(CN) – Insulted, dismissed, discarded. California’s judges have had a strong reaction to changes to a beloved program that assigns retired judges to help shorthanded courts throughout the state.
“I have spoken to well over 25 assigned judges, all of whom have just a uniform feeling of being insulted, dismissed, discarded, and very upset, not only by what was done, but by the process," says a retired judge from Northern California.
The changes have also thrown local courts into a state of panic as they scramble to figure out how they’re going to deal with sudden cuts to a vital program.
“We’re going into an unknown,” said Presiding Judge David Buckley of Los Angeles Superior Court. “We’re learning this process under the new rules as we go along.”
One thing Judge Buckley does know is that the program is critical to keeping courtrooms open.
For years, the temporary assigned judges program has filled the otherwise empty benches of California’s trial courts with substitute judges who step in to handle cases when a judge gets sick or takes a vacation. But a raft of cuts to the program initiated by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye have left courts in danger of having to close courtrooms for lack of judges to fill them.
“It sounds to me like there was a leak in the roof and she blew up the entire house,” said a retired judge who asked not to be identified for fear of retaliation.
The cuts were put in place earlier this year after Cantil-Sakauye ordered a review of the program. But the Judicial Council, the state court rule-making agency in charge of administering the program, is still working out the kinks.
Los Angeles Superior Court, the largest court in the nation, used 4,630 service days from the program last year. On any given day within the Los Angeles Superior Court system, there may be one or several judges in each of its 38 courthouses who are out sick or on vacation, or attending to some administrative business on behalf of the judicial branch.
Buckley said he’s worried the court won’t have enough temporary judges to meet demand. “We are constantly trying to find judges available and willing to sit on assignment. It’s never been our problem that too many judges are asking to sit on assignment with us,” he said. “I was concerned we would not have enough available assigned judges to fill our need.”
He added: “We are constantly using assigned judges for various types of absences beyond our control. We always talk about Los Angeles being 30 percent of the statewide system, but we use about 15 percent of the total of the assigned judges used in the state. We are very dependent on the program.”
Under the new rules, courts will have to share a pool of 33,000 days per fiscal year where they can use an assigned judge. Half of those days are allocated to the courts based on half of their average usage of the program during the past three years.
For example, Tulare County Superior Court, which used 1,058 days’ worth of assigned judges last year according to a document prepared by the Judicial Council, will now receive a base allocation of 502 days.
Nearby Madera County, which used just 119 days last year, will get a base of 27 days. This includes the 20 days each court will receive automatically as a “floor” allocation.
The other half are reserved for emergencies, or when courts have gone over their cap and have a “demonstrable need” for a temporary assigned judge.
A memo from Robert Oyung, the council staff’s chief operating officer to the courts, explains that courts must request use of these days. “The requests will be approved by the chief justice depending upon the specific circumstances at the court and available resources to fulfill the request.”