LAO Calls for More Centralized Court Budgeting Authority

The state Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) entered the year-long battle between the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) and dissident local judges last week (September 28) with the issuance of  its report on "Completing the Goals of Trial Court Realignment."

The report addresses the issue of how well trial court consolidation enacted by the Legislature in the mid-1990's (see AB 233, Escutia and Pringle, Chapter 850, Statutes of 1997 - known and cited by its terms as the "Lockyer–Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act of 1997") has worked, and concludes that significant problems remain, beginning with a balkanized system of determining pay, benefits and working conditions for court employees, and "inadequate state oversight over trial court performance." The report includes several recommendations to address these concerns, most involving expanding the authority of the AOC.

Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye and
Assemblymember Charles Calderon

The report was immediately condemned by the Alliance of California Judges, which is sponsoring legislation (AB 1208) by Assembly Majority Leader Charles Calderon to do exactly the opposite - i.e., to remove funding authority from the AOC and Judicial Council, and vest it instead in each of the 58 local courts. The Metropolitan News-Enterprise reported that Calderon and the alliance were highly critical of the  LAO’s recommendations, and particularly the report’s failure to mention the controversy over the AOC’s oversight of the CCMS state-wide case management system, which Calderon called a “debacle” (though as Sacramento Bee columnist Dan Walters noted in his column of October 2, 2011, "the report did confirm one of the ACJ's most common complaints – that the has grown exponentially since realignment began, from a budget of $77 million and 244 employees in 1997 to $362 million and 960 staffers now."

The California Judges Association (CJA) issued even a more firmly worded objection to the LAO report, saying it was "opposed to this complete centralization and encroachment upon the constitutional authority of local trial courts."  CJA said that the report "reflects a fundamental failure to understand and acknowledge that our democracy is based upon the existence of three co-equal and separate branches of government. The judicial branch is not merely a state department under the direction of the executive or legislative branch, nor can it be centralized in the same ways as other branches of government."

The AOC and Supreme Court, on the other hand, have elected to downplay the report.  Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye issued a statement saying that while the report had "appropriately engendered much discussion within the branch," the courts have more immediate and important concerns at the moment, in the form of the court funding crisis. "By necessity, the Judicial Council has been laser focused on budget matters," the Chief Justice said. "Ensuring public access to courts by restoring the judicial branch budget remains our main concern at this time and for the foreseeable future.”

Notwithstanding the Chief Justice's efforts to minimize the issues raised by the LAO report, however, the matter almost certainly will take center stage in January, 2012, when AB 1208 faces a constitutional deadline to either be approved by the Assembly or die by operation of law.

AB 1208 On Shelf Until January

AB 1208, Assembly Majority Leader Charles Calderon's controversial bill to strip the Judicial Council of virtually all its authority over trial court funding and vest it instead with the local courts, was not one of the bills approved by the Assembly prior to last Friday's (June 3) deadline for bills to clear their house of origin.  The bill thus becomes a "two-year bill," ineligible for further consideration (absent some "they just won't happen" rule waivers requiring a 2/3 vote of the house) until next January (2012).
 

In one sense, the "parking" of AB 1208 should not have come as a surprise.  After all, Assemblymember Calderon had stated several months back that he proposed to do just that - park the bill on the Assembly Floor as a two-year bill - to give the warring judges, Judicial Council and various lawyer groups time to work things out.

On the other hand, pretty much nothing else about the bill had gone as most legislative court-watchers expected.  Many folks fully expected Assemblymember Calderon to at least push the bill out of the Assembly and over to the Senate, where it could still potentially move forward during the current year (at least until mid-July) without running up against a deadline, thereby keeping up the pressure to negotiate.  Moving the bill to the Senate would also eliminate the potential problem of running into a potential deadline issue next January, when all two-year bills have to clear their house of origin by the end of the month.

With all the strategic reasons seeming to line up in favor of at least moving AB 1208 to the Senate - and after all the effort and alleged intrigue involved in having the bill substantially amended in Appropriations Committee and bringing it to the Floor over the outraged cries of the bill's opponents (see earlier post), it was a big surprise to many that absolutely nothing happened as the week drew to a close. Calderon simply passed whenever an opportunity came to vote on the bill, until eventually the opportunities were gone and the bill still remained on file - where it now will stay until it is moved to the Inactive File, there to remain until next January.

So why wasn't the bill brought up? Opponents of AB 1208 say that the author didn't have the 41 votes needed to get the bill to the Senate. The author disputes that contention, however, and given the numerical dominance of Southern California (and particularly LA) lawmakers in the Assembly, it's a very close call at least. More likely, the inter-party dispute that was taking place at the time between Assembly Republicans and Democrats over the former's right (or lack thereof) to caucus (see earlier post) added enough uncertainty to the issue to make delaying the vote on AB 1208 the wisest choice, since Republican votes clearly were needed to move the bill forward.


Whatever the case, even though AB 1208 itself is off the radar screen for the time being, the issues brought to the forefront by the bill remain, and will continue to percolate during the ongoing budget debate and beyond.

AB 1208 Clears Appropriations Committee; Floor Fight Likely?

The Assembly Appropriations Committee was also kind to Assembly Majority Leader Charles Calderon's controversial court funding bill, AB 1208, on Friday, sending the bill to the Assembly Floor on a solid 14-1 vote and setting up what appears likely to be a very interesting floor battle on the bill this week.

The committee's vote came over over strong opposition from the Judicial Council, Commission on Access to Justice, Consumer Attorneys of California, California Defense Counsel, and others (see arguments pro and con in Assembly Floor analysis) - as well as over outraged allegations that the most recent amendments to the bill were inconsistent with the agreement that permitted the bill to be approved by the Assembly Judiciary Committee (see earlier post). The vote isn't really surprising, however, given the composition of the committee; not only is Assm. Calderon a member of the committee, but there is essentially no commonality with the membership of the Judiciary Committee (the only common member is Orange County Republican Don Wagner) and the Appropriations Committee membership is made up largely of lawmakers from Los Angeles (whose court strongly supports AB 1208) and Orange County.

The question is what happens next with the bill. Earlier in the year, Assm. Calderon suggested that he would be willing to move AB 1208 to the Assembly Floor and park it there until 2012, while the judges/courts supporting the bill and the measure's opponents (beginning with Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye) tried to work out their differences. At this point, however, it seems more likely that Assm. Calderon will seek to move the bill to the Senate, leaving open the possibility (or threat, depending on one's viewpoint) that it could be enacted this year if accommodation of some sort is not reached.

We'll know the answer to that question by this coming Friday (June 3), the legislative deadline for bills introduced in the current year to pass their house of origin.