Judicial Friction Story in Sacramento Bee

Dan Walters, who covers courts for the Sacramento Bee, has an interesting background story about continuing friction in the California judiciary. He offers a good history of the major players, writing that “… when Tani Cantil-Sakauye became California’s chief justice nearly three years ago, she inherited a nasty judicial squabble from her polarizing predecessor, Ron George.”
 
Walters reminds us that “… George had persuaded the Legislature to have the state assume financial and operational control of what had been a locally managed court system, thus making him the boss of an immense state agency [and] many local judges resented what they saw as George’s autocratic style of governance through a State Judicial Council and an Administrative Office of the Courts that he controlled, dubbing him “King George.”
 
But the reporter, who has the personal background to back his opinion, also says that “… resentments flared into open political warfare with the creation of the anti-George Alliance of California Judges, and the infighting intensified when a chronic state budget crisis squeezed the courts.” It’s a timely story making the rounds as the Office of Courts considers opening some of its committee meetings, where most of the actual decisions are made. Read it here.

Heads Up: New Court Committees Target Budget, Access

While the debate over public access to court-management committee meetings gathers steam (see immediate previous post), anyone wondering about the significance of those groups need only look a bit deeper into new committees being formed on hot-button issues – like budget and access. Given that the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) is sometimes blamed for “rubber stamping” committee work, a skeptic might suggest that pushing debate into committee or even sub-committee meetings effectively removes discussion from citizen oversight.
 
The budget committee would, among other things, “… report to the council on AOC contracts that meet established criteria to ensure that the contracts are in support of judicial branch policy” and “… review proposed updates and revisions to the Judicial Branch Contracting Manual.” For a system facing debate over how much work can be farmed out to private contractors, as opposed to re-hiring employees, that’s an important discussion. 
 
Another group, actually a sub-group of a committee and led by a “committee co-chair” will tackle “… physical, programmatic, and language access; fairness in the courts; and diversity in the judicial branch.” Given that legal action against the Los Angeles Superior Court reorganization focuses on physical and other access issues, that’s another great debate.
 
And of course, all this helps create context for the 2014 state budget battle. Read between the lines at the State website.

Judicial Council ‘Open Meetings’ Plan Draws Complaints

It turns out that good news about open committee meetings at the California Judicial Council comes with at least 17 strings attached. That’s how many exceptions there are, including for issues like “consideration of raw data,” that would evade public eyes whenever the judges like.
 
Reporters and newspaper advocates are among those commenting on the rules, with court officials stressing that this is just an early draft. Jim Ewert, general counsel for the California Newspaper Publishers Association, told The Courthouse News that “… this is really open to wide discretion by whoever is on the committee… the exemptions they have created are very, very broad.”
     
The report also notes that “… 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.”
There’s more from Court House News here
 

2014 L.A.S.C. Elections Featuring D.A. Hopefuls

It seems another member of the District Attorney team might be headed to the bench, or at least to the ballot. The MetNews is reporting that Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Joseph E. DiLoreto has indicated that he will not seek reelection, and has endorsed Deputy District Attorney Christopher J. Frisco to fill his upcoming vacancy.
 
In the L.A. courts community, such an “endorsement” can be a virtual hand-off, but this year some groups are whispering about breaking with tradition and pushing for new judicial blood. Until that happens, we can expect candidates to continue to announce in order to let potential opponents know they have the “insider” status. The MetNews, which BTW is the leader in court election coverage by a long shot, notes that Frisco’s “… campaign advisor and treasurer is David L. Gould, a consultant who is also advising other judicial aspirants in the District Attorney’s Office, including Andrew Cooper, Alison Matsumoto Estrada, Donna Hollingsworth Armstrong, and Stacy Okun-Wiese.”
 

For more about the election, and other candidates, check out the report here.

2014 Judicial Election Cycle Gets Started

We don’t yet know how many Los Angeles Superior Court judgeships will be up for election next year, but at least four candidates are hoping to take the familiar path from the District Attorney office to the bench. From various reports and announcements, they include Alison Matsumoto Estrada, Stacy Okun-Wiese, Donna Hollingsworth Armstrong and Andrew Cooper.
 
Typically, judicial careers in L.A. Superior Court begin with an appointment by the governor and few judges face contested elections. Some critics have suggested this is because the “culture” is that anyone challenging a seated judge can face negative reactions in court, both from that judge and even others. The early announcements for next year’s race suggest a more robust election cycle, and budget challenges are already a top issue.
 
Read about Andrew Cooper at MetNews here and about the other three candidates and find some campaign links here.

In Sacramento, New Presiding Judge Confronts ‘Crisis’

“Keeping the doors open will be a major accomplishment in and of itself,” says the incoming presiding judge of the Sacramento Superior Court in an interview with The Courthouse News. The story notes that Judge Robert Hight says he feels he hopes “… to make good use of hard times [because] a good crisis is always the best place to make major changes.”
“The biggest challenge is clearly budget and how can we provide a level of services the public deserves given the budget that we have,” Hight told the CN. Along with the judges comments, the story offers a good brief history of several court trends, dating back to the days of the initial round of case management system backlogs, circa 2007.
 

Hollywood Screenwriters Couldn’t Make This Story Up

For sheer TV-drama level civil court action, albeit on the installment plan, you can’t get much better than the multi-billion-dollar slugfest between San Ramon-based Chevron Corp. and a New York attorney that’s playing out in New York this month. At issue is a roughly $19 billion 2011 judgement from an Ecuadoran court against Chevron. 
 
But this case is not an appeal or even a lawsuit against Chevron. It is actually against the attorney who spearheaded the Ecuadoran case, Steven Donziger. The oil company is suing Donziger under federal laws for, in effect, conspiring to commit fraud. The trial has been going on for weeks, featuring an array of admittedly corrupt judges, outtakes from the documentary film “Crude” that are an entire case in themselves and some of the nation’s most powerful law firms.
 
Donziger has denied all the allegations. The trial is a real peak into how big-time civil cases are financed and how at least one case had enough intrigue for Hollywood. And, yes, there are already films in the works. Get started with a story about how a respected Philly firm rolled into the scandal here.

Marin County Superior Court on ‘losing end’ of budget reallocations

Photo: Marin Independent Journal as part of their report on 10/25/13 "Marin court employees, raiseless for five years, rally for better pay"

Photo: Marin Independent Journal as part of their report on 10/25/13 “Marin court employees, raiseless for five years, rally for better pay”

According to a report by Gary Klien of Marin Independent Journal, dozens of court employees in Marin County, with representatives of their union, SEIU Local 1021, rallied outside the courthouse late last month to campaign for better pay, benefits and dispute resolution after five years of frozen wages.  

Doesn’t look like this will be resolved anytime soon…Court employees are seeking a $4,000 one-time payment, while Marin Superior Court, which is run by the state judicial branch, is offering a one-time payment of $725.  

According to the Marin IJ report, Kim Turner, the court’s chief executive officer, said the entire state judiciary has been underfunded for years and that things are not going to get easier in the next five years. Turner explained that it is because the state has adopted a new allocation process that will send more of the limited resources to courts that are perceived, based on caseload calculations, to be needier.

“Marin is on the losing end of that bargain,” Turner said.  Read or view the story here.

 

 

Petty Politics Detailed In Former Chief Justice’s Book

Wow – think you understand just how petty California budget politics can get? You might decide you’ve been underestimating after reading a new book from former California Chief Justice Ronald M. George, who retired from the bench in 2011. The way-way-former Los Angeles Municipal Court Judge has released an 800-page volume as part of the court’s oral history project and outlines just how personal funding could become.
 
The Los Angeles Times online is reporting that “… George said legislators sometimes opposed court bills out of anger at rulings. The state high court’s 2008 decision in favor of gay marriage caused Republicans to abandon a court bill they had previously supported.” He said other lawmakers would not support funding because of divorce bitterness and “… one legislator refused to support a revenue bond for court construction because his wife had received what he viewed as an excessive fine for making a rolling stop, George recalled. The bond depended on raising fines.”
 
For anyone hoping to understand the court-legislative relationship, the book is shaping up as a must-read. For the thousands of laid-off court workers, it is bound to illustrate just how little the judicial system, and indeed individual lives, can mean to some lawmakers. Read the L.A. Times piece by Maura Dolan here.

‘Routine’ Bay Area Court Decision Taking Years

It sounds fairly routine: A town’s government thinks development is good for an area, but environmentalists and others say officials have not demanded the kinds of research required by law. So you go to court for a decision, and how long should that take? In the Bay Area community of Newark, they are at three years – and counting.
 
At issue is a non-developed area of the town that many want to preserve. After taking several years to develop a master plan, and gain official support, developers found themselves facing a lawsuit in 2010. A Contra Costa Times newspaper report says that “… the lawsuit has meandered through the courts for the past three years, with all parties still waiting for a definitive ruling. A case management conference involving a judge and the attorneys for both sides is scheduled Nov. 12.”

It has become a case study in the courts’ role in such controversies, with added significance in an area of civil court delays and cutbacks. Read more about it here.