The Strategic Evaluation Committee

The Strategic Evaluation Committee,

appointed by the Chief Justice of California, Tani Cantil-Sakauye

News ReleaseFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Arthur G. ScotlandJuly 19, 2011

Chair, Strategic Evaluation Committee

Administrative Presiding Justice, retired

Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District

(916) 653-0087

The Strategic Evaluation Committee seeks input regarding the organizational structure and methods of operation of the Administrative Office of the Courts -- sends surveys to approximately 3,500 persons, organizations, and entities with an interest in California’s judicial system

Sacramento -- The Strategic Evaluation Committee today electronically transmitted surveys toapproximately 3,500 persons, organizations, and entities to obtain information regarding the organizational structure and methods of operation of the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC).

Effective May 1, 2011, the Committee was appointed by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye toconduct an in-depth review of the organizational structure, methods of operation, and budget of the AOC; to assess the AOC’s mission and priorities; to examine how the AOC is operating and whether it is efficiently meeting appropriate goals and mandates; and to determine whether changes should be made to the structure and operation of the AOC to ensure that it fulfills its core functions in an appropriate, beneficial, cost-effective, and transparent manner.

The surveys are the second step in the review and assessment process that ultimately will provide theChief Justice, via the Judicial Council’s Executive and Planning Committee, with findings and recommendations intended to ensure that,despite budget constraints and changing priorities and expectations, California’s judicial system remains among the best in the world and a recognized leader in theadministration ofjustice. The Committee has already obtained a significant amount ofinformation regarding the AOC’s structure, budget, staffing, and operations, including statutory mandates and Judicial Council directives regarding the AOC’s functions and services.

The Chair of the Committee, Arthur Scotland, retired Administrative Presiding Justice, Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reported that “the surveys were drafted by the Committee’s members following extensive discussions on the process the Committee has agreed to use for a thorough, conscientious, inclusive, and objective assessment of the AOC, and on the questions we decided to ask to fulfill that task.” “The Strategic Evaluation Committee is an exceptionally talented, dedicated, and diverse group of individuals with a wide range of experiences and insights regarding theAOC. Our meetings have shown that the Committee’s members are committed to professionally and objectively evaluating the information we receive, and making our findings and recommendations based on verified facts and principles of good governance,” the Chair stated.

Justice Scotland commented that, “in sending surveys to such an expansive list, the Committee hascreated an inclusive and realistically feasible information-gathering process that provides ample opportunity for individuals, entities, and organizations with interest in the judicial branch, as well as judicial officers, court administrators, and the AOC, to give the Committee important input regarding theAOC’s structure and operations.”

The surveys were transmitted electronically. Responses to the surveys’ questions must be submitted by August 9, 2011, and will be collected at a survey site of the research and feedback management software firm, Confirmit, that is secure and independent of the AOC. In addition to obtaining survey responses, the Committee will conduct interviews to assist the Committee further in evaluating the AOC’s structure and operations.

The surveys are in the form of informational memoranda with links to the survey site. Using the links, the recipients will complete and electronically submit the survey responses on line.

Separately included in this press release are the memoranda and survey questions the Strategic Evaluation Committee sent to AOC directors and assistant directors; employees of the AOC; formerAOC employees; Associate Justices of the Supreme Court; the Clerk/Administrator ofthe SupremeCourt; Administrative Presiding Justices of the Courts of Appeal; Presiding Justices andAssociate Justices of the Courts of Appeal; Clerk/Administrators ofthe Courts of Appeal; PresidingJudges of the Superior Courts; all other judicial officers of the Superior Courts; Court Executive Officers of the Superior Courts; jurists who have retired from judicialservice; and persons,firms, organizations, and entities with interest in the judicial branch, including the CaliforniaJudges Association, the Alliance of California Judges, the State Bar of California, theCalifornia CourtAssociation, attorney organizations, and otherorganizations and entities.

The members of the Strategic Evaluation Committee are:

Administrative Presiding Justice (retired) Arthur Scotland, Court of Appeal - Chair of the Committee

Judge Verna Adams, Marin County Superior Court

Judge Angela Bradstreet, San Francisco County Superior Court

Judge Judith Chirlin (retired), Los Angeles County Superior Court

Judge Ronald Christianson, San Bernardino County Superior Court

Judge Sherrill Ellsworth, Riverside County Superior Court

Judge Ramona Garrett, Solano County Superior Court

Judge Suzanne Kingsbury, El Dorado County Superior Court

Judge William MacLaughlin, Los Angeles County Superior Court

Judge Brian McCabe, Merced County Superior Court

Judge William Pangman (retired), Sierra County Superior Court

Judge Donald Shaver (retired), Stanislaus County Superior Court

Judge Richard Sueyoshi, Sacramento County Superior Court

Judge Charles Wachob, Placer County Superior Court

Advisory member David Caffrey

Advisory member Diane Cummins

Advisory member Mary McQueen

Advisory member James Tilton.

TO: Directors and Assistant Directors of the Administrative Office of the Courts

FROM: Arthur G. Scotland

Chair, Strategic Evaluation Committee

Administrative Presiding Justice, Retired

Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District

DATE: July 19, 2011

RE: Review and Assessment of the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC)

As you know, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye has established the Strategic Evaluation Committee of active and retired jurists, as well as advisory members with substantial experience in state and/or local governance. The Committee was formed to conduct an in-depth review of the organizational structure, methods of operation, and budget of the AOC; to assess the AOC’s mission and priorities; to examine how the AOC is operating and whether it is efficiently meeting appropriate goals and mandates; and to determine whether changes should be made to the structure and operation of the AOC to ensure that it fulfills its core functions in an appropriate, beneficial, cost-effective, and transparent manner.

This review and assessment will provide the Chief Justice with information needed to ensure that, despite budget constraints and changing priorities and expectations, California’s court system remains among the best in the world and a widely-recognized leader in the administration of justice.

To obtain data necessary to fulfill its responsibility, the Strategic Evaluation Committee has developed an assessment survey requesting information to be submitted by each division and unit of the AOC. The survey is intended to provide the committee with a full understanding of the AOC’s structure, functions, operations, and activities.

Instructions for completing the survey are in the assessment tools. Please provide therequested information electronically to the Strategic Evaluation Committee by clicking the hyperlink here[hyperlink inserted] and submitting the completed survey no later than August 9, 2011. (Ifthe hyperlink does not lead you to the survey, copy and paste it into yourbrowser).TheConfirmit survey site is secure and independent of the AOC; therefore, survey responses willbeavailable onlyto the Strategic Evaluation Committee.

Your input is essential to the Committee’s ability to conduct a thorough, conscientious, inclusive, and objective assessment of the organizational structure and methods of operation of theAOC.

After receiving the requested information, members of the Strategic Evaluation Committee will meet with you in person to assist us further in evaluating the AOC’s structure and operations.

Thank you. The Strategic Evaluation Committee values your input.

Strategic Evaluation Committee Survey Regarding the Structure and Operations of the Administrative Office of the Courts

To Directors and Assistant Directors of the Administrative Office of the Courts

PART I — DIVISION

To be completed by the division director

Please answer the following questions. The more detailed the answers are, withspecific explanations and examples where appropriate, the more helpful yourinput will be.

Functions, Structure, and Operation

1. Please provide your name, the name of your division, and when it was initially established.

1. Why was the division initially established (e.g., legislative mandate [cite statute], policy decision, etc.)? What needs was it intended to address?

1. How much would you say that the following attributes of the division have changed since it was initially established?

Not changed / Changed somewhat / Changed substantially / Changed completely
Functions
Structure and Operation

4.If the division’s functions, structure, or operations have changed significantly, when and how have they changed?

The Judicial Branch

5.Please describe the judicial branch strategic goals and objectives the division was established toaddress.

6.What are the judicial branch strategic goals and objectives currently addressed by the division?

7.Please describe any periodic reviews utilizing established performance standards the division conducts todetermine whether it is meeting these judicial branch strategic goals and objectives. Ifthere are any formal set of criteria or measures used in these reviews, please specify them.

Functions and Provision of Services

8.What is the most essential core function of the division? If the division has multiple units, which unit or units are responsible for this function?

9.Beginning with the second most essential function and continuing in order of priority, what are the other core functions of the division? If the division has multiple units, which unit or units are responsible for these functions?

10.If the division were facing resource limitations, what changes (e.g., eliminating, consolidating, orstreamlining specified functions and services) would you recommend? Why?

11.What consequences for the division -- as well as for the AOC, the courts, and the public -- wouldyou anticipate if your recommendations are adopted?

12.Based upon your observations and interactions with other AOC divisions, what changes would you recommend for other divisions. Why?

13.What processes does the division use to determine the needs of internal users (within the AOC) of the division’s services?

14.What processes does the division use to determine the needs of external users (outside the AOC) of the division’s services?

15.Please describe any periodic reviews utilizing established performance standards that the unit conducts todetermine whether it is meeting the expectations of the users of unit services.

Budget and Personnel

16.What was the Fiscal Year 2010/2011 division budget, by funding source, as of July 1, 2010?

17.Identify the division’s allocated positions, by unit, from FY 2006/2007 through FY 2010/2011, and show vacancies in positions, by unit, as of June 1, 2011. Explain any changes in the number of allocated positions between FY 2006/2007 and FY 2010/2011.

Performance and Opportunities

18.What would you say are the five most significant accomplishments of your division in the lastfiveyears?

19.Describe any functions of the division that you believe are not being performed satisfactorily.

20.What do you think have been the three biggest challenges the division has encountered in performing its functions?

21.Identify three challenges or opportunities facing the division within the next five years.

Publications and Reports

22.Please identify the reports and publications produced by the division, whether they are required or discretionary, and the internal and external recipients of those reports and publications.

Publication or Report / Required / Discretionary / Internal Recipients / External Recipients

Comments

23.Is there any other input you wish to provide to the Strategic Evaluation Committee regarding the organizational structure and methods of operation of the AOC?

The Strategic Evaluation Committee greatly appreciates the time you have taken tocomplete this survey. The information you have provided will help us in our work.

PART II — UNITS

Separate responses are to be submitted for each unit of the division. They are to be completed by the individual responsible for the unit, in collaboration with the division’s assistant director(s) and/or senior manager(s)

If the division does not have units, Part II is to be completed by the director beginning with Question 21

Please answer the following questions. The more detailed the answers are, withspecific explanations and examples where appropriate, the more helpful yourinput will be.

Functions, Structure, and Operation

1. Please provide your name, the name of your unit, and when it was initially established.

1. Why was the unit established (e.g., legislative mandate [cite statute], policy decision, etc.)? Whatneeds was it intended to address?

1. How much would you say that the following attributes of the unit have changed since it was initially established?

Not changed / Changed somewhat / Changed substantially / Changed completely
Functions
Structure and Operation

1. If the unit’s functions, structure, or operations have changed significantly, when and how have they changed?

The Judicial Branch

1. Please describe the judicial branch strategic goals and objectives the unit was established toaddress.

1. What are the judicial branch strategic goals and objectives currently addressed by the unit?

1. Please describe any periodic reviews utilizing established performance standards that the unit conducts to determine whether it is meeting these judicial branch strategic goals and objectives. Ifthere are any formal set of criteria or measures used in these reviews, please specify them.

Functions and Provision of Services

1. What is the most essential core function of the unit?

1. Beginning with the second most essential function and continuing in order of priority, what are the other core functions of the unit?

1. If the unit were facing resource limitations, what changes (e.g., eliminating, consolidating, orstreamlining specified functions and services) would you recommend? Why?

1. What consequences for the unit -- as well as for the AOC, the courts, and the public -- wouldyou anticipate if your recommendations are adopted?

1. Based upon your observations and interactions with other AOC divisions and/or units, whatchanges would you recommend for other divisions and/or units. Why?

1. What processes does your unit use to determine the needs of internal users (within the AOC) of the unit’s services?

1. What processes does the unit use to determine the needs of external users (outside the AOC) of the unit’s services?

1. Please describe any periodic reviews utilizing established performance standards that the unit conducts to determine whether it is meeting the expectations of the users of unit services

Budget

1. What was the Fiscal Year 2010/2011 budget of the unit, by funding source, as of July 1, 2010?

Performance and Opportunities

1. What would you say are the five most significant accomplishments of your unit in the last fiveyears?

1. Describe any functions of the unit that you believe are not being performed satisfactorily.

1. What do you think have been the three biggest challenges the unit has encountered inperforming its functions?

1. Identify three challenges or opportunities facing the unit within the next five years.

Unit Functions, Local Courts and Other Entities

1. Please describe any requirements that local courts must fulfill if the unit is to perform its functions, and the reasons for those requirements.

1. Have any of these requirements outlived their purposes or otherwise become unnecessary?

1. How could the unit impose fewer requirements on local courts while still performing its functions?

1. What new reporting requirements, if any, do you think your unit should impose on local courts tobetter perform its functions?

1. What functions performed by the unit could be performed by entities, organizations, or individuals outside the AOC?

Unit Services

1. Describe in detail the users within the AOC of specific services the unit provides; the users of the unit’s services within the judicial branch (e.g., courts, Judicial Council committees, task forces, working groups, etc.); and others (e.g., lawyers, litigants, etc.) who benefit from the unit’s services.

1. If the unit supports judicial branch committees, task forces, or other working groups, specify the number of staff who provide that support, and estimate the amount of time they spend providing that support.

1. How many and what type of consultants, outside providers, or temporary employees does the unit contract with to perform services for the unit?

1. Please identify any services that you believe the unit could be, but is not currently, performing.

Comments

1. Is there any other input you wish to provide to the Strategic Evaluation Committee regarding the organizational structure and methods of operation of the AOC?

The Strategic Evaluation Committee greatly appreciates the time you have taken tocomplete this survey. The information you have provided will help us in our work.

TO: Employees of the Administrative Office of the Courts

FROM: Arthur G. Scotland

Chair, Strategic Evaluation Committee

Administrative Presiding Justice, Retired

Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District

DATE: July 19, 2011

RE: Review and Assessment of the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC)

As you know, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye has established the Strategic Evaluation Committee of active and retired jurists, as well as advisory members with substantial experience in state and/or local governance. The Committee was formed to conduct an in-depth review of the organizational structure, methods of operation, and budget of the AOC; to assess the AOC’s mission and priorities; to examine how the AOC is operating and whether it is efficiently meeting appropriate goals and mandates; and to determine whether changes should be made to the structure and operation of the AOC to ensure that it fulfills its core functions in an appropriate, beneficial, cost-effective, and transparent manner.