The Judicial Council is the administrative policy making body of California state courts. It is chaired by the state Supreme Court chief justice. The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) provides policy support and administrative services to the council in areas of budget, fiscal services, assignments of retired judges, technology, education, legal advice, human resources, legislative advocacy and research. It is highly influential. Together, the council and its administrative office decide how to allocate the judicial branch’s substantial $3.1 billion budget. Most of it is spent on 58 county trial courts, a new computer system and infrastructure.

On November 2, 1926, California voters approved a constitutional amendment establishing the Judicial Council as the policymaker for the judicial branch of state government.

In 1997, state legislation changed a fundamental relationship between the state and trial courts, establishing a unified, statewide funding system. Until then, the state’s 58 counties provided day-to-day financial services and systems for the trial courts that operated within their boundaries. The Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act of 1997 shifted funding for the courts from individual counties to the state. The act also gave the Judicial Council/AOC responsibility for financial oversight of the trial courts.

In May 1999, the council adopted the one-day or one-trial jury system that limited the time prospective jurors had to make themselves available to the court. Other improvements made at the time included new rules that allowed jurors to take notes and ask questions of witnesses.

In 2001, the council launched the California Courts Online Self-Help Center to improve court access for litigants without attorneys and added a Spanish-language version two years later.

The Trial Court Facilities Act of 2002 transferred ownership and management of all trial court facilities from counties to the state.

A major reorganization of the California Rules of the Court was approved by the council and took effect in 2007.  The reorganization involved the reordering and renumbering of more than 1,000 rules and 38 standards of judicial administration.

After years of discussing ways to best unify the California courts statewide, the AOC began in earnest to develop the California Court Case Management System (CCMS) in 2003. Eight years later, after long delays and hundreds of millions of dollars in cost overruns, the system remained largely incomplete and at the center of an intense power struggle and raging debate over judicial branch priorities. In March 2012, the Judicial Council voted to delay deployment of the system while it explores ways to use existing technology instead but stopped short of mothballing the project.  

Fact Sheet (The People’s Legal Center) (pdf)

Phoenix Program: Statewide Human Resources and Financial System Upgrade and Other Services (Judicial Branch home)

The Judicial Council has 21 voting members consisting of the Supreme Court chief justice, 14 judges selected by the chief justice, four attorneys selected by the State Bar Board of Governors, and one member from each house of the Legislature.

The council also has six advisory members which include the president of the California Judges Association and other court executives and administrators.

The Judicial Council’s day-to-day activities are run by the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC). The AOC is headquartered in San Francisco and has a staff of 900 spread across nine divisions in San Francisco, two in Sacramento and three regional offices.  The AOC also provides the Judicial Council with short lists of candidates for five key internal committees.

Although the Judicial Council and the chief justice ostensibly are in charge of the state judicial system, the AOC has significant input—some would say control—through control of the bureaucracy and committees that make recommendations about budget, policies and staffing.

Appellate and Trial Court Judicial Services Division provides judicial assignment, appointed counsel, case coordination and case management services.

Center for Families, Children & the Courts supports programs in collaborative justice, domestic violence, language access, mentally ill court users, services to self-represented litigants, tribal projects and veterans’ courts.

Education Division/Center for Judicial Education and Research offers educational curricula for judges, and court and AOC staff members.

Executive Office Programs Division provides support for the Judicial Council and key internal and advisory committees in areas related to planning, communications and research.

Finance Division provides budget planning, asset management, accounting, procurement, and contract management for the entire judicial branch.

Human Resources Division assists the courts in areas of recruitment, pay and benefits administration, labor relations, disability management, human resources information technology and personnel policy development.

Information Services Division manages statewide technology projects and facilitates information accessibility. 

Trial Court Administrative Services Division manages the Phoenix Program, a statewide technology initiative that includes the Phoenix Financial System and the Phoenix Human Resources System. Both programs link courthouses at the county level with the rest of the judicial system.

Office of Court Construction and Management manages court facilities, including construction and renovation.

Office of the General Counsel provides legal advice and services to the chief justice, the Judicial Council, the AOC and the courts. 

Office of Governmental Affairs, located in Sacramento, facilitates relations with the executive and legislative branches of government, including matters concerning the budget and court-related legislation.

Regional Offices—Three offices in northern, central and southern California facilitate communications with courts at the local level. Their primary focus is operations:  technology, finance, legal matters and human resources.

Five internal committees report to the Judicial Council.

California Court Case Management System (CCMS) Internal Committee reports to the council on the computer system’s development and progress, and advises the council on CCMS policy-related decisions.

Executive and Planning Committee sets the agenda for council meetings, develops the judicial branch’s long-range strategic plan, directs the nominating process for vacancies on the council and its advisory committees, oversees some of the advisory committees and task forces and develops policies and procedures related to court facilities and communications.

Litigation Management Committee oversees litigation and claims against the courts, the council, and the AOC that exceed $100,000 or raise important policy issues.

Policy Coordination and Liaison Committee represents the council in communications with the Legislature, the governor, bar associations and local governments. It reviews pending legislation and makes recommendations to the council on pending bills.

Rules and Projects Committee oversees the process of developing the California Rules of Court, the California Standards of Judicial Administration and Judicial Council forms.    

Administrative Office of the Courts (Judicial Branch website)

Administrative Office of the Courts Fact Sheet (Judicial Branch website)  (pdf)

Internal Committees (Judicial Branch website)

The Judicial Council not only receives an annual budget from the state of around $139.5 million, it oversees budget requests to the governor and the Legislature for the Supreme Court, Courts of Appeal, trial courts and the Administrative Office of the Courts. It then allocates the money.

The total judicial branch budget for 2012-13 is pegged at $3.7 billion, but around $558.5 million of that is earmarked for infrastructure, including construction and renovation of court buildings. The courts are also in the middle of developing a $1.9 billion computer system.

The operating budget for the court system, which is overwhelming devoted to the trial courts, is around $3.1 billion. But $1.2 billion of that is non-reducible fixed costs, including judges’ salaries and court security provided by sheriffs. 

The courts, like other areas of government, saw significant budget cuts as the economy worsened at the end of the new century’s first decade. They saw a 30% reduction in state General Funds over the three years beginning in fiscal year 2009-10. The Legislature slashed the judicial budget by $350 million in 2011-12, resulting in dramatic cutbacks in services, long delays in assigning court dates, courthouse closures and staff layoffs. The 58 county-based Superior Courts suffered a 6.8% loss of funds. The Supreme Court and six regional appellate courts were cut 9.7% and the AOC lost 12%. 

Further cuts were proposed for the following year.

3-Year Budget (pdf)

California Budget Cuts to Courts Reignites Judges' War (by Dan Walters, Sacramento Bee)

Budget Cuts to Worsen California Court Delays, Officials Say (by Maura Dolan and Victoria Kim, Los Angeles Times)

California Judicial Council Decides On $350M In Cuts (CBS)

Budget: Fiscal Year 2012–2013 Requests for the Supreme Court, Courts of Appeal, Judicial Council/Administrative Office of the Courts, and the Trial Courts (Judicial Branch website) (pdf)

A Billion-Dollar Boondoggle?

The Judicial Council began talking about a statewide computer system in 1998 after voters approved Proposition 220 and began the process of unifying California’s Municipal and Superior Courts. A year earlier, the Legislature had established the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) and put in place a funding scheme that functioned at the state, not local, level.

By 2003, the AOC had established a large bureaucracy for overseeing the state’s courts and was developing plans for unifying the myriad court case management systems. The California Court Case Management System (CCMS) would replace 70 different systems already in place—many of which cannot talk to each—and  result in a single case management system for all 58 Superior Courts. It would enable the public to e-file documents, access information and make payments via the internet. Judges and law enforcement would have real-time access to court information. The courts could communicate directly with each other, coordinate scheduling and interface with state agencies.

More than 200 representatives from 29 countries have worked on the project and when it is completed in 2016 it will have cost $1.9 billion.

As of 2012, it was a mess.

The California State Auditor said the project was poorly planned from the outset. Her 2011 report said the AOC had not analyzed whether the project would be a cost-beneficial solution, did a poor job of controlling costs, made critical decisions for unclear reasons, didn’t contract for outside oversight, didn’t address quality problems and failed to secure adequate funding to complete the project.

And if it is finally, successfully deployed, the auditor said, it probably won’t be around for long. “The useful life of CCMS may be very short after it begins to achieve a positive return on investment in fiscal year 2019-20. The technology will be almost 10 years old when fully deployed. Our IT expert believes there is significant risk that the technology could be outdated shortly after its full deployment in fiscal year 2016-17.”

But, as Justice Terence Bruiniers, a state appellate court judge, pointed out, not everything in the auditor’s report was negative. “I think it’s important to emphasize that the audit does not recommend ending the project,” he wrote.

While substantial questions have been raised about the project’s future, scarce dollars during a crushing budget deficit are being diverted from day-to-day running of the courts to develop the project. Courthouses are closing, court date delays are growing longer, staff is being let go, lines are lengthening and fears have arisen about the collapse of the judicial system in parts of the state.

Superior Courts in Los Angeles and Sacramento have expressed an unwillingness to implement the system in its current form if, or when, it is up and running.

In a recent survey of state judges circulated by Justice Arthur Scotland, Sacramento Judge Kevin McCormick ripped the system that started out with a price tag of $260 million and which, if some worst-case scenarios come true, could go as high as $3 billion. “Not [a] single dollar should be spent on this system until it is certain the expenditures will not cause court closures, reduced hours or layoffs of courtroom staff. Expending any money on a computer system with such a flawed financial history is unjustified.”

In March 2012, the Judicial Council voted to delay deployment of the system and allocated $8.7 million to study ways to use existing technology instead. It stopped short of mothballing the project.

“I believe that 10 years ago, a case management system was a farsighted vision, but a statewide connected system is just not feasible in the current climate and in the foreseeable future,” said council member Yolo County Judge David Rosenberg. “It's just too expensive.”

State Bar President Jon Streeter disagreed. “California will become, if this system is suspended or abandoned, one of the states that brings up the rear in terms of automation nationwide. We should not be in that position. We should be leading.”

Audit: State Courts Computer System Massively Over Budget (by Ryan Gabrielson, California Watch)

Computer Mess Jeopardizes Court's Political Clout (by Paul Ellis, Associated Press)

California Court Case Management System (CCMS) (Judicial Branch website)

Consultant for Court IT System Is Facing Lawsuits in California Over Software Systems (by Bill Girdner and David Tartre, Courthouse News Service)

Judge Pines v. AOC Finance (Courthouse News Service)

Auditor Review of CCMS (State Auditor) (pdf)

Judge Bangs on Bureaucrats' Door (by Bill Girdner, Courthouse News Service)

California Judicial Council Halts Court Case Management System (by Dan Walters, Sacramento Bee)

The Trial Court's Rights Act of 2011

The 400-member Alliance of California Judges has sought the assistance of the Legislature against one of their own: the chief justice of the California Supreme Court. The judges sponsored The Trial Court's Rights Act of 2011 in an attempt to rein in the  authority of the Administrative Office of the Courts, which operates as the administrative arm of the Judicial Council that is headed by the chief justice.

The judges feel that money is being steered away from the desperately needy courts to pay for a burgeoning bureaucracy and a suspect computer system. They argue that policies and funding decisions are made without their input, against their wishes and not always in their best interests.

The legislation would recognize the right of each court to “manage its administrative and financial affairs in accordance with its own policy.” Taking a direct swipe at the AOC’s pride and joy, the Court Case Management System (CCMS), the bill requires the trial courts’ written consent to participation in any shared case or accounting system or the use of its funds in such a system.

The legislation would guarantee that “all funds allocated for trial court operations, once appropriated, shall be fully allocated among the trial courts.”

AB 1208–Trial Court Rights Act of 2011 (Legislative Counsel’s Digest) (pdf)

Majority Leader Introduces Trial Court Bill of Rights (by Maria Dinzeo, Courthouse News Service)

Judges Group Frustrated by Cuts, Wants Changes in Judicial Council (by Raul Hernandez, Ventura County Star)

Who Should Run the Courts?

It seemed like a good idea at the time. In 1997, California had 58 separate county trial courts, each funded at the local level. Services were as uneven between them as their funding bases. And so, arguably, was the standard of justice. Unifying the courts in a single system would save money and serve justice well.

But is that true? The state beefed up the authority of the Judicial Council and created an elaborate bureaucracy, the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), to set policy and control the purse strings. At the time, judges expressed fears that the new, centralized bureaucracy would erode the ability of the courts to be responsive to their communities and that conflict would develop between the local and state authorities.

Fourteen years later, judges in the local courts were in open conflict with the AOC, demanding more money and autonomy, and less control by a centralized state bureaucracy.

Decentralize the State Court System 

On March 15, 2011, Judge Maryanne G. Gillard, put it succinctly on behalf of the Association of California Judges which she heads: “The AOC is simply out of control. Its excesses have harmed the judiciary's reputation immeasurably,” Gillard wrote in the Daily Journal, a legal publication. 

Gillard says the Alliance is not out to dismantle statewide rules that ensure the fair and consistent administration of justice. They don’t want to tamper with the Judicial Council’s constitutional rule making authority. But they want control of the judiciary returned to judges and believe that can be accomplished with relatively simple legislation that outlines the authority of trial judges over budgeting and policy matters.

Critics of the AOC and its centralized, bureaucratic approach to court management complain about its lack of transparency and accountability, keys to good decision making. They say the result is not unexpected. Billions of dollars misspent on technology, one-size-fits-all policies that don’t fit at all in many local courthouses, much-needed dollars diverted from courtrooms to propping up an elaborate bureaucracy and judges excluded from the policy-making process, and a court system in tatters.

While the Information Services Division announces new hires daily to work on its failed billion-dollar Court Case Management System, critical courtroom staff are being laid off. Courthouses are being closed and hours curtailed even as new building are being built. Backlogs of cases are piling up and hours are spent in courthouse lines to accomplish simple legal tasks.

While the AOC is ostensibly under the direct control of the Judicial Council and the chief justice of the Supreme Court, critics say, in reality, the AOC is independent.  “Rarely is there a vote by the Council rejecting staff recommendations; indeed, there [is] almost never serious questioning of those recommendations,” according to Presiding Judge Michael Bush from Bakersfield, in Kern County. “Watching and listening to Judicial Council meetings leads one to the conclusion that the Council is the captive and does not seriously oversee the AOC.”

The Centralized Court System Works

Supporters of centralized control of the California judiciary say the AOC isn’t to blame for the shrinking courtroom budgets, reduction in services and layoffs. “The villain here is the economy, and it affects us all,”  says Ronald G. Overholt, administrative director of the courts. 

Judge David Rosenberg of Yolo County agrees. “When times are good you don't hear a lot of criticism,” he said during a panel discussion of trial judges in September 2011. “When times are bad the criticism is brought to the fore.”

The AOC is not a rogue agency. It is a creature of the Judicial Council and is answerable to it. The council is led by the chief justice of the Supreme Court and is made up of judges from around the state. These people are as dedicated to the principles of justice as the Alliance of California Judges members who attack the AOC.

The centralizing process was begun in the late ‘90s by Chief Justice Ronald M. George with the goal of having a uniformity of rules in the courts and a fair, stable statewide funding base for the courts. In the process, two parallel court systems with duplicative activites and 85 separate trial courts were brought under central control. Many think it was a good idea then, and now.

Supporters of the current system, like Appellate Justice Douglas Miller, argue that the council and its administrative office are in a constant state of reform and that there is no need for more trial judge autonomy to affect change. “We have a new chief justice, new members of the judicial council and changes at the AOC,” he said at the same gathering of judges attended by Judge Rosenberg. Council meetings that had once been closed are now open and there are now extended periods for public comment. The chief justice, who took office in January 2011, is sensitive to complaints about the administrative office’s shortcomings and immediately formed a Strategic Evaluation Committee to investigate the work done by the AOC and make recommendations on improving its performance.

The lightening rod for critics of the Judicial Council and the AOC is the new computer system. While few would argue that development of the system has gone smoothly, a strong argument can be made for its necessity. Many critics of the system want it shut down to free up money for the trial courts. But that short-term gain could be a long-term loss. It would deprive the public of the system’s obvious benefits. E-filing of documents and the ability to make payments online could end the long courthouse lines. Online access to information would be convenient and useful.

Untold benefits are possible when the 58 trial courts and their 70 plus computer systems can talk to each other, sharing vital information and streamlining court processes. Judges and law enforcement will be able to have real-time access to each other.

Who Really Runs the Judicial Branch? (by Judge Maryanne G. Gilliard, director of the Alliance of California Judges, published in the Daily Journal)

California Court Administrators Clash With Judges Over Cuts (by Maura Dolan, Los Angeles Times)

Court News Roundup and Open Thread (AOC Watcher)

Order in the Courts? How About in the Judicial Council and the AOC? (Judicial Council Watcher)

31 Days – The Chief Justice & Judicial Council’s Crafty, Predictable Ploy (Judicial Council Watcher)

Trial Judges Question Direction of Courts (by Maria Dinzeo, Courthouse News Service)

Hon. Ronald M. George, 1996–2011

Hon. Malcolm M. Lucas, 1987–1996

Hon. Rose Elizabeth Bird, 1977–1986. Appointed by Governor Jerry Brown, Bird was the first woman to serve on the California Supreme Court and the first justice to be removed by the voters. Her controversial tenure was marked by her opposition to the death penalty, the “use-a-gun, go-to-jail” law and other liberal positions.  

Hon. Donald R. Wright, 1970–1977

Hon. Roger J. Traynor, 1964–1970

Hon. Phil S. Gibson, 1940–1964

Hon. William H. Waste, 1926–1940