California Budget

Court Budget Hike Tied To Pension, Other Changes

January 10, 2014 By CCM Staff

Gov. Brown’s new budget proposal includes $3.2 billion for the state’s courts, an increase of $105 million from last year, but also eliminates local trial court reserve funds in favor of a a large “rainy day” fund in control of the Judicial Council. It also takes aim at forcing court workers to contribute more to their pension funds, according to coverage in The Courthouse News Service.

“There is a longstanding disparity in trial court employees in terms of how much they pay into their pensions,” said Department of Finance Director Michael Cohen, as quoted in CNS. “There are some employees in the court system that still pay nothing into their pensions. We need to move toward employees paying into roughly half the cost of their pensions.”

The CNS also offered this: “Though pressed by reporters, Cohen declined to say whether the pension mandate will apply to employees of the Administrative Office of the Courts, the judiciary’s administrative agency based in San Francisco. The top 30 administrators in the AOC enjoyed a top-loaded pension perk where the taxpayers contributed 22 percent on top of salary to the administrators’ pension accounts without any matching contribution from the individual administrator.”

Read the story here.

Filed Under: Community, Courts Budget Tagged With: AOC, California, California Budget, california court cuts, california courts, California State Budget, Gov. Jerry Brown, Legal news

‘City In Decline’ Report Skips Court Woes

January 9, 2014 By CCM Staff

Another example of how off-the-radar our civil courts crisis can be: The once-anticipated Los Angeles 2020 Commission report of “A City In Crisis” does not include those long lines at the courthouse or the slow dismantling of our juvenile and community courthouse system. Indeed, after reading the Los Angeles Times review of our city’s crisis, you realize that our “paper of record” has taken a harder look at the crackdown on jaywalking than on the civil courts.

Granted, that may be because you have to connect the dots. Superior Courts funding is a “state issue,” until it becomes a police issue, a landlord-renter issue, a business development issue, an economic recruitment issue – in other words, until it disrupts the stuff that forces headlines. Reviews of the 20-page report, actually billed as “part one,” have been harsh, with the L.A. Weekly calling it “a mess” and noting that the group complains that the city leadership “… suffers from a crisis in leadership and direction” before saying “… it’s clear that this report is suffering from a crisis in leadership and direction, as it bogs down in the same old thinking. Whether this condition also applies to the city’s leaders is impossible to know, as the report does not analyze, address or acknowledge anything that any particular city leader has done about any of these issues.”

The “independent commission,” chaired by former U.S. Commerce Secretary Mickey Kantor, is comprised of 13 men and women and was set up after voters turned down a recent city tax increase. An L.A. Times opinion piece ran down the crisis list: “The city, according to the report, is afflicted with weak job growth; high poverty; bad traffic; underperforming schools; weak, inactive government; red tape that stifles economic development; crumbling infrastructure; unfunded pensions; budget gimmicks and a disaffected electorate… Los Angeles is sinking into a future in which it no longer can provide the public services to which our people’s taxes entitle them and where the promises made to public employees about a decent and secure retirement simply cannot be kept.”

It’s lively reading, but perhaps frustrating to anyone hoping that rationed justice can receive the same attention as the live-altering use of budget gimmicks.

The excellent L.A. Weekly piece is here: http://www.laweekly.com/informer/archives/2014/01/08/the-la-2020-report-is-a-complete-mess

The Reuters coverage is here: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/08/idUSnMKWCvLwca+1e8+MKW20140108

The L.A. Times editorial is here: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-0109-2020-20140109,0,3366207.story#ixzz2pw3HacIE

Filed Under: Community, Courts Budget Tagged With: California, California Budget, california court cuts, California State Budget, LA County Court, Los Angeles, Los Angeles courts

Chief Justice, Budget Plans Sketched In Report

January 7, 2014 By CCM Staff

One of those end-of-year “people to watch” features is hardly the stuff of investigative journalism, but a piece in The Tribune newspaper in San Luis Obispo outlines at least part of the upcoming judicial budget battles. The feature on California Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye is mostly glowing, but is among the few to note that early budget drafts exclude court budget increases.

The story is also one of the few that notes a specific number that the chief justice will seek from the legislature, although it is an indirect reference: “With those priorities in mind, Cantil-Sakauye is making a serious push for increased funding in the next fiscal year: another $472 million, which is about how much has cumulatively been cut from the judiciary’s budget since 2008.”

That report adds that “… that could be an uphill battle: Assembly Speaker John A. Perez released a blueprint budget plan earlier this month that included no new appropriations for the judiciary…” Read more here.

Filed Under: Community, Courts Budget Tagged With: California Budget, california court cuts, California State Budget, Chief Justice, Judges, Legal news, Tani Cantil-Sakauye

Judicial Reporter Offers Stark 2013 Recap

December 31, 2013 By CCM Staff

For anyone dealing with rationed justice in 2013, it felt like a nearly constant barrage of bad news. Now Bill Girdner at The Courthouse News offers a year-in-review piece that quickly reminds us why – because it was a barrage of bad news. The story begins with “… it was a news-filled year for the courts in California, as they survived huge budget cuts and walked backwards on transparency and slightly forward on reform as the Legislature told them to open a warren of closed committees.”

He notes the budget cutting and that it was considered a “reprieve” when the governor decided not to cut the budget even more. He even recalls when In “… an old scandal returned as the council over-rode objections from judges and allowed telecommutingby the highly paid mandarins of the Administrative Office of the Courts… in a companion decision, the council voted to take a look at the salaries of those same bureaucrats but later decided that the inquiry should be conducted by the bureaucrats themselves. As the year winds down, the inquiry seems to have stalled.”

And maybe this slipped by in the holiday rush, but Girdner recalls that “… in December, the council elevated its technology committee to the status of internal committee, igniting a blast from judges who said the leaders of the tech committee and its task force had “proven themselves incompetent” and should be replaced.”

In terms of the legal community, it reads less like the summary of a year-in-review and more like an indictment. See the story here.

(Program Note: The CCM will not update tomorrow as we observe the New Year’s holiday)

Filed Under: Community, Courts Budget Tagged With: 2013, California Budget, california court cuts, california courts, California State Budget, California Superior Court, California Supreme Court, civil court, court rationing, end of the year, justice denied, Justice Rationing, look back, New Year's

‘Top Hellhole’ Ranking Sparks Some Debate

December 27, 2013 By CCM Staff

There’s not much balance in most online coverage of California’s latest “Judicial Hellhole” ranking, but there’s a good exception at the Law360 website. Their report notes that the ranking by the American Tort Reform Association doesn’t tell “the whole story,” but offers strong comments from people on both sides of the debate.

For example, Law360 writes that “… the report focuses too heavily on a minority of abusive cases, according to Brian Kabateck,” who is identified as a former president of the Consumer Attorneys of California. The quote continues that “… this report is coming from a coalition of corporations and big businesses and insurance companies. They are taking a very small number of clearly abusive lawsuits, and they are trying to use that as a smoke screen to shield themselves from liability for their bad actions and their injurious conduct directed at Californians.”

But other experts point out that other states have taken measures to clear up clogged court systems and California could learn a thing or two from their experiences. William Oxley, a partner at one of the state’s larger firms who is identified as an attorney “… who defends companies in asbestos cases and other product liability and mass tort cases” said he agreed that California is a more plaintiff-friendly jurisdiction, and thought the Legislature and the California Supreme Court need to take action to balance the playing field.

We do not typically link to paid websites, but this one offers free access for seven days with registration. So here’s the link.

Filed Under: Community, Courts Budget Tagged With: asbestos litigation, California, California Budget, california court cuts, california courts, California Legislature, California State Budget, Judicial Hellhole report, justice denied, Justice Rationing

Democrat Budget Blueprint Ignores Court Crisis

December 26, 2013 By CCM Staff

We’ve been noting that the early plans for our next state budget do not exactly place civil courts funding in the “crisis” category. Indeed, the courts in general are, at best, being placed on the back-burner – even the criminal courts which have a higher political profile than civil justice. The latest example is the recently released “budget blueprint” released by the Democratic Caucus of the state assembly.

In an editorial, the Los Angeles Times described the document thus: “Top Assembly Democrats have revealed what they’d like to do with billions of dollars in extra tax revenue that the state is projected to receive, and their top priorities were reassuring: expanding the reserve fund and paying down the debts that Sacramento accumulated over the last decade. Their budget blueprint also calls for a lot of new spending on education and anti-poverty programs, however.”

The most passionate appeal for any justice-related funding in the “blueprint” comes amid plans to reduce spending on prison housing. There, the “collaborative justice” efforts get some attention, but that’s hardly noting a billion dollars of court cuts over the past five years. Certainly, most of the issues getting attention are worthy – yet you have to wonder how long we can expect courthouse-related labor unions and others to sit by while the Democrats ignore their concerns.

Read the Times editorial here.

Find the Blueprint here.

Filed Under: Community, Courts Budget Tagged With: California, California Budget, california court cuts, california courts, California Democrats, California State Budget, court rationing, Democrats, Gov. Jerry Brown, Judges, justice denied, Justice Rationing

Paper Calls For More Superior Court Judges

December 24, 2013 By CCM Staff

Program NOTE: No post on Christmas Day! Happy Holidays to all!

A major Inland Empire newspaper is calling for increased funding for civil court judges and staff in San Bernardino and Riverside counties, which have the worst judicial shortfall in California – the only area in worse shape than Los Angels County, according to state research. The Press-Enterprise, in an editorial, says that the California Judicial Council has determined that “… Riverside County, for example, has 76 judges, but needs 138. San Bernardino County has 84 judges, but should have 156. So Riverside County is 62 judges short, while San Bernardino County needs another 82 judges. Those are the worst numbers in the state; the next largest gap is in Los Angeles County, which should have another 41 judges.”

The newspaper says that lawmakers should use use “a small share” of a projected budget surplus to address the problem adding that funding a new judge also means funding related support staff. The paper noted that “… a new judgeship costs about $1.65 million the first year, and $909,000 annually in subsequent years — figures which include money for additional court staffing that judges need, such as clerks, secretaries and security.”

We can expect more demands for judicial improvements as word circulates of a likely state budget surplus, yet early budget documents have not indicated any anticipated increases. See more here.

Filed Under: Community, Courts Budget Tagged With: California Budget, california court cuts, california courts, California State Budget, court rationing, editorial, Justice Rationing

Civil Courts Funding Gets No ‘Governing’ Priority

December 23, 2013 By CCM Staff

It’s only one of the nation’s end-of-year stories, but a “Top 10 Issues” list by Governing magazine, which caters to the policy setters nationally, lets us know where the civil courts funding and capacity issue stands for 2014: Nada, zilch, zero. Not only is it not top 10, but it doesn’t even make the half-dozen “watch” issues.

This is a list that includes state policy on drones and self-driving automobiles. That’s right, at least several reporters looking across the national landscape and figured that regulation of self-driving cars, which might be available to consumers by the end of the decade, are a pressing issue. And they noted civil courts capacity not at all… so there’s work to do there. Issues that did make the list include the usual: Immigration, pension reform and minimum wage regulation that’s going nowhere on the federal agenda, at least according to Governing.

Check it out here.

Filed Under: Community, Courts Budget Tagged With: California, California Budget, california court cuts, California State Budget, court rationing, Justice Rationing

CCM Publisher Describes Civil ‘Hellholes’

December 20, 2013 By CCM Staff

Sara Warner, publisher of the California Courts Monitor, finds herself agreeing with a business-focused group about the hellishness of state civil courts, yet for somewhat different reasons. Find out what she things a “real hellhole” looks like in our era of rationed justice: Verdict Is In: California Courts Hellish.

Filed Under: Community, Courts Budget Tagged With: California, California Budget, california court cuts, California Superior Court, court rationing, justice denied, Justice Rationing

More Judges, Court Staff Eyed, If There’s More Money

December 19, 2013 By CCM Staff

Nobody is saying there will be funding to expand California’s court capacity, but the California Judicial Council has voted that some of any new money will go to provide new judges in Riverside and San Bernardino counties. Both communities have been identified as among the state’s very worst in terms of justice access and have, of course, been hard-hit by the half-decade of court budget cutting

The Press-Enterprise newspaper has a good story on the decision by the Judicial Council, the courts administrative branch, and noting that lines outside courthouses are going around the block. The newspaper reports that “…additionally, several years of statewide budget cuts resulted in hundreds of staff reductions for both courts, causing shuttering or reduction of services at courthouses, and redirecting the type of cases some courts can handle… [the] cases affected by the pressure of too few judges include civil and family law courts, where decisions are made about critical issues of custody and child support.

The report cites a significant “new assessment” approved in 2012 that changed the official “judicial needs” for several counties, and Contra Costa County gave up a promised judicial position because of Riverside County’s shortage. The paper also recalls that money-dependent legislation “… originally provided for 150 new judges statewide, in three rollouts of 50 judges each. The first was completed, but the next two were stalled as state funds for the courts were severely cut in the succeeding years… the 2012 assessment says Riverside County has 76 judges, but needs 138. San Bernardino County has 84, but needs 156.

The next-biggest judicial shortage is in Los Angeles County, which needs 41. The P-E also breaks down the money: “Funding for a judgeship includes not just the judge’s salary but also money for court room personnel such as clerks, secretaries and sheriff’s deputies for security. A new judicial position is estimated to cost $1.65 million for the first year, which usually involves establishment of chambers and other one-time costs, and about $909,000 per year thereafter. A beginning judge’s annual salary is $181,292.”