to kick sand in the faces of those the branch has to work with moving forward as well as those who you consider peers.
First is a note from Larry Stirling, a former legislator and judge who co-chaired the successful court unification amendment followed by an article from Emily Green where she perceives, rightly so, that Mr. George is out to settle some scores with those who he disagreed with. The thing about the medium selected is that the medium is biased in favor of the storyteller. Mr. George has carefully avoided debating the efficacy of his leadership on just about every subject with an all too familiar all is well and nothing to see here mentality. He prefers forums without debate or dissent because he remains intent on controlling the message.
That represents a couple of the reasons we provide such a forum.
______________________________________________
As the author of two of the constitutional amendments addressing unification, one that failed a statewide election and one that passed, and the fast-track and related lawyer-sanction legislation, and then as co chairman of Bill Lockyer’s ultimately successful third unification amendment, I allege that Chief Justice George completely misrepresented the purpose and intent of unification and used his misrepresentations for only one reason, to hijack the state court system.
Centralized control by one man is called “dictatorship” whether the guy is wearing a robe or not.
There was nothing “splintered” about our courts. They were established and operated under state law and managed by their elected board of directors and chairmen, made up of the elected judges on each bench TO SUIT THE NEEDS OF THEIR COUNTY.
When it comes to courts, one size does not fit all. The problems of tiny Mariposa County are radically different than ours in San Diego or giant Los Angeles.
The result of George’s shenanigans was to completely erase the efficiencies gained from the decades-long effort to unify county courts to broaden service among rural areas, eliminate administrative duplication and conflict and give local presiding judges more discretion to respond to workload variations among various urban areas.
Instead, George created a useless burgeoning bureaucracy of overpaid sycophants who never saw the inside of a courtroom or settled a single case.
Instead of improving justice for the people of California, Mr. George destroyed their court system all in the name of aggrandizing himself and feeding his San Francisco sycophants.
I hope that one day, over the door of every court in this state, there will be posted a sign to the public that says: “The long line you are standing in is the result of the tenure of one Ron George as Chief Justice.”
Larry Stirling
Retired State Senator and Superior Court Judge
_________________________________________________________
Three years ago, in the midst of controversy and court closures, then Chief Justice Ronald George unexpectedly resigned his post, explaining that he could leave because the branch was in fine financial shape. After three years of silence, he has now surfaced with a new book, as referenced in the attached Daily Journal article.
One would have thought that a former Chief Justice would not make such bitter and childish comments about 500 of his former colleagues. Obviously, retirement has not increased his capacity for introspection.
Directors,
Alliance of California Judges
________________________________________________
Former head of state’s judiciary tells all in new memoir
Memoir sheds light on former chief justice’s nearly 40-year career as a judge
By Emily Green
Former California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald M. George settled some old scores and detailed his storied career, from writing the decision that paved the way for same-sex marriage to consolidating the state’s trial courts, in an expansive memoir published Wednesday.
A compilation of George’s interviews with the California Supreme Court Historical Society, the book confirms some long suspected rumors, including his strained relationship with former California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown and his belief that the death penalty is broken beyond repair and should be abolished.
Referred to by his critics as “King George” for the strong-armed way in which he ran the judiciary, George in his memoir dismissed criticism that he squashed dissent and rejected responsibility for the mismanagement of a maligned computer project that the judiciary ultimately abandoned.
The book, which runs more than 800 pages, contains something for everyone, from George’s take on an array of state legislators (some of whom he criticizes without naming, although readers can infer who they are without much effort) to his views on the U.S. Supreme Court’s jurisprudence.
George’s account of his own ascent to chief justice contains surprises. Frustrated that Gov. Jerry Brown had not elevated him to the superior court despite his having spent several years on the municipal court, George formed a campaign committee to run for a seat. He said he met with Brown’s appointments secretary – J. Anthony Kline, now a 1st District Court of Appeal justice – and told Kline that if Brown didn’t appoint him, he would challenge a sitting judge. Within weeks, Brown appointed George to the Los Angeles County Superior Court.
In later years, George went out of his way to impose restrictions on judicial elections because of their politicizing effect on the branch. A committee he established set strict limits on how much money judges could receive in campaign contributions before they are automatically disqualified from a case. But George declined to disavow elections altogether, telling the Daily Journal in an interview that they may be justified when a sitting judge “lacks the legal ability or moral character” for his or her post.
In reading the book, one realizes just how long and expansive George’s career was. As a young lawyer in the state attorney general’s office, he argued six cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, including the initial lead case on the constitutionality of the death penalty – he argued that it was constitutional – as well as 11 cases before the California Supreme Court. He was just 32 when Gov. Ronald Reagan appointed him to the Los Angeles County Municipal Court in 1972.
George was elevated to the 2nd District Court of Appeal in 1987 by Gov. George Deukmejian, and to the Supreme Court in 1991 by Gov. Pete Wilson. In 1996, Wilson named him chief justice.
During his 14 years as chief justice, George masterfully engineered reforms that transformed the judiciary from a collection of splintered local trial courts into a bona fide statewide branch of government. The state assumed responsibility for funding the trial courts and consolidated the 220 municipal and superior courts into a single superior court for each county. The judicial branch also took ownership of the 553 courthouses from the counties.
In recounting such history, George expounded on the challenges he faced. He criticized “elitist” judges for opposing the unification of the municipal and superior courts, as well as the Los Angeles County Superior Court for secretly lobbying against consolidation efforts.
“Much of this opposition was engineered by that court’s highly manipulative court executive officer” – John A. Clarke – “who in my view did not serve the best interests of the court’s judges or employees,” George told the California Historical Society’s Laura McCreery, who conducted the interviews. Resistance also came from judges who had a “parochial view of their reign” and “feel their discretion should be without limits,” he said.
“This is classic Ron George,” Clarke, who is now retired, said by phone Tuesday. “His greatest shortcoming is his fear of legitimate public debate and open policy discussions. He frequently resorted to attacking anyone who dared to express a different viewpoint.”
George in the book brushed off many of the criticisms levied at him and the branch after he retired in 2011 – that he quashed dissent and alternate voices; that the Administrative Office of the Courts had become bloated and too powerful; and that he punished judges who spoke out against him by stymieing their chances for elevation to the appellate courts.
Noting that he was once criticized for comparing the Alliance of California Judges – a group of outspoken critics of the judiciary – to ants, he said, “Frankly, I think I was being rather charitable in making a comparison to creatures that occupy a much higher rank in the insect hierarchy than I might have referenced. I laughed at the fantasies, conspiracy theories, and frequent references by these complainers to me as King George …”
Thomas E. Hollenhorst, the 4th District Court of Appeal justice who is a founder of the Alliance, said, “He has his view. Our positions are based on years of mounting criticism around the state that was ignored but turned out to be true.”
George also rejected responsibility for the doomed computer project to link court dockets statewide, known as the Court Case Management System. After investing $500 million and many years of effort into its development, the judiciary abandoned the project amid deep budget cuts to the courts and criticism by the state auditor that it had been grossly mismanaged and would cost more than $1 billion to implement.
“I feel that CCMS should have been better managed and that was the responsibility of the administrative director of the courts and his staff,” George said in a recent interview with the Daily Journal. “I do not in retrospect fault myself for any difficulties that took place with CCMS.”
If George comes across as imperial at times, an image of him as a risk-taker and prankster also shines through. As a college student at Princeton University, he pretended to be a member of the media and managed to join the press pool following John F. Kennedy’s presidential campaign. After following the candidate to several events in multiple states, he left only because midterms were coming up.
As a judge, he played elaborate practical jokes on his colleagues. While on the 2nd District Court of Appeal, Justice Jack Goertzen repeatedly asked George to bring him back a wild king salmon from his fishing trip in Alaska. Eager to find humor in the situation, George caught a 26-pound salmon and had the head chopped off and frozen. When George returned to the court after vacation, he took the head and dropped it into Goertzen’s toilet bowl for him to find on his morning trip to the loo.
As chief justice, George was known for authoring opinions in many of the court’s highest profile cases. In his book he delves into those decisions, including his famous 2008 ruling allowing same-sex marriage in the state. The 4-3 ruling found that denying gay and lesbian couples the right to marry violated the California Constitution. While its effect was blunted by the passage of Proposition 8 six months later, which reinstated the ban, it was an important milestone in the ultimately successful fight for same-sex marriage.
George also recounts his writing process for that decision: He took the unusual step of drafting two tentative opinions reflecting opposite outcomes. The other justices on the court were split down the middle, leaving him as the swing vote. He was ultimately swayed by the notion “that underlying all of this was a very basic human right, the constitutional right to marry, and then to affix different labels to it denoted a second-class citizenship, very much akin to letting certain persons ride on the bus but making them sit in the back, in the context of racial segregation.”
In addition to his decision in that case, George said the opinions he is most proud of are Warfield v. Peninsula Golf & Country Club, which held that private country clubs that do business with nonmembers cannot discriminate against women; NBC Subsidiary v. Superior Court, establishing the right to open proceedings in civil cases; and Elkins v. Superior Court, which invalidated local court rules that prohibited direct testimony and restricted other evidence in marital dissolution trials.
While George got along well with most of his colleagues on the Supreme Court, one relationship stood out for its difficulty: that with Justice Janice Rogers Brown.
George paved the way for Brown’s confirmation to the court after the Judicial Nominees Evaluation Commission found her “not qualified.” But after her confirmation, the relationship between her and the other judges on the court disintegrated almost immediately, George said. She refused to accommodate the viewpoints of the other justices in her opinions or tone down her rhetoric, even after a personal plea by Justice Stanley Mosk. Following her appointment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Brown’s departing words to her colleagues on the state Supreme Court were, “I guess this is my last conference, so I won’t be seeing any of you anymore,” according to George. Brown declined to comment Tuesday on his characterization of their relationship.
George also used his tome to criticize the U.S. Supreme Court’s jurisprudence in First Amendment law and its 2010 opinion in Citizens United, which permits unlimited campaign spending by corporations and labor unions. He said the decision opens the “floodgates to corporate donations with the resulting impact on the public’s exercise of its right to vote.”
“In addition to one’s fascination as a judge with the resolution of complex legal and judicial issues,” George said in an interview with the Daily Journal, “the effect on people’s lives is always something that is and should be considered by a court.”
Daily Journal staff writer John Roemer contributed to this report.
Related articles
- The Fictional Works of Ron George (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
- A Chief’s-eye view of the California Supreme Court (calblogofappeal.com)
- Former California chief justice looks back on his days on the bench (latimes.com)
- State Supreme Court Chief Justice Decries ‘Two-Tier System’ (blogs.kqed.org)
Judicial Council Watcher 
Wendy Darling
November 13, 2013
Quote of the day: “I hope that one day, over the door of every court in this state, there will be posted a sign to the public that says: “The long line you are standing in is the result of the tenure of one Ron George as Chief Justice.” Larry Stirling, Retired State Senator and Superior Court Judge
Many of us also hope that one day that sign will also say “Ron George is now serving time in a state prison near you.”
Still serving himself to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
_____________________
wearyant
November 13, 2013
The so-called “splintered” courts always had their doors open, something I totally took for granted! Oh, bring back those good ol’, bad ol’ days, please.
Curious
November 13, 2013
He came. He saw. He conquered. He ruined. He ran.
Wendy Darling
November 13, 2013
He came. He saw. He bullied. He ruined. And then like the real coward that he is, he ran.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
November 13, 2013
King George truly is a legend in his own mind:
organicmomca
November 13, 2013
I would love to read any accurate memoir of ANY Judge or lawyer. Anyone know where I can get a copy? I am working on a series from the litigants points of view. Maybe by sharing experiences we can all work together in the system to make and maintain good laws and make sure they are enforced equally to all.
courtflea
November 13, 2013
bingo Jack Clarke, bingo. you hit the nail on the head.
sunlight
November 13, 2013
“His greatest shortcoming is his fear of legitimate public debate and open policy discussions. He frequently resorted to attacking anyone who dared to express a different viewpoint.”
This quote from Mr. Clarke couldn’t be more on point and has become a true epidemic in the society that many of us are living and trying to make a living in. Too many of our friends and colleagues have given in to this type of bullying mentality that we have become “engineered” to accept it and just move on versus taking a stand.
Let me now get off of my soapbox and work, on my own time, on preparing court transcripts at rates that are well in excess of 20 years old while simultaneously while the bullies continue to try to figure out ways to eliminate my livelihood. Take heed, though, they come in all forms, but use the same tactics.
Lando
November 13, 2013
Larry Stirling was an outstanding public servant and I sincerely appreciate his understanding of the true history of our trial courts and how court consolidation came about. He also has the courage to describe how Ronald George highjacked the consolidation process and created a dictatorship. Like all dictatorships this one failed and failed miserably. All the King’s horses and all the King’s men can’t change that reality. Ronald George’s revisionist history and HRH-2’s false claims of reform only fuel the fires for bringing democracy back to our branch.
Nathaniel Woodhull
November 14, 2013
The comments by many before me are 100% on point. Both Larry Sterling and John Clarke are outstanding public servants. The “Lollipop King”, HRH-1, showed himself to be a megalomaniac back in his days as the Criminal Supervising Judge of Los Angeles County. The carnage and bodies laid waste in his path to glory are legend within Los Angeles.
Examine the California trial courts in 1995 and examine them in 2013. Was the public better served in 1995 or are they better served in 2013? The former Chief cannot blame the current state of affairs on the “economic downturn” that started in 2008. An 8-year could have seen that coming and a prudent manager would have learned to live within their means. What did HRH-1 do? Full speed ahead on his signature project, CCMS. That went about as well as Obamacare is going today. (Did Deloitte manage that launch as well?) Additionally, let’s build mammoth new edifices and name them after our benefactors, hey maybe they even name one after HRH-1 (oh, they did).
As we continue to reduce our service hours to the public, I can only hope that someone in Sacramento will wake-up, examine what is really going on, identify the past and current problems, and do something to fix the systemic problems within our judicial system. All of which can start within the confines of 455 Golden Gate Avenue!
Wendy Darling
November 14, 2013
“Was the public better served in 1995 or are they better served in 2013?”
I have never before witnessed the astonishing depth and scope of public waste, fraud, and abuse as what I saw under Ron George at 455 Golden Gate Avenue. And nothing has materially changed under Tani Cantil-Sakauye. Nothing.
Which is exactly why Ron George hand-picked her before he turned and ran – so she could pick up right where he left off.
Ron George in a skirt. All the way.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
November 14, 2013
The latest from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo. Speaking of Tani, his replacement dictator, she was a guest of honor:
Ex Chief Justice ‘King George’ Answers Questions About Legacy
By MARIA DINZEO
BERKELEY (CN) – Former Chief Justice Ronald M. George’s strong-arm approach to running California’s judiciary made him for many a deeply antagonizing figure during his 15-year term. But at a Tuesday book signing for his memoir “Chief: The Quest for Justice in California,” George laughed off accusations that he was a despot who stifled dissent.
While in California’s top judicial post, George was a principal force behind the centralization of California’s trial courts. Legislation in 1997 gave control of court money and court rules to California’s Judicial Council, where the chief justice chairs the meetings and appoints the members.
The legislation also resulted in a huge growth in the personnel and power of the central court bureaucracy, where the chief justice is the staff’s ultimate boss. In his role at the center of that web of power in California’s courts, many trial judges saw a tyrannical figure and gave him the moniker “King George.”
“I find it amusing,” said the former chief in answer to a question from Courthouse News. “There’s always the question of who is the boss. I take it with good humor.”
George was answering questions and signing books Tuesday evening at the small library for governmental studies on the UC Berkeley campus, surrounded by shelves of books and reading tables. A space had been cleared for about 40 guests that included the current Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, the administrative office director of operations Curt Child and colleagues, lawyers and family members. Proceeds from the book are being donated to the school.
Whether or not the nickname was deserved, the former chief justice left a lasting and strong impression in the memories of the many trial court judges who opposed his policies and priorities.
“He never had enough power,” said retired Los Angeles Judge Charles Horan. “I don’t know of a judge who hasn’t referred to him as King George. That was standard.”
He pointed to George’s attempt to amend the California Constitution to extend the Judicial Council’s control beyond rules and budgets and encompass broad policy-making power. The effort failed and left in place the constitutional provision that limits the council to making surveys and recommendations while adopting rules for administration, practice and procedure in the courts.
The idea that the council should set statewide court policy is related to a doctrine of uniformity in public expression by judges, pressed recently by administrators and some members of the judiciary, a doctrine known as “speak with one voice.”
Taking questions at the book signing, George exposed the historical root of the doctrine.
“I always felt that it was very important for the judiciary to speak with a unified voice to just be treated as co-equal, independent branch of government,” George said in an answer to a question from Courthouse News. “And there is a surprising amount of ignorance in Sacramento about that basic concept of civics. Because if you go up there with all sorts of different points of view, you’ll just get trampled on.
“If you go up with the Judicial Council having one position, the California Judges Association having another position, the Los Angeles Superior Court having its own position because it’s the largest court, and perhaps a couple of rural courts getting together to voice their interests, no one is going to recognize you as a co-equal branch of government.
“So without in any way wanting to stifle dissent,” he added, “I always encouraged the judges to get together, thrash it out and then go up there with one point of view.”
But many trial judges beg to differ. They say George, who was chief justice from 1996 until 2011, did have the means to suppress other opinions, and wielded them mightily.
They pointed to his campaign to retain control over council membership, successfully shooting down a move by the longstanding California Judges Association to amend the state constitution so council members would be democratically elected by California judges. George said he would view the CJA’s endorsement of democratic elections as a “declaration of war on the council.”
“It was like King George talking to the colonists,” Horan said wryly.
In his book, George said the comment was not off-the-cuff, it was a planned warning. “It was made with considerable forethought, and it accomplished exactly what I intended. CJA’s consideration of that proposal came to a halt.”
Appellate Justice Tom Hollenhorst remembers what he characterized as a “love-hate relationship” between CJA and the chief. “If he needed a friend, CJA was his best friend. But if it got between what Ron George wanted, CJA would suffer mightily.”
George defended his opposition to a democratically elected judicial council, in his book. “Selection as a member of the Judicial Council is not, and should not be, a beauty contest or popularity contest,” he wrote.
“He had no respect for trial court judges even though he had been one,” Horan countered, adding that George’s explanation implied that “the judges were too stupid and venal to elect their own judges. He didn’t believe they had the wherewithal to fairly select members of the council.”
At Tuesday’s event, George clarified, as he did in his book, that he relinquished the power to unilaterallhy choose council members and instead created authority in the Judicial Council’s executive committee to submit three names to him for selection. “I gave up my authority to unilaterally appoint members to the council,” George told Courthouse News.
Hollenhorst, who clashed with George over his policy of making judicial education mandatory, said his “declaration of war” remark was an unusual burst of candor.
“That’s about the most obvious he ever got,” said Hollenhorst. “It was the most out he ever came in malevolent use of power. What will war bring? The end of your career.”
Hollenhorst, who taught judicial ethics programs for the CJA and the California Center for Judicial Education and Research for more than 20 years, said George was not one to be up front with his enemies.
“There’s an old saying that you would much rather fight with someone who would stab you in front than in the back,” said Hollenhorst. “That was the problem with George. He would never stab you in the front, he’d stab you in the back. That’s historically been his style, the hallmark of the way he kept order.
“No one who wore the mantle of chief justice ever behaved like that,” Hollenhorst added. “There were some strong personalities on the Supreme Court as chief. Malcolm Lucas was no paper tiger. But if he was mad at you, he would tell you and he wouldn’t carry a grudge.
“I served under four chiefs and without a doubt, Lucas was a towering giant,” Hollenhorst said. “There was no game playing or back stabbing, and he got things done and didn’t need to build an empire to do it.”
But George was good to his friends, Hollenhorst said, and particularly favored the staff at the Administrative Office of the Courts, the judicial agency he expanded from a small operation with no formal staff to a massive bureaucracy that at one point numbered nearly 1,000 employees.
In his position on the board of the center for judicial education, he heard from George on the importance of toeing the line drawn by the administrative office staff.
“He gave me a lecture on how important it was to follow the directions of the staff. I said, ‘What?’ He said, ‘You do exactly what staff tells you to do.’ That was a turning point in my relationship with him,” Hollenhorst said. “I was always neutral until he did that.”
While George had largely retired from the sometimes rough arena of judicial politics in California, the publication of his new book opened the door to a renewal of criticism that seemed to have faded from public view.
One of the big legislative engines behind the constitutional amendments and legislation that unified the state courts was former state Senator Larry Stirling.
“George completely misrepresented the purpose and intent of unification and used his misrepresentations for only one reason, to hijack the state court system,” said Stirling in a statement circulated earlier this week. “George created a useless burgeoning bureaucracy of overpaid sycophants who never saw the inside of a courtroom.”
He described George as a “dictator,” adding, in a reference to the San Francisco headquarters for the Administrative Office of the Courts, “George destroyed their court system all in the name of aggrandizing himself and feeding his San Francisco sycophants.”
At his book signing later on Tuesday afternoon, a reporter read some of Stirling’s comments off a cellphone screen to George. The former justice chuckled and said, “He’s a curmudgeon.”
Illustrating both the passage of time and George’s penchant for control of the levers of power, a story is often told about the time he interrupted a trial judge making a pitch to the council for more democratic governance in the court system.
In January 2010, Horan from Los Angeles and David Lampe from Bakersfield, who was then director of the Alliance, traveled to a council meeting in San Francisco with prepared remarks on how the courts were being governed in the face of a looming financial crisis.
At the time, the judiciary was facing a fiscal crisis with courts closing and staff laid off while the administrators continued to spend hundreds of millions on a quixotic software project. The Alliance was a voice for reform, advocating for financial accountability and trial court independence.
Horan said the prepared remarks had been pre-approved by the council’s executive committee, as required by council rules. Lampe approached the lectern and began reading.
“This Council I think has appropriately recognized that it does not govern the trial courts. The trial courts are by law decentralized, and are managed by the trial judges who are responsible to the people of their counties who have elected them,” he read.
“Yet there is presently no effective structure to insure that the trial courts are being fully heard,” Lampe continued. “Ultimately the Alliance of California Judges stands for accountability. We urge this Council to work with the Alliance of California Judges. We urge you not to fight ghosts of old battles of unification and state funding which are now history. We ask that this Council, with the guidance of the legislature, reaffirm the rights of the trial courts by a Trial Court Bill of Rights that the Legislature asked for in 1997, and which has not -”
At that point, he was cut off by George.
“With all due respect Mr. Lampe,” George thundered. “I think you were well informed that that is not an agenda item. So, you are free to communicate otherwise your views on these other issues, but your three minutes today are confined to the matters that are the subject of our agenda.”
Horan remembers George standing up and shaking his finger at Lampe.
“The point was we had already gotten the statement cleared pursuant to their rules and George either hadn’t seen it and when he heard it, he couldn’t stand it. He couldn’t stand there politely and listen,” Horan said, noting that the statement was “simply a matter of, ‘If we are going to speak with one voice we have to have a more democratic governance.'”
But like the criticisms that George is able to laugh about now, Horan and Lampe likewise laugh about the time when George would only refer to Lampe as “Mister.”
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/11/13/62879.htm
Long live the ACJ.
Nathaniel Woodhull
November 14, 2013
Thanks for posting that article Wendy. The perfect summation of the very insecure life of Ronald George. Tom Hollenhorst is one of the best Appellate Justices ever to sit on our courts. He is also 100% correct. Malcolm Lucas was a giant and great Chief Justice. The reality is, Chief Justice Lucas understood what his role was. HRH-1 made his role up in his own mind. HRH-1 believed in three basic tenants: 1) The Chief Justice is “in charge” of the California Judiciary; 2) The Judicial Council, which directly reports to him, is “the policymaking body for the California courts”; and 3) Dissent will not be tolerated. It was that simple. Problem for that megalomaniac is that he was not “in charge” of jack, the Constitution still states that the Judicial Council is a “policy recommending” body to trial courts; and because of his policies and efforts, the California courts are in a state of disaster.
Wendy Darling
November 14, 2013
Ron George “saved” the judicial branch like Robert Rizzo “saved” the City of Bell. The only difference between the two, is that one is sitting in jail, and the other should be.
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
November 14, 2013
Published late today, Thursday, November 14, from Courthouse News Service by Maria Dinzeo:
Draft Rule Opening Council Comittees Met With Caution
By MARIA DINZEO
SACRAMENTO (CN) – A long list of exceptions attached to a draft rule that would open Judicial Council committee meetings to the press and public was met with cautious criticism Thursday from reporters and newspaper advocates.
“This is really open to wide discretion by whoever is on the committee,” said Jim Ewert, General Counsel for the California Newspaper Publishers Association. “The exemptions they have created are very, very broad.”
Judicial Council committee chiefs, including Judge Kenneth So and Justice Douglas Miller, said the rule still needs a lot of work.
“We are going to take all the input, and in all likelihood will be narrowing some of these exemptions,” said So who heads the Public Coordination and Liaison Committee that advises on legislation.
“We’ve done a great job in creating a presumption of openness. We have to balance that with how we do business,” said Miller who heads the powerful Executive and Planning Committee that sets the agenda and the overall direction of the Judicial Council.
Steven Maviglio, spokesperson for Assembly Speaker John Perez, said the rule is still at a very early stage. “They’re just taking the first baby steps,” said Maviglio. “It’s very early in the game.”
The lengthy list of broad exemptions in the draft rule would allow committee chairs to close meetings when the subjects are security plans, raw data and statistics, the buying of property or legislative strategy.
The Judicial Council has a history of making decisions in closed-door committees followed by open Judicial Council sessions where the committee decisions are unanimously approved with little or no debate. Trial judges have said the council simply “rubber stamps” the decisions made secretly by the committees.
That manner of decision making drew the Legislature’s attention this summer when lawmakers included a clause in the 2013 budget mandating open meetings for all the council’s myriad advisory committees, sub-committees, working groups and task forces.
Governor Jerry Brown vetoed the clause after lobbying from Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, who also said she was committed to opening as many committee meetings as possible. The Legislature then wrote language into a supplemental report requiring the Judicial Council to create more transparent meeting rules.
Pushing to comply with that language, the heads of the council’s big four internal committees — that set the council’s agenda, propose new court rules, oversee court technology and advise on legislation — presented the new rule at a press conference Thursday morning.
The press briefing took place in a pink-walled hearing room at the Capitol with the judges at a semi-circular desk facing theatre-style, red, cushioned seating where about 20 reporters asked questions, a far greater number than the one or two who attend Judicial Council meetings.
Justice Miller said he recognized the need for transparency when the courts are spending more than $3 billion in public money to run the courts system for the biggest state in the nation.
“It’s something we want to get right. It’s something we’re invested in and it’s important to the public,” Miller told the reporters. “If we are going to spend public money it should be in a public setting.”
He characterized the draft proposal as a big move towards transparency, but noted its rough nature and the need for refining the language, particularly for the exemptions.
“There may be some of these we understand,” said Miller, “but we need to put in simple plain English language.”
For California’s newspapers, their chief lobbyist said after the press conference that the proposal was in the overall a good move in the direction of open government.
“We just got it today and are still poring through it,” said Ewert. “My initial take is I think it’s interesting, and certainly not something they had to do, so to that end I think it’s a good thing.”
Ewert said he was concerned about the wording of the exemptions, some of which, like the exemption for discussion of draft reports and agenda setting, are broad and unclear.
“There may be certain circumstances where a draft report may not be in the public interest to disclose, but give it a standard,” he said. “This is really open to wide discretion by whoever is on the committee.”
Ewert also challenged the notion that discussions about raw data and statistics should be considered sensitive and therefore exempt from public view.
“Under the Public Records Act, even if that information is contained in a preliminary draft, courts have ruled that information can be extracted,” he said. “The analyses of that information, the thought processes of anyone who is preparing that information — those things are exempt, but not the raw information itself. Those are facts that are always going to be facts. This leaves me wondering what the need for that exemption is.”
Part of the difficulty faced by the Judicial Council relates to the enormous geography of California stretching 800 miles from the border with Mexico to the border with Oregon, an expanse that includes 58 separate regional courts including the behemoth of the south, Los Angeles, and tiny Modoc County in the far north.
Because of the distance and a lack of funds, nearly all the council’s advisory committees meet over the phone. The number of participants, generally judges and court administrators, can range into the hundreds.
“I was struck by was the idea that most of these meetings are conducted by teleconference and it’s going to be interesting to see how they’ll allow for public comment,” Ewert said. “What happens during the meeting? How they provide adequate public access to that going to be significant.”
In taking questions from reporters, the judges struggled to explain the exemption that would close the door when a committee discussed legislative strategy.
Historically, decisions on what legislation the Judicial Council will support have been made by its Policy Coordination and Liaison Committee, currently chaired by Judge So from San Diego.
Those meetings have in the past been closed to the press.
One legendary controversy within California’s judiciary has been described as a sneak attack on local courts accomplished in the darkness of a closed legislative committee hearing. An administrative office official inserted language in a budget trailer bill would have stripped the power of local judges to choose their own presiding judge and head clerk, giving that power over to the Judicial Council which is strongly influenced by the administrative office.The move outraged trial court judges who revisited the issue for years as an example of overreach by the mandarins on high. Running through many of the comments on the incident was the idea such legislative language would never have survived an open committee process.
“There’s a misconception that the advisory committees are policy making committees,” said Miller in answer to that point. “They take their direction from the council and the council has to approve those in a public meeting.”
“There are proposed laws on a regular basis that have an impact on the judicial branch and the negotiations the process of coming up with a bill that the judicial branch feels is more appropriate are very sensitive,” Miller added. “If we had to hold those discussions in an open meeting there would be no point in negotiating. It’s not that we want to keep legislative discussions behind closed doors.”
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/11/14/62918.htm
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
November 14, 2013
http://thepinetree.net/index.php?module=announce&ANN_user_op=view&ANN_id=38089
Lando
November 14, 2013
J Miller is a so called reformer but in truth is just the ultimate insider preserving his and the other insider’s power. He lost all credibility years ago when he stated at a CJA conference he knew who was behind the power play at the JC/AOC to give them the power to pick trial court Presiding Judges but then refused to identify that person or persons. My guess is that he and the other insiders were covering for HRH-1 who controlled everything at 455 Golden Gate.Thanks Wendy for posting Maria Dinzeo’s outstanding coverage of HRH-1’s 800 page monument to himself. I heard live HRH-1’s abuse of “Mr Lampe” discussed in the article. I was shocked that a Chief Justice would act out in such a harsh and vindictive way. HRH-1’s conduct that day attempting once again to suppress any and all dissent was a disgrace. It was totally consistent with his comments that any effort to have an elected Judicial Council would be an “act of war” . Tyrant, bully and dictator. Thats the legacy of King George aka HRH-1.
The OBT
November 14, 2013
Please don’t forget the role of King George’s enforcer, J Huffman. Huffman is another tyrant and bully who called a fellow Judge and President of CJA a clown at a Judicial Council meeting. This was of course done with the approval of HRH-1 who micromanaged every detail at the crystal palace. The real disgrace is that the CJP let all this pass. While they love to torment and pick apart every trivial alleged transgression of lowly trial judges, the CJP let HRH-1 and Huffman intimidate any and all branch dissenters and in the process undermine the public perception of the judiciary. Is anyone in Sacramento listening?
Wendy Darling
November 15, 2013
Sadly, Lando and OBT, the conduct you describe by Ron George, Huffman, et al, was common practice under King George, Darth Vickrey, his dog Spot, and others. The names have changed (slightly) but essentially remains unchanged to this day at 455 Golden Gate Avenue. Some other behavior hasn’t changed either.
By the way, how much public money has to get embezzled at the AOC before somebody does something?
Long live the ACJ.
wearyant
November 15, 2013
“Darth Vickrey” ! hahahahah [snort!] Thanks for the much needed belly laugh, WD!
The OBT
November 15, 2013
So true Wendy. Nothing has changed at all in the crystal palace. 40 places reserved to see the “great Ron George ” at his book tour including HRH-2 and Curt Childs. One has to wonder who else from the crystal palace was forced to attend? Did all attend on company time? I wish I had been invited. After asking about the attempted takeover of PJ selection, who really authorized the start of CCMS, a lack of Judicial Council democracy and the Shapiro fund, my guess would be that after HRH-1 insulted me while wagging his finger, I would have been escorted out of the building and reported to the “happy people” at the penthouse of 455 Golden Gate.
unionman575
November 15, 2013
Council’s Draft Open-Meeting Rules Come With 17 Exemptions
Read more: http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202627876668&Councils_Draft_OpenMeeting_Rules_Come_With_17_Exemptions#ixzz2kjOI3QNK
wearyant
November 15, 2013
Over twice as many exceptions as the hearsay rule …
unionman575
November 15, 2013
Kinda reminds me of Swiss cheese…lots of holes in the policy just like Swiss cheese…
Wendy Darling
November 15, 2013
And about as “transparent” as a black hole.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
NewsViews
November 15, 2013
Reblogged this on News and Views Riverside Superior Court and National Family Law Abuse.
unionman575
November 15, 2013
Click to access oc13-Nov_14.pdf
Doing the dirty bird…
wearyant
November 16, 2013
“The five members of the council who developed the preliminary draft include Justice Miller, Justice Harry E. Hull, Jr., chair of the Rules and Projects Committee; Judge Mary Ann O’Malley, chair of the Litigation Management Committee; Judge Ken K. So, chair of the Policy Coordination and Liaison Committee; and Judge James E. Herman, chair of the Technology Committee.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Well, at least one thing about this gang of five is transparent: their fierce loyalty to their cause.
Still both highly entertaining and excruciating to watch the continual train wreck rumbling along with the attendant machinations of the unworthy at the top straining to preserve their royal status.
Long live the ACJ!
Judicial Council Watcher
November 16, 2013
Gang of five: I would be challenged to come up with five names in the whole branch that I would trust less than these folks for developing any rules regarding transparency.
Let’s look at their legacies:
Justice Miller still protects the names of those who tried to promote legislation that would permit the chief dictator to appoint court executive officers and presiding judges and serves as the point man to ensure the half billion dollar plus Deloitte contract is released to no one without being fully redacted.
Justice Hull technophobe extraordinaire, is charged with interfering with public information requests made by judges and justices by requiring that such requests be reformatted and resubmitted some time after you find a typewriter (remember those?) and resubmit your request to him “over your signature”. Word has it that he might accept written requests composed in WordPerfect but will reject requests composed with Microsoft Word.
Judge Mary Ann O’Malley is charged with promoting the belief that construction jobs are far more important in this economy than keeping our courtrooms open and operational. You will see her penning op-eds promoting this belief when she isn’t busy with her husband ruining the careers of people running against her husband for DA.
Judge Ken So would prefer to stick his head in the sand than address any issue with transparency and accountability and probably runs the least transparent, least accountable court in the nation.
Judge James Herman was, until recently the assistant chair and trainwreck engineer of the California Case Management System. As with all antithetical promotions, Judge Herman was rewarded for his fine work of burning more than 1/2 billion in public funds by being promoted to chair this committee.