State Chamber President Backs Court Funding

Allan Zaremberg is president and CEO of the California Chamber of Commerce. Photo from Sacramento Bee report of 5/22/14.

Allan Zaremberg is president and CEO of the California Chamber of Commerce. Photo from Sacramento Bee report of 5/22/14.

The president and CEO of the California Chamber of Commerce has added a business voice to the call for a fully funded court system, calling courts “vital” to the state’s economy and a key part of innovation and job creation. In an opinion piece published in The Sacramento Bee, Allan Zaremberg first notes the funding needs in education and health care then adds “… not so obvious, however, is an appropriate level of funding for California’s courts, a cornerstone of our constitution and democracy.”

The support is, of course, part of gathering pro-court voices in advance of the June 15 California budget deadline. Along with setting out key talking points, it also reminds lawmakers that business interests have a stake in how courts function. Read the comments here.

Vets Already A ‘Political Football’

How odd is it that a national Veterans Administration scandal is unfolding just as the nation observes Memorial Day? Reports of false documentation, delayed treatment and even deaths brought an address from President Obama last week, including his promise that anyone responsible will be “punished.” The president also expressed the hope that the scandal does not become “another political football.”

AP photo as part of the report from Journal Sentinel on 3/24/14

AP photo as part of the report from Journal Sentinel on 3/24/14

But of course, it will and we should note that in the world of asbestos damage claims, veterans have always been part of the debate. Because the military used so much asbestos decades ago, many vets are getting mesothelioma today. The most recent high-profile example of how that plays out came as Wisconsin passed reforms on asbestos-focused bankruptcy trusts.

Victims’ attorneys argued that increased transparency was unfair to veterans and would make gaining compensation more difficult. And several veterans groups lobbied against the measure. But the AMVETS group countered that bogus claims could deplete the trusts and thus reduce payouts. The “tort reform” advocates say that opposing vets eventually dropped their opposition, but that was only after the governor assured them he was going to sign the legislation, according to the Journal Sentinel newspaper.

You can follow the vets-as-political-football here.

 

 

Homeowners Silenced Over Mortgage Complaints

It seems that any frustration over mortgage disputes has an added twist: Shut up about the problem. Reuters is reporting that “… mortgage payment collectors at companies including Ocwen, Bank of America Corp and PNC Financial Services Group are agreeing to ease the terms of borrowers’ underwater mortgages, but they are increasingly demanding that homeowners promise not to insult them publicly, consumer lawyers say. In many cases, they are demanding that homeowners’ lawyers agree to the same terms. Sometimes, they even require borrowers to agree not to sue them again.”
 
Reuters says that lawyers make this point: if a collector, known as a servicer, makes an error, getting everything fixed can be a nightmare without litigation or public outcry. The news service also notes cites a 2013 report by the National Consumer Law Center that “… found that servicers routinely lost borrowers’ paperwork, inaccurately input information, failed to send important letters to the correct address—or sometimes just didn’t send them at all.”
 
Consumer advocates are outraged; law enforcement is starting investigations. Read about it here:

More Courts Charging Fees For Online Records

 
More California courts are joining Los Angeles in charging people to look at civil court records online, raising concerns among some public access groups and others. Starting April 23, Alameda County Superior Court charges $1 for each of the first five pages of a civil court record downloaded online, with the cost dropping to 50 per page after that and capped at $40 total.
 
Los Angeles Superior Court fees start $4.75 for each record searched. Teresa Ruano, spokeswoman for the state’s Administrative Office of the Courts, says that “… there’s a budget crisis in the courts. Revenue is part of the solution, a small part of the solution.”
 

You can read the AP story in the Greenfield Reporter here.  

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?

‘Alliance’ Judges Continue Court Critique

 
The Alliance of California Judges, a group that offered a statewide voice to critics of how the courts are being operated, is continuing its critique. As the annual state budget season shifts into high gear, and with the state chief justice saying that funding has become a civil rights issue, the Alliance asserts that the very system of funding is flawed.
 
“Former Chief Justice Ronald George’s vision of a unified judicial branch — directed by a central bureaucracy, bound together by a massive computer network, housed in dozens of gleaming new courthouses, acting in unison with the Chief Justice at its head — has proven to be a mirage,” writes Maryanne Gilliard, a Superior Court Judge in Sacramento who has been active in the Alliance for years. In 2011, the Sacramento CBS TV news affiliate called her a “whistleblower” in connection with the failed attempt to consolidate the state’s court computers (see coverage here).
 
Writing in The Courthouse News, Judge Gilliard uses Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye’s own words in support of her point, in particular noting that the centralized vision has not led to stable funding and that the “CCMS” computer system’s $500 million is “the most prominent example” of poor oversight.
 
It’s the latest salvo showing that the Alliance remains active. Read it here

MetNews Continues Judicial Election Profiles

 
The Metropolitan News-Enterprise is continuing its 2014 Los Angeles Superior Court judicial election coverage with interesting profiles in one of the year’s more interesting races: Charles M. Calderon vs. Carol Rose. He is a former state lawmaker who served as a majority leader in both the state Senate and Assembly and she has not sought public office before.
 
Calderon belongs to one of the state’s political families, but his brothers – state Sen. Ronald S. Calderon and former Assemblyman Tom Calderon – are under indictment on corruption charges. In the odd judicial elections, a key is the three-word “occupation” description and Rose, a deputy district attorney, is running as “Child Molestation Prosecutor.” Calderon is running as “Retired Lawmaker Assemblyman.”
 
The MetNews even makes sense of how the ongoing controversy might sway how important “slate” coalitions are formed. The election is June 3 and you can see the excellent MetNews coverage here.

Dems Endorse For LASC Judgeships

LACDP_Seal_FB-290x160

Image from www.lacdp.org

The Los Angeles County Democratic Party has named its endorsement for the 2014 L.A. Superior Court judicial elections while declining to endorse anyone in four of the ten races. The endorsements are included on the party’s website along with other state and local picks.

Endorsement included:  

Office 22 – Pamala F. Matsumoto
Office 48 – No Consensus
Office 54 – Debra L. Losnick
Office 61 – Jacqueline H. Lewis
Office 76 – Helen Kim
Office 87 – Andrew M. Stein
Office 97 – No Consensus
Office 107 – Emma Castro
Office 113 – No Consensus
Office 138 – No Endorsement

See more at: http://www.lacdp.org/endorsements/#sthash.cu7DLRPn.dpuf

Kansas Latest To Tie Cash To Judicial ‘Reform’

 
Kansas, like California, is following the national trend to tie state judicial reform to funding, leading the Wichita Eagle to editorialize against the changes as eroding court independence. The newspaper writes that “Kansas Supreme Court Chief Justice Lawton R. Nuss warned this was coming, objecting in an Eagle commentary last month to ‘the diffusion of the unified court system’s centralized authority in exchange for money to keep courts open.’ 
 
The funding-linked legislation, pending a decision by Gov. Sam Brownback, would allow the chief judge of each of the state’s 31 judicial districts to submit and control his own budget. The Eagle fears that “… the new legislation also allows judges to select the chief judge for their own district court, further eroding the Supreme Court’s authority.” 
 
You can read a detailed argument on the Kansas argument here.

$70m Shortfall Is Budget Cred Issue

 
There’s another issue surfacing in the upcoming knock-down, drag-out fight over the 2014-15 California courts budget, and it likely works against increased judicial brand funding. The discussion involves an Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) estimate that filing fees and other sources would bring $1.3 billion million into the courts – but now those estimates are though to be short $70 million.
 
The Courthouse News reports that “… much of that shortfall was due to a long-term decline in filing revenue which the administrators said they were well aware of.” That, in turn, has sparked a debate over the AOC’s budget credibility as court officials lobby for something like $300 million of increased funding in the next state budget.
 
You can read Maria Dinzeo’s well-detailed account here.