Newest ‘Good News’ Budget? Not For Justice System

 
The latest draft of Gov. Brown’s budget, called a “good news” budget by some media because of increased revenues from a statewide tax increase approved last November and the improving economy, is less than good for the state’s justice system. The Associated Press and others are still developing their analysis, but the courts funding seems locked in at previous-year spending.
Governor Brown's latest budget draft may not be 'good news' for judicial system

Governor Brown’s latest budget draft less than ‘good news’ for justice system

 
Says the AP: “[Although]… plagued by downsized staffs, service reductions and darkened courtrooms due to bone-deep budget cuts over recent years, ‘the judiciary is getting the same amount of money they were given the year before,’ Brown said. The courts will have to struggle to contain growing costs without any receiving any new resources, he added.”
 
Here’s a breaking budget story from the San Jose Mercury News

Law School Offers ‘Practice’ Courtroom For Holding Court

Here’s how bad it’s getting for California courts amid the closures and cutbacks: the Whittier Law School in Costa Mesa is offering to lend its new 4,400-square-foot “practice courtroom” to the actual courts, even offering to hold trials there. The courtroom opened last month amid much fanfare, and California Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye spoke at opening ceremonies.
 
It’s also an example of walking the talk, because much of the funding for the $2-million facility, according to the Los Angeles Times, came from Whittier graduate Paul Kiesel, who is also co-chairman of the Open Courts Coalition, the bipartisan lawyers group lobbying to reverse California’s years of court budget cuts.
 
“In the last five years,” Kiesel told the Times, “the courts’ budget has been cut by $1 billion.” He said the cuts have resulted in a backlog of 20,000 personal-injury cases in Los Angeles County alone. You can read the LA Times story here.

Profile of Court Fees Increases Amid Budget Crisis

 
Just in time for the increasing discussion of special court fees, like the ones for accessing public documents that is effectively shelved for the time being, a Sacramento Bee story outlines that any “temporary” fees tend to become permanent, and cites a court fee as the oldest example.
 
Jim Sanders, who wrote the Bee report, says that 13 of of 21 “temporary” fees received extensions, cumulatively raising more than $70 million annually for programs ranging from a missing persons database to an effort to fight auto insurance fraud.” He then notes that “… perhaps the oddest Capitol trail left by a single fee involved five bills over the past decade to raise millions for California courts. What is now a $40 court fee tacked onto all criminal convictions, including traffic violations, began as a $20 charge in 2003. It later was raised to $30, then to $40, then expiration dates were eliminated, leaving the charge permanent.”

Allowed uses also shift. That court fee, for example, was initially earmarked for security but can now be used for administration. It will be an important issue in the upcoming crunch-time debates over what funding the legislature actually finds to address the growing courts crisis.

 
Read the full story here.
 

Doing The Math, Losers Take Note Of New Court Funding Scheme

An Associated Press story getting wide statewide play breaks down the newly proposed courts funding as “… a new formula for distributing more than $1 billion in state funding for California’s 58 trial courts that would take money from some court systems and give it to rural and fast-growing counties such as Riverside and San Bernardino.”
 
While that may be over simplification, it does illustrate that the state is about to pick winners and losers in courts funding, which could have some jurisdictions focusing on the new allotments instead of the big-picture courts funding. For example, San Bernardino has been the poster county for rationing justice, and it is among the “winners” in the new formula. Losers? Well, the AP says that “… Santa Clara County would be the biggest loser in the San Francisco Bay Area, absorbing more than $10 million in cuts in the next five years, the San Jose Mercury News reported.”
 
You can read the AP report, via The Fresno Bee, here.

Winners, Losers Likely As State Revises Court Funding

For the first time in nearly 20 years, the group that administers California’s courts is changing how cash is divided among 58 state trial courts, and there are winners and losers among individual counties. The Courthouse News is among those reporting on the changes, explaining in a detailed story that “.. the old funding model was frozen along historic lines, based on ratios established in 1994 that carried forward into 1997 legislation that centralized court funding and rule-making and started a big expansion of the central administrative office. After Friday’s vote, trial court funding will slowly begin taking into account the volume of cases handled by individual trial courts along with other factors.”
 
Among those likely to be losing significant funding: Orange County. Among those likely to be gaining funds, given the case-filing pattern of late, Los Angeles County. But many details must be considered and the Judicial Council more or less admits this is only being done because state lawmakers insisted on changes before even considering increased court funding.
 
Check out the excellent story here.

Worried About Costs, Imperial County Wants In On Court Cuts Discussions

The lack of public comment into the ongoing Los Angeles County Superior Court reorganization has been one ongoing complaint about the changes, and now the Imperial County Board of Supervisors is “demanding” to be in on discussions, according to the Inland Empire Press. Along with other worries, the supervisors argue that some cuts might save the courts money but end up costing the county additional money for transportation and other services.

Ray Castillo, chairman of the Imperial County supervisors was quoted in the report, pointing out that, “By slashing some cuts to the courts to the tune $500,000, we are looking at double that in cost (of) transporting inmates. So you save over here but … you gave the cost in this case to the county.”  The board directed staff to begin contacting appropriate agencies to make sure local officials are included in discussions.
 

Court funding: Politics large and small

Article from CCM’s Special Report – CIVIL COURTS: RATIONING JUSTICE IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY

A few weeks after a big downtown rally against Los Angeles Superior Court reorganization, a middle-aged man who had attended the protest walked into a Starbucks next to the Stanley Mosk Courthouse and ordered an elaborate latte concoction.

“It would be different,” he mused as they prepared the drink, “if the judges were elected.” 

He must have been thinking of federal court, because the Superior Court judges held up as out-of-touch 1 percenters at the protest ARE elected, albeit in the most unheralded races anyone might imagine. That near-total lack of political interest is a key reason that this “special report” is a long-form accounting of what amounts to simple political Darwinism.

[Read more…]

Looking for ‘literature,’ finding civic revolt

By Sara Warner, from CCM Special Report

It wasn’t supposed to be like this. After some time Back East, I was moving back to California where I’ve lived nearly all of the past 17 years. When talk turned to a courts website last year, our pretensions were mostly literary: we wanted www.californiacourtsmonitor.com to celebrate “the writing” about justice, like that you get from Associated Press Special Correspondent Linda Deutsch or maybe even less known voices like James Preston Allen, the publisher of San Pedro’s “Random LengthNews.” (Not, by the way, that Mr. Allen is likely to care all that much.)

It seemed logical enough. It was a good project that meshed nicely with my day job as development director for a non-profit legal foundation. Also, I grew up with the Law (capital “L” in our house). My grandfather was a famous lawyer and my grand uncle was a Federal Court judge. Who knew we would find a civil courts system in what amounts to full-on revolt?

 

 

IMG_0725

 

 

[Read more…]

CCM issues first ‘special print report’

Who says new media can’t be old school? Today, the California Courts Monitor is releasing a special report, on old-fashioned newsprint no less, in the Los Angeles area. Distributed free all over the city, the idea is to increase awareness of the ongoing civil courts crisis while also explaining a new focus online.
 
When we launched the CCM, we hoped to highlight great writing on the judicial process and celebrate the extended legal community. But what we’ve found is a true crisis in the civil court system, so we have decided to become the only site — that we know of, anyway — to consolidate coverage of those issues.
 
We’ll be posting parts of the special report here in the coming days and if you live in the Los Angeles area keep an eye out for the depression-era photo illustration. You’ll know it when you see it. — The Editors.
 
(Note: you can download a pdf of the complete Special Report here.)

Report: Services Slashed, Trials Delayed As Court Cutbacks Take Hold

You might think that domestic violence restraining orders would be same-day service by California courts. But you wold be wrong in at least 11 counties, according to the Trial Court Presiding Judges Committee. Plus, some 38 counties have reduced self-help services for litigants without lawyers, according to a report in The Los Angeles Times.
 
A story by Maura Dolan (maura.dolan@latimes.com) adds to the details stacking up as the state courts cutbacks take hold. She writes that “California courts, reeling from years of state budget cuts, are delaying hearings and trials, allowing records to sit unprocessed for months and slashing services at public windows, a judge’s committee has reported.”

The story offers some highlights: In San Francisco, paying a traffic ticket can now take up to four hours, and filing a lawsuit can consume nearly three hours, the report said. In Sacramento, window services have been slashed by more than 75%, prompting fights in lines, according to the committee. Getting a trial in a traffic matter in San Diego requires at least a five-month wait, the survey found, and court closures have forced some San Bernardino residents to drive up to 175 miles one way to attend to a legal matter. Record-filing has slowed across many counties and created backlogs, the report said.

Read the latest here.