A letter by Judge Kenneth So on Judicial Council letterhead dated March 7 was sent yesterday to every judge in California in a “Court News Update” email. Judge So claims that we’ve given you misleading information about how the AOC runs its business. We disagree, and we can back up what we said—with the AOC’s own numbers.
Judge So claims that the “assertion” that the AOC has laid off only 10 of its full-time employees, while giving full-time positions to 52 former temps and contractors, is somehow misleading.
How? Ms. Hershkowitz said precisely that in her response to Kevin McCormick’s inquiry, dated December 20, 2013.
But Judge So claims that we should really measure AOC staff downsizing not from the date the Judicial Council “took ownership” of the SEC report in 2012, but from the AOC’s high-water mark of 1121.41 full-time equivalent positions on July 1, 2011.
Fair enough. Let’s pick that date. If you look at the AOC’s own staffing metrics for the day before—June 30, 2011—available at http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/jc-121311-itemM.pdf, the number of filled full-time equivalent positions was 834.66. These numbers are consistent with those provided by the AOC to Judge Kevin McCormick in an email dated August 9, 2011.
Today, the AOC claims that the total number of filled authorized FTE positions is 704.59. Check out the latest AOC staffing metrics at http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/jc-20140220-adoc.pdf, p. 14.
Comparing authorized positions tells us very little. Authorized positions don’t get laid off: people get laid off. So let’s compare filled authorized positions. If you go by the AOC’s own numbers, the AOC is down the equivalent of 130.07 full-time employees from its historic high in 2011. That’s only a 16 percent decrease, using their numbers, not the 29.6 percent cut cited by Judge So, who presumably relied on numbers he also got from the AOC.
And how did the AOC accomplish the 16 percent decrease? What the AOC records reveal is that fifty-seven people qualified for the Voluntary Separation Incentive Program (VSIP)—in other words, they got a golden handshake. The fact is that in fiscal year 2011-2012, the AOC actually only laid off 36 people. In fiscal year 2012-2013, the AOC laid off exactly two people. These aren’t our numbers; these are theirs. (See http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/jc-rec-45.pdf.)
Compare those figures with what happened in the Los Angeles Superior Court alone. L.A. lost 24 percent of its budgeted staff positions between 2008 and 2013. On just one day last June, the L.A. Superior Court actually laid off 177 people and demoted 139 others. Check out the press release at http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/courtnews/Uploads/142013614870NewsReleaseLayoffsfinal6-13-13.pdf.
The only way you can get to the dramatic decrease that Judge So cites is to disbelieve the AOC’s staffing numbers and accept that they really had over 1100 employees. The 1121.41 number he gives actually comes from the SEC report (http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/SEC_Final_Report_May_2012_withcoverletter.pdf), at p. 294—not from the AOC’s own “staffing metrics.” The difference between the SEC report’s numbers and the AOC’s numbers comes from temps and contractors that the AOC didn’t bother to report.
If this exercise proves anything it’s that the AOC’s numbers shouldn’t be trusted, even by the chair of the Judicial Council’s Policy Coordination and Liaison Committee. We can think of one good way to resolve the debate between Judge So and the Alliance: a thorough, neutral audit by the California State Auditor. That audit will be an important step toward restoring trust in the management of the judicial branch.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Commentary from JCW-
You’ll note that the AOC can rarely rely on the same judicial talking head to be sandbagged by AOC misinformation and take one for the team more than once.
Okay, so Justice Bruiniers is probably an exception.
This was Judge Kenneth So’s opportunity to get run over by a fact train. Just remember he gets 550 million dollars worth of new digs for his trouble.
A SPECIAL THANKS goes out to the joint legislative audit committee for todays’ UNANIMOUS vote to perform a top to bottom audit of both the judicial council and the administrative office of the courts. Other heroes are the men and women of AFSCME, SEIU, CCRA and the Alliance of California Judges whose collective voice was deafening up in the halls of Sacramento. Judge Jahr didn’t have a snowballs chance in hell in that room and we can probably be expecting his resignation soon along with a few sudden AOC management retirements and some jumping ship to greener pastures.
While we all want to see change and something more than rearranging the same pieces on the same checkerboard, this agency has no intention of quitting their abuse until they are economically dismantled by the legislature. Of course if AOC employees took what they know to the state auditor before she showed up for the mother of all audits, she would know where to find the dirt and there might be lots of room for new promotions when a few people end up in federal prison.
Judicial Council Watcher 
unionman575
March 13, 2014
Fine work JCW and ACJ.
Let the Death Star audit begin.
😉
unionman575
March 13, 2014
And further thanks to Judge White and Michael Paul for their timeless efforts in our fight for accountability and change.
Delilah
March 13, 2014
This is a great achievement!! Congratulations and many thanks to all involved. I hope the momentum continues throughout the year. But this: Notably, the audit will not delve into the branch’s court construction program, which has also been criticized for its enormous costs.
Why is court construction excluded? I’m sure there’s a reason, such as those are dedicated funds that come directly from certain sources or something. But just imagine what would come to light if all the land acquisition, design and construction costs, etc., were to be scrutinized.
May this be just the beginning of some long-overdue changes and shake-ups.
sharonkramer
March 13, 2014
If the BSA already has court employee whistleblower complaints and the complaints themselves do not require legislative directive to audit; wouldn’t it be prudent to cross reference information obtained from those complaints where relevant to this newest audit? Seems like there should be nothing to prevent this. Maybe the BSA auditors just need a reminder of what’s in those complaints.
R. Campomadera
March 13, 2014
Ultimately, the only metric that REALLY counts is how much is the AOC’s budget, and whether today it’s more or less and by what amount, than in prior years.
As we have known for some time, the AOC’s numbers can’t be counted upon, except to paint a picture which best suits their propaganda purpose.
There are too many ways to fudge the numbers. Total authorized position counts can be misleading, as can total filled positions. Both can go down, but the total costs associated with personnel, including both appointed staff and contracted staff can go up. Positions can be reclassified to higher grades; individual salaries can go up; part time positions can be increased to full time; dollars can be shifted from personnel to other costs, such as personal service contracts, construction, facilities management, computer systems and equipment, just to name a few things.
Bottom line: take whatever staffing numbers the AOC offers up with a grain of salt and focus on the total costs of running the bloated beast.
MaxRebo5
March 13, 2014
I watched the hearing last and was so pleased to see the Alliance judges, the trial court unions, and Michael Paul all speak out. I agree with Delilah and Michael Paul that this AOC audit should include courthouse construction. That’s a big piece of the pie left off the table and nothing should be excluded from review.
It’s really quite a simple review/question needed to be asked. Does California want to spend hundreds of millions to have 800 state employees working in San Francisco staffing the Judicial Council to make policy or could that money be better spent providing direct services to the public at local courts?
Retired Justice Scottland at the end of the public was just sort of sad. Seems like a nice man but he didn’t grasp that the SEC audit was not an impartial audit of the AOC. True it was a scathing report but the Chief Justice nominated all of the members on the SEC Committee. So the Chief is naming all of the Judicial Council members setting the policies then naming all of the auditors (actually Judges who admited it was not an audit) to review the failure of those policies and declaring everything fixed now. How exactly is that impartial let alone professional? Scottland stood virtually alone (which is somewhat admirable – I like loyalty) in defense of trusting the Chief to handle reforming the AOC. Everyone else in the room can see she’s had three years to make real change at the AOC and hasn’t done it. A unanimous vote to audit the AOC was a very needed check on her and an appropriate action by the Legislature.
The other funny part was Scottland saying it was a waste of money for taxpayers to do the audit. Had the Legislature not done the last major audit of CCMS we’d be 2 billion in the hole on CCMS by now instead of the $500 million actually wasted on it by the Judicial Council. How many more trial court employees would have been laid off to pay for that $1.5 billion in additional wasted funds? It would have been brutal. That last audit saved the state 1.5 billion on CCMS which even Tani has said she’d have pulled the plug on sooner in hindsight had she know how mismanaged it was…. (By who you ask? She does not say. However I believe she gives out an award for excellence in judicial administration in his name each year. Truth can be stranger than fiction).
If this audit can redirect $100-200 million from the AOC budget back to the trial courts (permanently) that’s a great increase in funding for the trial courts and it does not require raising fees, asking for more money from the general fund (as Tani is always doing), or tax increases. It’s a win-win for everyone (except for the Chief’s hand picked Judicial Council). Republicans and Democrats in the Legislature can safely unite around the idea of ending administrative waste at the top in CA Courts. This is more than a check on the current Chief. I hope it’s checkmate on maintaining the massive AOC Ron George and Bill Vickrey built (not with their own money but with CA taxpayer money- big difference).
As for the construction part of the AOC, that AOC staffing should naturally go away when the bond money runs out. Michael Paul may have lost in the short run, with the narrower scope of the audit, but in the long run he should still win. The Legislature ought to watch carefully to ensure AOC staffing in courthouse construction decreases once the 5 billion in bond funding for courthouse construction is spent. If the AOC construction staff doesn’t have projects to manage when the funding runs out what exactly are taxpayers paying them to do?
Loved that hearing, loved 98% of the public comments (-2% for Jahr and Scottland), and big thanks to all of the Legislators who voted YES!
Lastly, congrats to ACJ, local trial court employee unions, and JCW posters for making this happen!
NewsViews
March 13, 2014
Reblogged this on News and Views Riverside Superior Court and National Family Law Abuse.
wearyant
March 13, 2014
Great results from a lot of hard work by many, many good people. Time to take a breath, then get back in the ring and handle the court construction dilemma. The JC/AOC/CJ definitely can NOT be allowed to continue in the building industry. But that’s next. Have an iced tea and lounge in your hammock, good people, this weekend. Then California must be rescued from this rogue agency once and for all.
Tony Maino
March 13, 2014
wearyant is spot on. The elephant in the corner of AOC incompetence is construction and maintenance.
As to construction let us not forget the proposed Markleeville courthouse costing 26 million for one courtroom. This came out to about $130,000.00 per resident of Alpine County. And how about the Long Beach courthouse which has 31 courtrooms and is going to cost 2.3 billion over the next 31 years? The San Diego courthouse is a work in progress. It was going to cost 1.2 billion but now we are told that, without any reduction in square feet, that the cost is less than 600 million. This huge reduction in cost without any reduction of square footage does not seem possible to me.
And let us not forget maintenance and facilities modifications. A few years back the AOC generated a report that asked for hundreds of millions of dollars to do such things as remove dead branches from dead trees ( $9000.00); paint a judge’s closet $2500.00); removal of gum ( $9000.00). The all time winner in San Diego was the proposal to spend over $200,000.00 to pave a parking lot that we did not own, that we would never own, and which our lease was a month to month tenancy. This report was so bad that Justice Hill got the Judicial Council to abandon it.
I hope that the present audit, which should be done by this time next year, will generate the demand, from both Democrats and Republicans, for an audit of what the AOC has or intends to spend for courthouse construction and courthouse maintenance and modifications.
Wendy Darling
March 13, 2014
“The elephant in the corner of AOC incompetence is construction and maintenance.”
Exactly right, Judge Maino. Court construction and maintenance is also the elephant in the corner of AOC fraud.
Big mistake to exclude this from an audit of 455 Golden Gate Avenue. Big mistake.
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
March 13, 2014
AOC math is about as trustworthy, reliable, and valuable as investment advice from Bernie Madoff.
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
March 13, 2014
Published today, Thursday, March 13, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
No Opposition to Audit of California Courts Bureaucracy
By MARIA DINZEO
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (CN) – An audit of the Administrative Office of the Courts and its boss, the Judicial Council, will go forward after a unanimous vote Wednesday by California lawmakers.
Complaints about the bureaucracy’s overspending, overstaffing and mismanagement of projects, like a statewide court computer system, has kept the courts from getting sorely needed funding, Assemblyman Reginald Jones-Sawyer, D-Los Angeles, said.
“Last year, we pre-funded the courts over $40 million, but it was not as much as we would have wanted,” he said. “One of the reasons why we did not get more was because there were many preconceived notions about the courts, the Judicial Council and the AOC, including that they are overstaffed, underperforming, mismanaging funds and overspending. I do not want anecdotes anymore. I want answers. I want those answers from an independent source. I’ve heard from a cacophony of voices and what we need now is an independent source of what really needs to be done. This is about getting answers, whatever they may be, good or bad.”
Jones-Sawyer cited criticism on spending and staff numbers in explaining why he requested the audit.
“Obviously I’m humbled that it was a unanimous vote by both Republicans and Democrats, on the Senate and the Assembly side,” he said in an interview after the vote. “I think both sides really know it’s needed.”
The proposed audit specifically covers whether the council and its 800-member staff agency are complying with reforms laid out in SB 1021, legislation from 2012 that prohibits the redirection of money from the Trial Court Trust Fund to anything other than funding the trial courts.
State Auditor Elaine Howle told the Legislature’s joint audit committee that the size and composition of the AOC also faces review.
The audit will “analyze that staff to determine whether or not it’s well-structured to allow the AOC to accomplish its mission,” Howle said. “There have been reductions in trial court funding over the last three years. Has the AOC’s functions been modified as a result of that? Are there AOC functions that are no longer necessary or overstaffed?”
Howle said the audit should take six to seven months for her agency to complete.
AOC Director Steven Jahr said the bureaucracy already audits itself, and has recently been directed by the Legislature to produce two yearly fiscal reports. It also hired consulting firm Fox Lawson and Associates to conduct a $788,000 study on worker compensation and classification, scheduled for completion at the end of the year.
The AOC brought in the outside consultants at the recommendation of the Strategic Evaluation Committee, a group of judges directed by California Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, after she was sworn into office in 2011.
In a voluminous report with 150 recommendations for reform, the committee found rampant mismanagement and waste within the California bureaucracy that serves the courts. Judges across the state that long voiced such criticism heralded the report.
Jahr said the AOC has already adopted reforms in light of the committee report, but added that process is long and expensive. While he said the chief justice and the Judicial Council support aspects of the audit, they had asked that it be “narrowed,” meaning that the staff analysis be eliminated.
The somewhat resigned Jahr added: “Mr. Jones-Sawyer has provided me with some wise advice. He has observed in his career and in his experience that an audit can clear someone’s good name. And I agree with him. There are criticisms that continue to surface relative to an agency which has been considerably reformed and downsized.”
Sharis Peters with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees hugged Jones-Sawyer after the hearing.
“If this audit can help to find even a few more dollars that can be directed toward court services, it will be much appreciated,” Peters said.
She was one of 15 audit supporters, nearly all trial judges and union representatives, who lined up during the hearing’s public comment period to speak on behalf of court workers.
Of all the requests heard by the committee Wednesday, the proposed audit of the Judicial Council and AOC drew the most speakers in support.
Judge David Lampe of Kern County praised Jones-Sawyer’s proposal, calling it a “very timely, insightful and, I think, narrow request.
“This audit request is not duplicative; it is complementary to other audits,” Lampe said. “It’s not a question of have we put the money in the right box. It’s a question of what is the box for, how much money is going into it, and how big should the box be.”
Michelle Castro with the Service Employees International Union called the audit “a necessary step in helping us reinstate the integrity of the judicial branch and helping us as a step toward regaining meaningful budget restoration to the trial courts.”
Willie Pelote with AFSCME added that the Legislature must “stay on top of this until we get there.”
“This agency needs to start functioning the way it should function for the taxpayers of California,” he said.
Justice Arthur Scotland stood opposed, calling the audit premature in light of the thorough and exhaustive investigation by the Strategic Evaluation Committee.
Scotland had been Cantil-Sakauye’s initial pick to chair that committee but he bowed out to represent Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg and Assembly Speaker John Perez in a lawsuit against State Controller John Chiang.
“Given this recent, in-depth, no holds barred program assessment and audit of the AOC, I can provide a little different perspective,” Scotland said. “Given the Judicial Council’s embrace of the recommendations, and given there’s a pending audit of the AOC, it seems to me this request is premature, makes little sense and will cost a lot of cents to conduct another, essentially redundant audit of the AOC.”
He added, “I understand the intent behind this is an honorable one, but I would suggest that you consider that this will be an expenditure of a lot of money that could be better used by reinstating some of the funds that have been taken in draconian cuts to the judiciary.”
But the committee seemed to disagree. All 12 members present voted for the audit.
Jones-Sawyer rejected the criticism of the audit in an interview.
“It’s not broad,” he said. “The state auditor looked at it, and she thinks it’s narrow enough. To be honest, I wanted it broader. It was the auditor that made sure it was specific, narrow like a laser and to the point.”
Howle, the auditor, is “an expert, she’s professional and she’s done more audits than we could ever think of,” Jones-Sawyer added. “She knows exactly what to do and I have full faith in her that she’ll come back with a product that even the judges will like.”
http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/03/13/66122.htm
Long live the ACJ.
The OBT
March 14, 2014
The vote for a full and complete audit of the AOC is a huge step toward bringing reform to the crystal palace. Subject areas that Ms Howle should include in her audit include: 1. How many AOC management employees, past and present, pay absolutely nothing into their retirements ? Who at the Judicial Council or AOC authorized said give away of public funds? 2. How many AOC employees telecommute? What justification is offered for allowing this? Is the AOC telecommute plan consistent with State of California policy? If not, who authorized a different policy ? 3. How many lawyers work in the AOC and how many work outside the office of General Counsel? Do the lawyers in the Office of General Counsel ever litigate matters in court rooms? Why are lawyers working in other divisions of the AOC? How much money is spent on the AOC hiring outside counsel to advise and litigate in court matters? Does any one law firm receive the vast majority of the funds spent on AOC outside counsel matters? If so, who is responsible for that decision? Was any competitive bidding process used to select outside counsel? 4. After the termination of CCMS how much taxpayer money has been spent on developing and continuing to use CCMS or any other case management system.5 The Judicial Council has constructed a wide array of task forces and committees . Over the past ten years how much money has been spent paying for hotels , travel and meals for these entities.6. What was the total cost of maintaining the Judicial Council and all of the subcommittees of the Council? How much taxpayer dollars have been spent on travel, hotel rooms and meals for these meetings? Since the advent of web based meetings has any consideration been given to using Skype or FaceTime to reduce the costs associated with Judicial Council meetings? 7. How many managers like Mr Child have been compensated for travel, meals and hotel rooms for just doing their jobs? 8. Why do over 100 people work in the CJER division of the AOC when the California DA’s association employees 6? 9. How much is spent on CHP ” security” transportation for JudicialCouncil members? Why did said Judicial Council need this security? 10. What really is the Shapiro fund? Who has funded it and why? What was it used for? Were Mr Shapiro’s gifts properly reported to the state FPPC? 11. How many actual full time employees does the AOC actually have ? This inquiry should go back over 10 years. 12. How many temp employees has the AOC employed in that same time period? 13.How many consultants has the Judicial Council and AOC employed over the last ten years and what specific fields have they worked in? Who authorized the hiring of these consultants? 14. Why is Clark Kelso paid by the AOC and why is he provided benefits from AOC funds? As they say in political ads of endorsers, this is a ” partial list” . I am sure the awesome people who blog here can add many more excellent ideas for Ms Howle to look into.
unionman575
March 14, 2014
“How much is spent on CHP ” security” transportation for Judicial Council members?”
Hmm..
Start here…
AOC contract for security services with the California Highway Patrol
😉
wearyant
March 14, 2014
Looks like more than a few hundred souls were interested in this document … 🙂
unionman575
March 14, 2014
Ant,
I do enjoy bending certain people over a barrel…
😉
Delilah
March 14, 2014
People must really look at this document, unionman! The “Office of Judicial Protection” contract between the AOC and the CHP increased by $5,880,000, from $15,840,000 to a total of “not to exceed the contract amount of $21,720,000” for the period from 5/31/13 to 11/30/2014? The total being over $20 million dollars? For 18 months? Is that even humanly possible? Am I just exhausted and getting the number of zeroes wrong? Talk me down.
Wendy Darling
March 15, 2014
Dear Delilah: Unlike 455 Golden Gate Avenue you can actually do math. And, yes, you got the correct number of zeros.
Long live the ACJ.
Jimmy
March 15, 2014
Aren’t there less than 150 appellate justices, including the Supreme Court, statewide? Holy cow, that is a lot of money to “protect” members of the judiciary and the court facilities who are virtually unknown (or frequented by, in the case of the buildings) the general public?
Judicial Council Watcher
March 15, 2014
You can never be too careful with appellate attorneys – usually the only parties that actually appear at an appellate hearing. ***eye roll***
You might also note that the CHP turns around and contracts out unarmed private security for each appellate court which is all they really need should they find themselves being lowered to unwashed masses status and made to drive to and from work themselves.
I think the CHP earns all of that money for the insult of being chauffeurs for presiding justices.
Lando
March 14, 2014
Excellent list OBT. I know for a fact HRH-2 head of the Judicial Council,showed up for a private party of lawyers with her CHP “security” who serve as her drivers. These CHP officers of course waited while HRH-2 was at the party. How is this in anyway a proper use of security, the CHP or taxpayer funds? If HRH-2 wants to go to a party that is great. Her associating with people outside the insular halls of the crystal palace might be beneficial. My question is why are we as taxpayers , paying for CHP officers to drive her to such a party and paying them to wait ? If HRH-2 wants to leave the confines of 455 Golden Gate to go to a party , shouldn’t she be doing that using her own car or paying for it by taking a cab and using her own funds? I honestly wonder how much this CHP driver deal for the insiders actually costs the taxpayers every year and it is certainly a proper subject for the State Auditor to look into for any and all Judicial Council members who make use of this for the last ten years. The auditor should also look into reports that within the last ten years at least one Judicial Council member traveled to 455 Golden Gate by CHP helicopter. You can’t make any of this up. Really.
Been There
March 14, 2014
I am frankly mystified by all the security for the CJ in California. I worked for many years for an AOC in another state. The CJ in that state has no security detail, none. He has no driver; he is qunite happy to drive a state car to official meetings and conferences, and frankly he would be embarrassed with any other arrangement. No pomp, no drama, just a hardworking and well respected man serving his state. The absence of all the fancy trappings of power keeps the CJ accessible and fully attuned to the needs of the bench, bar, and citizens of his state. What an amazing idea!
sharonkramer
March 14, 2014
What was the reason given for leaving out practices regarding construction from the audit? That area is highly political due to municipalities’ interests in land, contract and permit procurements.
unionman575
March 14, 2014
AOC Consultant gig anyone?
http://www.californiabids.com/bid-opportunities/2014/01/17/5364797-Human-Resources-Consultant.html
Lando
March 14, 2014
Hmm I thought the AOC was adhering to a hiring freeze ? Just another area for the State Auditor to look into.
unionman575
March 14, 2014
If the auditor every requires my research “services” Auditor Elaine Howle’s staff can give me a shout here:
bbqchefs1963@hushmail.com
😉
Wendy Darling
March 14, 2014
Why is taxpayer money being used to pay for Queen Feckless to be chauffeured to parties?
Still serving herself to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
wearyant
March 14, 2014
I’d like to see the CCMS contracts/agreements with Deloitte, et al., disclosed to the public — finally! As I recall, more than a few judges were interested in viewing these documents — un-redacted by the AOC censors! What was “blacked” out and why?
anonymous
March 14, 2014
When it all comes out in the final wash I think that what we will all discover is that CCMS wasn’t just a court case management system, it was being designed as a California version of NCIC. The AOC had aims of having the ability to track every Californian in their system by interfacing with other systems.
Any government agency would be able to subscribe to CCMS services (and pay the AOC a fee) and the judiciary would be using their considerable clout to justify this otherwise unconstitutional effort at, in effect, creating a state level monitoring system that has the ability to track any Californian through any government related or public record event.
I’m going to speculate that this is why nobody in State Government wants that un-redacted contract out in the open and that “trade secrets” are actually “state secrets”
The many connectors that were never developed sought to get information from other systems in addition to pushing information to other systems. Such a system would be okay and could be trusted in the hands of the “there is nothing wrong here” judiciary as opposed to some other government agency, like the AG’s office. What you were able to see in the system largely depends on your role as a subscriber to the system.
Judicial Council Watcher
March 14, 2014
“Venue Transparency”
courtflea
March 14, 2014
I agree with you Anon in part, I think part of the purpose of CCMS was to track Judge’s rulings to determine if they are toeing one political line or other. just sayin
katy
March 14, 2014
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/200889-us-to-relinquish-internet-control
The U.S. government on Friday announced it is taking steps to relinquish control over the backbone of the Internet.
The Department of Commerce announced it is beginning a process to transfer control over the technical system that operates the Internet’s domain name system, which ensures that Internet users can get to the websites they’re looking for.
Currently, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration — an agency with Commerce — oversees that technical system, named the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA).
Historically, it has contracted the operation of IANA out to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Number (ICANN) on a biennial basis. The current contract is set to expire in September of 2015.
ICANN — which contains an advisory board comprised of government representatives — also manages the system for naming domains, ensuring that each web address is registered to only one person.
“NTIA is asking ICANN to convene global stakeholders to develop a proposal to transition the current role played by NTIA,” NTIA Administrator Larry Strickling said during a press call Friday.
Strickling said any proposal “must have broad community support” and must be based on a multistakeholder approach to Internet governance.
“It must maintain the openness of the Internet,” he said. “We will not accept a proposal …with a government led or an intergovermental solution.”
According to an NTIA official, the U.S. agency will continue overseeing IANA until the contract expires in 2015. At that point, the agency hopes to be able to transfer stewardship, the official said.
Some lawmakers and members of the tech industry have expressed concern that relinquishing control of IANA will open up the Internet to threats from other governments that seek to censor it.
While the U.S. can participate in the domain name system through ICANN’s Government Advisory Council, its oversight role of IANA was the only direct link between the U.S. government and the critical Internet infrastructure.
Critics of ICANN have said that increased globalization of the domain name system could decrease the influence of the U.S. as one of the most vocal proponents of Internet freedom.
Fadi Chehade, the CEO of ICANN, said during the call that his organization will bring stakeholders together to discuss a transition process for IANA during ICANN’s upcoming meeting in Singapore later this month.
“All stakeholders deserve a voice in the management and government of this global resource as equal partners,” he said.
“We thank the U.S. government for its stewardship, for its guidance, over the years, and we thank them today for trusting the global community to replace their stewardship.”…..
unionman575
March 14, 2014
Next Judicial Council Meeting April 24 and 25
http://www.courts.ca.gov/jcmeetings.htm
Show up and show them some love all you trial court slum dogs!
😉
unionman575
March 14, 2014
All shall behold trial court cutbacks here:
http://www.courts.ca.gov/12973.htm
While the Death Star feasts on trial court cash and all Californians have access to Justice hijacked by the Death Star
😉
The OBT
March 15, 2014
This deal with the CHP is fascinating. HRH-1 loved to go to events including many that were for him. I know that every Judicial Council session is set over two days so that the insiders can meet in a posh place for dinner after the first session. My guess is that the CHP has driven HRH-1 and continues to drive HRH-2 to these dinners. The state auditor really needs to go back about 10 years to see just how much was spent on HRH-1 and HRH-2 on this so called ” security”. My guess is the CHP probably has some decent records on this . One last thing . Does the Judicial Council /AOC continue to pay for HRH-1’s continued “security”or “drivers” ? Another area for the State Auditor to check into.
courtflea
March 15, 2014
my experience OBT is that financial records are allowed to be destroyed after 5 years. So the audit may not be able to delve any further than that in some areas.
Been There
March 15, 2014
I recall HRH-1 had a full time security coordinator working for the Office of the Chief Justice — I believe the security coordinator was retired CHP. Whenever staff was planning a conference or dinner offsite, they had to clear it with security who would check out the proposed site in advance, coordinate coverage with local law enforcement, and provide a security presence at the event. Is this still the case? If so, the private in house security detail coupled with CHP drivers seems over the top.
katy
March 15, 2014
Shounds to me like once the audit scope is established, there are several AOC/JC whistle blowers who need to put their heads and evidence together; and submit a consice report to the auditors.
katy
March 15, 2014
And not only does it shound like that to me, it also sounds like that to me. (I dnt’t tpey wlel!)
wearyant
March 15, 2014
I simply thought you are a fan of “Mutts.” 🙂
sharonkramer
March 15, 2014
WHy of course. Because I have proven over and over again that I am a GREAT Typist! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mx3wrfhQaqk
unionman575
March 15, 2014
Tani & Co. I know from your so called ”Fact Check” below that you will welcome California State Auditor Elaine Howle and her staff with open arms into your Palace and cooperate fully or face the budget music when the May revise comes out and the real budget dance begins…
Always remember that the budget pen is mightier than all the Death Star bullshit…
http://www.courts.ca.gov/25095.htm
“External Audits
Judicial branch entities regularly undergo external audits by the California State Auditor, the State Controller’s Office, and the Department of Finance’s Office of State Audits and Evaluations (OSAE). ”
😉
unionman575
March 15, 2014
P.S. always like when the Death Star puts it in writing in their own words…
BIG SMILE here…
😉
courtflea
March 15, 2014
That fact check makes me want to puke Unionman, I have seen most of it before here. Touting 8 LARGE BINDERS of information given to the auditor! Shit on a good month JC members each can recieve almost that amount of binders for a single council meeting. BFD. The AOC from day one has always been expert at shoveling out large volumes (binders) of BS (on even the most trivial of topics), so what is new? It just cracks me up when they make the 8 binder claim. Do they even get how idiotic they sound?! My former AOC staff bretheren (who spent hours preparing and photocopying binders while making top salaries, often late into the night) used to laugh hysterically about how the almighty “binder” is almost worshiped by the AOC brass as some sort of pagan god. Got to have that binder, yessiree. I guess you had to be there and have compilled a few binders…….;-)
And to add dumber to the dumb, they include audits of trial courts….I mean do they think that counts somehow as an audit of the JC/AOC? Speaking of that, has there ever been an operational audit of the appellate courts or the supreme court? hummm. bet not. I predict this is just the beginning for the AOC and the JC insiders. I’m still waiting for that death star to implode.
wearyant
March 15, 2014
I’m with Flea and UMan on that sickening link to the “fact check.” It’s totally gagging and leaves one wanting to laugh hysterically at the gall of the JC/AOC/CJ. The rogue agency is crying the blues. Oh, boo-hoo-hoo, cry me a river, thugs. The reference to contacting the state auditor if making a contract for over one million dollars, I would reduce that to, oh, let’s make it $10,000, shall we? Those JC/AOC/CJ buffoons can’t be trusted for any more public funds. Meanwhile, if I drank green beer, I’d be crying in it o’er St. Paddy’s Day, thinking of those poor, misunderstood simpletons at the crystal palace. At least until there’s a move of all their palace digs to Sacramento.
wearyant
March 15, 2014
Oh, and I doubt that Elaine Howle and her people will be impressed with lots of thick binders filled with stupid, insipid fluff … 😀
MaxRebo5
March 15, 2014
The massive binder is admin 101 for the AOC “leaders”. I used to prepare huge binders to “reengineer” a local court for Jody Patel and they were literally proud of the thump factor (if you dropped it on a table). They’re all making six figures with incredible pensions so it clearly pays to ramble on (if you’re part of the Chief’s team) in California court administration. Sorry for the long posts sometimes. I picked up some bad habits making thand they are hard to kick. Happy St. Patrick’s Day JCW!
Wendy Darling
March 15, 2014
Pretty binders for pretty charts, filled with pretty lies. Notice how that “fact ” check neglected to mention the “fact” that the Bureau of State Audits found reports from the AOC & Judicial Council to be of little value and lacking in substantive information?
Long live the ACJ.
wearyant
March 15, 2014
Gotta hand it to you, Wendy D. You said it much better than I did. I’d like to say the JC/AOC/CJ should eat shit and die, but I won’t say that …
unionman575
March 16, 2014
“eat shit and die”
I won’t say that either.
😉
The OBT
March 15, 2014
No one would ever question the importance of security for any public official.My concern is weather CHP drivers are needed for all these Justices and CJP members. My guess is that most don’t use these services but the State Auditor should carefully examine the justifications for those that use CHP drivers frequently. The auditor should also carefully examine why these security costs have grown by over 5 million dollars in a very short time. Somehow I have a feeling that the vast majority of the CHP driving around part of the security services provided will have been used by HRH-1 and HRH-2 .
Lando
March 16, 2014
You just don’t see it OBT. As HRH’s they are entitled to run an entire branch of government without regard to the democratic ideals our country was built on.They are entitled to spend whatever money they like like without regard to any consequence. They are entitled to attack and belittle any one who dares question their royal rule. They are entitled to proclaim anything they want and expect all to believe it. They are entitled to never have to accept responsibility because they never make mistakes. And yes they are entitled to be driven around wherever they want by the CHP in the guise of “security”. HRH-1 and HRH-2. They have both built a continued legacy of failure, distrust, lack of ethics and arrogance that is destroying our once proud branch of government.
unionman575
March 16, 2014
AOC Master Agreement for Temporary Staffing Services:
😉
Click to access lpa-TemPositions-1027013.pdf
Click to access lpa-TemPositions-1027013-amend1.pdf
unionman575
March 16, 2014
Nothing like a hiring spree:
https://careers.jud.ca.gov/psc/recruit1/EMPLOYEE/PSFT_HR/c/HRS_HRAM.HRS_CE.GBL?FolderPath=PORTAL_ROOT_OBJECT.HC_HRS_CE_GBL2&IsFolder=false&IgnoreParamTempl=FolderPath%2cIsFolder&
https://careers.jud.ca.gov/psc/recruit1/EMPLOYEE/PSFT_HR/c/HRS_HRAM.HRS_CE.GBL?FolderPath=PORTAL_ROOT_OBJECT.HC_HRS_CE_GBL2&IsFolder=false&IgnoreParamTempl=FolderPath%2cIsFolder
Wendy Darling
March 16, 2014
AOC doublespeak: “hiring freeze” = hiring like crazy.
Long live the ACJ.
wearyant
March 16, 2014
Just one of the offerings posted from UMan’s link:
Job Description
Job Title: Manager, Quality Control
Job ID: 3807
Location: San Francisco
Full/Part Time: Full-Time
Regular/Temporary: Regular
Overview
The Administrative Office of the Courts is currently recruiting for a Quality Control Manager in it’s Judicial Branch Capital Programs Office. The Judicial Branch Capital Program Office has responsibility for business and planning, design and construction, and risk and quality management of the state’s courthouses.
The Judicial Branch Capital Program Quality Control Manager (QCM), which reports to the Senior Facilities Risk Manager, is responsible for managing and performing the daily quality assurance (QA) responsibilities of the AOC capital program and each courthouse construction and facility modification project where plan review and inspection services are required. The QCM role includes direct oversight and review of the entire documentation and physical inspection phase of the work flow process and working with other in-house personnel and external architects, contractors, and consultants to produce and document a quality product that is compliant with applicable building codes and standards. This position manages the work of four senior construction inspectors, and a health and safety analyst serving as the AOC fire prevention officer.
Responsibilities
• Design, develop and manage a comprehensive quality management program to ensure the quality of design, materials, construction process, and closeout of a capital project or facility modification once approved for design and construction.
• Develop and communicate policies, procedures and guidelines necessary to communicate the Capital Program quality program to AOC planners and project managers, architects, construction managers, general contractors and their subcontractors and external firms.
• Design, develop and manage a program to inspect construction work in progress, utilizing a combination of AOC staff resources and contracted project and special inspection firms, for both capital and facility modification projects that assures requirements of the Trial Court Facility Design Standards and the California Building Standards Codes are met.
• Ensure the availability, from AOC staff and consultants, of subject matter expertise in fire, accessibility, and general building code interpretation and compliance when needed.
• Establish and maintain formal liaison with the California Buildings Standards Commission, State Fire Marshal, State Architect, and the Board of State and Community Corrections to facilitate coordinated plan reviews, approvals, inspections, and certificates of occupancy as they affect judicial branch facilities.
• Assist in establishing facility safety management policies, procedures and guidelines.
• Organize, prioritize and coordinate multiple work activities to meet critical deadlines.
• Provide performance management, coaching of direct-report team members, motivation and recognition of team members.
• Assist in developing unit and projects related budgets and administer contracts to ensure performance and the prudent expenditure of contracted funds.
• Develop and maintain effective working relationships with staff and contracted resources.
• Effectively communicate program and project information and issues verbally and through various written materials.
WORKING CONDITIONS
• Work occasional evening and weekend hours.
• Weekly travel throughout the state will be required, primarily day trips; occasional overnight travel may be needed. Use of state vehicle, state-paid rental car or reimbursement of personal vehicle usage provided.
Qualifications
Equivalent to possession of a bachelor’s degree and six years of experience in a relevant field including a minimum of two years of increasingly responsible management experience or two years as Supervising Analyst, Supervising Attorney, or other supervisory-level professional class; or three years as a Senior Analyst, Senior Attorney or other senior-level professional class with the judicial branch.
PREFERED QUALIFICATIONS
Preferred certifications/licenses:
• Certified Construction Manager (CCM) from the Construction Management Association of America.
• Licensed architect or engineer.
Preferred experience is:
• Ten years construction quality management experience primarily in institutional building projects.
• Proficient in Microsoft Excel, Word, and Project, or other computer software used in the construction industry.
.
Other Information
Please Note:
• If you are selected for hire, the Administrative Office of the Courts will require verification of employment eligibility or authorization to legally work in the United States.
.
Other Information
Please Note: If you are selected for hire, verification of employment eligibility or authorization to work in the United States will be required.
How To Apply
To ensure consideration of your application for the earliest round of interviews, please apply by January 17, 2014. This position requires the submission of our official application and a resume. To complete an online application, please click the APPLY NOW button below.
OR
To obtain a paper application, please download a copy from the Careers page of our website under the Special Access and Paper Application Help section. And mail it to:
Administrative Office of the Courts
455 Golden Gate Avenue, 5th Floor
San Francisco, California 94102-3688
415-865-4272 Telecommunications Device for the Deaf
Pay and Benefits
Salary Range: $8,606 – $12,744 per month ($103,272 – $152,928 per year).
Some highlights of our benefits package include:
• Health/Dental/Vision benefits program
• 13 paid holidays per calendar year
• Choice of Annual Leave or Sick/Vacation Leave
• 1 personal holiday per year
• $120 transit pass subsidy per month
• CalPERS Retirement Plan
• 401(k) and 457 deferred compensation plans
• Employee Assistance Program
• Basic Life and AD&D Insurance
• FlexElect Program
• Long Term Disability Program (employee paid/optional)
• Group Legal Plan (employee paid/optional)
Equal Employment Opportunity
The Administrative Office of the Courts is an Equal Opportunity Employer.
=======================================================
SERVING THEMSELVES TO THE DETRIMENT OF ALL CALIFORNIANS
We’ve gotta get this rogue agency outta the building industry!! Save California now!
unionman575
March 16, 2014
Salary Range: $8,606 – $12,744 per month ($103,272 – $152,928 per year).
wearyant
March 17, 2014
Here ya go, crystal palace humps:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/373524/are-you-ready-be-audited-veronique-de-rugy
Sorry about using your word, UMan. Sometimes the shoe just fits or as in the case of our greedy friends in the crystal palace, CInderella’s lovely slipper. It’s thought that the IRS still has that cruel mentality of “soak the rich.” Hahaha. Now, THAT’S rich.
Wendy Darling
March 17, 2014
In today’s episode of Tani’s Follies, Queen Feckless drapes herself in the mantle of civil rights, while heralding herself as most-transparent of them all. Published today, Monday, March 17, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
Calfornia Chief Justice Emphasizes Collaboration With State Legislature
By MARIA DINZEO
CN – With an impending audit of the Judicial Council and its bureaucracy, California Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye played up the need for more collaboration with the Legislature and the governor.
“Keen listeners may have noticed that I have yet to mention the need to properly fund the judicial branch,” she said, drawing laughter from the Assembly floor. “We have a lot of catching up to do. And we want to be a partner in fair and collaborative solutions, just as we were a partner in reductions.”
The judiciary has seen $1 billion in cuts since 2008, leading to court closures and layoffs by the hundreds. In a similar theme to last year’s address, Cantil-Sakauye used historical context, in this case, the 50-year anniversary of the Civil Rights Act, to show how strained judicial resources can translate to a denial of justice.
“Court closures have deprived more than two million Californians access to justice to a local courthouse,” she said, referring to some California residents being forced to drive hours to an open branch for court hearings.
“We face astonishing and harmful delays in family matters, business cases, for wrongful termination, and discrimination across the board. California faces a different civil rights crisis. It’s not just about the law. It’s about access to it.”
She also framed the Civil Rights Act as an example of collaboration between branches, which she emphasized as a motivating factor behind the landmark law.
“It took collaboration,” she said “The act was created by Congress and signed by the President. That’s collaboration. But it also took collaboration with the third branch, the federal judicial branch, to hear challenges to the law and to be the final arbiter of its constitutionality.”
The judiciary is in a precarious position in Sacramento. Many legislators have pushed for more funding for the trial courts, but are mistrustful that the judiciary’s central bureaucracy, the Administrative Office of the Courts, will actually use those funds to keep courts open. This was the impetus behind a request from Assembly member Reginald Jones-Sawyer (D-Los Angeles) for the State Auditor to audit the AOC. His request was approved by a unanimous vote of the legislature’s joint audit committee.
Cantil-Sakauye repeated last year’s message of reform. “As a public official I believe in regular self-assessment. I firmly believe the status quo can always be improved,” she said, reminding lawmakers of the intensive investigation she authorized of the AOC’s policies, management and spending.
Cantil-Sakauye again plugged an open meetings rule for the Judicial Council, promulgated last year to skepticism from the press and government-transparency advocates. “I can guarantee two outcomes- for some the rule doesn’t go far enough and two, for others the rule goes too far,” she said. “But we’re working on that. It will make us the most transparent judicial branch in the country.”
The chief closed her speech with a quote from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who wrote to his colleagues in his famous “Letter from Birmingham Jail”: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly.”
“I talked to you about fairness and collaboration, and how those values inspire us and connect us-all in service to the public,” Cantil-Sakauye said. “These are the same values that motivated the Civil Rights Act. I would argue that that quote 50 years later is relatable to the three branches of government and how we operate and collectively serve the public.”
http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/03/17/66229.htm
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
March 17, 2014
Published today, Monday, March 17, from The Recorder, the on-line publication of CalLaw, by Cheryl Miller:
Chief Justice Pleads for Fairness in Annual Address to Lawmakers
Cheryl Miller, The Recorder
SACRAMENTO — Less than a week after state lawmakers authorized a broad audit of her branch’s spending practices, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye on Monday called for more cooperation between the Legislature and the judiciary.
In her third State of the Judiciary address, the chief justice cited this year’s 50th anniversary of the federal Civil Rights Act, arguing that the work of the president and Congress on the landmark legislation would have been meaningless without the enforcement provided by the third branch of government.
“Even 200 years ago, as Alexander Hamilton said in the Federalist Papers, laws are a dead letter if courts are not there to expound and define their true meaning and operation,” Cantil-Sakauye said before a joint session of the Legislature. “As it was 200 years ago, so too is it today … Fairness animates all of us here. And in order for fairness to be true and accessible, great things require collaboration.”
The 20-minute speech did not mention the audit. But the underlying message seemed a clear attempt to rebut a constant stream of criticism from some judges, organized labor, lawmakers and even, at times, the governor that the judiciary is not well managed. The chief justice used the words “fairness,” “collaboration” and their derivatives more than two dozen times.
Even Cantil-Sakauye’s pleas for additional court funding—an annual speech topic given recent years’ budget cuts—were painted in terms of perceived fairness issues. She called the state’s courthouse closures and court services cutbacks “a different type of civil rights crisis.”
“It’s not about the law. It’s about access to it,” she told lawmakers. “We have a lot of catching up to do. And we want to be a partner in fair and collaborative solutions.”
Gov. Jerry Brown’s budget included an extra $100 million for the courts. But Brown has also said he wants the branch to operate “more effectively.” Cantil-Sakauye is seeking an additional $1.1 billion for the courts over three years to restore services, but the so-called blueprint has not gained much traction in the Legislature.
“There are many preconceived notions about the courts, the Judicial Council and the Administrative Office of the Courts, including that they are overstaffed, underperforming, hiding funds and over spending,” Assemblyman Reggie Jones-Sawyer, D-Los Angeles, said in a statement issued after the chief justice’s speech. Jones-Sawyer requested the audit into branch spending and operations that a unanimous legislative panel approved last week.
“One of the ways we can earn the trust of the Legislature and the governor is to ensure that all the funds the courts currently have are being used in the most effective and efficient manner,” Jones-Sawyer said.
Cantil-Sakauye did not fight the audit, but she insisted the branch is already scrutinized sufficiently by the Legislature and the governor’s Department of Finance. Branch leaders tried unsuccessfully to reduce the scope of the audit.
On Wednesday, the chief justice again defended her support for a strong, centralized branch administration—a point of contention with labor groups and some judges, who would prefer to see power diffused to the trial courts. She mentioned that workers in the appellate courts, the Administrative Office of the Courts and the Habeas Corpus Resource Center still endure furloughs, although they were cut from 12 a year to six in last year’s budget. Those same employees have gone without a cost-of-living raise for seven years, she said. She did not note that eligible workers have received 3.5 percent annual ” step increases ” in 10 of the last 11 years.
http://www.therecorder.com/home/id=1202647305568/Chief+Justice+Pleads+for+Fairness+in+Annual+Address+to+Lawmakers%3Fmcode=1202617072607&curindex=0
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
March 17, 2014
More of the same: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/03/17/6245417/california-chief-justice-warns.html
Long live the ACJ.
Lando
March 17, 2014
I’m impressed. Queen Feckless quoting Alexander Hamilton. Meanwhile back in this century, it is rumored the AOC bungled revenue estimates for the Trial Court Trust Fund and that revenue predictions are off by 70 million dollars. If true that would take up a huge portion of the 100 million the Governor gave back to the branch in the most recent budget. If true, the trial courts are in big trouble. If true, the Judicial Council and AOC need to be held accountable by the legislature. We need to start by reducing the Judicial Council and AOC budget by 90% and divert those funds to the trial courts. The State Auditor needs to also figure out how the Judicial Council and AOC’s revenue projections were so off base and where was 70 million wasted ?
Wendy Darling
March 17, 2014
Maybe Queen Feckless can “collaborate” with the State Legislature in explaining where $70 million dollars evaporated to.
Long live the ACJ.
wearyant
March 18, 2014
She can’t even tell you how many people work for the AOC.
Lando
March 17, 2014
You are so right Wendy. I am guessing the missing 70 million is why Queen Feckless is reaching out to the legislature and not attacking them as when 1208 passed. You can’t make up any of this up. Really.
The OBT
March 18, 2014
Missing 70 million? Sounds like places to look for that are, give away retirements to AOC insiders, CHP security in the form of rides around the state,hotels, meals, and toll expenses for Mr Child and perhaps others, millions allocated to CCMS despite it’s failure, increased rent for the crystal palace, fighting the proposed Audit of the Judicial Council and AOC and continued hiring of AOC employees despite claims by HRH-2 and her minions that positions have been cut back.
katy
March 18, 2014
I once was able to cause a Federal GAO audit. When examining who had conflicts of interest (COI) was deleted from the scope of the audit, I was naive enough to believe that problems would be fixed simply by establishing what needed to be done. I really didn’t care about anyone being punished for past misdeeds. I just wanted the problem fixed. Yet, because no one was punished for the COI, “they” were able to whittle away at any good the audit directives could have done, one meeting at a time over several years.
I am not so naive anymore. I hate to say it and I hope I’m wrong. But I don’t have a whole lot of confidence in this newest audit causing any real change — unless the facts established by AOC/JC whistle blowers are also addressed by the BSA. This includes examining and reporting who is responsible for past missing money and questionable contracts.
One can write policies all day long. Yet if you have conflicted decision makers pulling strings behind the scenes, the suggested policies will not be effectively implemented. I think this could be the root of the problem of why Tani can’t turn the courts around — too much dirt will come to light.
In my opinion, in order for the BSA audit to be effective, it should include the personal bank accounts of those who were JC members and AOC decision makers in the year of 2010. Will that happen? I doubt it.
Karen Peckham
March 18, 2014
JCW adds the following edit so that there is some context to this comment:
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/court-605970-reporters-time.html
____________________________________________________________________
Phil We, you are so ignorant on the skills a reporter must attain to become a working Official Court Reporter in California. I don’t know where you got this info we are unskilled. As a working Official in the Los Angeles Superior Court with 34 years of reporting experience, 18 years in the freelance field reporting depositions and 17 as an Official, I am going to set the record straight. A reporter must go through a court reporting program where they learn machine theory and must possess a speed of 200 words per minute or greater, not to mention the academic portion of the program covering English grammar, vocabulary, medical terminology, anatomy and legal. One must take and pass the California Certified Shorthand Reporter exam which is a written knowledge exam plus live 4-voice dictation at 200 wpm and must pass at 96 percent or greater. This exam is given twice a year. Court reporters must pay for their own computer system and CAT software which a reporter must build their own dictionary for providing Realtime services and must go through further testing to become a Certified Realtime Reporter who provides instantaneous transcription to the Bench of all court proceedings at 99.8, 99.9 translation. This is done by training the human brain. No digital recorder can perform like a Certified Realtime Reporter. I have yet to see a digital recorder relay the translated text to the Bench. When a court utilizes a tape recorder system, the taxpayer is not only paying for the person to punch a record button, but now somebody has to be paid to listen to the tape and transcribe a written record by somebody who may speak English as a second language and has no knowledge of grammatical structure or specialized vocabulary. Furthermore, they weren’t there. Now we run into the problem of who’s who on the tape. Then you get a bunch of background noise on top of the soft-spoken speakers, paper shuffling, people talking, phones ringing. Court reporters tune out the noise, focus on the spoken word, interrupt when parties get out of hand and all start talking at once. We are the hard-working guardians of the record, protecting the written word should matters go up on appeal. Realtime reporters also put the captions on your TV screen for those who are deaf or hard of hearing. We also go into university when a deaf or hard-of-hearing individual wishes to pursue a coursework of higher learning. Court reporters are highly skilled, sir. If it was such a lucrative position to pursue, then why aren’t more people going to school to become Certified Shorthand Reporters? Because of all the people who enroll to begin the coursework, only 1 percent actually have the “right stuff” to become certified and practice as working reporters. Get your facts straight before you start attacking my chosen career. Court reporters ARE awesome!
Karen Peckham
March 18, 2014
I don’t know how this ended up here. I was replying to a gentleman, Phil We, who criticized court reporters in reply to an article in The Orange County Register about the Orange County Officials. Sorry about that.
Judicial Council Watcher
March 18, 2014
You ended your point by pointing out how awesome court reporters are and while we could not for the life of us figure out who Phil We was, we agreed with your summary conclusion.
Court Reporters ARE awesome!
Your reply (and yours and our reply to the reply) can be deleted or even edited upon request if you wish to reflect the article you were responding to. Just drop us an email at judicialcouncilwatcher@hushmail.com with some instructions and we’ll make the necessary corrections or deletions.