Strategic Evaluation Committee Survey Regarding the Structure and Operations of the Administrative Office of the Courts
To all judicial officers other than presiding jurists.
The presiding judges and court executive officers of the 58 Superior Courts in California, the administrative presiding justices and clerk/administrators of the six districts of the Courts of Appeal, and the clerk/administrator of the Supreme Court, have received the following survey regarding the organizational structure and methods of operation of the Administrative Office of the Courts.
In addition to obtaining their input, the Strategic Evaluation Committee invites you to provide the committee with your views on how the AOC affects you in your work. Please recount only your personal experiences and views. The more detailed your answers are, with specific explanations and examples where appropriate, the more helpful your input will be.
______
Any effort to provide your committee with thoughtful and informed recommendations requires, at a minimum, a complete understanding and evaluation of the number of employees, consultants, advisors, independent contractors and otherswho derive their income providing services through the AOC. Once that information is understood, an appropriate cost benefit analysis of the functions of the AOC,and their importance to the administration of justice in light of the budgetary situation, can be performed. Only when it is understood what services are critical can one evaluate what staff size is required to perform those tasks deemed necessary.
Although I have sought information for over a month about the true number of AOC employees, consultants, advisors, independent contractors and others who derive their income providing services through the AOC, AOC staff, at the highest levels, have failed to supply the requested information. Below as Attachment 1 is the e-mail string which supports their failure to provide me the documentation I requested. It was made clear from the very beginning that I sought this information for inclusion in my recommendations to your committee and the deadline of August 9, 2011, was made clear. I suppose it is not surprising that the bureaucracy that risks careful analysis of itself is reluctant or unwilling to provide documentation which might demonstrate much of its staff is not necessary to provide core administrative services to the judiciary.
Our courts are facing a crisis. The SEC must assume its charge by recognizing the crisis. The survey sent out by the SEC asks judges to describe the services their courts receive from the AOC and evaluate how effective those services are. The survey also asks what requirements and burdens are placed on them by the AOC. While the SEC is to be complimented for broadly seeking input, it is unfortunate that no questions are asked about how effective they feel the branch’s governance structure is as a whole. In a sense the entire survey is a so-called “push” survey, in that it assumes that a centralized AOC should continue to exist and “provide services” and impose requirements on local courts in the current fashion.
While attempts to improve “customer service” are laudable, incrementally improving the operations of an out of control central bureaucracy will not solve the governance or financial problems of the judiciary. The essential problem of branch governance is not that the AOC is not efficient or user friendly. The essential problem of branch governance is the very existence of the AOC as structured; the existence of a large centralized bureaucracy with the power to manage local courts ensures that the desires and funding needs of the central power will always take precedence over those of local courts.
A few areas of obvious and potential significant waste within the AOC are:
1.The top 30 executives of the AOC do not pay anything out of their salaries for a retirement benefit that is very generous by any standard, public or private. The taxpayer, through the AOC, contributes 22.5% on top of the court executive's salary. This unjustifiable and unwarranted “gift” to employees making salaries approaching and exceeding $200,000 per year should cease immediately.
2.The Education Division/CJER serves as the council’s education resource for the judicial branch, offering educational curricula for judges, court staff members, and AOC staff members. Over 100 people to provide judicial training for 1700 judges would appear to be a waste of taxpayer dollars. California District Attorneys Association performs the task of continuing education for 5200 prosecutors throughout California with a staff of nine. Several of those nine have primary job responsibilities unrelated to the training department. The ABA appellate judicial section has two part time staffers who coordinate the education for about 1200 appellate judges nationwide. (The staffers are SMU employees who have day jobs in the law school.) There is simply no justification for a staff the size of what the AOC has amassed.
3.The Office of Governmental Affairs in Sacramento promotes and maintains positive relations with the legislative and executive branches and advocates for the council on legislative and budget matters. The dedication of twelve people to track legislation at a pay rate (excluding benefits) between $77,000 and $161,000 is irresponsible. In many instances the legislative influence the AOC sought to promote was contrary to the best interests of the local courts.
4.The AOC uses Apple One Temps for at least part of their "temporary employees” workforce. One hundred and twelve employees are part of the AOC through this temp service. Unlike what most people envision when you think of a temporary worker, the majority of these are very highly paid positions. Sixty three of them (56%) make over $100,000 per year based on their reported hourly wage. That is just salary. The highest paid temporary worker is paid at an annualrate converting to $213,220, assuming a40 hour workweek. Justification for these temporary employees should be required on a case by case basis and anyone not deemed critical to the administration of justice should be eliminated.
5.The Office of Court Construction and Management is the department that provides management services for California’s court facilities, and performs design, construction, and renovation of California courthouses. The staff in that division is an astonishing 141 employees when you include the 31 employed as “temporary employees” through Apple One Temps. Over 85% of the employees in this division make more than $80,000 per year in salary alone. With the fiscal crisis it is unrealistic to continue planning, designing and building construction projects as originally contemplated. Serious depletion, if not elimination of this division, should be considered. Consideration of staff reduction should include an analysis of the cost per square foot of many projects designed by this division in comparison to construction experts’ estimates for reasonable and anticipated costs associated with such construction. (I have attached as Attachment 2 information related to this item.)
6.A thorough analysis of the fiscal advisability of completely eliminating the Construction and Maintenance Division and having the Department of General Services assume those responsibilities should be performed. Duplicate bureaucracies performing virtually identical functions are certainly wasteful. The performance of the Construction and Maintenance division when it comes to cost per square foot of courthouse construction, wasteful planning and construction of courthouses unconnected to the needs and size of the local community, and maintenance servicesdelivered at exorbitant costs or through bundling cause even greater concerns about the wastefulness of this division (See Attachment 2).
7.The CCMS project originally estimated to be $260 million dollars has ballooned to somewhere between $1.9 to 3 billion dollars in just six years. The project is unjustified in the current economic climate facing the judiciary. The Bureau of State Audits report revealed the magnitude of financial waste, lack of oversight, inadequate or non-existent planning, failure to develop accurate cost estimates, and failure of the AOC to structure the contact with the vendor (Deloitte Consulting LLP) in a manner to protect the judiciary’s financial interests. These failures, among others listed in the 138 page audit, have caused the cost projections to skyrocket. The necessity of AOC staff (employees, temporary staff, independent contractors, or others paid with dollars that could be used to keep courts open) who provide services to support the CCMS system should be carefully scrutinized. Not a single dollar should be spent on this system until it is certain the expenditure will not cause court closures, reduced hours or layoffs of courtroom staff. Expending any money, directly or indirectly, on a computer system with such a flawed financial history is unjustified.
8.The Information Services Division coordinates court technology statewide, and supports coordination throughout the judicial branch; manages centralized statewide technology projects; and optimizes the scope and accessibility of accurate statewide judicial information. This division is directly linked to the CCMS project. In all, the combined staff associated with “Information Services” or statewide technology is an astounding 164 employees. One hundred seventeen categorized as “Information Services,” employees, another 20 labeled CCMS employees and 27 more listed as “temporary” workers through Apple One Temps. Over half of the “permanent” employees are paid salary in excess of $100,00 per year. Even more astounding, 24 of the 27 “temporary employees” make in excess of $100,000 per year.
9.The Office of the General Counsel provides high-quality, timely, and ethical legal advice and services to the Chief Justice, the Judicial Council and its committees and task forces, the AOC, and the courts. The office has two major functions: (1) house counsel and (2) “rules and projects”—development of rules of court and legal forms. There are sixty six people assigned to the Office of General Counsel. This number would seem to be far greater than what should be required to perform the “core functions” of that department. This is especially troubling when one considers that 53 of the 66 make over $100,000 in salary alone, with the highest earning over $173,000.
10.Three regional offices provide services and improve communication between the AOC at the state level and the courts at the local level. The primary focus is on operations, especially in the areas of technology, finance, legal matters, and human resources. The AOC has 26 employees assigned to these three regional offices (11 in the South Office, 8 in the Northern Office and 7 in the Bay Area Office). The regional offices by there very definitions are unnecessary and should be eliminated. There is no need, with the availability of communication technology, for the AOC to have satellite offices across the state. It is particularly odd that with the AOC based in San Francisco that a Northern Regional Office and a Bay Area Regional Office exist. Likewise any satellite offices connected to building construction should also be eliminated.
11.The Center for Families, Children & the Courts works to improve the quality of justice for—as well as services to meet the needs of—families, youth, children, and self-represented litigants in the California courts. While I am certain this is an honorable endeavor, the AOC lists 94 permanent employees in this department. Thirty two of these employees make over $100,000 a year in salary while over half take home more than $80,000 per year. The true issue is what core number of competent employees is necessary to perform the legitimate functions of the CFCC and what are those legitimate core functions. Any honest evaluation would have to question full time employment of nearly 100 people to perform those core functions.
12.The Finance Division provides budget planning, asset management, accounting, procurement, and contract management for the judicial branch and the trial courts. The department has 93 permanent full time employees. Again the number seems completely unconnected to the nature and significance of the functions this division is called upon to perform. In the current economy the concept of procurement as it relates to any significant purchase is obsolete. It is also of significance that the division is responsible for contract management (one of the most heavily criticized parts of the state auditors report) and budget planning (which was severely lacking in light of the obvious world, national, state and local financial situation). The planning for the crisis was non-existent even though obvious signs of fiscal disaster were apparent, far in advance of the state budget being signed, to anyone who chose to pay attention.
13.The Executive Office Programs Division performs a variety of logistical, analytical, and management services for the Judicial Council, the AOC, and the courts related to planning, research, communications, jury service, grant administration programs statewide, and staff support for the council and key internal and advisory committees. Seventy three full time staff members are assigned to this division. I am unclear with all the other divisions what planning, research, communication and jury services this division can be handling. With the Executive Office, Office of General Counsel, Education Division, Office of Governmental Affairs, Finance Division, Information Services Division, and Trial Court Administrative Services Division, it is hard to believe another 73 employees are needed to provide staff support for the Judicial Council and their advisory committees.
14.The Trial Court Administrative Services Division manages a statewide technology initiative known as the Phoenix Program, which provides transition assistance to the courts moving from county stewardship to the judicial branch’s financial and human resources systems as a result of state legislation. Ninety six permanent employees are identified as being assigned to this department. I am unclear why such a large number of employees would be necessary to service this program. There is little doubt using the Phoenix Program has become convoluted, painstaking, and very expensive. A complete cost benefit analysis and audit of the program should be completed to determine if this seemingly good idea has become an unwieldy and unworkable project. In many respects this program seems similar to the CCMS project in terms of scope, mismanagement and insufficient oversight. The lack of a statewide pay scale combined with 58 counties negotiating with various unions across the state makes the payroll system unworkable. Also, the inequality in the amounts counties pay (or don’t pay) for the system likewise make the concept one which is inequitable. An effort to determine whether the services the Phoenix system is intended to perform could be more efficiently and effectively delivered in an alternative fashion should be considered. In any event, a glorified HR system which requires 96 full time employees to service is disgraceful. This is especially true when one realizes the AOC employs an additional 41 full-time Human Resources employees.
15.Some consideration should be given to the necessity of having the AOC based in San Francisco. San Francisco is undeniably one of the most expensive cities in the United States. According to Kiplinger, San Francisco ranks third in the United States (behind only New York and Honolulu) among US cities with the most expensive cost of living. The high cost of commercial leases, hotels, parking, gas, and meals combine to unnecessarily deplete judicial resources.
16.The alleged use of construction funds for maintenance of buildings is also disconcerting. There needs to be careful analysis as to whether that occurred and if so who authorized it. A determination of how such a misuse of dedicated dollars could occur and go undetected by the Judicial Council should take place to prevent reoccurrence.
These are but a few of the areas where obvious cost savings are easily available.
It is important to recognize that because the AOC has failed to provide critical information regarding consultants, advisors, independent contractors and others who derive their income providing services through the AOC that no review of those areas could be done. I am hopeful that if and when the AOC chooses to disclose that information it can be carefully scrutinized to determine what, if any, of those expenditures are necessary. It will also permit an assessment of the relationship of those expenditures to the proper core functions of the AOC.
The Chief Justice publicly asserts her desire to keep the courthouse doors open and the judiciary available to the public we are sworn to serve. One need only look to the responses to her own survey to find significant support among those in the judiciary to streamlining the AOC and altering the path of CCMS.
The Chief Justice’s survey responses were not made public. Responses have been quoted in various newspapers, however, which illustrate the significant dissatisfaction with both the AOC and CCMS.
An Orange County reporter who read all the responses in that county stated, “The large majority of the answers are in the range of unhappy to hopping mad.” The reporter also noted “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.”