Early Budget Advice: No More Cash For Courts

Anyone hoping the next state budget surplus might reverse years of court funding cuts might be disappointed with early advice being offered to lawmakers. The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO), the nonpartisan office which provides fiscal and policy information and advice to the Legislature” is setting the anticipated courts increase at zero.
 
The LAO fall forecast and report documents a solid financial footing, saying that “the state’s budgetary condition is stronger than at any time in the past decade. The state’s structural deficit—in which ongoing spending commitments were greater than projected revenues—is no more.” The report also says that “… the Legislature will make decisions about the state’s 2014–15 budget in the coming months… assuming no change to current law and policy, we project that the state would have a $5.6 billion General Fund reserve at the end of the 2014–15 fiscal year.” 
 
Despite those billions, the LAO anticipates no budget increase for courts, reporting that while lawmakers “… could decide to provide additional General Fund support in the future to offset [court[ reductions” the actual forecast “assumes that General Fund spending on the judicial branch will remain roughly flat at about $1.2 billion over the forecast period.” 
 
This is not a trivial group. The LAO reports directly to the 16-member state Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC). The LAO website says the office currently has a staff of 43 analysts and approximately 13 support staff. Thus, they are the early-early drafters of what will become the state budget discussion. Check out how taxpayer money might be spent in the coming years here.

California Tops Controversial Civil ‘Hellhole” List

Heralded by pro-business “tort reform” groups and blasted by left-leaning organizations, an annual “Judicial Hellholes” ranking is out today and California tops the list. The list has been compiled for the past decade as a project of the American Tort Reform Association, or ATRA, which campaigns on behalf of business interests; while widely known and frequently cited among the nation’s civil litigation community, it typically receives little mainstream media attention.
 
The tort-reform side of the argument is stated fairly well by Daniel Fisher at Forbes who writes: “News flash: Madison, County, Ill. is no longer the nation’s worst place for corporations to find themselves in court. California took top honors in the American Tort Reform’s annual “Judicial Hellholes” list, an unashamedly pro-defendant look at the nation’s judicial system. The Golden State won for the welcoming stance its courts take toward consumer class actions – particularly against food companies – and rampant lawsuits targeting small businesses over disability-access rules.” 
 
But the left-leaning Media Matters blog report dismisses the report, writing that it “… annually lists states that have court systems ATRA [the American Tort Reform Association] considers to be the most ‘unfair and unbalanced’ to defendants in the civil justice system, has been previously discredited for having no valid methodology and relying on unverified anecdotes drawn from press accounts. The Center for Justice & Democracy at New York Law School describes the ATRA’s members as being ‘largely Fortune 500 companies with a direct financial stake in restricting lawsuits.’ It is unsurprising, therefore, that the ‘Hellholes’ reports regularly feature jurisdictions that corporate defendants feel are not favorable to their interests. In fact, the report describes its methodology as largely based on vaguely described ‘feedback’ from ATRA members.”
 
The report gained coverage in the Wall Street Journal editorial pages, which we should note are considered much more conservative than the newspaper’s news sections. So it’s worth noting that the report is widely seen by business leaders and even critics acknowledge that, at minimum, it indicates what “largely Fortune 500 companies” think about the state.
 
You can see the entire report and much more, including a cool flaming gavel logo here.
 
Here’s a good argument totally debunking the study from Sergio Munoz at Media Matters.
 
The Forbes piece written by staffer Daniel Fisher that explains why the report matters is here.
 
Follow us on Twitter @CACourtsMonitor

Pensions Next Target For Cutbacks?

Courthouse workers and other public employees should take notice of a Detroit judge’s ruling that public employee pensions are just contracts, not really guarantees at all. If that ruling is upheld on appeal, it means that funds like the California Public Employee Pension System are not as protected as many thought. In effect, the judge is saying that federal laws trump state assurances.
 
The Press-Democrat newspaper in Sonoma County is among those offering analysis of the decision, writing in an editorial that “… to cover soaring retirement costs, which in some places are approaching 50 cents on every payroll dollar, cities and counties in California and across the country have laid off workers and slashed spending on parks, street maintenance and other public services. A handful have filed under Chapter 9 of the federal bankruptcy code; others are weighing the possibility”
 
You already see pensions at issue in the high-profile San Bernardino bankruptcy debate. You also hear whispers that, should public employee pensions be questioned, the issue could be real leverage in the next round of budget negotiations. Read the Press-Democrat editorial, which outlines the issue pretty well, here.

Fresno: Union Blasts Court-Linked Supervisor Pay Hike

In Fresno County, the same judicial pay increase that raised eyebrows statewide is giving county supervisors more money. That pay hike comes after the supes took a hard line on rank-and-file salaries, and it happens because the county leaders years ago tied their salaries to judicial pay.
 
Last week, the Judicial Council of California and the state Judges Association sent out a memo to announce a 1.4% judicial pay increase. That same memo noted that a 4.5 percent hike is expected in the next year or so.
 
The Fresno supervisor raise brought sharp comment from a labor group, with the Fresno Bee newspaper quoting Alysia Bonner, a county employee and Region 4 vice president for SEIU Local 521: “It’s just incredible that they’d take another raise before they’d invest in Fresno… they constantly talk about cutting services and tightening belts, but they don’t have any trouble taking more money for doing less. They are part-time workers. The rest of us work for a living.” The union represents more than 4,000 county workers.
 
Read the Fresno Bee story by John Ellis here.

Civil Courts Not Even On 2014 Political Radar

Political observers are watching the not-subtle trial balloons for the 2014 political season, and in California’s statewide races the big news is that a former Goldman Sachs Group executive who ran President George W. Bush’s “Troubled Asset Relief Program,” or TARP, is likely to run for governor. It is interesting for civil court observers to note that the political liabilities attributed to Gov. Jerry Brown nearly always cite the prison overcrowding and other issues, but never the civil court cuts that destroyed our neighborhood justice system.
 
Bloomberg News, a Republican trial-balloon venue if there ever was one, floats it this way: “Neel Kashkari, the former Goldman Sachs (GS) Group Inc. executive chosen by ex-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to help rescue the U.S. banking system, is readying a challenge to California Governor Jerry Brown even as the world’s 10th-largest economy reaches its highest level in more than three decades… Kashkari, 40, who ran the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program under President George W. Bush, has assembled a team of Republican campaign strategists and is talking to potential donors about taking on the 75-year-old Democrat, said Aaron McLear, a spokesman for Kashkari.
 
A quick review of nine other stories about Gov. Brown’s challenge turned up no mention of the court cutbacks or layoffs. If anything, political pundits seem to lump the court issues into the wildly successful effort to balance the state’s budget. Granted, most of those supporting a courts revival are also likely to be Democratic voters, so perhaps they have limited options.
 
Here’s the Bloomberg story, which has excellent background details on the likely candidate’s divorce and home in Laguna Beach.

Interpreter Dispute: Hundreds Protest Across 7 Counties

More than 900 interpreters across seven Central California counties picketed this week to raise awareness about ongoing negotiations between the union for interpreters and the Administrative Office of the Courts, the management arm of the state judicial system, according to various media reports.
 
While gone more than a half-decade without a pay raise is noted, the core of the issue is another “outsourcing” cost-cutting plan. The idea is to use “centralized” remote video interpreting. This would often replace humans who make $35 per hour. They are paid by the state, but via the court system. The Santa Cruz Sentinel newspaper explained that “… video remote interpreting uses video cameras, computers and an interpreter in a remote location to translate rather than having a live interpreter in court.” The paper cited a union spokesperson explaining that “… there is concern from interpreters that the video service would violate the right to due process and compromise attorney client privilege.” 
 
The talks continue today (Friday, Nov. 22) and there’s no speculation yet if other unions might join in any further actions. Read the Sentinel story here.

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 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.