San Francisco—The Judicial Council of California will hold a public business meeting on a wide range of issues affecting state court administration from 8:30 a.m. to 1:55 p.m. on Friday, October 28, 2011, in the Hiram Johnson State Office Building, Judicial Council Conference Center, Third Floor, 455 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco.
An educational session on the California Court Case Management System (CCMS) will also be held from 1:45 p.m. to 5 p.m. on Thursday, October 27, 2011, at the same location. The chairs of the CCMS Executive Committee and the CCMS Internal Committee will review options for moving forward with CCMS within current budget constraints. These meetings are now open to the public.
Chaired by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, the council is the administrative policymaking body of the California courts. The meetings will be audiocast live on the California Courts website at http://www.courts.ca.gov/policyadmin-jc.htm. The meeting agenda and reports are now available at www.courts.ca.gov/15708.htm.
As the first order of business, Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye will administer the oath of office to seven new Judicial Council members: Ms. Angela J. Davis, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice; Judge David F. De Alba, Superior Court of Sacramento County; Presiding Judge David Rosenberg, Superior Court of Yolo County; Judge David M. Rubin, Superior Court of San Diego County; Mr. Mark P. Robinson, Jr., attorney, Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis, Inc.; Mr. David H. Yamasaki, Court Executive Officer, Superior Court of Santa Clara County; and Judge Teri L. Jackson, Superior Court of San Francisco County.
Discussion and Consent Agendas
The consent agenda contains more than 30 reports, many proposing new and amended rules and forms required by state law. A summary of the discussion agenda follows:
Distinguished Service Awards: The chairs of three Judicial Council internal committees recommend that the council approve the winners of the four annual Distinguished Service Awards for significant and positive contributions to court administration in California.
Parliamentary Procedures: A Judicial Council working group recommends that the council adopt parliamentary procedures effective immediately. The procedures would provide guidance to the council about the conduct of council meetings and voting requirements on council matters.
Trial Court Audit Reports: The Advisory Committee on Financial Accountability and Efficiency for the Judicial Branch (A&E) recommends that the Judicial Council accept the audit report for the Superior Court of San Joaquin County. The audit report is recommended for the discussion agenda because there are a number of internal control deficiencies that the committee believes should be discussed. While the court has indicated that it understands the importance of addressing those deficiencies, it indicates that it has a “significant lack of financial resources” that impacts it in doing so. Three other audit reports for the Superior Courts of Alpine, El Dorado, and Napa Counties will be recommended for approval on the council's consent agenda.
Court Technology: The chairs of the CCMS Executive Committee and the CCMS Internal Committee will recommend that the council approve deployment of CCMS to at least two early adopter courts, with the council setting the direction for the current fiscal year within current budget constraints. The chairs will also make a presentation at an open educational meeting on October 27.
Special Funds Allocations: This report contains recommendations from the Trial Court Budget Working Group (TCBWG) about requests to rollover $7.610 million in unused allocations from prior years to fiscal year FY 2011–2012 from the Trial Court Improvement Fund, the Judicial Administration Efficiency and Modernization Fund, and the Trial Court Trust Fund. The TCBWG recommends rollover funding of $5.759 million for the Domestic Violence Order After Hearing project, Reserve for Workers’ Compensation Tail Claims, and the Phoenix Financial and Human Resources Services program.
Criteria for Supplemental Trial Court Funding: The council will consider recommendations from the AOC and a representative group of trial court presiding judges and court executive officers on the process and criteria for supplemental funding for trial courts. At its educational meeting last August, the council asked AOC staff, in consultation with the trial courts, to review the current process and criteria and report back to the council at its October 28, business meeting.
Campaign for Justice Month: The State Bar Board of Governors has recognized October 2011 as Campaign for Justice Month and the last week in October as National Pro Bono Week, to increase both pro bono and financial contributions to legal services agencies. On October 3, 2011, the Judicial Council's Executive and Planning Committee took action on behalf of the council to adopt a resolution recognizing Campaign for Justice Month and National Pro Bono Week to continue the council’s efforts to support increased attorney representation and to show appreciation for the valuable pro bono contributions made by lawyers throughout the state. (Information only; no action required.)
National Technology Award: The National Association of State Chief Information Officers (NASCIO) selected the California Courts Protective Order Registry (CCPOR) as one of two finalists for its 2011 NASCIO award for Data, Information and Knowledge Management. The CCPOR creates a statewide repository for restraining and protective orders, containing both data and scanned images of orders that can be easily accessed by judges, court staff, and law enforcement officers. It helps protect both victims of domestic violence as well as law enforcement personnel. (Information only; no action required.)
Reduction in Clerks' Office Hours: The 2010 Judiciary Budget Trailer Bill, Senate Bill 857, added a new section 68106 to the Government Code that directs (1) trial courts to notify the public and the Judicial Council before closing courtrooms or clerks’ offices or reducing clerks’ office hours on days that are not judicial holidays, and (2) the council to post on its website and relay to the Legislature all such court notices. This is the seventh report providing information about the implementation of these notice requirements. Since the sixth report, eleven courts—San Mateo, Mendocino, Merced, Humboldt, Nevada, Lake, Placer, Ventura, Kings, Fresno, and Yolo—have given such notice. Since the effective date of section 68106, October 19, 2010, a total of 19 courts have given notice. (Information only; no action required.)