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

December 19, 2013 By
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.”

 
Filed Under: Community, Courts Budget Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Chief Justice Favors Transparency She Controls

December 11, 2013 By
 
Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye (Photo: California Courts)

Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye (Photo: California Courts)


The Courthouse News has some of the better coverage from a year-end press meeting with Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, who still says she favors court transparency despite having led the successful effort to remove open-meeting requirements from legislation. Apparently she supports the rule if judges write it, with TCN reporting that “… while the chief justice lobbied against a bill requiring open meetings by Judicial Council committees, she said she always supported the idea but wanted the judiciary to have control over the language in the rule.”
 
She explained that: “Because I think there are different considerations with judges who are on the advisory committees that draft the proposals for council to consider. In the process of drafting those proposals and deciding if a proposal should even come to council, judges still in their judicial role speak about substantive issues of law…  we have a concern about the code of judicial ethics and what judges can and cannot say in the process of a heated argument in the development of a proposal versus what they can and should be saying publicly.” 
 
And of course she noted “… a new long-term fiscal plan for the courts that she hopes will persuade the governor to restore $1 billion in funding to the judicial branch over five years.” Read more here.
Filed Under: Community, Courts Budget Tagged With: , , , ,

Judicial Friction Story in Sacramento Bee

November 21, 2013 By
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.
Filed Under: Community, Courts Budget Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

2014 Judicial Election Cycle Gets Started

November 15, 2013 By
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.
Filed Under: Community, Courts Budget Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,

In Sacramento, New Presiding Judge Confronts ‘Crisis’

November 14, 2013 By
“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.
 
Filed Under: Community, Courts Budget Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,

Petty Politics Detailed In Former Chief Justice’s Book

November 6, 2013 By
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.
Filed Under: Community, Courts Budget Tagged With: , , , , ,

‘Routine’ Bay Area Court Decision Taking Years

November 5, 2013 By

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.
Filed Under: Community, Courts Budget Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

Courts Contracts Info Denied To Reform Judge

November 1, 2013 By
It’s an ongoing issue, but you might think that getting copies of all the current vendor contracts for California courts would be (A) a cure for insomnia and (B) fairly easy. Think again. Because “A” may be true but “B” is proving difficult for a judge who has been critical of the judicial administration, reports the Voice of San Diego website, a non-profit investigative news outlet.
 
The VofSD reports that “… Kevin McCormick, a trial judge in Sacramento who also heads a court reform-advocacy group called the Alliance of California Judges, asked state court administrators earlier this year for copies of all their current contracts with vendors. He was surprised to hear that they did not have that information available… the courts had literally interpreted [open records act] Rule 10.500 to mean that they did not have to “create” a public record of their contracts — even at the request of a judge.”
 
Judge McCormick went on to question how such a large system runs without a list of vendor contracts. You can read more about the issue here.
Filed Under: Community, Courts Budget Tagged With: , , , , ,

Judges Might Hear Cases Of Political Donors

October 31, 2013 By
A California Supreme Court ethics committee is seeking comments on a draft opinion that would allow state judges to hear cases of lawyers whose firms have donated to the judge’s campaigns, just so long as no single attorney trying that specific case has given more than $1,500. Judges would have to disclose the contribution, but could still hear the case.
 
The Metropolitan News is reporting details that “… the issue involves the interpretation of Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 170.1(a)(9)(a), which mandates judicial disqualification when a “lawyer in the proceeding” has donated more than $1,500 to the judge’s campaign. The draft opinion would clarify that the statute does not apply to contributions by a firm, and does not provide for aggregation of smaller contributions by individual lawyer.”
 
The deadline for comment on either opinion is Nov. 15,  and comments may be submitted at the site, or by email, or by regular mail. The draft opinions and invitation to comment are posted on the committee’s website here. The full MetNews story is here.
Filed Under: Community, Courts Budget Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

Debate Continues On Civil Jury Access, Reductions

October 25, 2013 By
 
Money is one resource that forces justice rationing, but jury time is another. When Gov. Brown recently vetoed a jury overhaul bill, the focus was rightly on the issue of allowing non-citizens to serve on the panels. Less reported were issues that would reduce the jury size in some criminal cases and virtually all civil trials.
 
The Sacramento Bee had a recent editorial calling for jury reform and offering some numbers. Says the newspaper: “Statewide approximately 10 million jurors are summoned for service, but only 4 million of those are available and qualified for the task. And even fewer, 1.5 million prospective jurors, actually report to courts. Courts struggle to find sufficient numbers of jurors to serve and the cost of jury service to the courts and to those who serve has become a real strain.” 
 
In a reform idea supported by the Bee, “… in all civil cases, the number of jurors would be reduced from 12 to eight… it’s estimated that the changes proposed would save beleaguered California courts an estimated $5.1 million annually in direct costs. Community costs, which include the loss of productivity, wages and business activity, would be reduced by approximately $174 million annually.”
 
But the idea is not really to save money. The fact is that “jury time” is a resource that’s in short supply, and the battle for access mirrors the sorts of decisions forced by the lack of funding. Read the newspaper’s opinion, and other California editorials gathered by the Associated Press, here. 
Filed Under: Community, Courts Budget Tagged With: , , , , , , ,
«Older Posts
Newer Posts»