Opinion: Chief justice: ‘It’s been a hammer over my head for the last year’

I look at Calderon’s bill and I say to myself several things. First, substance. It seeks to undermine and fragmentize 15 years of work for the judicial branch. 15 years of work went into making the branch what it is today. Longer than that but it’s only been in existence 15 years. And I want to say to that, three governors, many chiefs -- two or three chiefs -- multiple legislators and voters decided that it was a good idea to make the branch a separate institution in terms of its budget and its buildings and to unify the judges for efficiencies, and to save money. And so this Calderon bill disregards that and says well we’re going to take away Judicial Council authority ... and we’re going to give authority basically for any statewide initiative to as few as two courts to veto a statewide initiative. So the substance of the bill is to gut and fragmentize the judicial council. The statewide policymaking body. But also important to me, and maybe only to me, but the complaint that Calderon has, essentially, is to the last 15 years. But in 15 years -- never heard a peep from him about these kinds of entrenched systemic governance problems with the branch. But I get 47 days into office and all of a sudden, we need to change and turn around on a dime. Any discussion with me? None. Any warning? None. Any ‘Let’s work this out?’ None. And I went to see him on numerous occasions, saying, ‘Look. You may have difficulties. I understand that. I’m coming in new; I’m taking this over; I’m going to look at this; we’re going to make changes; I want input from the judges. You know we are an organization. We have a legacy of working together to make change. That’s what we do; that’s how we try to do it before we come to you, if we need to come to you we will. But let us work it out.’ No. It’s been a hammer over my head for the last year to take away the authority of the Judicial Council. On budget, on planning, on trial court autonomy. Trial courts now get their share of the budget. When it goes to a trial court, that’s up to the PJ, the court executive officer, and that presiding judge’s executive team as to how it is they wish to disperse that money and use it in the community....

I’ve had no explanation. I can’t say. That would be a good question to ask him.

I would say the same as they’ve always been.I think they’ve improved in the sense that I’ve actively asked people to apply to committees and advisory committees, and I’ve asked them to identify yourself so I could put you on so you couldn’t say you never appoint me. So I’m happy to say that on one of our most influential and powerful committees, the Advisory Committee on Accountability and Efficiency of the [Administrative Office of the Courts], I purposely went out and selected a director of the alliance to serve on that committee. We also have our Technology Advisory Committee, and we purposely went out and sought a very qualified appellate justice, [Fourth District Court of Appeal Justice Thomas] Hollenhorst, who’s also an alliance member. So to me I’m happy to hear the information, I’m happy for the debate, and if that moves us forward, I hope so. But I haven’t changed, and I’m still here, and I’m still accepting those appointments and looking to appoint people who want to be part of the solution.