A second key event in the recent narrative is what is referred to by judges as the "midnight pay raises," a set of hefty, retroactive pay raises for the bureaucrats, approved by a Judicial Council subcommittee as the former governor and the former chief justice were on their way out of office at the end of last year.
The survey answer continued, "The incredibly politically tone-deaf decisions in the last year such as AOC raises (the fig leaf of calling them merit pay adjustments does not merit comment) and significant investments in CCMS while closing courthouses state-wide one day a month show an incredible lack of common sense."
As one of the many elements of information control, another judge diplomatically challenged the willingness of some bureaucrats to tell the truth.
"The prevalent AOC culture," said the trial judge, "appears to be to avoid candor when faced with a difficult question."
Indignities and Insults
The indignities visited upon the judges range from relatively minor ones to more fundamental insults.
Even though constitutionally empowered and elected trial judges have official identification, one survey answer noted, the judges must wait in line, empty their pockets and go through a metal detector to get into the headquarters building.
While the bureaucrats are waved through.
More fundamentally, a judge who wishes to speak at Judicial Council meetings in those same headquarters must submit a written statement and have it approved ahead of time, said one answer. Even after jumping through those hoops, the trial judges who speak have been cut off or called "clowns."
In reference to the impending retirement of the AOC's director, the judge said, "With regard to Bill Vickrey's replacement, I believe it would be disastrous for anyone associated with the present administration to be put in his place."
Although it has been eclipsed by the the bungled effort to take over the data system in the trial courts, a second big initiative by the administrators taking control of the physical buildings that house the courts throughout California also received a good blast of criticism.
In a caricature of government waste, one judge complains that "It did cost the branch $395 to change a light bulb in our trial court facilities."
That cost resulted from the inopportune maintenance contract negotiated by the civil servants in San Francisco who allowed a 300% mark up by the maintenance contractor with minimum labor increments of one hour.
IT Program
But, as has been the case in every survey out of a number conducted this year, the IT program comes in for some special words.
"CCMS, a perfect example of what is wrong with the AOC, has been expanded exponentially with inadequate planning, all of which has led to huge cost overruns," said one judge.
"Worse, when the size and scope of the financial catastrophe of CCMS became obvious to trial court judges and legislators alike, the Judicial Council's inexplicable reaction was to simply circle the wagons in support of the AOC's untenable positions and its (soon to be former) director."
The judge added, "By any business metric, CCMS has been and continues to be a debacle, in no small measure due to the lack of proper oversight and management of the AOC by the Judicial Council. At this date, who (outside of government) would ever accept a computer system with a platform design that is ten years old and will not be fully deployed until 2016?"
In one particularly scathing answer, a judge wrote, "What are the specific problems with the operation of the AOC? The difficulty with this question is where to start. Seriously. Read the State Auditor's report. A bureaucracy run amok, costs out of control, misleading (if not fraudulent) reports to coordinate branches of government. The damage done to the judiciary as a result of the Judicial Council's failure to oversee the AOC's CCMS project is simply incalculable."
The judge also blamed the severe financial difficulty of the California courts, now trying to find a way to cut $350 million from their budget, squarely on the information services division of the administrative office, saying the division "still does not understand that it is largely responsible for this fiasco and public relations and budget nightmare."
"Instead of building the best system possible, the IS Division has attempted to bully trial courts into accepting an inferior product. It is also indefensible that trial courts, particularly those with sophisticated IT staffs, are locked out of all CCMS discussions."
Another judge wrote that the failure of the project had caused him to doubt the competence of the administrators.
"My perception is that CCMS has not worked, has been extraordinarily costly and may never be finished. With all the negative publicity from the CCMS audit, the reputation of the judicial branch has been significantly tarnished in my opinion, and funds that could have been put to better use were wasted. CCMS has caused me to distrust the basic competence of those at `headquarters.'"
Solutions
While one judge said he would not presume to give advice to the chief, the large majority of those answering the survey questions had plenty of suggestions for improvement on the way the courts in California are now run. Their central theme was to cut the power and size of the bureaucracy, put some democracy into the selection process for the Judicial Council, and give the trial judges more control of their courts.
"I would like to see more local control back, and the AOC mega monster reduced in size and budget," one judge offered tersely.
Another recommended the AOC's three regional offices be closed and the staff positions connected with them be cut.
"Then cut the staff size of the AOC in San Francisco by 25%. This would still leave about 825 AOC staffers to serve about 1,700 active judges and justices in the state- a ratio of almost one AOC staff persons for every two judges. That should be more than sufficient for a support organization," the judge said.
The trial judge also advocated sweeping changes within the Judicial Council. "Ask for all incumbent members to resign. Democratize the selection process by allowing trial judges to elect some members to the Council from the trial court bench (appellate justices as well )."
Referring to the chief justice's stated intent to conduct a top to bottom review of the administrative office, another Orange County judge said it would be disastrous to replace the outgoing director with anyone tied to the group now in control of the office.
"Nothing would more seriously undermine her stated intent to honestly conduct a top to bottom review of the AOC, its mission and priorities," said the judge.
"I believe if it is actually done, it will be found that much of the AOC agenda is unrelated to the core function of the AOC, which is to serve the courts. New management needs to emphasize to AOC staff that they serve the courts, they do not operate or run the courts."
Follow @MariaDinzeo
Categories / Uncategorized
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.