court rationing

Superior Courts, And Facilities, Ranked On Yelp? Yep

December 30, 2013 By CCM Staff

If it’s good enough for restaurants and car repairs, it’s good enough for the justice system. The consumer-review site Yelp! is becoming a place to review courts and the facilities that house them. As you might suspect, any survey involves people venting a bit about long lines and less-than-perfect outcomes, but some courts get (perhaps) surprisingly high ratings and some of the insights would be helpful to those about to visit the courts – like that some courthouses are less busy on Thursday, or when specific traffic court workers are out for lunch.

An example of relatively glowing reviews is the Los Angeles County Superior Court at Chatsworth in the northwestern San Fernando Valley. With more than two dozen reviews it achieves a three-of-five star rating. Those panning the facility echoed problems from across the system: long lines. A typical complaint from Chatsworth, was “… I tried for several hours yesterday afternoon — and for another half hour this morning — to simply reserve a court date. All total, that process took approximately three hours.”

But they love their free parking! You can find specific courts by searching Yelp, and the Chatsworth comments are here.

Filed Under: Community, Courts Budget Tagged With: california court cuts, consumer reviews, court rationing, Justice Rationing, Yelp

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.”

Read the story here.

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

Judicial Pay Hike Continues To Make News

December 9, 2013 By CCM Staff

That pay increase for California judges continues to make headlines, especially since the hike will be retroactive back to July 1 and none of the increase was discussed amid decisions to eliminate courthouse jobs. But the raises are virtually mandated by state law, which ties judicial pay increases to the average pay increase received by other state employees.

That same law means the judges could be in line for a 4.5 percent pay increase by the middle of 2015, even if none of the eliminated court jobs are ever reinstated. Even with the state law and the fact that judges have not gotten a pay raise since 2007. Superior Court judges earn $178,789 per yea, and that’s going to $181,292. Justices on the appeals court will get bumped to $207,463, up from $204,599.

The pay increase will also have a cascading effect in San Diego and several other counties, where the pay for members of the county Board of Supervisors is tied to the pay of judges.

There’s a good story about the raises, and ties to county supervisor pay, at the U-T San Diego website here.

Filed Under: Community, Courts Budget Tagged With: california court cuts, california courts, California Superior Court, court rationing, justice denied, pay cuts, pay increases, SEIU

Civil Courts Not Even On 2014 Political Radar

December 2, 2013 By CCM Staff

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.

Filed Under: Community, Courts Budget Tagged With: 2014 election, bank bailout, California Budget, California Corrections, california court cuts, court rationing, George W. Bush, Gov. Jerry Brown, politics, TARP

Heads Up: New Court Committees Target Budget, Access

November 20, 2013 By CCM Staff

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.

Filed Under: Community, Courts Budget Tagged With: Administrative Office of the Courts, California, California Budget, California Court budget, california court cuts, california courts, civil court, court rationing, Judges

Judicial Council ‘Open Meetings’ Plan Draws Complaints

November 19, 2013 By CCM Staff

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.

Filed Under: Community, Courts Budget Tagged With: accountability, California Budget, california court cuts, court rationing, Judges, judicial council, oversight, transparency