Budget Analysis Continues

Gov. Brown’s “May revision” budget continues to draw attention and analysis, and the Sacramento Business Journal has a good take on how the spending plan pushes court finding issues past November’s election cycle. The BizJournal reports that “… the proposed budget revise points to a new workload-based funding model to allocate money where most needed. The document also expresses support for a two-year strategy to court stabilization that takes time to evaluate and modernize court operations.”

Then it adds: Yet “the administration has been clear that state-funded entities should not expect restorations of reductions — moving forward, government has to be done differently,” the section of the budget summary on the judicial branch reads. That is likely to disappoint labor leaders who hoped some of the nearly 4,000 jobs eliminated over the past years might be reclaimed. Read the BizJournal story here:

California’s trial courts get more money in state budget, but not enough to maintain status quo – Sacramento Business Journal

Brown Budget Targets Employee Pensions

Court-community reviews of Gov. Brown’s new budget are mixed, with state Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye terming it “encouraging” in a statement but labor advocates worried about plans to increase court employees contributions to their pensions. Meanwhile, along with a $60 million increase from his previous plans, Gov. Brown is framing the budget as a two-year process, meaning some real decisions might come after his Nov. re-election bid.
CCM staff photo

CCM staff photo

 
Discussions are no doubt being held to figure out what the next four weeks will bring. But the Contra Costa Times is among those noting lawmaker support for more courts funding, reporting that “… the chief justice had backing from state legislators, who recently proposed restoring more than $200 million in court funding in the upcoming budget year. Assemblyman Bob Wieckowski, D-Fremont, and the judiciary committee chairman, said Brown’s courts budget is still ‘far short’ of the hundreds of millions of dollars it needs to handle its caseloads and keep courthouses open and running.”
 
Missing from the discussion so far: re-opening any of the closed courts or re-hiring any of the nearly 4,000 court workrs laid off over the past few years.
 

Real Budget Debate Begins Today

Months of polite positioning ended today with the latest draft of Gov. Brown’s budget, with Republicans perhaps surprisingly welcoming of his spending plan while Democrats worried about lack of funds for things like social programs, education and courts. While most of the headline coverage focused on the state’s “rainy day fund” and debt payments, deeper coverage outlined the coming battle including a cautious outlook on judicial branch money.
 
CA State Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) supports increased funds for courts.

CA State Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) supports increased funds for courts.

Comments of note: Senate Budget Committee Chairman Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), says The Los Angeles Times, “… signaled the majority party will want to spend more on programs that were cut in the past.” The paper quoted the senator including courts in his consideration: “It is time to consider thoughtful and careful reinvestment in areas such as the courts, education, healthcare, mental health, early childhood education and infrastructure that will have an immediate, positive impact on the entire state.” 
 
The Times also noted that California Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye said the governor’s budget was “encouraging because it identifies additional funding and recognizes the need for fiscal stability with a creative proposal for a two-year budgeting formula for the trial courts.” She added the very cautious: “I look forward to working with the Governor and the Legislature before the adoption of the Budget Act to ensure that all Californians have access to justice.”
 
Here’s a good reaction story from the Times:

Court Funding Gets S.D. ABC Report

The San Diego ABC News affiliate is offering some “overview” coverage of the state’s civil courts funding crisis. The story offers nothing new, but is a recent example of more mainstream press starting to notice the “five-year” crisis in justice funding. The reporters offer the insight that “Gov. Jerry Brown is trying to solve the problem” – they cite no source, but certainly plenty of justice advocates would question the governor’s motives.
 
The usual territory is covered: Gov. Brown’s proposed a $105 million budget increase for 14/15 and the station asks:  But is it enough to help the judicial system bounce back? We also get what has become the most-quoted talking point from California Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye, “We are rationing justice, and it’s become more than a fiscal problem… it is in my view not a civil rights problem.”
 
Also cites is the failed statewide computer system, with the ABC report saying that “… eyebrows were raised over the $1.2 billion that was spent on a computer system overhaul — a computer system that never worked.” You can read more between the lines here: Budget woes: Can California’s judicial system recover from a five-year crisis?

Gov. May ‘Remake’ State Supreme Court

 
You can add “new supreme court” to the issues for Gov. Jerry Brown’s re-election bid. The Los Angeles Times is taking notice that three of the high court’s seven justices are in their 70s and the governor is already making a second appointment to the bench. He is replacing Justice Joyce L. Kennard – considered a “moderate” by modern court standards.
Photo: gov.ca.gov.com

Photo: gov.ca.gov.co

 
The Times reports that “… he court, one of the nation’s most influential, has no Latino or African American, or anyone from Southern California. Brown faces political pressure to change that. Judges and lawyers are betting Brown will pick a Latino. Some analysts said they would not be surprised if he elevated San Francisco appeals court Justice James Humes, an openly gay lawyer who served Brown in the governor’s office and when he was attorney general.”
 
Of course, adds another longtime observer of both the court and the governor notes, Brown adds the wild card of “doing whatever he feels like doing.” It will be interesting if any of the potential candidates dare to make courts funding an issue in taking the job. Read the Times story here.

Court Budget Hike Tied To Pension, Other Changes

 
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.”
 

Democrat Budget Blueprint Ignores Court Crisis

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.

Gov. names 8 New L.A. Superior Court Judges

Gov. Brown has named eight new Los Angeles County Superior Court judges among 18 judicial choices statewide, the governor’s office announced. In L.A. County, the new judges are Deborah S. Brazil, Carl H. Moor, Connie R. Quinones, Armen Tamzarian, Sergio C. Tapia, Lee W. Tsao, Frank M. Tavelman and Joel Wallenstein.
 
Superior Court judgeships pay $181,292 in California. For bios on the L.A. choices, check out The Courthouse News 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.

Debate Continues On Civil Jury Access, Reductions

 
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