[0:02] During our technical checks for

[0:02] the live webcast, we've

[0:04] confirmed the attendance of a

[0:07] quorum of Judicial Council

[0:08] members.

[0:08] Based on our agenda, we

[0:11] anticipate we'll adjourn at

[0:13] about 12:05 p.

[0:14] m.

[0:14] Before we continue with the

[0:15] business meeting, I'd like to

[0:17] take a moment to acknowledge

[0:19] the loss of two extraordinary

[0:20] members of our branch, justice

[0:27] Joan Irion and Richard Blake.

[0:29] Justice Irion passed away last

[0:31] month and leaves behind a

[0:33] remarkable legacy.

[0:34] Having devoted her career to

[0:36] the fair and effective

[0:37] administration of justice.

[0:39] >> She brought to her Judicial

[0:42] Council service that same

[0:45] commitment to excellence on the

[0:48] Fourth district Court of Appeal

[0:51] division one where she served

[0:52] following her time with a judge

[0:54] with the San Diego Superior

[0:56] Court.

[0:57] As Chair of the Judicial

[0:59] Council's rule committee she

[1:01] helped shape California court

[1:02] users for many years to come.

[1:06] Her engagement in the

[1:07] information technology

[1:08] modernization program was

[1:09] equally impactful, helping to

[1:13] expand access and improve

[1:16] services statewide.

[1:18] Justice Irion was a tireless

[1:19] advocate for civic education

[1:20] and trust and confidence in the

[1:24] judicialry.

[1:25] >> Her leadership of the

[1:27] national association of women

[1:30] judges, informed judges project

[1:32] reflected her deep belief that

[1:35] an independent judiciary

[1:36] understood and trusted by the

[1:37] public is essential to a

[1:42] functioning democracy.

[1:45] That same commitment was

[1:45] evident in her work with the

[1:46] civil appellate self-help

[1:47] workshop, which has provided

[1:51] vital assistance to self-

[1:52] represented litigants in San

[1:53] Diegocounty.

[1:54] >> I know to many of you

[1:56] justice Irion was more than a

[1:57] trusted and respected colleague.

[1:59] She was also a kind, caring,

[2:04] and thoughtful friend.

[2:05] Our entire Judicial Branch is

[2:06] stronger for her dedicated

[2:10] service, her insight, her

[2:13] compassion and her leadership.

[2:16] We also learned of tribal court

[2:18] leader chief judge Richard

[2:19] Blake's passing in may and

[2:21] express our appreciation, too,

[2:23] for the contributions he made

[2:24] to the Council's work.

[2:27] In particular the Tribal

[2:27] CourtCourt state forum and to

[2:29] the California justice system

[2:31] as a whole.

[2:34] >> Judge Blake served the

[2:35] California judiciary for over

[2:37] 20 years with dedication and

[2:39] integrity.

[2:39] As a judge he was committed to

[2:42] protecting the rights and

[2:45] liberties of all Californians

[2:47] and ensuring it was fair and

[2:48] accessible.

[2:49] Judge Blake is perhaps best

[2:50] remembered for a pivotal moment

[2:53] in 2009 when he reached out to

[2:56] Chief Justice Ron George to

[2:57] request a meeting between

[2:59] tribal court and state court

[3:01] judges.

[3:02] >> That initiative helped

[3:03] strengthen the relationship

[3:05] between California's tribal and

[3:08] state courts based on his

[3:09] vision of collaboration, mutual

[3:11] respect and a shared commitment

[3:13] to justice.

[3:14] Throughout his career he worked

[3:16] to strengthen the judicial

[3:17] systems that our communities

[3:19] depend on.

[3:20] Judge Blake leaves behind a

[3:21] legacy of fairness, leadership,

[3:24] and the lasting positive change.

[3:26] We're grateful for his service,

[3:28] too, and proud to honor his

[3:31] memory.

[3:32] >> Now I want to recognize and

[3:35] thank our departing members who

[3:36] are finishing their terms on

[3:39] the council and also to welcome

[3:42] our incoming members who will

[3:42] begin their terms, most of you,

[3:45] in September.

[3:45] Thank you, also, to our

[3:49] Judicial Council staff who

[3:50] facilitated orientation,

[3:51] introducing them to their new

[3:52] roles and responsibilities.

[3:54] I'd like to start with our

[3:55] departing members first.

[3:57] I want to acknowledge the

[3:58] service and contributions of

[4:00] the following six departing

[4:03] councilmembers.

[4:03] Judge Maureen Hallahan, for her

[4:06] three years of service, which

[4:07] included serving as Vice-Chair

[4:09] of the executive and planning

[4:12] committee.

[4:12] Thank you, Maureen.

[4:12] You can applaud for all of them.

[4:17] [ Applause ]

[4:19] >> I'm not sure the microphone

[4:20] is on, but it's been an honor

[4:22] and a privilege to serve on the

[4:24] Judicial Council.

[4:24] I will miss each and every one

[4:27] of you, but I know the great

[4:28] work will continue.

[4:29] Thank you.

[4:30] >> Thank you, judge Hallahan.

[4:31] Judge Jeffrey Kauffman for his

[4:33] one year of service as

[4:34] president of the California

[4:37] judges association.

[4:40] [ Applause ]

[4:42] >> Thank you for the

[4:42] opportunity.

[4:43] It's very important work that

[4:44] we do here, and I'm happy to

[4:46] see such a great group of

[4:47] people doing it.

[4:48] So thank you for the

[4:48] opportunity to spend a brief

[4:50] amount of time with you.

[4:51] >> Thank you.

[4:52] And next we have -- where is

[4:54] she, Presiding Judge Patricia

[4:55] Kelly for her year of service

[4:57] including Chair of the

[4:58] council's Trial Court presiding

[4:59] judges Advisory Committee.

[5:01] [ Applause ]

[5:07] >> Thank you.

[5:07] I echo what's already been said.

[5:08] It's just been one of the

[5:10] highlights of my career to work

[5:13] with everybody here, especially

[5:15] you, Chief.

[5:15] It's been an honor.

[5:16] >> Thank you.

[5:17] And next we have Commissioner

[5:20] and now Judge Ryan Davis for

[5:21] his two years of service

[5:23] including membership on the

[5:25] council's executive and

[5:27] planning and rules committee.

[5:32] [ Applause ]

[5:34] >> Thank you.

[5:34] It has been an honor, and I

[5:36] hope to find ways to continue

[5:36] to serve the judiciary through

[5:39] Advisory Committees, et cetera,

[5:41] in the future.

[5:43] So I hope to see you soon.

[5:45] >> Thank you.

[5:45] And next we have someone with a

[5:47] little bit more time, Ms.

[5:48] Rachel Hill, for her nine years

[5:51] of service.

[5:51] On behalf of the state bar and

[5:54] her participation with our

[5:55] budget, legislation, technology

[5:57] and rules committee.

[5:58] [ Applause ]

[6:04] >> Thank you, Chief.

[6:06] I first want to saysay I am

[6:10] awed and have continued to be

[6:10] awed from day one for the work

[6:12] that's done on the council, the

[6:17] staff that is unparalleled.

[6:19] I think --I said this last

[6:21] night --but I think that if the

[6:24] general public could get a look

[6:26] under the hood and see all ofof

[6:31] dedicated, tireless work,

[6:33] meticulous work that is done by

[6:35] the council and this staff and

[6:38] all of the Advisory Committees

[6:39] that they would have a renewed

[6:42] faith in government and in the

[6:43] judiciary.

[6:44] And I am deeply grateful for

[6:47] the opportunity to work with

[6:48] you and to work with all of you.

[6:51] I will miss you dearly.

[6:53] It's become like a second home.

[6:57] So it's actually a little

[6:59] emotional for me, but thank you

[7:01] so much.

[7:02] >> Well, you can always come

[7:04] back.

[7:05] >> Thank you.

[7:06] [ Applause ]

[7:09] >> Another individual who has

[7:11] made remarkable contributions

[7:12] and also nine years of them, Ms.

[7:15] Gretchen Nelson, who served on

[7:15] behalf of the state bar and was

[7:18] involved primarily in our

[7:20] executive and planning and also

[7:27] >> Well, thank you very much.

[7:27] This has been an honor of a

[7:31] lifetime.

[7:31] I never thought when it started

[7:33] nine years ago it would last

[7:34] nine years, but I was thrilled

[7:36] to be a part of it, I will say,

[7:40] and echo what Rachel said.

[7:42] The work that this organization

[7:42] does, the people that are

[7:46] committed to it, both staff,

[7:49] members of the judiciary and

[7:52] the lawyer members, is

[7:53] extraordinaryextraordinary and

[7:55] what makes the California

[7:58] judicial system the best in the

[7:58] world.

[7:59] >> Thank you.

[8:00] Thank you all.

[8:00] On behalf of all of your

[8:02] colleagues, I express our

[8:04] gratitude for your public

[8:05] service, your dedication and

[8:07] commitment to the rule of law

[8:09] and all of your contributions

[8:11] and enhancing access to justice

[8:12] for all Californians through

[8:15] your service.

[8:16] Thank you.

[8:16] We will also continue to see

[8:19] six councilmembers who are

[8:19] reappointed to new terms.

[8:22] I would like to thank them each.

[8:22] And they are as follows.

[8:27] Justice Carol Corrigan, judge

[8:30] Bunmi Awoniyi -- I'm sorry, at

[8:34] some point, I'm sorry --judge

[8:38] Charles Crompton, judge Ann

[8:40] more are Moorman and Charles

[8:40] Johnson.

[8:41] There he is.

[8:42] Thank you.

[8:42] And also our court executive

[8:43] officer Kate Bieker.

[8:44] Thank you all.

[8:46] MRAUS PRAUS

[8:50] [ Applause ] I'm so grateful to

[8:52] each of you for agreeing to

[8:54] stay on with us.

[8:56] We appreciate your commitment

[8:56] to continued service and will

[8:58] continue to rely on your talent

[8:59] and your expertise for the

[9:01] benefit of all Californians

[9:06] statewide.

[9:07] We are also fortunate to have

[9:09] the following individuals who

[9:11] are joining us as new

[9:13] councilmembers and will help us

[9:15] advance our key goals and

[9:16] objectives that are reflected

[9:18] in the Judicial Council's

[9:19] strategic plan.

[9:20] So grateful to everyone who

[9:22] volunteers for these positions.

[9:24] It's the mix of experience and

[9:25] institutional knowledge

[9:28] combined with your new ideas

[9:30] and your fresh perspectives

[9:31] that really enables the council

[9:33] to do our work on behalf of the

[9:34] public.

[9:35] So I am pleased to announce

[9:37] we're adding to our knowledge

[9:41] and experience base with eight

[9:43] new incoming members, two of

[9:43] the new members have already

[9:45] begun their duties, and I will

[9:46] be administration their oaths

[9:48] of office shortly.

[9:49] Administrative Presiding

[9:50] Justice Mary Greenwood of the

[9:53] sixth district Court of Appeal.

[9:57] [ Applause ] And Mr.

[10:02] Chad Finke, court EX EK

[10:05] executive officer for the

[10:07] Alameda Superior Court.

[10:07] [ Applause ] We also have six

[10:10] additional new members who will

[10:11] begin their terms in September.

[10:13] I would like to welcome them

[10:15] all and recognize those who are

[10:16] with us here today.

[10:18] We have judge Nicole Bershon

[10:19] from Los Angeles Superior Court.

[10:22] She will be representing the

[10:23] California judges association,

[10:24] and I see her in the back.

[10:26] [ Applause ]

[10:32] >> We have Presiding Judge

[10:34] Rodney Cortez from the San

[10:35] Bernardino Superior Court.

[10:36] I don't believe he's with us,

[10:38] but he was with us last night.

[10:41] We have judge Eric Wersching

[10:42] from Orange County who is

[10:44] present.

[10:45] [ Applause ] We have

[10:49] Commissioner Benjamin Cassady

[10:50] of the Sacramento Superior

[10:53] Court.

[10:54] [ Applause ] We have Ms.

[10:59] Marta Alcumbrac, attorney from

[11:00] Los Angeles.

[11:02] Thank you.

[11:03] [ Applause ] And Ms.

[11:05] Alekxia Torres Stallings, an

[11:07] attorney member from

[11:07] Bakersfield.

[11:08] [ Applause ]

[11:12] >> Thank you all for

[11:13] volunteering for these

[11:14] positions.

[11:14] Thank you to everyone who

[11:17] submitted nominations for these

[11:20] positions as well.

[11:21] Just as I have enjoyed working

[11:22] with our members, I'm looking

[11:24] forward and excited about

[11:25] working with each of you here.

[11:28] I want to briefly comment on

[11:30] our Judicial Branch budget as

[11:31] well.

[11:31] This budget, as you know,

[11:35] reflects the governor's and the

[11:40] ors commitment to the branch.

[11:40] The funding helps to address

[11:43] increased operational costs for

[11:43] the trial courts and the rising

[11:47] cost for court interpreter

[11:49] services, appellate court

[11:50] appointed council.

[11:53] It accelerates progress on the

[11:55] five-year Infrastructure Plan

[11:55] for our courthouse construction

[12:00] and maintenance and importantly

[12:02] it also includes funding for 13

[12:04] new judgeships.

[12:04] This will be over a period of

[12:08] five years to help meet the

[12:08] ongoing judicial work load

[12:10] challenges that our courts face.

[12:11] In particular in the counties

[12:14] with the greatest need.

[12:16] I very much appreciate the

[12:16] contributions of our Judicial

[12:19] Branch Budget Committee, the

[12:21] Trial Court Budget Advisory

[12:25] Committee, judge Moorman, Judge

[12:29] Hernandez, Judge Conklin and

[12:29] Fleming for guiding our budget

[12:31] process over the past year and

[12:32] also the planning and

[12:33] information sharing by all of

[12:35] the appellate and Trial Court

[12:38] leadership and court

[12:39] professionals through our

[12:41] committees.

[12:41] And, of course, I'd like to

[12:54] Rob, Erica and now Francine is

[12:55] joining the team, too.

[12:59] I think she's here.

[13:00] >> I'm here.

[13:01] >> Thank you, Francine.

[13:03] And their teams including cory

[13:08] and Zlatko.

[13:10] I think they all deserve a

[13:10] round of applause, too.

[13:12] [ Applause ] And Shelley will

[13:16] have more detailed information

[13:17] to share on the budget during

[13:19] her report, and we'll also

[13:21] address the important processes

[13:23] of allocation and budget change

[13:26] proposals later during our

[13:28] discussion agenda.

[13:29] >> I also want to acknowledge

[13:30] staff members who areare here.

[13:31] We have a full, packed room in

[13:32] the back, from the Orange

[13:34] County Superior Court joining

[13:36] us in the audience today as

[13:39] part of their level- up

[13:41] leadership development program,

[13:44] our Court Executive Officer,

[13:47] David Yamasoki.

[13:48] I think they're here.

[13:50] Yes, there they are.

[13:52] We have also present and

[13:54] welcome a court interpreter

[13:57] manager.

[13:58] We have Beatrice Ademis, in the

[14:03] criminal division, Lori Mayes,

[14:05] rose Marie Garcia, deputy court

[14:08] operations, criminal division,

[14:08] and Teresa Chen, financial

[14:11] services manager.

[14:12] I had an opportunity to meet

[14:12] them all yesterday, and we

[14:13] appreciate you being here with

[14:14] us today.

[14:14] Thank you.

[14:16] [ Applause ]

[14:24] >> Okay.

[14:24] You now invite our two Judicial

[14:25] Council members beginning their

[14:27] term to join me in taking your

[14:29] oath of office.

[14:31] Please stand.

[14:33] Okay.

[14:34] You're both together.

[14:39] You will repeat I do after me

[14:42] if you do, and I hope that you

[14:44] do.

[14:44] I do solemnly swear or affirm

[14:46] that I will support and defend

[14:47] the Constitution of the United

[14:49] States and the Constitution of

[14:51] the state of California against

[14:53] all enemies foreign and

[14:56] domestic, that I will bear true

[14:56] faith and allegiance toto

[14:59] Constitution of the United

[14:59] States and the Constitution of

[15:02] the state of California, that I

[15:04] take this obligation freely,

[15:05] without any mental reservation

[15:08] or purpose of evasion, and that

[15:11] I will well and faithfully

[15:13] discharge the duties upon which

[15:14] I'm about to enter.

[15:16] >> I do.

[15:17] >> Yay.

[15:18] [ Applause ]

[15:21] >> Okay.

[15:24] I was holding my breath.

[15:24] Thank you.

[15:25] I'm really looking forward to

[15:26] working with you guys.

[15:28] Thank you.

[15:28] We will now begin our public

[15:30] comment period.

[15:31] We welcome public comments and

[15:32] appreciate the time and effort

[15:33] that members of the public take

[15:35] to provide them both in writing

[15:39] and in person.

[15:40] All comments are noted and on

[15:41] specific agenda items or on one

[15:44] of the general topics of

[15:44] judicial administration, they

[15:47] all help us to better

[15:48] understand the issues that

[15:51] Californians face when

[15:52] accessing our court system.

[15:54] When further consideration or

[15:56] response is warranted, we do

[15:56] follow up appropriately.

[15:59] However, it's important to note

[16:02] that councilmembers cannot

[16:04] intervene on behalf of any

[16:05] individual or with respect to

[16:07] any case or offer legal advice

[16:08] to anyone.

[16:09] I'll now turn it over to the

[16:11] council's executive and

[16:15] planning committee Chair,

[16:16] Administrative Presiding

[16:17] Justice Brad Hill to begin

[16:17] public comment.

[16:18] >> Thank you very much, Chief.

[16:22] It's nice to have everyone with

[16:24] us today.

[16:24] We have a number who have

[16:25] joined us in person.

[16:26] We thank you very much for

[16:26] taking the time to be with us.

[16:32] I would note when you do

[16:32] approach to speak, that you

[16:34] should state your name, and if

[16:35] applicable, your title and

[16:38] affiliation.

[16:38] On the podium are lights that

[16:41] will inform you of the time

[16:41] remaining.

[16:42] A yellow light will come on

[16:44] when you have one minute

[16:44] remaining and a red light will

[16:47] come on when your time has

[16:50] expired.

[16:51] And we'll turn first to Nick,

[16:55] to speak to court

[16:56] administration.

[16:57] And if you wouldn't mind

[17:00] stepping forward.

[17:03] >> Good morning.

[17:06] >> Good morning.

[17:07] >> Honorable members of

[17:08] California Judicial Council,

[17:10] thank you for having me.

[17:13] Highly appreciate it.

[17:15] Civil engineer, civil rights

[17:18] activist, Orange County.

[17:18] For 700 days I cannot get a

[17:22] signature on stipulation for

[17:25] retirement with the state.

[17:30] This add ministerial duty

[17:36] cleared by all parties of

[17:40] interest, child support

[17:42] services, pending action in

[17:45] district court against

[17:51] government Newsom.

[17:54] Looking for relief, punitive

[17:57] and damages of multimillion

[18:01] dollars, a legal precedent of

[18:06] Jean E.

[18:07] Carroll and president trump.

[18:12] Pending since August 19, '24.

[18:15] For parties two motions for

[18:17] challenge.

[18:18] Motion to stop any hearing,

[18:21] with the Appellate District,

[18:21] petition for review with

[18:27] California Supreme Court, late,

[18:29] unfortunately, with U.

[18:29] S.

[18:29] Supreme Court.

[18:30] Complaints to commission and

[18:33] judicial performance to

[18:35] judiciary who sent me here to U.

[18:39] S.

[18:39] Supreme Court Chief Justice

[18:42] John Roberts to join

[18:44] legislation to presiding judges

[18:47] and court CEOs, complaints to

[18:55] Governor Newsom and was

[18:58] submitted January 2023.

[18:59] On February 18, he stated that

[19:02] he's going to produce an order

[19:05] and ask to prepare the file.

[19:07] On February 27, he overruled

[19:13] himself and denied it.

[19:14] Both yes and no documented in

[19:17] certified court transcripts.

[19:20] >> You might note that the red

[19:21] light has come on, so if you

[19:24] wouldn't mind, perhaps wrapping

[19:25] things up.

[19:27] >> Yes.

[19:28] My question to all mentioned

[19:32] places and to Honorable council

[19:36] here is why the judges were not

[19:39] suspended after ing the order

[19:40] for more than six months, both

[19:44] of them.

[19:45] If they committed perjury in

[19:48] their 90-day pending cases,

[19:51] Government Code 68210,

[19:54] obviously they violated

[19:58] judicial 3 b7 and article 6

[20:03] paragraph 19.

[20:03] Presiding Judge Maria Hernandez

[20:07] felt California rules of court

[20:10] 10608 and 10608, too.

[20:10] I can answer any questions.

[20:12] Thank you for the opportunity

[20:15] to speak.

[20:16] >> Thank you for joining us

[20:18] this morning, and we now have

[20:21] 22 others behind you, so we'll

[20:23] thank and excuse you at this

[20:24] point.

[20:24] We have some interpreters with

[20:26] us.

[20:26] Again, thank you for joining us.

[20:28] We appreciate.

[20:29] We know that it's not easy to

[20:30] take time andand come here to

[20:34] join us.

[20:36] We understand that three of you

[20:36] will be speaking for three

[20:39] minutes apiece and then the

[20:40] others will be indicating their

[20:42] support for what has been said.

[20:47] And we'll turn first to Jean

[20:55] Carasia.

[20:55] I may not have done justice to

[20:58] your name.

[20:59] >> Good morning.

[21:01] >> Thank you for joining us.

[21:03] >> You're welcome.

[21:03] Good morning, Chief Justice and

[21:07] councilmembers.

[21:09] My name is Jean, I'm a staff

[21:13] interpreter atat Superior Court.

[21:17] Over the past decade region two

[21:18] two have lost 42% of their

[21:21] staff interpreters with many

[21:23] returning as contractors

[21:24] earning double or even triple

[21:26] of what staff interpreters make.

[21:28] We do not have a stable

[21:31] interpreter workforce right now.

[21:34] Because of this, the region two

[21:36] courts do not always meet the

[21:37] mandate of providing equal

[21:39] access for all languages.

[21:40] Those of us on the ground see

[21:42] unequal treatment for court

[21:42] users needing our services,

[21:45] unreasonable delays for

[21:47] attorneys and judges, and

[21:48] people denied the right to be

[21:50] heard.

[21:52] >> We see this daily.

[21:54] For decades, the Judicial

[21:54] Council of California has been

[21:57] setting language access

[21:57] standards to ensure equal

[22:01] access to justice, aspirational

[22:02] policy directives won't

[22:04] translate into access without a

[22:08] commitment to workforce

[22:10] recruitment and retention.

[22:11] With long-term, unfilled

[22:12] vacancies and high attrition,

[22:15] some court administrators

[22:16] propose cutting the

[22:19] certification process pass

[22:22] score another 10% down to 60%.

[22:22] Make no mistake, 60% is a

[22:25] failing grade for anything that

[22:28] matters.

[22:28] Imagine yourself in a court

[22:30] proceeding in a foreign

[22:30] language getting maybe six out

[22:34] of ten words being spoken.

[22:34] Would you call that due process?

[22:36] High standards for

[22:37] certification is the right

[22:42] policy.

[22:43] Lowering standards is not a

[22:45] workforce solution.

[22:47] >> For complete, accurate,

[22:49] real-time interPRETing of

[22:50] complex matters, which is

[22:51] necessary for language access,

[22:53] the courts need interpreters

[22:54] who are knowledgeable, skilled,

[22:58] and dedicated.

[22:58] How can the courts meet this

[23:01] need while also refusing to set

[23:01] a competitive salary for staff

[23:05] interpreters?

[23:06] Thank you.

[23:07] >> Thank you very much.

[23:09] Next up we have Laura

[23:13] villanueva, if you wouldn't

[23:15] mind stepping forward.

[23:16] Good morning.

[23:17] >> Good morning, honorable

[23:18] councilmembers.

[23:19] My name is Laura villanueva.

[23:22] I'm a staff interpreter at San

[23:25] Francisco Superior Court and

[23:25] have been a California court

[23:28] interpreter for 11 years.

[23:31] The courts have been neglecting

[23:34] compensation for decades.

[23:34] Courts in the most expensive

[23:37] region of the state are facing

[23:40] daily staffing shortages and

[23:43] persistent vacancies that go

[23:43] unfilled for years.

[23:46] This leaves immigrants without

[23:48] interpreters, harms language

[23:49] access, and undermines civil

[23:53] rights.

[23:54] >> Staff and contract

[23:54] interpreters have the same

[23:58] skills and provide the same

[24:00] service, but staff interpreters

[24:01] work longer hours under less

[24:04] favorable working conditions

[24:05] and earn far less than our

[24:08] contractor colleagues.

[24:10] Even after accounting for the

[24:12] cost of benefits, which not all

[24:16] employees get, we still make 50

[24:19] to 60% less.

[24:22] Paying contractors less is no

[24:22] solution.

[24:23] Paying staff more is.

[24:27] >> The disparate treatment is

[24:28] extreme.

[24:29] What makes us different and

[24:32] unequal?

[24:34] How can the region two courts

[24:37] justify paying us less than

[24:39] federal court interpreters,

[24:42] less than court reporters, and

[24:44] so much less than contract

[24:46] interpreters doing the same job?

[24:50] >> If the courts keep

[24:52] neglecting the interpreter

[24:53] workforce and suppressing staff

[24:55] pay, what's behind the unequal

[24:59] treatment?

[25:00] Is it because our services are

[25:01] legally mandated but unfunded?

[25:05] Is it because the courts don't

[25:08] have public --don't value

[25:09] public service for immigrants?

[25:12] Is it because most interpreters

[25:13] are women?

[25:13] Very many of us immigrants.

[25:17] How do you explain the stark

[25:18] disparities in pay and

[25:19] treatment for an essential

[25:21] workforce?

[25:23] Thank you.

[25:26] >> Thank you very much.

[25:28] Michelle, if you wouldn't mind

[25:32] stepping forward at this time.

[25:44] >> Good morning, Honorable

[25:46] councilmembers, and you said my

[25:48] last name right, which is very

[25:50] unusual.

[25:50] My name is Michelle and I'm a

[25:52] staff interpreter for Alameda

[25:53] county Superior Court and I've

[25:55] been a certified court

[25:57] interpreter for 25 years.

[26:00] Eight of those I was also an

[26:01] interpreter services manager.

[26:04] And for several of those I was

[26:04] also the court language access

[26:08] liaison to the Judicial Council.

[26:11] >> Interpreting over Zoom does

[26:14] not provide equal and

[26:17] meaningful access for LEP court

[26:19] users except for very basic

[26:20] communications.

[26:22] Ad hoc solutions for remote

[26:22] appearances don't work for

[26:26] interpreting.

[26:27] Poor sound, inadequate tech,

[26:29] and the lack of enforceable

[26:31] standards of current systems

[26:35] leave access buffering.

[26:36] Remote interpreting isolates

[26:38] LEP users and impedes their

[26:39] participation, and it puts

[26:41] interpreter hearing at risk.

[26:45] >> Tech without specs is not a

[26:48] workforce solution.

[26:50] The interpreter act was enacted

[26:53] in 2003.

[26:53] The law envisioned a finite

[26:55] transition period to shift from

[26:56] contract interpreter services

[26:58] to an employment system.

[27:02] Stable workforce doesn't happen

[27:04] overnight.

[27:05] But after 23 years, growing

[27:06] disparities in pay and

[27:07] treatment reflect the failure

[27:09] of the California courts to

[27:10] implement the law's intent and

[27:14] purpose.

[27:15] >> Deliver on the law's mandate

[27:17] to provide quality language

[27:18] access services to all LEP

[27:22] court users and the skilled and

[27:23] reliable workforce.

[27:24] Thank you.

[27:25] >> Thank you very much.

[27:29] At this time I'm going to call

[27:29] three at a time and then you

[27:34] can certainly register your

[27:36] support or anything else with

[27:38] respect to those comments.

[27:41] Naomi, Carol and Ryan, step

[27:54] forward, please.

[28:02] And then in the queue, if you

[28:05] wouldn't mind, we'll have Molly

[28:08] Smith and Maria Delcarmen

[28:10] Munoz, if you could get ready

[28:11] to approach.

[28:13] Thank you.

[28:14] >> Hi, I'm Naomi Adelson, a

[28:16] Steph interpreter at Superior

[28:16] Court and I've been a court

[28:19] interpreter for 18 years,

[28:19] dedicated to public service.

[28:23] I support everything that my

[28:24] colleagues said and really hope

[28:25] you fund the mandate.

[28:26] Thank you.

[28:29] >> Thank you.

[28:30] >> Hello, Carol, court

[28:31] certified interpreter for San

[28:33] Mateo county Superior Court.

[28:35] I've been a court interpreter

[28:37] for 27 years, started in 1999

[28:41] for Alameda County, worked in

[28:44] Santa Clara County, San

[28:44] Francisco County and San Mateo

[28:47] County for close to 20 years.

[28:50] I've also been on the court

[28:52] interpreter Judicial Council

[28:53] advisory panel, and I do

[28:55] support everything that my

[28:55] colleagues just stated.

[29:00] Thank you.

[29:02] >> Thank you.

[29:03] >> Good morning, Honorable

[29:05] councilmembers.

[29:05] My name is Ryan Lee, an

[29:09] interpreter working with Santa

[29:11] Clara County in the last five

[29:15] years, and I support and

[29:16] endorse everything been said so

[29:17] far by my colleagues.

[29:19] Thank you.

[29:21] >> Thank you.

[29:24] Now Molly Smith and Maria Munoz

[29:27] can step forward and in the

[29:30] queue we'll have Katie Van

[29:33] Zandt and Shannon.

[29:36] >> Good morning, Honorable

[29:37] councilmembers.

[29:37] My name is Molly Smith, and I

[29:40] am a certified California state

[29:41] interpreter, and I have been a

[29:45] staff interpreter for 14 years

[29:47] with contra Costa County and II

[29:49] and endorse all the comments

[29:49] that have been made so far by

[29:50] my colleagues.

[29:52] Thank you.

[29:57] >> Good morning.

[29:57] I work for San Mateo County.

[29:59] I've been a court interpreter

[30:02] since 2008.

[30:02] We worked through the pandemic,

[30:09] some of our colleagues lost

[30:12] their lives, and many of us got

[30:13] COVID severalseveral times.

[30:14] We're in the holding cells,

[30:16] we're in the court hearings,

[30:17] and it's disheartening to see

[30:21] the lack of pay parity.

[30:25] Thank you.

[30:27] >> Good morning, Honorable

[30:29] councilmembers and Chief

[30:32] Justice.

[30:32] I'm a staff interpreter at San

[30:35] Francisco Superior Court.

[30:35] I have been a California court

[30:38] interpreter for 11 years, and I

[30:40] endorse and support everything

[30:41] my colleagues have said.

[30:43] Thank you for your time.

[30:45] >> Thank you very much.

[30:46] And then in the queue I would

[30:47] ask that Brenda Oliver, Karla

[30:51] quevas and Jenny step forward

[30:53] and then we'll start.

[30:54] Go right ahead.

[30:55] >> Good morning, Chief Justice

[30:56] and Honorable councilmembers.

[30:59] My name is Katie Van Sant, a

[31:02] Spanish court interpreter at

[31:03] the Alameda County Superior

[31:04] Court.

[31:05] I've been a court interpreter

[31:09] for 25 years.

[31:10] I'm also on the Judicial

[31:12] Council committee for access

[31:13] and fairness and the

[31:14] subcommittee for language

[31:15] access.

[31:17] I'm here to support my

[31:17] colleagues, and I endorse

[31:19] everything that they have said

[31:21] today.

[31:22] Thank you.

[31:24] >> Thank you.

[31:27] >> Good morning, Honorable

[31:28] councilmembers.

[31:29] My name is Francisco, and I'm a

[31:33] staff interpreter at Alameda

[31:34] Superior Court, and I have been

[31:35] a staff interpreter for 20

[31:39] years.

[31:39] A recent survey of region

[31:41] twotwo interpreters highlighted

[31:41] all the years of education it

[31:46] takes to do a job.

[31:48] 40% of staff members now depend

[31:50] on side jobs for extra income

[31:50] just to make end meet.

[31:54] I'm one of those interpreters.

[31:56] Thank you.

[31:57] >> Thank you.

[32:00] I would ask christian Guerrero

[32:04] and Margaret layman and Mary

[32:06] Lou --I really didn't do

[32:07] justice to that name, but I'll

[32:08] --

[32:09] >> I'm used to it.

[32:11] >> Okay.

[32:12] Thank you.

[32:13] Please proceed.

[32:15] >> Morning, Chief Justice.

[32:15] Morning Honorable

[32:17] councilmembers.

[32:17] I'm Shannon Raintree, a staff

[32:20] interpreter at San Francisco

[32:21] Superior Court, a certified

[32:22] interpreter for 25 years and a

[32:24] staff interpreter for 19 of

[32:27] those years I support and

[32:27] endorse everything my

[32:30] colleagues have said.

[32:32] Thank you.

[32:33] >> Thank you.

[32:36] >> Chief Justice, Honorable

[32:38] councilmembers, good morning.

[32:42] My name is -- I'm a staff

[32:44] interpreter and I have been a

[32:48] court interpreter for 15 years.

[32:51] I'm dedicated to public service.

[32:51] I'm here today because staff

[32:53] interpreters are underpaid by

[32:57] any measure.

[32:59] In the most expensive region in

[33:00] the fourth largest economy in

[33:06] the world, why are we seeing

[33:09] such low income?

[33:12] Thank you.

[33:13] >> Good morning, Chief Justice

[33:14] and councilmembers.

[33:15] My name is Brenda Oliver.

[33:18] I've been a court interpreter

[33:21] for 27 years, and I echo the

[33:25] comments of my colleagues.

[33:27] And just an example of the

[33:29] shortage in pay, I have to rely

[33:31] on credit cards to buy my basic

[33:32] groceries.

[33:33] Think about that.

[33:35] Thank you.

[33:36] >> Thank you.

[33:39] We would ask Danielle Navarro

[33:42] and Benjamin Young to get in

[33:45] the cue.

[33:45] Please proceed.

[33:46] >> Good morning,

[33:46] councilmembers, Honorable Chief

[33:47] Justice.

[33:48] My name is Jenny Foray, a court

[33:51] interpreter here in California

[33:53] for over 17 years, 15 years I

[33:55] served in Los Angeles county.

[33:58] I'm currently employed as a

[34:00] staff interpreter in Sonoma

[34:00] county courts.

[34:01] Madam Chief Justice, thank you

[34:02] for coming to our inauguration.

[34:05] We are open for service

[34:07] officially on Monday.

[34:08] I want to thank you for your

[34:10] time, and I just want to say

[34:12] that I fully endorse and

[34:13] support what my colleagues are

[34:15] here to say personally and

[34:16] anything that has been

[34:19] submitted in written comment.

[34:22] Thank you.

[34:23] >> Thank you.

[34:26] >> Good morning, Honorable

[34:27] Chief Justice and committee

[34:30] members, councilmembers, I've

[34:32] been a certified California

[34:33] court interpreter for ten

[34:35] years, seven of which I worked

[34:36] as a staff interpreter in

[34:39] Sonoma County and three point

[34:40] at Marin County and I support

[34:42] and endorse the comments made

[34:45] by my colleagues and friends.

[34:51] Thank you.

[34:54] >> Good morning, Honorable

[34:56] councilmembers.

[34:58] My name is Margaret Layman.

[35:00] I've been a staff interpreter

[35:02] for more than 18 years, and I

[35:05] strongly endorse and support

[35:08] everything my colleagues have

[35:09] said, and I just wanted to

[35:11] mention that I am also one of

[35:12] these interpreters who is

[35:15] living paycheck to paycheck

[35:18] despite working full time.

[35:20] And I love my job too much to

[35:21] quit it, but I'm not sure how

[35:22] much longer I can afford to do

[35:24] it.

[35:24] Thank you.

[35:25] >> Thank you.

[35:31] >> Good morning.

[35:32] I'm Mary Lou.

[35:32] I've served the courts for over

[35:36] 34 years as a contract

[35:36] interpreter and as a staff

[35:40] interpreter for Alameda

[35:41] CountyCounty 2003.

[35:42] I've worked in courts all over

[35:44] the state of California at

[35:46] different times, and I just

[35:49] want to say that most of the

[35:50] folks that you're hearing from

[35:53] today have masters degrees.

[35:54] Many are federally certified

[35:57] and we truly are low income

[35:59] under the definition for low

[36:00] income in the Bay area.

[36:04] Thank you.

[36:06] >> Thank you.

[36:06] >> Good morning, Chief Justice.

[36:09] Good morning, councilmembers.

[36:09] My name is Daniel Navarro.

[36:11] I'm a Spanish interpreter at

[36:13] San Francisco Superior Court

[36:15] and have been for 25 years.

[36:21] I want to echo the comments of

[36:24] my colleagues, and I think -- I

[36:28] think what they've said is a

[36:28] testament to our dedication to

[36:30] public service.

[36:31] I would encourage you to read

[36:33] the comments submitted on

[36:35] behalf of our labor union,

[36:41] thank you.

[36:43] >> Hello.

[36:44] My name is Benjamin Young.

[36:49] I am a court certified

[36:51] interpreter for over 25 years

[36:51] in San Mateo County.

[36:53] I have worked as a contractor

[36:54] and staff interpreter, so I

[36:56] know the disparity.

[36:57] And, also, I'm getting old and

[36:59] I'm going to be retiring soon,

[37:01] and at this really think a way

[37:03] should be found to replace

[37:06] people like us and endorse the

[37:07] comments of my colleagues.

[37:10] Thank you.

[37:11] >> Thank you very much.

[37:12] Now that is the group that

[37:12] checked in, but I see a couple

[37:16] folks here that may have gotten

[37:19] here a tad late and didn't

[37:20] check in and we'll certainly

[37:21] want to hear from them as well.

[37:24] So please step forward.

[37:28] >> Good morning, Honorable

[37:29] councilmembers.

[37:31] Thank you for your time this

[37:31] morning.

[37:33] I traveled here all the way

[37:35] from Monterey county, and that

[37:36] is why I am a bit late.

[37:40] I apologize.

[37:40] I have been a certified Spanish

[37:42] court interpreter for the past

[37:44] 20 years, 19 of those years I

[37:45] have been a staff interpreter

[37:47] in Monterey County and I just

[37:48] wanted to mention we provide

[37:52] essential Constitutionally

[37:55] mandated services, and I urge

[37:59] you to provide equal pay for

[38:01] equal work that we've been

[38:03] providing as dedicated public

[38:03] servants for the past couple of

[38:06] decades.

[38:06] Thank you.

[38:07] >> Thank you.

[38:08] No apology necessary.

[38:09] And thank you for making the

[38:12] trip.

[38:13] >> Thank you.

[38:19] >> Good morning, Honorable

[38:21] councilmembers.

[38:21] My name is Farrah Taylor.

[38:23] I have been a court certified

[38:26] interpreter since 2009.

[38:28] I worked as a private

[38:31] contractor for many years, and

[38:31] I've been an employee at Marin

[38:36] County Superior Court since

[38:41] 2017.

[38:41] I endorse all the comments that

[38:42] my colleagues have made, and I

[38:46] would also like to point out

[38:48] that I am well aware of the

[38:49] disparity between what contract

[38:52] interpreters make versus what

[38:55] employees make, and I truly

[38:57] believe that as civil servants,

[38:57] I come from a long line of

[39:01] civil servants.

[39:03] It's unfortunate that court

[39:04] interpreters are so low on the

[39:09] pay scale compared to other

[39:10] people who work in public

[39:13] service, and we are providing

[39:15] such a really important

[39:16] service, and I hope you realize

[39:18] that and are aware of it.

[39:20] Thank you.

[39:21] >> Thank you.

[39:25] >> Good morning, Chief Justice

[39:26] and councilmembers.

[39:27] My name is jack Medina.

[39:30] I work for Marin Superior Court

[39:31] and have been a court

[39:34] interpreter for 20 years.

[39:34] endorse and support everything

[39:36] that my colleagues have said

[39:37] before me.

[39:37] Also, I'd like to point out

[39:41] that some full-time interpreter

[39:43] positions have been announced

[39:44] and candidates have called to

[39:46] apply and have not gotten

[39:47] callbacks.

[39:48] Thank you very much.

[39:49] Have a great day.

[39:50] >> Thank you.

[39:56] >> Good morning.

[39:57] My name is Tatiana and I'm

[39:59] certified Russian interpreter

[40:01] for the County of San Francisco.

[40:04] I endorse and full heartedly

[40:04] support my colleagues and very

[40:09] proud to be of a group of

[40:10] wonderful, well-educated and

[40:12] brave people.

[40:13] Thank you.

[40:14] >> Thank you.

[40:14] I want to thank all of you for

[40:18] your thoughtful and very

[40:20] important comments.

[40:22] Obviously court interpreters

[40:22] are a critical part of our

[40:24] system and we appreciate you

[40:26] taking your time to share your

[40:27] thoughts with us.

[40:28] Chief, that concludes public

[40:31] comment.

[40:32] >> Thank you, Justice Hill.

[40:33] Thank you to everybody who took

[40:35] the time to provide these

[40:36] public comments, whether it

[40:37] related to, as our first

[40:40] speaker, an individual issue,

[40:44] or more broadly language access

[40:47] issues, something we're

[40:47] committed to.

[40:48] We thank you for work that you

[40:49] do, the comments today and all

[40:51] the comments we received in

[40:52] writing.

[40:52] That concludes our public

[40:55] comment period.

[40:56] Thank you.

[40:57] >

[40:57] >> Next on our agenda is my

[40:58] regular report as Chief Justice

[41:01] summarizing some of my

[41:01] engagements and ongoing

[41:04] outreach activities on behalf

[41:06] of the Judicial Branch since

[41:07] our last meeting on April 24th.

[41:11] As part of my power of

[41:13] democracy civic learning

[41:13] initiative, we commemorated law

[41:17] day, as you know, on May 1st at

[41:19] the 3rd district Court of

[41:20] Appeal in Sacramento where we

[41:23] welcomed judges, educators,

[41:24] students and their parents to a

[41:25] program recognizing the rule of

[41:28] law and its role in our

[41:28] democracy.

[41:30] >> We also took the opportunity

[41:31] to announce our 2026 civic

[41:36] learning award honorees at the

[41:37] event and presented the civic

[41:39] learning award of excellence,

[41:40] which is the top honor, to

[41:47] three schools.

[41:48] Prep elementary school, south

[41:51] junior high school in Orange

[41:53] County, and norwalk High School

[41:55] in LA County.

[41:55] I look forward to visiting

[41:57] these campuses.

[41:58] I do each year in the fall.

[42:00] >> In another major celebration

[42:01] of civics, I gave keynote

[42:03] remarks at an event celebrating

[42:06] the 250th anniversary of the

[42:07] founding of our country.

[42:10] It was held on the USS Midway.

[42:20] Joan Webber was the principle

[42:23] organizer.

[42:24] Justice Judith McConnell of the

[42:26] Fourth District Court of Appeal

[42:30] and the Chair of my initiative

[42:33] attended the event alongside

[42:35] numerous judges in San Diego

[42:36] Superior Court and also our

[42:37] federal courts.

[42:38] It was really a wonderful

[42:40] opportunity to engage with the

[42:41] community and highlight the

[42:43] importance of our founding

[42:43] principles and the work of our

[42:46] independent judiciary in

[42:49] upholding the rule of law.

[42:50] >

[42:50] >> Turning to judicial

[42:53] appointments, we had five

[42:54] justices who were unanimously

[42:55] confirmed by the commission on

[42:57] judicial appointments, which I

[43:00] Chair.

[43:00] During hearings in May.

[43:02] The hearings resulted in the

[43:05] confirmations of justice Steven

[43:08] Govovic, division three in Los

[43:11] Angeles, Presiding Justice

[43:13] Joanne Muduwike with the fourth

[43:15] district Court of Appeal

[43:16] division three in Santa Ana,

[43:17] justice Deborah Sorvino with

[43:21] the fourth district court,

[43:26] Justice Aaron Bermudez in San

[43:29] Diego and Justice Amy Gara in

[43:32] Fresno.

[43:33] You're welcome, Justice Hill.

[43:34] I also had the pleasure of

[43:37] welcoming four groups of new

[43:37] judges to my chambers during

[43:40] our new judge orientation

[43:40] program.

[43:42] >> In total we had 25 judges,

[43:46] 24 commissioners and one

[43:47] hearing officer representing 20

[43:49] different counties.

[43:51] In San Francisco I attended the

[43:53] American Bar Association

[43:55] opportunity program where I

[43:57] spoke to law students who were

[44:00] selected for a six-week summer

[44:02] internship to do legal work in

[44:05] writing work with our federal

[44:05] and state court judges.

[44:08] And I always make a pitch for

[44:08] the state side of that equation.

[44:15] I spoke for high school

[44:17] students from several counties

[44:21] attending the young legislators

[44:24] program hosted by senator

[44:25] Caballero.

[44:25] As part of the program

[44:27] dedicated to fostering civic

[44:28] engagement and leadership among

[44:30] central valley youth.

[44:31] I participated in a Q&A session

[44:35] regarding the work of our

[44:36] courts and my role and

[44:37] responsibilitiesresponsibilities

[44:37] Chief Justice.

[44:39] >> I also helped send off

[44:41] graduates from our judicial

[44:43] fellows, the judicial

[44:45] fellowship program during their

[44:47] end of year ceremony held in

[44:47] Sacramento after they spent ten

[44:50] months working in either our

[44:52] Judicial Council offices or

[44:54] with one of seven of our

[44:55] Superior Courts throughout the

[44:57] state under the mentorship of

[44:59] our court executive officers

[44:59] and professional staff.

[45:03] We thank our s for their

[45:05] contribution to our bran:we

[45:06] also hope it's inspired them to

[45:07] commit to continue public

[45:08] service as many of our fellows

[45:11] have done over the years.

[45:12] >> Also in Sacramento earlier

[45:14] this week, I participated in a

[45:18] very lively Q&A session, very

[45:21] lively because it was moderated

[45:25] by Justice Macy Wala and

[45:29] Presiding Justice Earl.

[45:31] There were about 60

[45:33] participants, ex terns and law

[45:37] students who asked questions.

[45:38] I'm very grateful for the time

[45:40] they take and invest to help

[45:41] build the pipeline of our

[45:45] future lawyers and judges.

[45:48] >> In Santa Rosa, Shelley and I

[45:49] were pleased to attend a

[45:50] dedication for one of our new

[45:54] courthouses.

[45:55] It was a lovely gathering to

[45:57] honor the justice for Sonoma

[45:59] county.

[46:00] >> In San Francisco I was

[46:02] honored to speak at a reception

[46:05] for the Glide Foundation and

[46:05] legal services they provide to

[46:08] vulnerable communities through

[46:09] their legal advice and referral

[46:11] clinic.

[46:12] This was actually an initiative

[46:16] that Judge Crompton spearheaded

[46:17] prior to joining the San

[46:20] Francisco Superior Court, so we

[46:20] also thank him for his tireless

[46:23] work in improving the civil

[46:26] justice gap.

[46:27] >> Finally, in Sacramento I was

[46:30] pleased to join Governor

[46:33] Newsom, the attorney general

[46:37] rob Bonta at the annual peace

[46:39] officers memorial.

[46:41] It recognizes peace officers

[46:41] who died in the line of duty

[46:44] the previous year.

[46:45] >> As you know, our courthouses

[46:47] could not function without the

[46:49] work of our bailiffs, sheriffs,

[46:54] CHP, marshals and others to

[46:56] access our justice system and

[46:59] allows judicial officers and

[46:59] court employees to do our jobs

[47:03] without fearing for our safety.

[47:06] As always, it was a somber and

[47:07] moving tribute to peace

[47:08] officers who paid the ultimate

[47:11] sacrifice in order to protect

[47:12] the public and an important

[47:16] recognition to honor the

[47:17] families, in particular this

[47:17] year there were numerous

[47:20] children who were impacted by

[47:20] the loss of their loved ones,

[47:24] so at this appreciate the

[47:26] opportunity to be there with

[47:26] them and that concludes my

[47:29] remarks to the council of my

[47:31] activities since our past

[47:32] meeting.

[47:33] >> We now will hear from our

[47:35] Administrative Director,

[47:35] Shelley Curran, with her report

[47:37] to all of you.

[47:39] >> Good morning.

[47:39] Thank you, everyone.

[47:40] Thank you, chief.

[47:41] I would like to begin this

[47:42] morning by asking to call you

[47:45] recall attention to my regular

[47:47] written Administrative

[47:47] Director's report in your

[47:50] material.

[47:50] It represents a roundup of the

[47:53] work that the council staff has

[47:54] undertaken since the April

[47:56] business meeting in support of

[47:57] the council's mission.

[47:59] It's separate and apart from

[48:00] the matters that are on today's

[48:03] agenda.

[48:03] So I'm going to begin, of

[48:04] course, with the discussion of

[48:06] the budget.

[48:07] >> The report notes that a new

[48:09] budget for fiscal year began on

[48:13] July 1st.

[48:14] For today's meeting, we are

[48:15] presenting for your

[48:16] consideration an approval

[48:17] recommended budgetary

[48:18] allocations for the fiscal year

[48:22] '26-27 and we're seeking your

[48:23] approval for budget change

[48:27] proposals for the following

[48:27] year, fiscal year '27-28 for

[48:30] submission to the Department of

[48:32] Finance.

[48:32] I want to echo the Chief

[48:34] Justice's appreciation to

[48:35] councilmembers and court

[48:37] leaders for the advocacy that

[48:38] you did over the course of the

[48:41] last several months to advance

[48:42] our issues before the

[48:44] legislature and the governor's

[48:45] administration.

[48:46] It makes a very big difference

[48:47] in the work that we do.

[48:52] >> Good news for our state, the

[48:53] final budget agreement between

[48:54] the legislature and legislative

[48:57] leaders and Governor Newsom

[48:57] balances California's

[48:58] government for the current

[49:00] fiscal year now, so for '26- 27

[49:03] and also next year for fiscal

[49:04] year '27-28.

[49:05] When the Governor's Budget was

[49:09] released in January, the state

[49:11] was projecting deficit's it

[49:13] have $26 billion for fiscal

[49:16] year '27-28 and $22 billion for

[49:19] fiscal year '28-29.

[49:21] Those estimates are now reduced

[49:24] to $10 billion and $8 billion

[49:25] respectively.

[49:26] In addition to state budget

[49:26] reserves also being in better

[49:30] shape, better than being

[49:32] anticipated, these reserves

[49:32] hopefully will put us in a

[49:35] better position when it comes

[49:37] to budget stability and,

[49:38] frankly, predictability as we

[49:41] look to the future.

[49:43] >> Also, positively, the final

[49:44] budget reflects investments for

[49:45] the Judicial Branch beyond what

[49:47] the governor had included in

[49:50] his initial may revise.

[49:51] It includes $70 million for

[49:54] Trial Court operations, $20

[49:57] million each in the next two

[49:57] fiscal years to address court

[50:00] --rising court interpreter

[50:01] costs, and $11 million ongoing

[50:04] for court-appointed counsel

[50:06] programs in the Supreme Court

[50:09] and the Courts of Appeal.

[50:12] >> Additionally, they've

[50:15] included $1.

[50:16] 9 billion for a comprehensive

[50:19] --including $150 million,

[50:20] much-needed dollars, I should

[50:24] say -- for deferred maintenance

[50:25] in our Court Facilities.

[50:27] >> Also included is about $100

[50:30] million to begin funding 13 new

[50:32] judgeships over the course of

[50:34] the next five fiscal years, and

[50:37] $30 million one time to

[50:40] continue implementation of

[50:42] proposition 36, and increase

[50:42] dollars for pretrial programs.

[50:45] >> Also on the budget front,

[50:48] they included a recommendation

[50:48] and ultimately a decision to

[50:51] extend the ability for courts

[50:54] to conduct remote proceedings

[50:54] with the consent and the

[50:57] agreement and at the request of

[50:58] parties to a matter, so that

[51:00] was also a big priority for us,

[51:04] and that has been included

[51:06] until 2032.

[51:08] >> As you consider today's

[51:09] allocations and new budget

[51:10] change proposals for '26-27 and

[51:15] '28 budget, the budget released

[51:16] in January is going to be the

[51:19] first budget for our next

[51:20] governor, so a lot of work will

[51:23] commence over the coming months

[51:27] to educate the incoming

[51:28] administration about branch

[51:30] functions and certainly branch

[51:31] priorities.

[51:33] So a lot to follow on that.

[51:35] >> We're also going to continue

[51:37] to monitor actions that are

[51:39] happening at the federal level

[51:40] and also economic conditions

[51:42] that will certainly impact the

[51:46] state.

[51:47] >> Also in today's written

[51:49] report under the role ofof

[51:50] Advisory activities, republic

[51:51] Peted references to spring

[51:53] cycle of public comment on

[51:56] rules and forums proposals.

[51:58] They were prepared by six

[52:00] different Advisory Committees,

[52:00] many driven by legislative

[52:02] requirements, and they were

[52:04] posted for public comment

[52:06] during our spring cycle.

[52:08] >> These proposals will include

[52:13] a total of 176 forms, 167 are

[52:16] proposed new or revised forms,

[52:19] and nine existing forms

[52:21] proposed for revocation.

[52:23] >> On the rules side there are

[52:25] 71 new rules proposals, 65

[52:28] proposed new or revised rules

[52:29] one appendix to the rules as

[52:30] well as five existing rules

[52:34] proposed for repeal.

[52:35] >> Proposals range from new

[52:38] probate rules, joint

[52:39] guardianship appointments and

[52:40] implementation of AB 747 on

[52:43] combatting fraudulent practices

[52:44] related to civil process

[52:48] servers.

[52:49] >

[52:49] >> A total of 320 comments were

[52:50] provided on the different

[52:51] proposals during the spring

[52:53] cycle alone.

[52:54] That public comment process is

[52:55] central to ensuring the full

[52:57] and fair consideration of

[52:59] potential issues relating to

[53:00] the proposed rules and forms

[53:03] and can be really helpful to

[53:06] the Advisory Committees as they

[53:08] are working on developing those

[53:10] forums and ultimately to you as

[53:13] you consider adopting those

[53:13] changes.

[53:15] >> This public --our public

[53:18] comment process generally not

[53:19] only for the rules and forums

[53:21] but budget allocations, our

[53:22] funding methodology, our

[53:24] legislative proposals, any

[53:25] number of things that come

[53:28] before the council --and,

[53:30] frankly, our work at meetings

[53:33] --helps to ensure that our work

[53:35] reflects the various interests

[53:36] of various stakeholders

[53:37] throughout the state.

[53:39] >> Ultimately I think it helps

[53:39] us provide better service to

[53:43] the public, so we really

[53:43] appreciate all of the public

[53:45] comments that are made and all

[53:46] of the work that we do.

[53:49] And I also really want to do a

[53:50] shoutout, now that I've gone

[53:52] through all of that, that

[53:54] laundry list of things

[53:55] accomplished to the members of

[53:55] the council who serve on our

[53:58] rules committee chaired by

[53:59] Judge Wood and all of you for

[54:00] the immense amount of work that

[54:02] you do on that.

[54:04] So thank you.

[54:05] >> Turning to a different topic.

[54:06] In early June, you all received

[54:09] an announcement about ourour

[54:09] chief operating officer for the

[54:13] council.

[54:13] I want to take this opportunity

[54:16] to formally recognize and thank

[54:19] Francine Burn who joined.

[54:22] Francine is known by, I think

[54:24] probably, all of you, and has

[54:25] worked with you in her over two

[54:29] decades of work at the council.

[54:31] Her work at the council has

[54:32] really been focused on research.

[54:33] She was part of our original

[54:35] office of court research.

[54:37] She worked at the center for

[54:40] the court in the last five

[54:40] years has been the director

[54:43] over our criminal justice

[54:46] services office.

[54:47] >> As chief operating officer,

[54:49] Francine will be responsible,

[54:49] her portfolio will include,

[54:51] criminal justice services,

[54:53] center for judicial education

[54:55] and resources, center for

[54:58] family children and the courts

[54:58] and IT.

[55:00] I am appreciative, happy,

[55:01] grateful that she's joined our

[55:03] executive team and know that

[55:04] she's going to continue to

[55:08] excel in her contributions to

[55:10] the council and to all of you

[55:10] and ultimately the public.

[55:14] >> Finally, as the chief

[55:15] mentioned, we had the

[55:16] opportunity to mark the

[55:20] completion and attend a

[55:22] courthouse dedication.

[55:22] During this time period, we had

[55:25] three different openings.

[55:26] One was in April for the new

[55:28] Sacramento courthouse named

[55:32] after former Chief Justice, an

[55:34] 18-story, 53-room courthouse.

[55:37] It opened for business in April.

[55:39] A dedication, as the chief

[55:42] mentioned, for the 15 courtroom

[55:45] courthouse in Santa Rosa for

[55:47] Sonoma County and then also

[55:48] down south we had the

[55:49] rededication then a newly

[55:51] expanded space andand for the

[55:58] juvenile dependency courthouse

[55:59] in San Bernardino expanding the

[56:00] number of courtrooms from four

[56:01] to six.

[56:02] To conclude my remarks today,

[56:07] I'm going to quote from

[56:08] something that that judge from

[56:09] Sonoma said during that

[56:09] courthouse dedication that

[56:11] really resonated for me, and I

[56:18] think it is important for us to

[56:19] keep in mind as we work on

[56:19] these projects and advocate to

[56:22] others about the importance of

[56:23] our capital outlay program.

[56:25] >> So I'm going to borrow from

[56:27] him for two minutes.

[56:27] Too often litigants and members

[56:29] of the public entering members

[56:31] courthouse can feel intimidated

[56:33] or overwhelmed.

[56:33] Many individuals arrive with

[56:35] fear, stress, grief, conflict,

[56:37] and uncertainty.

[56:37] This building was thoughtfully

[56:41] designed to help ease those

[56:42] emotions.

[56:43] Its natural light, grand, open

[56:43] spaces on the first floor,

[56:45] magnificent views from the

[56:47] higher floors, the jury

[56:50] rotunda, and overall

[56:51] architectural splendor send a

[56:52] powerful message.

[56:53] The Judicial Branch is a

[56:56] unique, revered, special

[56:57] institution, and this is a

[56:58] place where people should feel

[57:00] respected, heard, and safe.

[57:03] The beauty of this courthouse

[57:04] is not merely aesthetic.

[57:05] It serves a deeper purpose.

[57:08] Thoughtful architecture can

[57:09] inspire calm, dignity and

[57:10] confidence.

[57:10] It can remind visitors that

[57:12] justice is not cold or distant

[57:15] but human.

[57:17] The details of this building

[57:17] reflect the belief that public

[57:20] institutions should uplift the

[57:22] communities they serve.

[57:22] That concludes my remarks,

[57:24] chief.

[57:25] >> Thank you.

[57:25] Thank you for your report and

[57:26] thank you for those remarks, I

[57:28] thought were very powerful and

[57:30] really captured the importance

[57:33] of the funding requests that we

[57:34] make for the dedication to

[57:36] occur.

[57:37] >

[57:37] >> Next we'll move on to the

[57:37] Consent Agenda.

[57:39] We have 16 items that are on

[57:40] our agenda today.

[57:41] The council's executive and

[57:43] planning committee, as you

[57:45] know, worked really hard to

[57:46] identify those matters in order

[57:48] to optimize the best use of our

[57:49] time during the council

[57:51] meeting, but I'd just like to

[57:51] remind everybody, and we have

[57:52] new members, so I'd like to

[57:55] take this opportunity to remind

[57:56] you that anyone really can move

[58:00] an item from the consent to the

[58:02] discussion agenda item --the

[58:04] discussion agenda if you

[58:06] believe it would benefit for us

[58:07] to have further deliberation

[58:08] and discussion on this item.

[58:10] As always, we appreciate the

[58:10] many ours of work that are put

[58:14] in by our Advisory Committees

[58:15] and our council staff.

[58:17] That have enabled these

[58:18] recommendations to come before

[58:20] us for our consideration.

[58:22] At this time I'd like to ask

[58:22] members if there are any

[58:24] comments or questions before I

[58:26] entertain a motion to move the

[58:28] Consent Agenda items.

[58:29] >> Chief, I'd like to make a

[58:31] comment.

[58:31] Thank you.

[58:32] Before the council considers

[58:34] the Consent Agenda before us

[58:35] today, I would like to

[58:38] highlight the civil council

[58:41] act, eye NEM 26-033 on the

[58:43] Consent Agenda and share my

[58:44] support for the recommendation

[58:46] for continued funding of the

[58:46] projects for the 2026-2029

[58:53] grant cycle.

[58:56] As you might recall, the

[58:58] Shriver program is California

[58:59] it's commitment to ensuring

[59:02] meaningful access to justice

[59:04] for low-income litigants facing

[59:08] issues that affect basic needs.

[59:12] In my Superior Court we

[59:14] participated since the

[59:14] program's inception in 2011.

[59:16] Shriver funded attorneys are

[59:17] essential in helping

[59:20] self-represented litigants

[59:21] navigate evolving eviction

[59:22] procedures, rental assistance

[59:23] programs and plex housing laws.

[59:29] We have legal assistants who

[59:29] help parties every day with

[59:31] these issues.

[59:31] Our partnership with the

[59:33] greater Bakersfield legal

[59:35] assistance program produced

[59:36] strong results.

[59:37] About one-third of clients

[59:40] remain housed and many others

[59:41] resolve cases in ways that

[59:44] lessen long-term consequences

[59:45] such as sealing records,

[59:47] protecting credit or securing

[59:49] time to find alternative

[59:50] housing.

[59:51] The funding provides for

[59:52] mediation services that most

[59:54] recently resulted in an

[59:56] agreement rate of 71%, solving

[59:59] those cases without court

[1:00:00] hearings.

[1:00:01] I appreciate the extensive work

[1:00:01] of our Judicial Council staff,

[1:00:05] our legal services partners,

[1:00:07] and courts statewide who

[1:00:08] provide act funding.

[1:00:11] I respectfully support the

[1:00:12] recommendation before our

[1:00:13] council today and ask that you

[1:00:15] all do the same.

[1:00:15] Thank you.

[1:00:17] >> Thank you for your comments.

[1:00:18] I'll take that as a motion to

[1:00:20] move approval.

[1:00:21] >> That would be a motion for

[1:00:23] approval for the Consent Agenda.

[1:00:25] >> Is there a second?

[1:00:26] >> Moorman seconds.

[1:00:27] >> Thank you, judge Moorman.

[1:00:30] All of those in favor say aye.

[1:00:34] Any nos?

[1:00:36] Any abstentions?

[1:00:37] Thank you.

[1:00:39] The Consent Agenda is approved.

[1:00:45] We have four items on the

[1:00:48] discussion agenda, the first

[1:00:49] consideration allocations for

[1:00:50] Trial Court operations for

[1:00:53] fiscal year 2026-2027, item

[1:00:56] 26-041 in your agenda.

[1:00:58] We welcome our presenters,

[1:00:59] judge Jonathan Conklin, retired

[1:01:01] now, right?

[1:01:02] Congratulations.

[1:01:05] That's why he's smiling.

[1:01:09] Chair of the Trial Court

[1:01:12] advisory.

[1:01:13] Welcome.

[1:01:15] >> Good morning, chief, and

[1:01:17] councilmembers.

[1:01:17] So nice to see all of you.

[1:01:19] Thank you very much for the

[1:01:20] opportunity this morning to

[1:01:20] present the preliminary

[1:01:22] allocations to the trial courts

[1:01:25] for the fiscal year '26-27 on

[1:01:27] behalf of the Trial Court

[1:01:28] Budget Advisory Committee.

[1:01:29] Each of those members, I thank

[1:01:31] for their exceptional work.

[1:01:33] We have a slide presentation

[1:01:34] for you this morning.

[1:01:37] I assure you, it will be brief

[1:01:39] and on time.

[1:01:40] This budget allocation

[1:01:41] controlled by an agenda item

[1:01:43] 2641 for the Trial Court

[1:01:46] operations of '26-27.

[1:01:48] Per state law, that is

[1:01:51] Government Code 68502.

[1:01:53] 3, the Judicial Council is

[1:01:54] required to make these

[1:01:55] preliminary allocations to the

[1:01:59] trial courts in July of each

[1:02:01] fiscal year.

[1:02:03] >> The final allocations which

[1:02:04] incorporate year- end

[1:02:05] adjustments must be completed

[1:02:05] by January of each year, and

[1:02:08] the Trial Court Budget Advisory

[1:02:09] Committee will bring those

[1:02:11] final allocations back to you

[1:02:12] at your December meeting for

[1:02:14] your anticipated approval.

[1:02:18] >> These allocations are the

[1:02:18] primary funding source for the

[1:02:20] trial courts and are essential

[1:02:23] to support the court operations

[1:02:24] and sustain critical programs

[1:02:26] and services for court users

[1:02:28] and the public.

[1:02:29] They may help us maintain a

[1:02:31] skilled and experienced court

[1:02:35] workforce to deliver those

[1:02:36] services, and they protect and

[1:02:38] expand access to justice for

[1:02:40] all Californians.

[1:02:42] >> The total preliminary

[1:02:44] allocations for the Trial Court

[1:02:45] Trust Fund and General Fund for

[1:02:48] fiscal year '26-27, which, as

[1:02:49] was mentioned, we just started,

[1:02:53] are $3.

[1:02:54] 2 billion, based on the

[1:02:54] recommended and previously

[1:02:56] approved methodologies from

[1:02:58] this council.

[1:03:00] Of this amount T $3.

[1:03:02] 1 billion comes from the Trial

[1:03:03] Court Trust Fund and $117.

[1:03:06] 8 million comes from the

[1:03:07] General Fund to support Trial

[1:03:08] Court operations.

[1:03:09] Once approved by this council,

[1:03:11] these funds are allocated to

[1:03:14] the courts in monthly

[1:03:15] distributions.

[1:03:17] >> The fiscal year '26-27

[1:03:19] budget includes additional

[1:03:20] funding for the trial courts

[1:03:24] including $70 million to help

[1:03:24] those courts address rising

[1:03:28] operational costs and to

[1:03:30] mitigate potential reductions

[1:03:30] to court programs and services

[1:03:33] due to the impact of inflation.

[1:03:36] $23.

[1:03:36] 3 million for the Trial Court

[1:03:38] employee health benefit and

[1:03:39] retirement cost increases.

[1:03:42] As a reminder, the state budget

[1:03:45] process adjusts funding levels

[1:03:48] each year to reflect those

[1:03:50] actual benefit cost changes.

[1:03:50] And, as previously mentioned as

[1:03:53] well, a $20 million annual

[1:03:55] increase for court interpreters

[1:03:56] for each of the next two years.

[1:03:59] This additional funding will

[1:04:01] help address the rising costs

[1:04:04] it have court interpreter

[1:04:05] services and support critical

[1:04:06] program needs to ensure

[1:04:07] language access in all of our

[1:04:11] courts.

[1:04:12] >> The work load funding policy

[1:04:15] separate from the calculation

[1:04:17] of court allocations applies

[1:04:22] the Judicial Council's weighted

[1:04:25] caseload study.

[1:04:26] Appropriate for programs that

[1:04:29] rely on the work load funding

[1:04:33] on determined work load, the

[1:04:35] approved calculations will be

[1:04:37] applied.

[1:04:39] The Workload Formula policy

[1:04:41] promotes funding, equity,

[1:04:41] stability and predictability.

[1:04:45] The work load funding

[1:04:47] methodology with calculated

[1:04:47] funding need, which represents

[1:04:48] how much funding the trial

[1:04:49] courts need based upon their

[1:04:51] work load.

[1:04:54] >> And the need is then updated

[1:04:57] annually to incorporate the

[1:04:59] most current information

[1:04:59] including filings, salaries,

[1:05:03] benefits, operating

[1:05:05] expenditures and equipment,

[1:05:06] bureau of labor statistics data

[1:05:09] and court executive officers.

[1:05:12] >> An important note for this

[1:05:12] is that the fiscal year '26- 27

[1:05:18] need calculation now reflects

[1:05:18] the updates to the 2024 case

[1:05:22] work load, case weight.

[1:05:24] Those were updated in 2024 and

[1:05:28] approved by the council at the

[1:05:30] business meeting.

[1:05:31] Last year, as you will all

[1:05:33] remember, the council deferred

[1:05:35] implementation of those 2024

[1:05:38] case weights until this fiscal

[1:05:40] year, '26-27.

[1:05:41] That allowed sufficient time to

[1:05:42] understand the reason for the

[1:05:46] changes and to compare the 2024

[1:05:49] case weights to the prior 2017

[1:05:51] case weights and evaluate their

[1:05:54] impact on Trial Court funding.

[1:05:55] Using those new case weights

[1:05:57] the funding needed for the

[1:06:02] fiscal year '26-27 is $3.

[1:06:05] 26 billion.

[1:06:06] >> Based on the funding

[1:06:06] included in the enacted budget

[1:06:10] as well as local Trial Court

[1:06:11] revenues, available for this

[1:06:14] year, is $2.

[1:06:16] 7 billion.

[1:06:17] >> Comparing the calculated

[1:06:18] funding need to the available

[1:06:21] funding, the statewide average

[1:06:21] funding level for the trial

[1:06:25] courts is now 73% of their work

[1:06:27] load need as identified through

[1:06:31] the Workload Formula policy

[1:06:33] calculation.

[1:06:34] >> So, in conclusion, the Trial

[1:06:36] Court Budget Advisory Committee

[1:06:36] has two recommendations for

[1:06:38] your consideration and

[1:06:40] recommended approval today.

[1:06:42] First, to approve total

[1:06:42] allocations of $3.

[1:06:46] 2 billion from the Trial Court

[1:06:48] Trust Fund and General Fund

[1:06:49] including base, discretionary

[1:06:51] and nondiscretionary program

[1:06:53] funding.

[1:06:54] >> These allocations are based

[1:06:54] on recommended and previously

[1:06:56] approved methodologies and

[1:06:58] subject to technical

[1:06:59] adjustments in funding included

[1:07:01] in the final enacted budget for

[1:07:05] this fiscal year '26-27.

[1:07:08] >> Additionally, we recommend

[1:07:09] you approve application of the

[1:07:10] work load funding methodology

[1:07:12] previously mentioned which will

[1:07:14] result in a statewide average

[1:07:15] funding level of 73% and that

[1:07:19] concludes this presentation.

[1:07:20] We are both available for any

[1:07:22] questions you may have.

[1:07:27] Otherwise we move for approval.

[1:07:28] >> Any questions for our

[1:07:32] presenters?

[1:07:34] No?

[1:07:34] No questions?

[1:07:35] I'll provide a comment and

[1:07:36] thank you, again, for all the

[1:07:38] wonderful work that you

[1:07:40] continue to do.

[1:07:41] The funding that we seek every

[1:07:42] year is critical to our

[1:07:45] operations.

[1:07:45] There's a lot of thought and

[1:07:46] hard work and it goes into

[1:07:48] ensuring that the funds that we

[1:07:51] provide are allocated in a fair

[1:07:52] way so that our courts can

[1:07:54] provide access to justice.

[1:07:55] We really appreciate your

[1:07:57] ongoing work during your

[1:07:59] retirement even.

[1:08:02] Thank you.

[1:08:04] >> I would move approval with

[1:08:05] thanks to Judge Conklin, his

[1:08:07] incredible service as Chair.

[1:08:09] I think this might be your

[1:08:11] final report as Chair.

[1:08:13] And, I tell you, what you have

[1:08:15] meant to our branch and what

[1:08:21] you have done and cobbling

[1:08:22] agreement between our courts

[1:08:23] time and time again and the

[1:08:26] legacy of service that you have

[1:08:27] provided has been extraordinary

[1:08:28] and we thank you.

[1:08:30] >> Appreciate it.

[1:08:30] Thank you very much.

[1:08:31] >> I was hoping you would stay

[1:08:38] on.

[1:08:38] I didn't have the heart to say

[1:08:39] out loud it would be your last

[1:08:43] time.

[1:08:43] I'm still in denial.

[1:08:44] >> If I could ask for ten

[1:08:46] seconds to acknowledge the work

[1:08:48] of this council and just I've

[1:08:51] been in the cat bird seat and

[1:08:53] watched the work they've done,

[1:08:54] beyond measure.

[1:08:55] And I just wanted to thank them

[1:08:59] very much from Zlatko and staff

[1:09:00] for getting us through the time

[1:09:03] helping me look like I knew

[1:09:03] what I was doing, and I would

[1:09:07] be remiss if I didn't leave

[1:09:07] with my final comment of, go

[1:09:11] Dodgers.

[1:09:13] >> Thank you.

[1:09:13] >> Chief, I'll second the

[1:09:14] motion.

[1:09:16] >> Thank you.

[1:09:17] So judge Moorman seconds it.

[1:09:20] Is there any further discussion?

[1:09:21] Okay, at this time all of those

[1:09:23] in favor please say aye.

[1:09:28] Any nos?

[1:09:29] Any abstentions?

[1:09:31] Thank you.

[1:09:32] This item is approved.

[1:09:33] Our second agenda item relates

[1:09:36] to the Judicial Branch

[1:09:37] five-year Infrastructure Plan

[1:09:38] and capital outlay budget

[1:09:39] change proposals for the same

[1:09:44] fiscal year, 2027-28.

[1:09:47] Item 26- 104 in your agenda.

[1:09:51] We welcome our presenters,

[1:09:53] Administrative Presiding

[1:09:54] Justice Brad Hill, who is also

[1:09:55] the Chair of the Court

[1:09:57] Facilities Advisory Committee.

[1:09:57] Judge Eric Wersching,

[1:09:59] Vice-Chair of the Court

[1:10:01] Facilities Advisory Committee,

[1:10:04] also our new member, and we

[1:10:06] welcome Mr.

[1:10:07] Jagan Singh as well from

[1:10:07] Judicial Council facilities

[1:10:11] services and Mr.

[1:10:13] Magnusson from facilities

[1:10:15] services.

[1:10:15] Welcome.

[1:10:16] >> Good morning, chief, and

[1:10:18] fellow members of the council.

[1:10:18] The report that we were

[1:10:21] planning to present to you

[1:10:22] today changed rather

[1:10:23] dramatically about two weeks

[1:10:25] ago, and we couldn't be more

[1:10:27] pleased.

[1:10:27] The final budget announcement

[1:10:29] in June provided the following

[1:10:31] additions to our plans for this

[1:10:35] year and next.

[1:10:36] First, through a combination of

[1:10:37] appropriations from the General

[1:10:40] Fund and the public building's

[1:10:41] construction fund, an

[1:10:44] additional $188 million for

[1:10:46] starting and completing all

[1:10:50] phases of the following four

[1:10:53] projects will be accomplished,

[1:10:55] Clear Lake, Tracey, Kern and

[1:10:59] Tahoe.

[1:10:59] And $1.

[1:11:00] 6 billion for completing all

[1:11:01] remaining phases of the

[1:11:05] following five projects --

[1:11:08] Solano, Nevada City, Plumas,

[1:11:10] Santa Clarita and San Luis

[1:11:13] Obispo.

[1:11:13] And for the following year

[1:11:14] control section 4.

[1:11:17] 85 was DLUD in the budget bill

[1:11:20] authorizing the use of up to 1.

[1:11:22] 3 billion in '27-28 for the

[1:11:25] purpose of acquisitions,

[1:11:27] performance criteria and design

[1:11:29] build phases of construction

[1:11:32] for the following courthouses

[1:11:34] -- Richmond, San Francisco,

[1:11:36] Santa Barbara, Fresno, and the

[1:11:37] Orange County collaborative

[1:11:38] courthouse.

[1:11:40] >> This budget takes us right

[1:11:40] up to the next critically

[1:11:46] needed courthouse, in Los

[1:11:49] Angeles, a project that is

[1:11:51] vitally important.

[1:11:53] Los Angeles lost their last

[1:11:56] courthouse back in 1933 to an

[1:11:58] earthquake.

[1:11:58] It took 25 years to get a

[1:12:02] replacement, which was mosque

[1:12:04] and they can't afford nor can

[1:12:05] we afford to lose another

[1:12:07] courthouse in Los Angeles.

[1:12:08] This increased funding just

[1:12:10] approved is a significant boost

[1:12:14] for the program, and we all

[1:12:15] thank the governor, the

[1:12:16] Department of Finance, the

[1:12:18] legislature for shining a light

[1:12:20] on this critical need and

[1:12:23] helping all Californians in the

[1:12:26] process.

[1:12:27] >> We have long said this is

[1:12:30] not a matter of just building

[1:12:31] shiny new courthouses.

[1:12:32] This is all about providing

[1:12:37] safe and secure courthouses to

[1:12:39] communities across our state.

[1:12:40] Jurors, parties, court staff

[1:12:44] and others deserve safe

[1:12:46] courthouses.

[1:12:47] Courthouses that are ADA

[1:12:49] compliant and courthouses that

[1:12:50] will not be destroyed in an

[1:12:54] earthquake.

[1:12:55] >> Initially we'd like to talk

[1:12:56] just a bit aboutabout we've

[1:12:58] been, where we are right now,

[1:12:59] and our plans for the future.

[1:13:02] About 18 years ago we started

[1:13:06] controlling our own destiny

[1:13:08] with the passage of SB 1407.

[1:13:11] That legislation provided for

[1:13:11] the funding of courthouse

[1:13:15] construction through lease

[1:13:16] revenue bonds, $5 billion

[1:13:19] worth, and our very own Shelley

[1:13:20] Curran was right in the middle

[1:13:24] of that working alongside

[1:13:26] senator Prada to craft this

[1:13:29] historic bill.

[1:13:30] >> At this point --after that,

[1:13:33] a couple years later, we did

[1:13:34] have funding challenges where

[1:13:35] we lost and deferred about a

[1:13:37] billion and a half and had to

[1:13:38] tell a number of courthouses

[1:13:40] that were about ready to start

[1:13:41] that they had to put the brakes

[1:13:44] on.

[1:13:44] But all of us around this table

[1:13:46] and the Court Facilities

[1:13:47] committee and courthouses

[1:13:49] around the state persevered.

[1:13:51] And since that time, we have

[1:13:53] with the continuing commitment

[1:13:55] from the governor, legislature

[1:13:58] and others, we have General

[1:14:00] Fund funding for our program

[1:14:01] that provides the secured

[1:14:03] funding that we need from now

[1:14:07] into the future.

[1:14:10] >> Currently we have 17

[1:14:12] projects ongoing around the

[1:14:15] state totaling $1.

[1:14:17] 8 billion.

[1:14:19] In construction

[1:14:19] currentlycurrently port, the

[1:14:23] juvenile family courthouse,

[1:14:29] Modesto, Ukiah.

[1:14:30] The process of prioritizing

[1:14:32] these courthouses is a long and

[1:14:36] rather arduous one thatthat a

[1:14:38] very detailed criteria.

[1:14:40] >> At the start of a process,

[1:14:42] when we're initially

[1:14:43] prioritizing all of thesethese

[1:14:44] courthouses, we were looking at

[1:14:48] courthouses around the state

[1:14:49] most of which were in dire need

[1:14:52] of replacement.

[1:14:54] So ranking became a process of

[1:14:56] determining the most dire needs

[1:14:59] and working our way

[1:15:00] throughthrough balance.

[1:15:03] >> Our rating and ranking

[1:15:04] criteria looks at detailed

[1:15:05] factors like --and we'll name

[1:15:07] just a few of those --seismic.

[1:15:11] Now you'll see the San Diego

[1:15:13] new courthouse.

[1:15:14] The old courthouse sat directly

[1:15:16] on an earthquake fault, and I

[1:15:20] remember talking to and seeing

[1:15:22] courtrooms in San Diego that

[1:15:23] had cracks going along the

[1:15:26] walls, and judges were pointing

[1:15:28] out that it was just a matter

[1:15:30] of time before that courthouse

[1:15:32] collapsed.

[1:15:33] >> Sacramento was in a similar

[1:15:35] circumstance, and there's the

[1:15:38] new Sacramento courthouse that

[1:15:38] we havehave now.

[1:15:41] Other factors that we look at

[1:15:41] include the facility condition

[1:15:44] index, the fire and life safety

[1:15:49] index, security factors, ADA

[1:15:50] compliance, access to court

[1:15:54] services, and cost per project

[1:15:56] per court users and this

[1:15:57] accounts for large population

[1:15:59] areas that are stressed by the

[1:16:03] number of court users, ie, Los

[1:16:05] Angeles.

[1:16:05] This overall ranking criteria

[1:16:09] relies on these quantitative

[1:16:11] measures and takes politics out

[1:16:13] of the process.

[1:16:16] >> Outside consultants give us

[1:16:18] detailed reports as to each

[1:16:20] factor at each and every

[1:16:22] courthouse.

[1:16:23] In addition, every meeting of

[1:16:26] the Court Facilities Advisory

[1:16:28] Committee and every discussion

[1:16:29] of project ranking is on the

[1:16:33] record and open to the public

[1:16:34] and the public weighs in at

[1:16:36] each and every meeting.

[1:16:39] In other words, there are no

[1:16:42] secrets and no surprises.

[1:16:44] >> We believe it is our core

[1:16:44] mission to build courthouses

[1:16:47] that will stand the test ofof

[1:16:51] time.

[1:16:52] But they have to be built

[1:16:54] economically.

[1:16:54] In our very first year as a

[1:16:56] committee, we formed the

[1:16:58] courthouse cost reduction

[1:16:59] subcommittee.

[1:16:59] Every courthouse project goes

[1:17:02] through this committee, and it

[1:17:04] is a rigorous process.

[1:17:05] One example of what this

[1:17:08] committee did a while back is

[1:17:09] each time a courthouse would be

[1:17:13] built previously by DGS and

[1:17:14] others before that, an

[1:17:18] architect would design all of

[1:17:20] the courtrooms from scratch at

[1:17:22] each courthouse costing

[1:17:23] millions of dollars in

[1:17:24] architectural fees.

[1:17:28] >> We have now developed a book

[1:17:29] of templates, over 20 of them,

[1:17:29] so that courts can pick and

[1:17:33] choose from standardized and

[1:17:34] previously designed and

[1:17:36] approved courtroom layouts.

[1:17:38] The courts across the state

[1:17:40] have chosen and liked and,

[1:17:45] obviously, the new courthouse

[1:17:46] projects can rely upon those

[1:17:47] time-tested models.

[1:17:51] We save money in the process.

[1:17:54] We save time in the process and

[1:17:54] a lot of aggravation.

[1:17:58] >> Our goal is to be good

[1:18:00] stewards of the public's money.

[1:18:02] And to demonstrate courthouse

[1:18:06] by courthouse that we are

[1:18:06] deserving of the governor's and

[1:18:08] legislature's trust to spend

[1:18:09] every penny wisely.

[1:18:12] I'm now pleased to introduce

[1:18:14] the Vice-Chair of the Court

[1:18:16] Facilities Advisory Committee,

[1:18:17] Judge Eric Wersching.

[1:18:20] >> Thank you very much, Justice

[1:18:20] Hill.

[1:18:21] Good morning, Chief Justice,

[1:18:22] and members of the council.

[1:18:24] In your materials for today's

[1:18:26] meeting is a recommendation

[1:18:28] from the Court Facilities

[1:18:31] Advisory Committee, CFAC, the

[1:18:33] proposed five-year plan for

[1:18:33] construction of new courthouses

[1:18:37] as well as a capital outlay

[1:18:40] budget change proposal for

[1:18:43] fiscal year 2027-28.

[1:18:44] We're asking for that

[1:18:45] recommendation to be approved

[1:18:47] and for staff to be directed to

[1:18:49] make the applicable submissions

[1:18:52] to the Department of Finance.

[1:18:53] Justice Hill spoke of many of

[1:18:54] the exciting recent

[1:18:55] developments on this facility

[1:18:57] front with respect to the

[1:18:58] budget.

[1:18:59] >> In order to provide you with

[1:18:59] a little more context for the

[1:19:02] work that that CFAC has done to

[1:19:06] facilitate the building of

[1:19:07] dignified, economical

[1:19:08] courthouses throughout the

[1:19:10] state and to develop and to

[1:19:11] recommend the present five-year

[1:19:12] plan, we think it's important

[1:19:14] to highlight several of CFAC's

[1:19:18] considerations and actions.

[1:19:20] >> First, as to the standards

[1:19:23] Justice Hill spoke to.

[1:19:25] On the building of courthouses,

[1:19:28] Justice Hill described

[1:19:30] standards that CFAC has

[1:19:31] developed.

[1:19:33] Every three years CFAC's

[1:19:36] standards working group

[1:19:39] meticulously considers

[1:19:40] literally hundreds of pages of

[1:19:42] standards, revising them and

[1:19:45] updating them.

[1:19:46] >> The standards are detailed

[1:19:48] but appropriately complexable.

[1:19:50] They form the basis of

[1:19:51] construction bid documents and

[1:19:53] provide the use of a variety of

[1:19:54] templates to fit the needs of

[1:19:58] specific courthouses and

[1:19:59] courtrooms.

[1:20:00] >> They also alleviate the time

[1:20:03] and the expense that in the

[1:20:03] past was used designing and

[1:20:06] building courthouses from

[1:20:08] scratch.

[1:20:08] In other words, we no longer

[1:20:12] build bespoke courthouses but,

[1:20:14] instead, build courthouses from

[1:20:16] standards and a selection of

[1:20:18] templates that best meets the

[1:20:20] needs of the community.

[1:20:24] Justice hill referenced the

[1:20:27] cost reduction subcommittee.

[1:20:27] CFAC is interested in, and we

[1:20:29] know the council is as well,

[1:20:31] being good stewards of taxpayer

[1:20:35] dollars.

[1:20:36] We ran into a challenge, though.

[1:20:43] Small courthouses cost more per

[1:20:44] square foot to build than large

[1:20:47] projects.

[1:20:48] This reduced competitiveness

[1:20:48] for state funding and

[1:20:51] potentially left communities in

[1:20:55] outdated, unsafe facilities.

[1:20:57] It's an economies of scale

[1:20:58] issue.

[1:20:59] >> To that end, the cost

[1:21:00] reduction committee of CFAC

[1:21:03] looked to the standard we just

[1:21:04] discussed to provide a path to

[1:21:13] cut costs.

[1:21:14] We have used those standards

[1:21:15] and reduced the size of many

[1:21:18] courthouses allowing us to

[1:21:18] avoid using excess square

[1:21:20] footage that dries up the cost

[1:21:22] of construction.

[1:21:24] >> Most recently the cost

[1:21:27] reduction subcommittee reduced

[1:21:27] building sizes for the San Joe

[1:21:34] Quinn, Tracy, and Plumas

[1:21:37] projects.

[1:21:37] You can see the results of the

[1:21:38] subcommittee's work.

[1:21:40] >> It makes smaller courthouse

[1:21:42] projects viable and dignified

[1:21:45] because we're using our

[1:21:46] standards where those

[1:21:47] courthouses were previously not

[1:21:49] cost competitive.

[1:21:52] Those recommendations were

[1:21:55] advanced and approved at a

[1:21:57] savings of tens of millions of

[1:21:58] dollars.

[1:21:59] >> But we're not just building

[1:22:00] cookie cutter courthouses as a

[1:22:03] result of these processes.

[1:22:07] For instance, the Falasco was a

[1:22:10] courthouse that was built at a

[1:22:13] 30% cost savings and utilized

[1:22:15] tilt-up construction similar to

[1:22:15] that used in private

[1:22:20] construction of Target and

[1:22:21] Costco stores.

[1:22:21] Combined with our standards is

[1:22:25] very dignified.

[1:22:26] >> Other examples of us not

[1:22:27] building cookie cutter

[1:22:31] courthouses include the.

[1:22:34] L Centro courthouse which the

[1:22:35] chief attended the dedication

[1:22:36] of on your screen.

[1:22:40] We have the Yreka courthouse.

[1:22:44] We have the Sonora courthouse

[1:22:45] and the Santa Rosa courthouse

[1:22:49] that we just heard about today

[1:22:51] the dedication that you two

[1:22:51] attended.

[1:22:53] >> So more economicaleconomical

[1:22:54] efficient does not equate to

[1:22:57] less dignified.

[1:22:57] But in addition to CFAC working

[1:23:02] on replacing aging courthouses

[1:23:03] with seismically safe

[1:23:06] structures, defining standards

[1:23:06] for courthouses and examining

[1:23:10] cost cutting where appropriate,

[1:23:10] CFAC also looks very closely at

[1:23:14] deferred maintenance and

[1:23:16] facility modification costs

[1:23:17] when recommending its five-year

[1:23:18] plan that's before you.

[1:23:20] >> In many respects, deferred

[1:23:22] maintenance and facility

[1:23:24] modification expenses are the

[1:23:27] hidden costs of aging buildings

[1:23:27] because dollars that we spend

[1:23:32] on aging obsolete buildings are

[1:23:33] dollars not invested in new

[1:23:36] purpose-built courthouses.

[1:23:37] >> We have an estimated $5.

[1:23:40] 37 billion in estimated

[1:23:41] deferred maintenance costs

[1:23:42] which approximately $3.

[1:23:46] 96 billion is the branch's

[1:23:48] Chair.

[1:23:49] >> New construction, however,

[1:23:50] by contrast, 50-plus years of

[1:23:51] service life and dramatically

[1:23:54] reduces the long-term

[1:23:54] maintenance burden on the state

[1:23:58] and on the branch.

[1:23:59] At CFAC we're very much aware

[1:24:00] of these deferred maintenance

[1:24:02] hidden expenses when

[1:24:03] recommending the five-year plan

[1:24:04] before you.

[1:24:07] >> As is set forth in your

[1:24:10] materials, the five- year plan

[1:24:13] includes 17 courthouses,

[1:24:14] projects for construction, and

[1:24:15] they're up on the slide, very

[1:24:18] small, in front of you.

[1:24:18] But you have them in your

[1:24:22] material.

[1:24:22] But please remember as Justice

[1:24:24] Hill mentioned, up until about

[1:24:26] two weeks ago, this five-year

[1:24:28] plan included many other

[1:24:31] courthouses.

[1:24:31] They're no longer part of that

[1:24:33] five-year plan because of the

[1:24:33] budget.

[1:24:34] >> Those projects that are not

[1:24:37] on this five-year plan because

[1:24:40] they've been fully funded

[1:24:42] through the budget, include

[1:24:46] Clearlake, Tracy, Kern, Nevada

[1:24:49] city, Plumas, Santa Clarita and

[1:24:51] San Luis Obispo.

[1:24:52] Before moving on to the action

[1:24:54] item, we'd be remiss if we did

[1:24:58] not thank our dedicated,

[1:24:59] hard-working, very competent

[1:25:00] Judicial Council staff.

[1:25:02] >> They provide us with such

[1:25:03] wonderful guidance on a daily

[1:25:06] basis and, really, we couldn't

[1:25:07] do the work without them and

[1:25:09] make these recommendations

[1:25:09] without their tremendous

[1:25:11] insight.

[1:25:12] And I know that we just have

[1:25:13] two of them here but it is a

[1:25:16] team that stands behind

[1:25:17] everything that our CFAC

[1:25:19] committee does.

[1:25:20] >> And I have the privilege of

[1:25:22] being able to address you

[1:25:23] today, but it really is the

[1:25:25] work of all of the CFAC

[1:25:27] committee members as well that

[1:25:27] have contributed to this five-

[1:25:31] year plan including Judge

[1:25:32] Kelly, Justice Hill as well.

[1:25:35] With that, CFAC recommends

[1:25:36] approval of its proposed

[1:25:37] five-year plan and the capital

[1:25:42] outlay budget change proposal

[1:25:42] and staff be directed to make

[1:25:44] their submission to the

[1:25:45] Department of Finance.

[1:25:45] We're prepared to answer any

[1:25:49] questions.

[1:25:50] >> Thank you for your

[1:25:52] presentation, for such a

[1:25:52] thorough and thoughtful plan

[1:25:54] that you've put before us to

[1:25:55] consider and for helping us be

[1:25:58] good stewards with the money

[1:25:59] that we receive.

[1:26:00] We appreciate all the hard work

[1:26:01] and the teamwork that went into

[1:26:03] the proposal.

[1:26:04] >> Are there any comments or

[1:26:05] questions?

[1:26:09] I'll entertain a motion for

[1:26:10] movement of approval of this

[1:26:11] agenda item.

[1:26:13] >> I'll move.

[1:26:13] >> Thank you.

[1:26:14] >> I'll second, chief.

[1:26:18] >> Thank you, Boulware Eurie

[1:26:19] and justice Corrigan.

[1:26:20] All those in favor please say

[1:26:24] aye.

[1:26:25] Any nos or abstentions?

[1:26:26] This item is approved, thank

[1:26:27] you.

[1:26:28] >> Thank you.

[1:26:29] >> Good job.

[1:26:32] >> For our third item, we will

[1:26:39] consider our IT modernization

[1:26:41] funding for 2026-27, item

[1:26:43] 26-107 in your materials.

[1:26:46] We welcome our presenters Judge

[1:26:48] Maria Hernandez, Chair of the

[1:26:49] Technology Committee and Mr.

[1:26:52] David Slayton, Vice-Chair of

[1:26:57] the Technology Committee.

[1:27:02] >> Good morning.

[1:27:06] Thank you, Chief.

[1:27:07] We are pleased and, again,

[1:27:07] thank you for allowing us the

[1:27:12] opportunity to share with you

[1:27:17] this morning the IT project

[1:27:19] grant for fiscal year '26-27.

[1:27:21] I'm pleased to be joined by our

[1:27:22] Vice-Chair, Mr.

[1:27:23] David Slayton, the CEO from Los

[1:27:26] Angeles County.

[1:27:27] We're going to try to get

[1:27:29] through this and get everybody

[1:27:29] out on time.

[1:27:31] I'm going to move to what we

[1:27:32] intend to cover here this

[1:27:33] morning.

[1:27:34] I'll start with an overview of

[1:27:39] the IT mod guiding principles

[1:27:43] and will turn it over to David

[1:27:45] to share the new funding

[1:27:48] methodology including the focus

[1:27:50] on collaborative efforts

[1:27:52] amongst all the courts.

[1:27:52] We'll close by highlighting the

[1:27:55] impacts of this important grant

[1:27:56] project for the courts and also

[1:27:59] requesting your approval.

[1:28:01] First of all, going to the

[1:28:01] guiding principles.

[1:28:03] It's important, and I know

[1:28:04] you've heard from us before,

[1:28:07] but IT modernization grant

[1:28:07] funding has remained consistent

[1:28:10] over the many years.

[1:28:11] >> These principles include a

[1:28:14] commitment to promote

[1:28:16] innovation through technology.

[1:28:18] This year's funding priorities

[1:28:19] were informed by court

[1:28:20] technology assessments and

[1:28:24] surveys that identified the top

[1:28:25] five priorities and funding

[1:28:28] needs of the court.

[1:28:28] The next our Technology

[1:28:29] Committee, who we are very

[1:28:31] honored to serve with, and as

[1:28:32] judge Wersching just said, this

[1:28:35] takes a team and a village in

[1:28:36] working behind all of the

[1:28:38] efforts.

[1:28:39] >> We adopt an approach to

[1:28:40] distribution of methodology

[1:28:44] each year based on the branch

[1:28:45] needs.

[1:28:45] In other words, we need to be

[1:28:47] flexible in these changing

[1:28:48] times.

[1:28:49] David's going to discuss with

[1:28:49] you in just a moment that

[1:28:52] transformation and what we're

[1:28:53] doing now.

[1:28:56] >> Finally, given our limited

[1:28:56] resources and at its core we

[1:28:58] always want to encourage

[1:29:00] collaboration in all aspects of

[1:29:03] our IT modernization funds.

[1:29:04] From the way we evaluate the

[1:29:07] process and the applications

[1:29:07] themselves, we are encouraging

[1:29:10] collaboration at every step of

[1:29:14] this impactful program.

[1:29:16] >> What I would like to do is a

[1:29:16] quick overview before I turn it

[1:29:19] over to David to discuss.

[1:29:19] When you look at this number,

[1:29:24] we had 46 courts that applied,

[1:29:29] submitting over $62 million,

[1:29:32] almost $73 million in requests

[1:29:35] for this mod fundsing.

[1:29:38] As you know there's only $12.

[1:29:41] 5 available to allocate for

[1:29:43] that funding.

[1:29:44] >> What I will say is that also

[1:29:46] included 149 separate proposals

[1:29:50] that a tremendous team through

[1:29:54] our team reviewed each and

[1:29:58] every step along the way.

[1:29:59] We have had funding requests

[1:30:00] far ex receipting what is

[1:30:02] available for allocation for

[1:30:05] the past five years, the

[1:30:07] amounts have ranged from $50

[1:30:12] million to $68 million for

[1:30:17] modernization.

[1:30:18] This really limits a local

[1:30:19] court's ability to maintain

[1:30:23] reliability services, address

[1:30:25] the rising costs and, of

[1:30:26] course, keeping up with our

[1:30:29] public's expectations for

[1:30:32] secure, reliable, efficient

[1:30:32] technology.

[1:30:33] Given the imbalance, and we've

[1:30:34] talked through some of the

[1:30:36] budget and you'll hear more

[1:30:37] later this morning, those gaps,

[1:30:41] it's more important now than

[1:30:44] ever that our funding approach

[1:30:45] and how we allocate these funds

[1:30:47] is deliberate, that it's

[1:30:50] thoughtful and is strategic.

[1:30:51] >> At this point I'd like to

[1:30:53] turn it over to Mr.

[1:30:53] Slayton to run through that

[1:30:55] methodology for you.

[1:30:56] >> Thank you, Judge Hernandez,

[1:30:58] and good morning, everyone.

[1:30:59] The tech committee spent time

[1:31:02] before we released the IT mod

[1:31:04] applications trying to adopt a

[1:31:04] new approach that could

[1:31:07] continue to align with the

[1:31:07] program's guiding principles

[1:31:09] but would think about how we

[1:31:10] could use the very limited

[1:31:12] resources we have as

[1:31:14] effectively as possible.

[1:31:15] >> The approach we adopted

[1:31:18] aimed to rank for funding

[1:31:19] consideration similar to the

[1:31:21] way that we -- great

[1:31:23] traditional grant programs rank

[1:31:25] applications, and the intent

[1:31:26] was to prioritize the most

[1:31:29] impactful proposals submitted

[1:31:31] by the courts.

[1:31:33] >> We also wanted to promote

[1:31:33] the three funding priorities

[1:31:35] for this cycle chosen by the

[1:31:36] council based upon the

[1:31:37] responses from the court's

[1:31:37] needs, and those included cyber

[1:31:41] and information security, case

[1:31:42] management system improvements

[1:31:44] and enhancements, and IT

[1:31:46] infrastructure.

[1:31:47] And to help drive progress in

[1:31:48] these top priority areas that

[1:31:50] have been identified by the

[1:31:53] courts.

[1:31:54] >> We wanted to encourage

[1:31:55] collaborative proposals, as

[1:31:55] Judge Hernandez was mentioning.

[1:31:56] Collaboration is important.

[1:31:59] We have limited resources, so

[1:32:01] when we can have courts

[1:32:02] collaborate and reuse

[1:32:04] technology that's a way we can

[1:32:05] maximize the funds.

[1:32:06] And so courts were urged to

[1:32:08] submit joint projects supported

[1:32:10] by letters of endorsement from

[1:32:11] other courts to maximize that

[1:32:13] funding.

[1:32:14] >> And then we wanted to invest

[1:32:14] funding where it was most

[1:32:16] needed to help level up courts

[1:32:18] and support achievement of

[1:32:20] baseline technology initiatives

[1:32:22] like basic cyber security,

[1:32:23] making sure everyone was at the

[1:32:26] same basic level.

[1:32:27] >> So to implement this new

[1:32:29] approach, the work stream from

[1:32:30] the information technology

[1:32:33] Advisory Committee led by Judge

[1:32:36] Hanson, the Chair of that

[1:32:37] committee, and comprised of

[1:32:38] members across the branch

[1:32:40] including judges, CEOs, other

[1:32:42] administrative staff,

[1:32:44] technology and operational

[1:32:45] officers, they were tasked with

[1:32:47] completing a more in- depth

[1:32:51] criteria, reviewed all 149

[1:32:52] applications in detail and

[1:32:53] scored them based upon criteria.

[1:32:56] >> The purpose of this change

[1:32:57] was to provide a more

[1:32:59] comprehensive review of project

[1:33:00] proposals, establish a

[1:33:03] framework that will support

[1:33:04] project ranking --that

[1:33:05] supported project ranking for

[1:33:07] funding consideration and that

[1:33:09] would align our evaluation

[1:33:10] approach with practices

[1:33:12] commonly used in traditional

[1:33:14] grant funding programs.

[1:33:15] >> In addition to ensuring the

[1:33:17] project met project

[1:33:17] requirements, the work street

[1:33:19] evaluated key factors such as

[1:33:21] the project's alignment with

[1:33:23] this year's funding priorities.

[1:33:23] The number of courts that were

[1:33:26] involved in a collaboration

[1:33:27] with the project, the level of

[1:33:29] public benefit, the impact to

[1:33:33] improving a court's baseline

[1:33:33] security posture and the level

[1:33:35] of modernization or innovation

[1:33:37] proposed by the court.

[1:33:38] The work stream's role was

[1:33:41] simply this, to evaluate

[1:33:41] projects according to a set of

[1:33:44] criteria we provided to them.

[1:33:45] They were not aware of the

[1:33:47] impacts of each factor or its

[1:33:48] weighting in our final

[1:33:50] recommendations but they were

[1:33:51] looking at does the proposal

[1:33:53] meet these criteria?

[1:33:54] Once that was done and

[1:33:55] following that work stream's

[1:33:56] review, the Technology

[1:33:57] Committee applied weights to

[1:33:59] the evaluation criteria.

[1:33:59] They allowed us to score and

[1:34:03] rank those projects by those

[1:34:05] scores they'd been provided by

[1:34:08] ITAC.

[1:34:09] >> After we did all of that,

[1:34:10] after that ranking was done and

[1:34:11] we reviewed the results, we

[1:34:13] determined that we wanted to

[1:34:15] check a few --have a few other

[1:34:16] checks to make sure that we

[1:34:18] were using our funding as

[1:34:20] wisely as we could.

[1:34:20] Those included ensuring both

[1:34:22] appellate and trial courts

[1:34:23] receive funding even with the

[1:34:26] ranked model, confirming that

[1:34:26] there was no duplication of

[1:34:29] funding with other council

[1:34:29] grants, some of which are on

[1:34:32] today's agenda.

[1:34:32] And if a project was already

[1:34:34] funded by one of those

[1:34:35] projects, it was removed from

[1:34:36] consideration here.

[1:34:38] >> We corrected requested

[1:34:38] amounts to align with program

[1:34:40] requirements.

[1:34:41] Sometimes there were items that

[1:34:42] were included that were not

[1:34:45] allowed to be funded by this

[1:34:45] program, so included

[1:34:47] facility-related costs.

[1:34:47] And then we monitored for

[1:34:50] excessive allocation where a

[1:34:52] court had multiple highly

[1:34:54] ranked projects to avoid

[1:34:55] creating large overages trying

[1:34:56] to spread the money as far as

[1:34:59] we could.

[1:35:00] >> Ultimately this year the

[1:35:01] Technology Committee is

[1:35:02] recommending this new funding

[1:35:05] approach.

[1:35:05] We want to fully fund the

[1:35:08] highest ranked projects until

[1:35:10] the $12.

[1:35:11] 5 billion allocated is

[1:35:11] exhausted.

[1:35:12] One project, because of that,

[1:35:14] is receiving partial funding

[1:35:15] because it fell right at the

[1:35:18] cut line, so we're just fund

[1:35:20] every every that we can, and

[1:35:21] one of those projects will be

[1:35:22] partially funded because of

[1:35:24] that.

[1:35:25] >> You'll see and Judge

[1:35:25] Hernandez will talk about the

[1:35:27] wait list where perhaps that

[1:35:28] project will receive full

[1:35:30] funding if there's additional

[1:35:32] revenue available.

[1:35:33] >> The goal of this model is to

[1:35:34] direct to the projects with the

[1:35:37] greatest impact.

[1:35:39] In prior years the IT was to

[1:35:41] all courts regardless of the

[1:35:42] impact leaving many projects

[1:35:44] underfunded and unable to move

[1:35:46] forward.

[1:35:47] Courts often had to scale back

[1:35:47] or delay projects because

[1:35:50] partial allocations were not

[1:35:50] sufficient to deliver full

[1:35:53] outcomes.

[1:35:54] >> And lastly, the prior model

[1:35:56] made it difficult to assess

[1:35:59] statewide progress because it

[1:36:00] was fragmented across

[1:36:03] technology areas.

[1:36:03] Our new model ensures courts

[1:36:06] can fully deliver high-impact

[1:36:06] projects instead of stretching

[1:36:08] limited dollars across too many

[1:36:10] partially funded efforts.

[1:36:13] >> It creates greater

[1:36:14] transparency and

[1:36:15] predictability, highlighting

[1:36:15] specific projects for funding

[1:36:17] and enabling courts to plan

[1:36:18] with confidence, and it focuses

[1:36:21] limited funds on the projects

[1:36:23] that address the established

[1:36:24] priorities of greatest 23450ED

[1:36:25] by the Technology Committee and

[1:36:27] the council and this year

[1:36:29] security, case management and

[1:36:30] infrastructure.

[1:36:31] >> Therefore, we can assess

[1:36:32] better statewide progress as we

[1:36:36] move forward.

[1:36:36] This summary on the screen in

[1:36:39] front of you shows how the $12.

[1:36:40] 5 allocation is being

[1:36:42] recommended to be distributed

[1:36:44] across the top funding

[1:36:45] priorities.

[1:36:46] You'll see cyber and

[1:36:47] information security.

[1:36:48] We have 24 projects, the most

[1:36:51] number of projects that we're

[1:36:53] recommending funding but only

[1:36:54] $3.

[1:36:55] 27 million of that 12.

[1:36:57] 5.

[1:36:57] In the case management system

[1:36:58] fewer projects, ten projects,

[1:37:00] but because of the extensive

[1:37:03] cost of the projects $6.

[1:37:04] 41 million, the largest of the

[1:37:07] investment area.

[1:37:09] >> IT infrastructure we're

[1:37:09] recommending funding 12

[1:37:12] projects that would total $2.

[1:37:12] 1 million and a few other

[1:37:14] projects that are being funded

[1:37:16] that's just under $700,000.

[1:37:17] And these include things such

[1:37:19] as a records automation review

[1:37:21] pilot, electronic evidence and

[1:37:24] electronic filing.

[1:37:25] >> I'll point out electronic

[1:37:26] filing in some of our smallest

[1:37:27] counties in the state who have

[1:37:28] not previously been able to

[1:37:30] offer that will be a big

[1:37:31] improvement.

[1:37:32] The $12.

[1:37:33] 5 million will be awarded to 32

[1:37:35] courts including seven small

[1:37:36] courts and the fifth District

[1:37:38] Court of appeal who submitted

[1:37:40] for a collaborative on behalf

[1:37:41] of the appellate courts.

[1:37:43] >> Importantly, five of those

[1:37:44] projects, including the fifth

[1:37:45] District Court of appeals are

[1:37:47] these collaborative efforts

[1:37:48] that benefit 23 courts in

[1:37:51] total, so just those five also

[1:37:52] help 23 additional courts.

[1:37:55] >> With that I will turn it

[1:37:57] back over to Judge Hernandez

[1:37:57] who will speak more about the

[1:37:58] collaborative projects.

[1:38:00] >> Thank you so much, David.

[1:38:01] And as you can see, it's a very

[1:38:04] pro-bust comprehensive

[1:38:05] evaluation and assessment we

[1:38:07] have moved to and as DavidDavid

[1:38:10] finished up with speaking to

[1:38:10] those collaboration projects,

[1:38:12] this was a new focus for our

[1:38:15] tech committee and this grant

[1:38:16] this year.

[1:38:18] The tech committee was driven

[1:38:18] by our commitment to better

[1:38:20] serve the branch with shared

[1:38:21] solutions, to realize those

[1:38:25] economies of scale, and support

[1:38:27] community problem solving

[1:38:27] together, ing that limited

[1:38:30] funding that you see in these

[1:38:31] charts that we've presented for

[1:38:33] you.

[1:38:34] >> With that in mind, included

[1:38:36] in our recommendation is the

[1:38:38] five approved projects for

[1:38:40] collaboration.

[1:38:42] I would like to bring your

[1:38:44] attention to that last Sierra

[1:38:45] project which is a

[1:38:47] collaborative project that was

[1:38:48] initiated by Sierra's Superior

[1:38:53] Court, but, as you note, it

[1:38:56] includes Modoc, Plumas and

[1:39:00] trinity.

[1:39:01] These projects are ones that

[1:39:02] the courts will initiate the

[1:39:03] projects and partner courts

[1:39:05] will participate in that.

[1:39:06] With the example from the

[1:39:08] Sierra, they will seek to adopt

[1:39:10] and access modernization

[1:39:11] through respective case

[1:39:12] managements for their

[1:39:14] electronic filing.

[1:39:16] As we know electronic filing

[1:39:18] enables litigants, attorneys

[1:39:19] and justice partners to submit

[1:39:21] their documents online.

[1:39:23] The project reduces the need

[1:39:27] for in-person courthouse visits

[1:39:28] and removes significant

[1:39:30] geographic, financial and

[1:39:30] procedural barriers that we've

[1:39:33] all been talking about to make

[1:39:33] sure we're providing access to

[1:39:37] justice.

[1:39:38] >> Ultimately this project

[1:39:41] operationalizes while

[1:39:43] strengthening equitable access

[1:39:44] to justice offering our rural

[1:39:45] residents faster, more reliable

[1:39:48] and more accessible court

[1:39:50] services.

[1:39:51] The shared investments allowed

[1:39:51] the courts to pull their

[1:39:54] resources and maximize the

[1:39:58] limited funding.

[1:39:58] This covers our urban to rural,

[1:40:01] from small to large.

[1:40:03] >> Moving to the wait list

[1:40:05] David spoke about.

[1:40:07] We have ten prioritized

[1:40:09] projects that are on a wait

[1:40:14] list.

[1:40:16] If a court cannot use its full

[1:40:16] award or can't complete the

[1:40:18] project within the time lines,

[1:40:22] the weight list will allow us

[1:40:25] to realskate to those ready to

[1:40:27] move forward.

[1:40:28] This process keeps that local

[1:40:31] court project funding with our

[1:40:32] courts supporting timely

[1:40:33] project completion and

[1:40:35] maximizing the benefit of those

[1:40:40] funds.

[1:40:42] >> The impact is on how

[1:40:43] important techie is.

[1:40:46] The IT projects will deliver

[1:40:48] meaningful, measurable impact

[1:40:48] across our court operations.

[1:40:52] Investments in modern

[1:40:53] technology as you all know will

[1:40:55] expand our access to justice,

[1:40:57] broadening public access to

[1:40:58] court services and ensure more

[1:41:03] consistent service delivery

[1:41:07] across our appellate and

[1:41:09] Supreme Court.

[1:41:10] Improving our court

[1:41:10] collaboration by enabling

[1:41:13] information sharing and

[1:41:13] investing and a shared solution

[1:41:16] to limited funds.

[1:41:18] By replacing our aging and

[1:41:19] sometimes quite archaic systems

[1:41:21] that we all work within which

[1:41:23] then will reduce those

[1:41:25] operational risks and

[1:41:26] strengthening performance,

[1:41:27] security and reliability.

[1:41:29] And, of course, deploying our

[1:41:33] scalable solutions and

[1:41:37] duplication ensuring technology

[1:41:40] can quickly adapt to new Lastly

[1:41:44] but certainly not least, to

[1:41:46] mature court technology, the

[1:41:48] world that we are a part of by

[1:41:49] strengthening our cyber

[1:41:52] security and overall

[1:41:52] operational readiness to meet

[1:41:56] future demands.

[1:42:00] The needs continue.

[1:42:01] Technology is a foundation to

[1:42:03] what we do every day to keep

[1:42:07] our courts operational,

[1:42:09] security reliable across the

[1:42:10] state.

[1:42:11] >> I say it is the backbone to

[1:42:13] justice and how we deliver

[1:42:15] service to our public.

[1:42:17] Public expectations demand that

[1:42:18] the courts provide more digital

[1:42:20] and remote service.

[1:42:22] We've heard about that so many

[1:42:25] times and how important more

[1:42:27] data transparency and, of

[1:42:28] course, faster responses that

[1:42:31] the public also wants from us.

[1:42:33] >> We just can't keep pace at

[1:42:34] the rate we're at right now.

[1:42:36] With the rising costs that

[1:42:37] we've all heard about, some

[1:42:40] licensing fees that we just

[1:42:40] heard about, case management

[1:42:43] systems, hosting an operational

[1:42:45] IT expenses are increasing

[1:42:48] exponentially.

[1:42:50] But as we've discussed on other

[1:42:52] occasions and this morning,

[1:42:53] there is no dedicated funding

[1:42:55] for the maintenance and

[1:42:57] operational technology needs to

[1:42:58] keep our systems running and

[1:43:01] providing that access to

[1:43:01] justice.

[1:43:02] >> As a result of that lack of

[1:43:07] dedicated funding, on going IT

[1:43:10] support covered by the baseline

[1:43:11] budget which creates that

[1:43:13] competition for very limited

[1:43:14] resources at a time when

[1:43:15] technology needs to continue to

[1:43:17] grow and support our operations.

[1:43:21] >> You will see a presentation

[1:43:22] following this one talking

[1:43:24] about those budget change

[1:43:27] proposals and we're so very

[1:43:28] encouraging you to support

[1:43:32] those as well.

[1:43:35] >> The request of our entire

[1:43:35] tech committee as well as

[1:43:37] thanking all of our JCIT staff,

[1:43:39] I join in all of those comments

[1:43:40] about our Judicial Council

[1:43:43] staff, but specifically this

[1:43:43] JCIT staff and the work they

[1:43:47] have done with this IT mod

[1:43:49] funding but every single day on

[1:43:52] so many different fronts.

[1:43:52] We're so grateful to you, Lisa,

[1:43:58] to Mr.

[1:43:59] Ye, your team.

[1:44:02] >> Chief, thank you to you for

[1:44:05] your incredible leadership and

[1:44:06] dedication to serving access to

[1:44:07] justice, but especially in this

[1:44:11] space for technology.

[1:44:11] I always carry this quote

[1:44:13] around.

[1:44:13] It's from one of your

[1:44:14] statements at the judiciary,

[1:44:16] because it's really important

[1:44:16] as we do so many of the words

[1:44:20] that you say, but when you talk

[1:44:21] about technology and you make

[1:44:22] sure it's a priority for our

[1:44:23] branch.

[1:44:24] >> You say, together we will

[1:44:25] continue to shape the future

[1:44:29] for the courts ensuring that

[1:44:31] technology serves as a bridge

[1:44:32] to justice.

[1:44:35] So what we're asking today is

[1:44:35] your consideration and approval

[1:44:38] to continue with that bridge in

[1:44:41] technology.

[1:44:42] >> Thank you.

[1:44:42] Thank you both for your

[1:44:44] presentation today.

[1:44:45] Judge Hernandez, Mr.

[1:44:46] Slayton, in particular the

[1:44:47] level of detail that you've

[1:44:51] gone through to to us through

[1:44:53] the methodology andand

[1:44:56] selection criteria that you've

[1:44:57] applied, emphasizing quite

[1:44:58] clear in your presentation and

[1:44:59] the materials as well the focus

[1:45:02] on collaboration and the

[1:45:03] transparency that's involved in

[1:45:05] the process, so we appreciate

[1:45:06] that.

[1:45:07] >> Are there any questions or

[1:45:11] comments?

[1:45:12] >> Very impressive.

[1:45:13] >> Thank you, judge Moorman.

[1:45:16] Is that a motion for approval?

[1:45:20] >> Yes.

[1:45:20] Is there a second?

[1:45:20] Oh, my gosh.

[1:45:23] I heard judge Hal lahan on the

[1:45:25] side.

[1:45:25] Thank you.

[1:45:25] All in favor say aye.

[1:45:30] >> Aye.

[1:45:31] >> Aye.

[1:45:31] >> Any nos?

[1:45:32] Any abstentions?

[1:45:34] Thank you.

[1:45:35] This item is approved.

[1:45:36] >> Thank you, Chief.

[1:45:39] >> Thank you.

[1:45:40] And now with our fourth and

[1:45:41] final item, we will consider

[1:45:44] the fiscal year 2027-28 budget

[1:45:47] change proposals for the

[1:45:49] Supreme Court, Courts of Appeal

[1:45:52] and our Superior Courts as well

[1:45:54] as the Habeas Corpus Resource

[1:45:55] Center.

[1:45:56] This is related to our Judicial

[1:45:57] Branch Facilities Program, item

[1:45:59] 26-40.

[1:46:01] >> We welcome our presenters,

[1:46:04] Judge Ann Moorman, Chair of the

[1:46:05] Budget Committee and, again, we

[1:46:09] welcome Zlatko.

[1:46:12] Thank you.

[1:46:14] >> Thank you, Chief.

[1:46:14] Good morning, everyone.

[1:46:16] As the chief indicated, we are

[1:46:21] here on item 26-040, the

[1:46:23] Judicial Branch budget fiscal

[1:46:25] year '27-28 budget change

[1:46:30] proposals, affectionately

[1:46:31] called BCPs, I will probably

[1:46:32] use the acronym all morning.

[1:46:36] On behalf of BCP, we're here

[1:46:41] today to present the proposed

[1:46:41] budget change proposals.

[1:46:44] Part of the Budget Committee's

[1:46:47] charge under 10.

[1:46:50] 15 subdivision 52 branch budget

[1:46:52] priorities.

[1:46:53] To do this the Budget Committee

[1:46:55] makes recommendations annually

[1:46:56] to the council regarding which

[1:46:58] budget change proposals should

[1:46:59] be moved forward to the

[1:47:03] Department of Finance.

[1:47:04] The Judicial Branch budget

[1:47:05] development process is a

[1:47:07] comprehensive seven-month

[1:47:08] process of seeking ideas from

[1:47:12] various Judicial Council

[1:47:13] advisory bodies for the highest

[1:47:14] priority needs in the branch.

[1:47:18] >> Advisory bodies submitting

[1:47:20] concepts must vote in open

[1:47:21] meetings to recommend a concept

[1:47:23] to the Budget Committee.

[1:47:26] Judicial staff and subject

[1:47:26] matter experts provide

[1:47:30] presentations on the concepts

[1:47:30] to the Judicial Branch Budget

[1:47:31] Committee and answer any

[1:47:32] questions Budget Committee

[1:47:33] members may have regarding any

[1:47:36] or each of the concepts.

[1:47:38] >> After all the concepts are

[1:47:40] gathered and all Advisory

[1:47:41] Committees have an opportunity

[1:47:45] to provide input on the

[1:47:48] concept, we -- any are

[1:47:50] considered by the Budget

[1:47:50] Committee in an open meeting.

[1:47:54] As the process is conducted in

[1:47:55] an open meeting, the public and

[1:47:58] other stakeholders also have

[1:48:00] the opportunity for public

[1:48:02] comment.

[1:48:03] >> In previous years, as you

[1:48:05] have heard me say, the

[1:48:05] committee took the approach

[1:48:08] that it would recommend to the

[1:48:08] council only those concepts

[1:48:11] that we felt were essential for

[1:48:15] us to fulfill our core mission

[1:48:18] as a branch.

[1:48:19] At the same time recognizing

[1:48:20] fiscal conditions in the state.

[1:48:23] This year things are a little

[1:48:25] different.

[1:48:26] The fiscal year '27-28 budget

[1:48:26] will be the first budget

[1:48:29] considered by the new governor

[1:48:31] and their team.

[1:48:32] It is important to emphasize to

[1:48:34] the new administration, in our

[1:48:35] view, all of the critical needs

[1:48:39] of the branch that have been

[1:48:42] identified through our process.

[1:48:44] This change in executive is a

[1:48:47] unique and important

[1:48:47] opportunity to educate and

[1:48:49] inform the new administration

[1:48:50] of the challenges and the needs

[1:48:53] that we have as a branch in

[1:48:56] continuing to provide equal

[1:48:56] access to justice for all

[1:49:00] Californians, all court users,

[1:49:01] while at the same time

[1:49:02] acknowledging the state's

[1:49:06] multiyear projected deficit.

[1:49:09] >> The proposals before you

[1:49:11] today were not presented to you

[1:49:13] in any sort of order or

[1:49:14] priority because we believe

[1:49:18] through experience that the

[1:49:19] recommended proposals each

[1:49:20] represents something that is a

[1:49:21] high priority for the branch.

[1:49:25] This approach also gives

[1:49:27] greater flexibility to our

[1:49:28] chief Administrative Director

[1:49:29] and our Chief Justice in their

[1:49:32] budget advocacy efforts for for

[1:49:35] programs and services.

[1:49:38] >> This year we had a total it

[1:49:39] have 33 concepts presented.

[1:49:41] Those include some of the

[1:49:42] capital outlay projects.

[1:49:45] The Judicial Branch Budget

[1:49:46] Committee reviewed and

[1:49:47] considered each of those.

[1:49:50] Some of those were combined.

[1:49:51] Some of those are not before

[1:49:54] you today.

[1:49:54] Those that are before you

[1:49:56] today, as I've indicated,

[1:49:59] represent the highest priority.

[1:50:01] >> These budget change concepts

[1:50:03] represent the highest values

[1:50:04] and priorities of the branch

[1:50:05] and represent the input of

[1:50:09] various branch advisory bodies,

[1:50:10] acknowledge the state's

[1:50:12] multiyear projected deficit,

[1:50:13] support greater access to

[1:50:15] justice for all Californians

[1:50:16] and assist vulnerable

[1:50:19] populations by advancing equity

[1:50:21] and justice.

[1:50:22] >> The fiscal year '27-28

[1:50:24] recommended proposals focus on

[1:50:27] funding the branch's needs.

[1:50:30] If included in the '27 Budget

[1:50:31] Act, these proposals will

[1:50:32] provide funding for Judicial

[1:50:35] Branch priorities, some of

[1:50:36] which include inflationary

[1:50:38] funding adjustments to support

[1:50:41] Trial Court operations,

[1:50:43] facility support, security

[1:50:45] assessment and capital outlay,

[1:50:47] court-appointed council

[1:50:47] programs for the Supreme Court,

[1:50:50] and the courts Courts of

[1:50:57] Appeal, racial justice act

[1:51:00] retroactivity, and branch wide

[1:51:01] cyber security just to name a

[1:51:02] few.

[1:51:03] >> The list represents a budget

[1:51:05] package that will provide the

[1:51:05] new executive and their team

[1:51:08] with information on the highest

[1:51:09] priorities for the Judicial

[1:51:11] Branch.

[1:51:12] With the goal to increase equal

[1:51:15] access to justice for all

[1:51:15] Californians while also

[1:51:19] acknowledging a state's

[1:51:20] significant multiyear projected

[1:51:21] deficit and limited resources.

[1:51:26] >> The proposals before you

[1:51:27] today will benefit court users

[1:51:29] and the public by investing in

[1:51:30] interpreter services and

[1:51:32] increased compensation for

[1:51:33] court- appointed council,

[1:51:36] improving service quality and

[1:51:36] ensuring timely equitable

[1:51:38] justice for all Californians.

[1:51:40] >> Significant funding is

[1:51:42] allocated for ongoing

[1:51:42] technology support, cyber

[1:51:45] security improvements and

[1:51:45] modernization of data analytics

[1:51:48] and case management systems.

[1:51:50] >> These will protect sensitive

[1:51:51] court systems from cyber

[1:51:54] threats, improve operational

[1:51:55] reliability and support public

[1:51:58] access to digital court

[1:52:00] services, some of which we just

[1:52:00] heard a little bit about.

[1:52:03] >> The proposals also address

[1:52:03] the facility modifications and

[1:52:05] capital outlay projects to

[1:52:07] ensure safe, secure and

[1:52:09] efficient courthouses statewide

[1:52:11] that will protect court users

[1:52:12] and staff and support access to

[1:52:17] justice for all Californians.

[1:52:20] >> Speaking for a moment about

[1:52:21] the current budget year, the

[1:52:23] Budget Act of 2026 included

[1:52:24] several funding priorities that

[1:52:27] are currently before the

[1:52:27] council, or were earlier today.

[1:52:30] The Budget Act of 2026 included

[1:52:33] funding for 13 new judgeships

[1:52:34] over the next five years, $150

[1:52:38] in one-time funding for

[1:52:39] deferred maintenance, a

[1:52:40] significant increase in the

[1:52:42] number of new courthouse

[1:52:43] construction projects for the

[1:52:47] next two fiscal years, and, as

[1:52:48] we've also heard, it includes

[1:52:49] $20 million for the current

[1:52:51] fiscal year and the next fiscal

[1:52:56] year for language access

[1:52:58] services.

[1:52:59] Given the funding included in

[1:53:00] the '26 budget on behalf of the

[1:53:02] Judicial Branch Budget

[1:53:03] Committee today, I am making

[1:53:06] some modifications to the

[1:53:06] proposals before you.

[1:53:10] I'm suggesting some

[1:53:12] modifications, I should say.

[1:53:13] >> With regard to number 19,

[1:53:16] which speaks to 26 judgeships,

[1:53:18] I recommend and we recommend

[1:53:21] that should not go forward in

[1:53:21] light of the '26 Budget Act and

[1:53:25] considered as part of a future

[1:53:28] budget concept discussion.

[1:53:31] BCP number 16 for deferred

[1:53:32] maintenance for recommendation,

[1:53:33] should not go forward in light

[1:53:36] of the $150 million in the 2026

[1:53:40] Budget Act.

[1:53:41] However, part of BCP number 16

[1:53:44] includes $2 million to assess

[1:53:47] 15 building management systems

[1:53:48] and we're asking that be

[1:53:49] included in BCP number 13 which

[1:53:51] relates to Trial Court facility

[1:53:54] modification.

[1:53:55] >> Finally, with regard to

[1:53:58] number 21, that's capital

[1:54:01] outlay funding for '27-28

[1:54:03] through fiscal year 2031 and

[1:54:06] '32, we're asking that be

[1:54:08] modified and that staff be

[1:54:08] given the authority to modify

[1:54:09] it to reflect the updated

[1:54:12] approved courthouse

[1:54:13] construction funding in the

[1:54:15] 2026 Budget Act.

[1:54:17] >> As the Budget Committee

[1:54:18] Chair, I recommend adopting the

[1:54:20] concepts before you today with

[1:54:23] these modifications.

[1:54:24] These modifications will then

[1:54:25] be submitted to the Department

[1:54:27] of Finance in September of 2026

[1:54:30] for consideration by the new

[1:54:31] administration for the '27-28

[1:54:35] budget -- Governor's Budget.

[1:54:39] One final modification or

[1:54:39] approach we're suggesting

[1:54:43] relates to number 24 which is

[1:54:44] Lang language access in the

[1:54:45] California courts.

[1:54:46] >> We are suggesting that that

[1:54:49] concept not be forwarded in the

[1:54:51] fall and that we reserve it for

[1:54:52] the springtime at which time we

[1:54:54] will have a better idea how the

[1:54:58] $20 million we're receiving

[1:54:59] this year and we will receive

[1:55:00] in the next fiscal year is

[1:55:02] being spent throughout the

[1:55:03] branch, and we will have a

[1:55:05] better idea what our actual

[1:55:07] needs are.

[1:55:08] >> I would like to thank the

[1:55:09] Budget Committee members, the

[1:55:11] advisory --all the advisory

[1:55:12] committees that gave input, all

[1:55:13] the members of the public and

[1:55:16] other stakeholders that

[1:55:17] provided input to our meetings,

[1:55:21] Budget Committee staff.

[1:55:22] I will say to echo Judge

[1:55:24] Conklin to the extent that I

[1:55:24] sound even moderately

[1:55:28] intelligent, it is thanks to

[1:55:28] them.

[1:55:29] >> They put in a lot of work.

[1:55:31] We get a spread sheet.

[1:55:34] We get excel spread sheets that

[1:55:36] are color coded, thoroughly

[1:55:40] vetted, very informative, and

[1:55:42] so I do want to acknowledge

[1:55:44] Budget Committee staff for all

[1:55:48] of your support.

[1:55:50] And, lastly, I want to say, I'm

[1:55:51] going to go off script to say,

[1:55:54] thank you, chief, and thank

[1:55:56] you, Shelley, for carrying

[1:55:57] these concepts forward through

[1:55:57] what I call the offsee, which

[1:56:01] is really just the on season,

[1:56:03] because without your advocacy

[1:56:03] and the really consistent and

[1:56:09] inspiring way that you carry

[1:56:11] forward our budgetary needs for

[1:56:13] the branch, we wouldn't be

[1:56:15] seeing the success that we are

[1:56:18] seeing, so thank you both for

[1:56:19] all your hard work and all your

[1:56:22] leadership in this area.

[1:56:26] Zlatko and I are here, happy to

[1:56:27] take any of your questions.

[1:56:28] >> Thank you for a wonderful

[1:56:29] presentation and all of your

[1:56:31] efforts and advocacy and the

[1:56:32] thorough work that you put into

[1:56:34] thoughtful proposals before us.

[1:56:36] We really appreciate it.

[1:56:37] And also looking forward to

[1:56:39] working with the new

[1:56:40] administration.

[1:56:42] And someone said educating

[1:56:43] --I'm not sure if that's the

[1:56:44] right word -- but our ongoing

[1:56:46] dialogue with them.

[1:56:47] Look forward to that, too.

[1:56:50] And I will open it up for

[1:56:52] questions.

[1:56:53] >> I have a question.

[1:56:54] >> Yes?

[1:56:55] >> I'm just wondering, based on

[1:56:55] some of the public comment we

[1:56:58] heard, if there's anything in

[1:56:59] the $20 million we previously

[1:57:01] heard about or in the BCPs that

[1:57:04] might help address some of

[1:57:06] those concerns specifically as

[1:57:09] it relates to interpreter staff

[1:57:14] pay?

[1:57:15] >> A great question.

[1:57:16] Zlatko Theodorovic and glad to

[1:57:16] be here this morning.

[1:57:19] The bargaining that occurs

[1:57:20] happens regionally, and so

[1:57:22] those concerns are brought to

[1:57:25] thethe --each of the bargaining

[1:57:26] teams that are engaging in sort

[1:57:29] of the conditions of working

[1:57:31] pay, and so the funding will,

[1:57:32] if the cost of the staff

[1:57:34] increase, will address those

[1:57:38] costs, but this is currently

[1:57:40] based on our existing, sort of,

[1:57:42] expenditure pattern.

[1:57:43] As Judge Moorman has said, we

[1:57:44] will be looking to see if that

[1:57:46] is sufficient and to the extent

[1:57:48] there are additional costs

[1:57:49] happening locally, how do those

[1:57:51] fit within our budget.

[1:57:53] We also do have a limited

[1:57:55] budget so it can't be an

[1:57:56] unlimited increase in the

[1:57:58] salaries either, just like

[1:57:58] every other employee within the

[1:58:01] branch, it has to be funded

[1:58:03] within the resources we have

[1:58:05] available.

[1:58:06] >> Thanks.

[1:58:08] I appreciate it.

[1:58:09] >> Just to jump on to that.

[1:58:12] You know, the $20 million that

[1:58:14] is in the current fiscal year

[1:58:16] we're in, the $20 million we've

[1:58:17] been promised, I think is an

[1:58:19] indication that the executive

[1:58:23] and legislative

[1:58:24] branchesbranches hearing what's

[1:58:25] been a consistent call for the

[1:58:29] branch for --my cough button

[1:58:31] was on.

[1:58:31] That a consistent message we've

[1:58:33] been trying to send that our

[1:58:36] language access needs have not

[1:58:37] only grown in terms of volume

[1:58:38] and numbers but in terms of

[1:58:41] dollars and cents, because

[1:58:42] getting certified, qualified,

[1:58:43] certified interpreters, whether

[1:58:45] you're a contract interpreter

[1:58:47] or a staff interpreter, is an

[1:58:49] absolutely essential need for

[1:58:49] us to perform our services.

[1:58:53] >> And the $20 million, you

[1:58:54] know, we're going to watch how

[1:58:55] it gets spent.

[1:58:55] We're going to listen, we'll

[1:58:58] hear information about the

[1:58:59] interpreter needs throughout

[1:59:01] the courts and make

[1:59:02] recommendations about how the

[1:59:04] $20 million will be spent.

[1:59:05] And then we'll go back and do

[1:59:07] surveys and we'll collect more

[1:59:08] information on how it was spent

[1:59:10] and short.

[1:59:12] >> So we can continue in our

[1:59:13] advocacy efforts in that area.

[1:59:17] >> Thank you.

[1:59:17] Thank you, Mr.

[1:59:18] Peters.

[1:59:19] Mr.

[1:59:20] Slayton.

[1:59:21] >> Thank you very much, Chief.

[1:59:23] I just wanted to comment, not a

[1:59:26] question, just to thank the

[1:59:27] budget committee and all the

[1:59:28] Advisory Committees for this

[1:59:28] list.

[1:59:29] I started to highlight a few of

[1:59:31] them but as I looked through,

[1:59:32] so many things that are so

[1:59:34] important to the functioning of

[1:59:35] the branch.

[1:59:36] I'm glad that the Budget

[1:59:37] Committee is recommending to

[1:59:38] put them all forward because I

[1:59:39] think it's an opportunity to

[1:59:40] show where the needs are.

[1:59:42] >> As I look through the list,

[1:59:43] there are so many things in

[1:59:45] here that if this funding were

[1:59:46] provided would improve the

[1:59:47] services we can deliver to the

[1:59:50] public and the way we could

[1:59:50] operate.

[1:59:51] And so just thanks to all the

[1:59:52] Advisory Committees for putting

[1:59:53] it forward and the Budget

[1:59:55] Committee did to put these

[1:59:56] forward.

[1:59:56] I think they're great.

[1:59:58] Thank you.

[2:00:00] >> Thank you, Mr.

[2:00:01] Slayton.

[2:00:01] Anyone else?

[2:00:02] Yes?

[2:00:03] >> I just had one final comment

[2:00:06] and that is my last

[2:00:08] recommendation I would say to

[2:00:09] the council would be that at

[2:00:10] some point in time you

[2:00:12] undertake a feasibility study

[2:00:17] to see if Zlatko could be

[2:00:20] cloned.

[2:00:21] I have received Emails from him

[2:00:23] on a Friday to everyone on the

[2:00:26] committee at midnight.

[2:00:28] He needs some sleep.

[2:00:30] >> If we could take a vote on

[2:00:32] that, it would be unanimous.

[2:00:34] I'll entertain a motion to love

[2:00:35] move approval of the item

[2:00:37] before us with the

[2:00:37] modifications as stated.

[2:00:41] >> So moved.

[2:00:42] >> Second.

[2:00:43] >> Thank you.

[2:00:44] Mr.

[2:00:44] Slayton moves approval.

[2:00:44] Who was the second?

[2:00:48] >> Peters.

[2:00:48] >> Mr.

[2:00:48] Peters, thank you for your

[2:00:50] second.

[2:00:51] All those in favor, please say

[2:00:53] aye.

[2:00:54] >> Aye.

[2:00:54] >> Any nos or abstentions?

[2:00:57] Okay, this item is approved.

[2:00:59] Thank you.

[2:00:59] That does conclude our business

[2:01:02] meeting for today.

[2:01:03] Our next meeting is scheduled

[2:01:05] for October 15th and 16th.

Judicial Council Meeting - July 17, 2026

Agenda

Transcript