If a judge speaks to the Judicial Council but nobody documents it, did that judge make a sound?
At the Judicial Council meeting last Thursday, Alliance President Steve White was allotted a few minutes to speak in favor of Assembly Member Reggie Jones-Sawyer’s proposed audit of the Council and the AOC. But you’d have to look long and hard in the official record to find any trace of what he said. The Judicial Council press release—available here—doesn’t even mention that anybody—let alone the president of an organization with a membership of 500 judges—ever spoke on behalf of the audit. And for some reason, the Council’s live captioning service stopped working right at the start of the public comment period. You can see for yourself here. The audio of the public comment period does exist on the Judicial Council website, but with no listing of who spoke, or on what topic. Luckily, however, a reporter from the Courthouse News Service was present, and we attach her article regarding the meeting at the end of this email.
Accidents do happen. It might have been just a coincidence that the captioning system crashed just as one of the most prominent advocates for an audit was about to speak. If the Council needs a reliable stenographic reporter, we’d be happy to recommend any one of the dozens of capable and dedicated court reporters who were laid off during the budget crisis.
But what happened to trial court employees from Kings and Tulare Counties was no accident. They took a day off work and traveled to Sacramento to speak, only to be denied the opportunity to address the Council. Apparently, they ran afoul of Rule 10(b), the rule that requires four days written notice and a summary of the proposed statement
The rule, however, seems to be enforced only when the Chief wants it enforced. She can waive it. In fact, the public agenda for the meeting contained this line: “The Chief Justice has waived certain requirements under Rule 10.6(d) for requests to speak at this meeting.” (See here.) This “waiver” was evidently granted only to those with laudatory things to say about the Council. When the Chief Justice invited anybody present to share stories about a departing Council member, several people did so, presumably without giving four days notice.
We believe that when our fellow court workers travel to a public meeting of a decision-making body and seek to be heard during a pre-scheduled period set aside specifically for public comment, fairness and due process demand that they be heard. The silencing of critics smacks of the heavy-handed tactics of the last Chief Justice, and stands in sharp contrast to the current Chief’s promises of openness and transparency. It fuels the widely held perception that Judicial Council meetings are little more than carefully choreographed performances at which seldom is heard a dissenting word.
Actions have consequences. If the members of the Council won’t listen to the people who work on the front lines of the judiciary, they should not be surprised if the Legislature likewise turns a deaf ear come budget time.
Directors,
Alliance of California Judges
_____________________________________
Council Spends Emergency Funds Hears Support for Overall Audit of Finances
By Maria Dinzeo
Courthouse News Service
2/21/14
(CN) – The Judicial Council gave struggling Kings County Superior Court $130,000 in emergency fundsThursday, where the emergency was a shortfall in payments for pricey software. In the same session, the council heard a judge’s argument supporting an audit of the way the council and its underlying bureaucracy go about spending public funds.
On a 16-2 vote, the council approved a payment for Kings County to come out of a $35 million pot set aside for emergencies. The crisis in the Kings County court’s finances is the inability to complete payments to Tyler Technologies for a new case management system.
The court is in its second year of a five-year, $2.11 million Tyler contract.
“We cannot fund our CMS program on the backs of our employees,” Presiding Judge Thomas DeSantos said. “We have already taken drastic measures, we will continue to take drastic measures, but I cannot tell my people to take more furloughs or lay off more people.”
The court has already closed its courthouse in Lemoore and cut hours at the Corcoran courthouse. It also cut two management positions and required 22 employee furlough days for roughly $900,000 in savings for fiscal year 2013-2014, but is still unable to fund the technology project without going into the red.
In addition to sending emergency funds to the Kings County court, the council decided to spend the remaining money in the emergency pot by distributing the rest of the $35 million to local courts before April 15, when the courts must report to the Legislature and the governor’s Department of Finance.
Such spending has fueled a tech gold rush in the California court system. Local courts are emptying their local reserve funds by funding big-ticket items, such as multi-million-dollar software contracts. Anything left in the reserve funds at the end of June returns to the state.
In connection with overall spending by the courts, Judge Steve White of Sacramento urged the council Thursday to support an audit of spending by the council and the Administrative Office of the Courts. The audit was requested by Assembly member Reginald Jones-Sawyer earlier this month, specifically referencing the half-billion dollars spent on software that was used by only a few courts and is now rapidly being ditched in favor of more recent technology.
White pointed out that the council has not voted on the audit but appears opposed. “I note with some interest that this body without a vote seems to be opposed to it,” said the judge.
“In order for this body to have credibility, it needs to have an audit, just to find out how monies are spent in the AOC and the Judicial Council,” said White. He said one critical purpose of an audit would be to find out “the priority of allocation of those monies.”
“Neither the Legislature nor the Governor, nor the courts knows what that is,” White told the council. Jones-Sawyer, a Democrat from Los Angeles, requested the audit last week with a letter to the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, noting that the council was hiking its own budget while starving the trial courts that directly serve the people of California.
“The Judicial Council and the AOC are responsible for hundreds of millions of dollars annually,” said the assembly member’s letter. “As the Department of Finance and the Legislative Analyst’s Office do not currently receive a detailed annual budget for the Judicial Council or AOC, there exists no mechanism to ensure accountability of public funds with which it is entrusted.”
“Despite several budget cuts, the Judicial Council’s budget grew while funding for trial court operations declined,” he said. “For example, the Judicial Council’s budget for 2013-2014 is stated at $141.5 million. This is $20.9 million more than was spent in 2011-2012.”
The audit will be conducted by the Bureau of State Audits, which, in an earlier 2011 audit, found the court administrative office had spent hundreds of millions in public funds on the Court Case Management system, a statewide software project that was terminated in 2012.
“The audit uncovered mismanagement, waste, and a lack of meaningful oversight that led to the program’s eventual termination,” said the letter from Jones-Sawyer. “As a result, taxpayers saved hundreds of millions of dollars, and members of the public who must rely on courts were spared even deeper cuts to services.”
Jones-Sawyer chairs the Assembly budget sub-committee that funds the courts.
The administrative office’s director, Steven Jahr, rejected the letter’s points.
“The Judicial Council and AOC’s operation budget and expenditures represent 3.6 percent of the overall branch budget and have gone down,” Jahr told the council.
In his statement to the council, White rejected that claim, saying there is no way of knowing where the money goes without an independent review.
“The reporting is opaque and anything but transparent,” said White. “There’s a lot of hide-the-ball. The courts need to regain confidence in the AOC and the Judicial Council and it doesn’t happen without that audit.”
________________________________________________________
JCW – It would appear that Queen Feckless is just as intent on owning the message as her predecessor.
Judicial Council Watcher 
Kimberly Barrette
February 28, 2014
OMG – love that!!!
Sent from my iPhone
>
Nathaniel Woodhull
February 28, 2014
The level of disrespect shown to the employees of Kings and Tulare Counties are yet the latest example of the incredible arrogance shown by HRH-2 and her minions on the Judicial Council. And these people wonder why the Governor and Legislature aren’t forking over more money to them…
The coverage of their antics are getting increasingly mainstream in the press. More and more people are raising their eyebrows at the anti-democratic actions of Tani and her court of clowns.
Sooner or later (I hope sooner) truth will prevail.
Thank you Judge White, along with all those members of the Alliance and the dedicated employees who are focused on serving the citizens of California.
Wendy Darling
February 28, 2014
Those with nothing to hide, hide nothing. Those with plenty to hide, do this:
“But you’d have to look long and hard in the official record to find any trace of what he said. The Judicial Council press release—available here—doesn’t even mention that anybody—let alone the president of an organization with a membership of 500 judges—ever spoke on behalf of the audit. And for some reason, the Council’s live captioning service stopped working right at the start of the public comment period. You can see for yourself here. The audio of the public comment period does exist on the Judicial Council website, but with no listing of who spoke, or on what topic.”
And can you say “hypocrite”?:
“The rule, however, seems to be enforced only when the Chief wants it enforced. She can waive it. In fact, the public agenda for the meeting contained this line: “The Chief Justice has waived certain requirements under Rule 10.6(d) for requests to speak at this meeting.” (See here.) This “waiver” was evidently granted only to those with laudatory things to say about the Council.”
The ACJ is completely accurate that what happened to trial court employees from Kings and Tulare Counties was no “accident.” The level of disrespect shown to the employees of Kings and Tulare Counties by HRH-2 and her minions on the Judicial Council pales in comparison to the disrespect and out-right contempt of trial court employees, and the trial courts they serve, that swirls around the dark hallways of 455 Golden Gate Avenue. Think for a moment: if this is how judicial branch “leadership”, including the Chief Justice herself, willingly treat trial court employees in public, in a public meeting no less, just use your imagination as to how they view and treat them out of the public eye. Especially with zero administrative oversight or accountability.
And people wonder why there needs to be an audit of the AOC and the Judicial Council.
You just can’t make this stuff up. Really.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
February 28, 2014
“out-right contempt of trial court employees”…been livin’ that for years Wendy.
😉
MereServant
March 1, 2014
Really, we should know our place. We should only speak when spoken to. How dare we have an opinion! We are mere servants who serve at her hinney’s pleasure. I’m surprised she didn’t send them to the Tower!
The OBT
February 28, 2014
What a disgrace, not allowing trial court employees to make a presentation to the Judicial Council. HRH-2 and J Miller who talk about “transparency” and “reform” just proved themselves wrong . Wrong again. And by the way doesn’t HRH-2 like to tell High School students about the importance of democracy? How does she square that with running her anti-democratic Judicial Council that won’t allow people to speak , particularly people that may offer a dissenting point of view.
Lando
March 1, 2014
Well Queen Feckless and minion Miller will probably say we just didn’t have time to listen to a bunch of branch employees that took the time and trouble to come to Sacramento. No time indeed, but I am sure there was time for the usual self congratulatory reports, meaningless awards, and arrogant laughter that occurs at every Judicial Council meeting I’ve ever listened to or observed. Nothing and I repeat nothing has changed since King George exited. A full and complete audit of the Judicial Council and AOC will prove that and more.
wearyant
March 1, 2014
Is it too late for the JC to listen to advice from the therapist at NEVER, NEVER, NEVER give up on Facebook: Entertain clowns and you become part of the circus.
sharonkramer
March 1, 2014
Once again, SWOV rears its ugly head; or in this case, Speak With No Voice…on the record.
NewsViews
March 1, 2014
Reblogged this on News and Views Riverside Superior Court and National Family Law Abuse.
anon
March 2, 2014
If you’re wondering why they are resisting an audit that might extend back into the George administration it is because hundreds of millions of dollars in public funds were looted in overpriced contracts and laundered through subcontractors and consultants back to the people in power. Follow the money. There is a logical reason why contractors are strongly encouraged to use specific subcontractors.
katy
March 3, 2014
Anon, that could well be one of the primary reasons why an audit would not take place. I would surmise that there are also additional, more current reasons. As usual, has to do with SWOV gone afoul.
R. Campomadera
March 3, 2014
Today’s (3/3/14) Sacramento Bee quotes Gov. Brown as saying: “fiscal discipline is the fundamental predicate of a free society” (Jerry Brown worries about alertness of ‘potheads’).
True, he said it in the context of potheads not being alert enough to participate fully in such a society, but it could as easily been directed at our beloved Queen Feckless who recently claimed that an adequately funded judiciary is the predicate. Hope she is paying attention and can connect the dots…
katy
March 3, 2014
Dude, seems to me that there are alot of people who need to be paying attention and can connect the dots.
Has the California Joint Legislative Audit Committee voted yet on Jones-Sawyer’s recommended forensic BSA audit of AOC/JC?
If not, when are they anticipated to vote?
(I’m not signing out of wordpress as Katy. Have blogging to do. Sharon Kramer)
wearyant
March 3, 2014
I heard that the JLAC scheduled for Tuesday, tomorrow, will be delayed because of the illness of an unnamed member of the committee. Since I believe the JC/AOC/CJ to be evil incarnate, I see conspiracies everywhere. 😀 But all good people will keep on keepin’ on.
Long live the ACJ!
unionman575
March 3, 2014
It has been delayed.
Judicial Council Watcher
March 3, 2014
Confirmed: Hearing is delayed so cancel those travel plans!
katy
March 4, 2014
Maybe the delay is good news. Wonder if there is anything that could be done before the next meeting which would instill greater legislator confidence of an audit order of the SWOV crowd (at the helm of the court) is the right thing to do? You never know. It might have been a down vote if it took place today. Is there anything we can do to help the ACJ assure an up vote?
unionman575
March 4, 2014
Delay is never good.
Assembly Sub 5 let’s get the show on the road!
😉
unionman575
March 4, 2014
http://abgt.assembly.ca.gov/hearings
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 2014
😉
Budget Subcommittee No. 5 On Public Safety
JONES-SAWYER, Chair
1:30 p.m. – State Capitol, Room 43
wearyant
March 4, 2014
I guess this Capitol Alert blogger didn’t get the latest news … but there is a story on the request to audit the judicial branch. Offered for another source of news …
http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/
Judicial Council Watcher
March 4, 2014
The story was designed to carry the chiefs woe-is-me swan song about so many audits and reports.
For those of you who are uber observant, it is difficult for any newspaper that carries legal notices to be critical (beyond a token article) of the judicial council and the AOC because it is the judicial council and the AOC that thinly veil their threats to terminate the publication from carrying legal notices.
That’s a large source of revenue for most publications these days and the council and AOC remind newspapers about this when they see unflattering coverage.
sunshine
March 11, 2014
if someone has access to the online articles in the Daily Journal, there is an interesting piece about Courtroom spending cuts targeting court reporters yet again and the short-sightedness of the AOC’s proposals. “Courtroom Spending Cuts Blasted” Sorry, I only have the paper copy.
Wendy Darling
March 11, 2014
It’s has been, and remains, a primary goal of the AOC to eliminate court reporters as much as possible. The AOC considers court reporters a waste of money, hates their professional association, and also despises the respective unions that represent them.
Long live the ACJ.