Court Reform Bill Has Hard Road in Senate

AB 1208 has two main components.

One says that 100% of the money budgeted for trial courts budgeted by the Legislature should in fact go to the trial courts. That provision is largely in response to frequent draws from the trial court trust fund to pay for projects pushed by the bureaucracy.

A second and related provision would sharply limit the power of the bureaucracy to take on big projects like the IT system, by requiring a 2/3 vote from local court representatives in order to authorize such projects, with voting strength proportionate to the size of the court.

It is that second component that is the focus of much of the campaign against the bill.

Last month, Judge David Rosenberg of Yolo County circulated a letter opposing AB 1208 last month and obtained signatures from roughly 2/3 of the state's presiding judges, those judges who have administrative power over their courts for a two-year stint.

"How is that democratic?" Rosenberg argued from Yolo County. "You're going to have the tail wagging the dog. Ceding control to the courts in 2 or 3 counties with the largest populations is anathema to local control."

Smaller counties have come to rely on the central administrators for their funds and support services, such as legal defense when a court's procedures are challenged. But there is no simple rule explaining the positions taken among the 58 county courts in California.

Presiding judges from two big courts, San Diego and Riverside, signed Rosenberg's letter opposing AB 1208 while two even bigger courts, Orange and Los Angeles, did not.

A large number of presiding judges from smaller court signed the petition, but the presiding judge in Kern County did not, and judges from Kern have been strong critics of spending decisions and political maneuvering by the central bureaucrats.

The criticism is fueled in part by Auditor Elaine Howle's report last year where she found the Administrative Office of the Courts concluded that costs for the often-maligned IT project were out of control. She also found that the administrators had inaccurately estimated those costs to legislators.

"The AOC representing the Judicial Council has already been caught fudging on the truth by the auditor general and that's putting it nicely," said Calderon. "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me."

Opponents of the bill point to the reform committees established by the Judicial Council and the chief justice. But the head of the committee set up to reform the bureaucracy quit last month to represent legislative leaders in a challenge to the state Controller who cut the legislators' pay last year when they did not balance the state budget.

"Every time an issue comes up they form a committee," said Calderon. "Committees are worth their weight in committees. It is results that count. No reforms have been implemented. There's been no restructuring, no one's been fired. I don't see any deeds worth noting."

Calderon said he met with the chief justice, who along with AOC lobbyists has visited lawmakers and traditional news media to campaign against the bill.

"She should have stayed above it all," Calderon said, adding that he urged the chief to make drastic changes to differentiate herself from her predecessor Ronald George. "I told her she should have done something demonstrably different to show she's not part of the same system. But all she wanted me to do was drop the bill. She'd say, 'drop the bill and then we'll talk.'"

The jockeying over the bill is tied to both substance and pride, he added.

"I think the Pro Tem is trying to do a favor to some degree for the Chief Justice so that it's not going to look like such a big defeat for her. But he's going to deal with it on the merits," Calderon said, adding, "I kind of like it in the rules committee because it gives the Pro Tem more control over where it's going to go. If there's one consistency about the Pro Tem it's that he's fair-minded and even handed."

A joke made by Calderon before the Assembly vote on AB 1208 was seen by some insiders as a gaffe that would cost him dearly. "If it were up to me, I'd eliminate the Senate altogether," he'd said in a quip to a legislative opponent of the bill.

"Not that I took any notice of that," Senate leader Steinberg told reporters two days later.

Calderon said his joke and Steinberg's response were normal political banter. "To be sure the Pro Tem is giving me a jab back because I made the quip about the Senate," Calderon said. "It's a healthy two-house rivalry that's existed since I've been in the Assembly. We're always making fun of each other."

Follow @MariaDinzeo

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Email *

Submit