During our technical checks for
the live webcast, we've
confirmed the attendance of a
quorum of Judicial Council
members.
Based on our agenda, we
anticipate we'll adjourn at
about 12:05 p.
m.
Before we continue with the
business meeting, I'd like to
take a moment to acknowledge
the loss of two extraordinary
members of our branch, justice
Joan Irion and Richard Blake.
Justice Irion passed away last
month and leaves behind a
remarkable legacy.
Having devoted her career to
the fair and effective
administration of justice.
>> She brought to her Judicial
Council service that same
commitment to excellence on the
Fourth district Court of Appeal
division one where she served
following her time with a judge
with the San Diego Superior
Court.
As Chair of the Judicial
Council's rule committee she
helped shape California court
users for many years to come.
Her engagement in the
information technology
modernization program was
equally impactful, helping to
expand access and improve
services statewide.
Justice Irion was a tireless
advocate for civic education
and trust and confidence in the
judicialry.
>> Her leadership of the
national association of women
judges, informed judges project
reflected her deep belief that
an independent judiciary
understood and trusted by the
public is essential to a
functioning democracy.
That same commitment was
evident in her work with the
civil appellate self-help
workshop, which has provided
vital assistance to self-
represented litigants in San
Diegocounty.
>> I know to many of you
justice Irion was more than a
trusted and respected colleague.
She was also a kind, caring,
and thoughtful friend.
Our entire Judicial Branch is
stronger for her dedicated
service, her insight, her
compassion and her leadership.
We also learned of tribal court
leader chief judge Richard
Blake's passing in may and
express our appreciation, too,
for the contributions he made
to the Council's work.
In particular the Tribal
CourtCourt state forum and to
the California justice system
as a whole.
>> Judge Blake served the
California judiciary for over
20 years with dedication and
integrity.
As a judge he was committed to
protecting the rights and
liberties of all Californians
and ensuring it was fair and
accessible.
Judge Blake is perhaps best
remembered for a pivotal moment
in 2009 when he reached out to
Chief Justice Ron George to
request a meeting between
tribal court and state court
judges.
>> That initiative helped
strengthen the relationship
between California's tribal and
state courts based on his
vision of collaboration, mutual
respect and a shared commitment
to justice.
Throughout his career he worked
to strengthen the judicial
systems that our communities
depend on.
Judge Blake leaves behind a
legacy of fairness, leadership,
and the lasting positive change.
We're grateful for his service,
too, and proud to honor his
memory.
>> Now I want to recognize and
thank our departing members who
are finishing their terms on
the council and also to welcome
our incoming members who will
begin their terms, most of you,
in September.
Thank you, also, to our
Judicial Council staff who
facilitated orientation,
introducing them to their new
roles and responsibilities.
I'd like to start with our
departing members first.
I want to acknowledge the
service and contributions of
the following six departing
councilmembers.
Judge Maureen Hallahan, for her
three years of service, which
included serving as Vice-Chair
of the executive and planning
committee.
Thank you, Maureen.
You can applaud for all of them.
[ Applause ]
>> I'm not sure the microphone
is on, but it's been an honor
and a privilege to serve on the
Judicial Council.
I will miss each and every one
of you, but I know the great
work will continue.
Thank you.
>> Thank you, judge Hallahan.
Judge Jeffrey Kauffman for his
one year of service as
president of the California
judges association.
[ Applause ]
>> Thank you for the
opportunity.
It's very important work that
we do here, and I'm happy to
see such a great group of
people doing it.
So thank you for the
opportunity to spend a brief
amount of time with you.
>> Thank you.
And next we have -- where is
she, Presiding Judge Patricia
Kelly for her year of service
including Chair of the
council's Trial Court presiding
judges Advisory Committee.
[ Applause ]
>> Thank you.
I echo what's already been said.
It's just been one of the
highlights of my career to work
with everybody here, especially
you, Chief.
It's been an honor.
>> Thank you.
And next we have Commissioner
and now Judge Ryan Davis for
his two years of service
including membership on the
council's executive and
planning and rules committee.
[ Applause ]
>> Thank you.
It has been an honor, and I
hope to find ways to continue
to serve the judiciary through
Advisory Committees, et cetera,
in the future.
So I hope to see you soon.
>> Thank you.
And next we have someone with a
little bit more time, Ms.
Rachel Hill, for her nine years
of service.
On behalf of the state bar and
her participation with our
budget, legislation, technology
and rules committee.
[ Applause ]
>> Thank you, Chief.
I first want to saysay I am
awed and have continued to be
awed from day one for the work
that's done on the council, the
staff that is unparalleled.
I think --I said this last
night --but I think that if the
general public could get a look
under the hood and see all ofof
dedicated, tireless work,
meticulous work that is done by
the council and this staff and
all of the Advisory Committees
that they would have a renewed
faith in government and in the
judiciary.
And I am deeply grateful for
the opportunity to work with
you and to work with all of you.
I will miss you dearly.
It's become like a second home.
So it's actually a little
emotional for me, but thank you
so much.
>> Well, you can always come
back.
>> Thank you.
[ Applause ]
>> Another individual who has
made remarkable contributions
and also nine years of them, Ms.
Gretchen Nelson, who served on
behalf of the state bar and was
involved primarily in our
executive and planning and also
>> Well, thank you very much.
This has been an honor of a
lifetime.
I never thought when it started
nine years ago it would last
nine years, but I was thrilled
to be a part of it, I will say,
and echo what Rachel said.
The work that this organization
does, the people that are
committed to it, both staff,
members of the judiciary and
the lawyer members, is
extraordinaryextraordinary and
what makes the California
judicial system the best in the
world.
>> Thank you.
Thank you all.
On behalf of all of your
colleagues, I express our
gratitude for your public
service, your dedication and
commitment to the rule of law
and all of your contributions
and enhancing access to justice
for all Californians through
your service.
Thank you.
We will also continue to see
six councilmembers who are
reappointed to new terms.
I would like to thank them each.
And they are as follows.
Justice Carol Corrigan, judge
Bunmi Awoniyi -- I'm sorry, at
some point, I'm sorry --judge
Charles Crompton, judge Ann
more are Moorman and Charles
Johnson.
There he is.
Thank you.
And also our court executive
officer Kate Bieker.
Thank you all.
MRAUS PRAUS
[ Applause ] I'm so grateful to
each of you for agreeing to
stay on with us.
We appreciate your commitment
to continued service and will
continue to rely on your talent
and your expertise for the
benefit of all Californians
statewide.
We are also fortunate to have
the following individuals who
are joining us as new
councilmembers and will help us
advance our key goals and
objectives that are reflected
in the Judicial Council's
strategic plan.
So grateful to everyone who
volunteers for these positions.
It's the mix of experience and
institutional knowledge
combined with your new ideas
and your fresh perspectives
that really enables the council
to do our work on behalf of the
public.
So I am pleased to announce
we're adding to our knowledge
and experience base with eight
new incoming members, two of
the new members have already
begun their duties, and I will
be administration their oaths
of office shortly.
Administrative Presiding
Justice Mary Greenwood of the
sixth district Court of Appeal.
[ Applause ] And Mr.
Chad Finke, court EX EK
executive officer for the
Alameda Superior Court.
[ Applause ] We also have six
additional new members who will
begin their terms in September.
I would like to welcome them
all and recognize those who are
with us here today.
We have judge Nicole Bershon
from Los Angeles Superior Court.
She will be representing the
California judges association,
and I see her in the back.
[ Applause ]
>> We have Presiding Judge
Rodney Cortez from the San
Bernardino Superior Court.
I don't believe he's with us,
but he was with us last night.
We have judge Eric Wersching
from Orange County who is
present.
[ Applause ] We have
Commissioner Benjamin Cassady
of the Sacramento Superior
Court.
[ Applause ] We have Ms.
Marta Alcumbrac, attorney from
Los Angeles.
Thank you.
[ Applause ] And Ms.
Alekxia Torres Stallings, an
attorney member from
Bakersfield.
[ Applause ]
>> Thank you all for
volunteering for these
positions.
Thank you to everyone who
submitted nominations for these
positions as well.
Just as I have enjoyed working
with our members, I'm looking
forward and excited about
working with each of you here.
I want to briefly comment on
our Judicial Branch budget as
well.
This budget, as you know,
reflects the governor's and the
ors commitment to the branch.
The funding helps to address
increased operational costs for
the trial courts and the rising
cost for court interpreter
services, appellate court
appointed council.
It accelerates progress on the
five-year Infrastructure Plan
for our courthouse construction
and maintenance and importantly
it also includes funding for 13
new judgeships.
This will be over a period of
five years to help meet the
ongoing judicial work load
challenges that our courts face.
In particular in the counties
with the greatest need.
I very much appreciate the
contributions of our Judicial
Branch Budget Committee, the
Trial Court Budget Advisory
Committee, judge Moorman, Judge
Hernandez, Judge Conklin and
Fleming for guiding our budget
process over the past year and
also the planning and
information sharing by all of
the appellate and Trial Court
leadership and court
professionals through our
committees.
And, of course, I'd like to
Rob, Erica and now Francine is
joining the team, too.
I think she's here.
>> I'm here.
>> Thank you, Francine.
And their teams including cory
and Zlatko.
I think they all deserve a
round of applause, too.
[ Applause ] And Shelley will
have more detailed information
to share on the budget during
her report, and we'll also
address the important processes
of allocation and budget change
proposals later during our
discussion agenda.
>> I also want to acknowledge
staff members who areare here.
We have a full, packed room in
the back, from the Orange
County Superior Court joining
us in the audience today as
part of their level- up
leadership development program,
our Court Executive Officer,
David Yamasoki.
I think they're here.
Yes, there they are.
We have also present and
welcome a court interpreter
manager.
We have Beatrice Ademis, in the
criminal division, Lori Mayes,
rose Marie Garcia, deputy court
operations, criminal division,
and Teresa Chen, financial
services manager.
I had an opportunity to meet
them all yesterday, and we
appreciate you being here with
us today.
Thank you.
[ Applause ]
>> Okay.
You now invite our two Judicial
Council members beginning their
term to join me in taking your
oath of office.
Please stand.
Okay.
You're both together.
You will repeat I do after me
if you do, and I hope that you
do.
I do solemnly swear or affirm
that I will support and defend
the Constitution of the United
States and the Constitution of
the state of California against
all enemies foreign and
domestic, that I will bear true
faith and allegiance toto
Constitution of the United
States and the Constitution of
the state of California, that I
take this obligation freely,
without any mental reservation
or purpose of evasion, and that
I will well and faithfully
discharge the duties upon which
I'm about to enter.
>> I do.
>> Yay.
[ Applause ]
>> Okay.
I was holding my breath.
Thank you.
I'm really looking forward to
working with you guys.
Thank you.
We will now begin our public
comment period.
We welcome public comments and
appreciate the time and effort
that members of the public take
to provide them both in writing
and in person.
All comments are noted and on
specific agenda items or on one
of the general topics of
judicial administration, they
all help us to better
understand the issues that
Californians face when
accessing our court system.
When further consideration or
response is warranted, we do
follow up appropriately.
However, it's important to note
that councilmembers cannot
intervene on behalf of any
individual or with respect to
any case or offer legal advice
to anyone.
I'll now turn it over to the
council's executive and
planning committee Chair,
Administrative Presiding
Justice Brad Hill to begin
public comment.
>> Thank you very much, Chief.
It's nice to have everyone with
us today.
We have a number who have
joined us in person.
We thank you very much for
taking the time to be with us.
I would note when you do
approach to speak, that you
should state your name, and if
applicable, your title and
affiliation.
On the podium are lights that
will inform you of the time
remaining.
A yellow light will come on
when you have one minute
remaining and a red light will
come on when your time has
expired.
And we'll turn first to Nick,
to speak to court
administration.
And if you wouldn't mind
stepping forward.
>> Good morning.
>> Honorable members of
California Judicial Council,
thank you for having me.
Highly appreciate it.
Civil engineer, civil rights
activist, Orange County.
For 700 days I cannot get a
signature on stipulation for
retirement with the state.
This add ministerial duty
cleared by all parties of
interest, child support
services, pending action in
district court against
government Newsom.
Looking for relief, punitive
and damages of multimillion
dollars, a legal precedent of
Jean E.
Carroll and president trump.
Pending since August 19, '24.
For parties two motions for
challenge.
Motion to stop any hearing,
with the Appellate District,
petition for review with
California Supreme Court, late,
unfortunately, with U.
S.
Supreme Court.
Complaints to commission and
judicial performance to
judiciary who sent me here to U.
S.
Supreme Court Chief Justice
John Roberts to join
legislation to presiding judges
and court CEOs, complaints to
Governor Newsom and was
submitted January 2023.
On February 18, he stated that
he's going to produce an order
and ask to prepare the file.
On February 27, he overruled
himself and denied it.
Both yes and no documented in
certified court transcripts.
>> You might note that the red
light has come on, so if you
wouldn't mind, perhaps wrapping
things up.
>> Yes.
My question to all mentioned
places and to Honorable council
here is why the judges were not
suspended after ing the order
for more than six months, both
of them.
If they committed perjury in
their 90-day pending cases,
Government Code 68210,
obviously they violated
judicial 3 b7 and article 6
paragraph 19.
Presiding Judge Maria Hernandez
felt California rules of court
10608 and 10608, too.
I can answer any questions.
Thank you for the opportunity
to speak.
>> Thank you for joining us
this morning, and we now have
22 others behind you, so we'll
thank and excuse you at this
point.
We have some interpreters with
us.
Again, thank you for joining us.
We appreciate.
We know that it's not easy to
take time andand come here to
join us.
We understand that three of you
will be speaking for three
minutes apiece and then the
others will be indicating their
support for what has been said.
And we'll turn first to Jean
Carasia.
I may not have done justice to
your name.
>> Good morning.
>> Thank you for joining us.
>> You're welcome.
Good morning, Chief Justice and
councilmembers.
My name is Jean, I'm a staff
interpreter atat Superior Court.
Over the past decade region two
two have lost 42% of their
staff interpreters with many
returning as contractors
earning double or even triple
of what staff interpreters make.
We do not have a stable
interpreter workforce right now.
Because of this, the region two
courts do not always meet the
mandate of providing equal
access for all languages.
Those of us on the ground see
unequal treatment for court
users needing our services,
unreasonable delays for
attorneys and judges, and
people denied the right to be
heard.
>> We see this daily.
For decades, the Judicial
Council of California has been
setting language access
standards to ensure equal
access to justice, aspirational
policy directives won't
translate into access without a
commitment to workforce
recruitment and retention.
With long-term, unfilled
vacancies and high attrition,
some court administrators
propose cutting the
certification process pass
score another 10% down to 60%.
Make no mistake, 60% is a
failing grade for anything that
matters.
Imagine yourself in a court
proceeding in a foreign
language getting maybe six out
of ten words being spoken.
Would you call that due process?
High standards for
certification is the right
policy.
Lowering standards is not a
workforce solution.
>> For complete, accurate,
real-time interPRETing of
complex matters, which is
necessary for language access,
the courts need interpreters
who are knowledgeable, skilled,
and dedicated.
How can the courts meet this
need while also refusing to set
a competitive salary for staff
interpreters?
Thank you.
>> Thank you very much.
Next up we have Laura
villanueva, if you wouldn't
mind stepping forward.
Good morning.
>> Good morning, honorable
councilmembers.
My name is Laura villanueva.
I'm a staff interpreter at San
Francisco Superior Court and
have been a California court
interpreter for 11 years.
The courts have been neglecting
compensation for decades.
Courts in the most expensive
region of the state are facing
daily staffing shortages and
persistent vacancies that go
unfilled for years.
This leaves immigrants without
interpreters, harms language
access, and undermines civil
rights.
>> Staff and contract
interpreters have the same
skills and provide the same
service, but staff interpreters
work longer hours under less
favorable working conditions
and earn far less than our
contractor colleagues.
Even after accounting for the
cost of benefits, which not all
employees get, we still make 50
to 60% less.
Paying contractors less is no
solution.
Paying staff more is.
>> The disparate treatment is
extreme.
What makes us different and
unequal?
How can the region two courts
justify paying us less than
federal court interpreters,
less than court reporters, and
so much less than contract
interpreters doing the same job?
>> If the courts keep
neglecting the interpreter
workforce and suppressing staff
pay, what's behind the unequal
treatment?
Is it because our services are
legally mandated but unfunded?
Is it because the courts don't
have public --don't value
public service for immigrants?
Is it because most interpreters
are women?
Very many of us immigrants.
How do you explain the stark
disparities in pay and
treatment for an essential
workforce?
Thank you.
>> Thank you very much.
Michelle, if you wouldn't mind
stepping forward at this time.
>> Good morning, Honorable
councilmembers, and you said my
last name right, which is very
unusual.
My name is Michelle and I'm a
staff interpreter for Alameda
county Superior Court and I've
been a certified court
interpreter for 25 years.
Eight of those I was also an
interpreter services manager.
And for several of those I was
also the court language access
liaison to the Judicial Council.
>> Interpreting over Zoom does
not provide equal and
meaningful access for LEP court
users except for very basic
communications.
Ad hoc solutions for remote
appearances don't work for
interpreting.
Poor sound, inadequate tech,
and the lack of enforceable
standards of current systems
leave access buffering.
Remote interpreting isolates
LEP users and impedes their
participation, and it puts
interpreter hearing at risk.
>> Tech without specs is not a
workforce solution.
The interpreter act was enacted
in 2003.
The law envisioned a finite
transition period to shift from
contract interpreter services
to an employment system.
Stable workforce doesn't happen
overnight.
But after 23 years, growing
disparities in pay and
treatment reflect the failure
of the California courts to
implement the law's intent and
purpose.
>> Deliver on the law's mandate
to provide quality language
access services to all LEP
court users and the skilled and
reliable workforce.
Thank you.
>> Thank you very much.
At this time I'm going to call
three at a time and then you
can certainly register your
support or anything else with
respect to those comments.
Naomi, Carol and Ryan, step
forward, please.
And then in the queue, if you
wouldn't mind, we'll have Molly
Smith and Maria Delcarmen
Munoz, if you could get ready
to approach.
Thank you.
>> Hi, I'm Naomi Adelson, a
Steph interpreter at Superior
Court and I've been a court
interpreter for 18 years,
dedicated to public service.
I support everything that my
colleagues said and really hope
you fund the mandate.
Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Hello, Carol, court
certified interpreter for San
Mateo county Superior Court.
I've been a court interpreter
for 27 years, started in 1999
for Alameda County, worked in
Santa Clara County, San
Francisco County and San Mateo
County for close to 20 years.
I've also been on the court
interpreter Judicial Council
advisory panel, and I do
support everything that my
colleagues just stated.
Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Good morning, Honorable
councilmembers.
My name is Ryan Lee, an
interpreter working with Santa
Clara County in the last five
years, and I support and
endorse everything been said so
far by my colleagues.
Thank you.
>> Thank you.
Now Molly Smith and Maria Munoz
can step forward and in the
queue we'll have Katie Van
Zandt and Shannon.
>> Good morning, Honorable
councilmembers.
My name is Molly Smith, and I
am a certified California state
interpreter, and I have been a
staff interpreter for 14 years
with contra Costa County and II
and endorse all the comments
that have been made so far by
my colleagues.
Thank you.
>> Good morning.
I work for San Mateo County.
I've been a court interpreter
since 2008.
We worked through the pandemic,
some of our colleagues lost
their lives, and many of us got
COVID severalseveral times.
We're in the holding cells,
we're in the court hearings,
and it's disheartening to see
the lack of pay parity.
Thank you.
>> Good morning, Honorable
councilmembers and Chief
Justice.
I'm a staff interpreter at San
Francisco Superior Court.
I have been a California court
interpreter for 11 years, and I
endorse and support everything
my colleagues have said.
Thank you for your time.
>> Thank you very much.
And then in the queue I would
ask that Brenda Oliver, Karla
quevas and Jenny step forward
and then we'll start.
Go right ahead.
>> Good morning, Chief Justice
and Honorable councilmembers.
My name is Katie Van Sant, a
Spanish court interpreter at
the Alameda County Superior
Court.
I've been a court interpreter
for 25 years.
I'm also on the Judicial
Council committee for access
and fairness and the
subcommittee for language
access.
I'm here to support my
colleagues, and I endorse
everything that they have said
today.
Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Good morning, Honorable
councilmembers.
My name is Francisco, and I'm a
staff interpreter at Alameda
Superior Court, and I have been
a staff interpreter for 20
years.
A recent survey of region
twotwo interpreters highlighted
all the years of education it
takes to do a job.
40% of staff members now depend
on side jobs for extra income
just to make end meet.
I'm one of those interpreters.
Thank you.
>> Thank you.
I would ask christian Guerrero
and Margaret layman and Mary
Lou --I really didn't do
justice to that name, but I'll
--
>> I'm used to it.
>> Okay.
Thank you.
Please proceed.
>> Morning, Chief Justice.
Morning Honorable
councilmembers.
I'm Shannon Raintree, a staff
interpreter at San Francisco
Superior Court, a certified
interpreter for 25 years and a
staff interpreter for 19 of
those years I support and
endorse everything my
colleagues have said.
Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Chief Justice, Honorable
councilmembers, good morning.
My name is -- I'm a staff
interpreter and I have been a
court interpreter for 15 years.
I'm dedicated to public service.
I'm here today because staff
interpreters are underpaid by
any measure.
In the most expensive region in
the fourth largest economy in
the world, why are we seeing
such low income?
Thank you.
>> Good morning, Chief Justice
and councilmembers.
My name is Brenda Oliver.
I've been a court interpreter
for 27 years, and I echo the
comments of my colleagues.
And just an example of the
shortage in pay, I have to rely
on credit cards to buy my basic
groceries.
Think about that.
Thank you.
>> Thank you.
We would ask Danielle Navarro
and Benjamin Young to get in
the cue.
Please proceed.
>> Good morning,
councilmembers, Honorable Chief
Justice.
My name is Jenny Foray, a court
interpreter here in California
for over 17 years, 15 years I
served in Los Angeles county.
I'm currently employed as a
staff interpreter in Sonoma
county courts.
Madam Chief Justice, thank you
for coming to our inauguration.
We are open for service
officially on Monday.
I want to thank you for your
time, and I just want to say
that I fully endorse and
support what my colleagues are
here to say personally and
anything that has been
submitted in written comment.
Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Good morning, Honorable
Chief Justice and committee
members, councilmembers, I've
been a certified California
court interpreter for ten
years, seven of which I worked
as a staff interpreter in
Sonoma County and three point
at Marin County and I support
and endorse the comments made
by my colleagues and friends.
Thank you.
>> Good morning, Honorable
councilmembers.
My name is Margaret Layman.
I've been a staff interpreter
for more than 18 years, and I
strongly endorse and support
everything my colleagues have
said, and I just wanted to
mention that I am also one of
these interpreters who is
living paycheck to paycheck
despite working full time.
And I love my job too much to
quit it, but I'm not sure how
much longer I can afford to do
it.
Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Good morning.
I'm Mary Lou.
I've served the courts for over
34 years as a contract
interpreter and as a staff
interpreter for Alameda
CountyCounty 2003.
I've worked in courts all over
the state of California at
different times, and I just
want to say that most of the
folks that you're hearing from
today have masters degrees.
Many are federally certified
and we truly are low income
under the definition for low
income in the Bay area.
Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Good morning, Chief Justice.
Good morning, councilmembers.
My name is Daniel Navarro.
I'm a Spanish interpreter at
San Francisco Superior Court
and have been for 25 years.
I want to echo the comments of
my colleagues, and I think -- I
think what they've said is a
testament to our dedication to
public service.
I would encourage you to read
the comments submitted on
behalf of our labor union,
thank you.
>> Hello.
My name is Benjamin Young.
I am a court certified
interpreter for over 25 years
in San Mateo County.
I have worked as a contractor
and staff interpreter, so I
know the disparity.
And, also, I'm getting old and
I'm going to be retiring soon,
and at this really think a way
should be found to replace
people like us and endorse the
comments of my colleagues.
Thank you.
>> Thank you very much.
Now that is the group that
checked in, but I see a couple
folks here that may have gotten
here a tad late and didn't
check in and we'll certainly
want to hear from them as well.
So please step forward.
>> Good morning, Honorable
councilmembers.
Thank you for your time this
morning.
I traveled here all the way
from Monterey county, and that
is why I am a bit late.
I apologize.
I have been a certified Spanish
court interpreter for the past
20 years, 19 of those years I
have been a staff interpreter
in Monterey County and I just
wanted to mention we provide
essential Constitutionally
mandated services, and I urge
you to provide equal pay for
equal work that we've been
providing as dedicated public
servants for the past couple of
decades.
Thank you.
>> Thank you.
No apology necessary.
And thank you for making the
trip.
>> Thank you.
>> Good morning, Honorable
councilmembers.
My name is Farrah Taylor.
I have been a court certified
interpreter since 2009.
I worked as a private
contractor for many years, and
I've been an employee at Marin
County Superior Court since
2017.
I endorse all the comments that
my colleagues have made, and I
would also like to point out
that I am well aware of the
disparity between what contract
interpreters make versus what
employees make, and I truly
believe that as civil servants,
I come from a long line of
civil servants.
It's unfortunate that court
interpreters are so low on the
pay scale compared to other
people who work in public
service, and we are providing
such a really important
service, and I hope you realize
that and are aware of it.
Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Good morning, Chief Justice
and councilmembers.
My name is jack Medina.
I work for Marin Superior Court
and have been a court
interpreter for 20 years.
endorse and support everything
that my colleagues have said
before me.
Also, I'd like to point out
that some full-time interpreter
positions have been announced
and candidates have called to
apply and have not gotten
callbacks.
Thank you very much.
Have a great day.
>> Thank you.
>> Good morning.
My name is Tatiana and I'm
certified Russian interpreter
for the County of San Francisco.
I endorse and full heartedly
support my colleagues and very
proud to be of a group of
wonderful, well-educated and
brave people.
Thank you.
>> Thank you.
I want to thank all of you for
your thoughtful and very
important comments.
Obviously court interpreters
are a critical part of our
system and we appreciate you
taking your time to share your
thoughts with us.
Chief, that concludes public
comment.
>> Thank you, Justice Hill.
Thank you to everybody who took
the time to provide these
public comments, whether it
related to, as our first
speaker, an individual issue,
or more broadly language access
issues, something we're
committed to.
We thank you for work that you
do, the comments today and all
the comments we received in
writing.
That concludes our public
comment period.
Thank you.
>
>> Next on our agenda is my
regular report as Chief Justice
summarizing some of my
engagements and ongoing
outreach activities on behalf
of the Judicial Branch since
our last meeting on April 24th.
As part of my power of
democracy civic learning
initiative, we commemorated law
day, as you know, on May 1st at
the 3rd district Court of
Appeal in Sacramento where we
welcomed judges, educators,
students and their parents to a
program recognizing the rule of
law and its role in our
democracy.
>> We also took the opportunity
to announce our 2026 civic
learning award honorees at the
event and presented the civic
learning award of excellence,
which is the top honor, to
three schools.
Prep elementary school, south
junior high school in Orange
County, and norwalk High School
in LA County.
I look forward to visiting
these campuses.
I do each year in the fall.
>> In another major celebration
of civics, I gave keynote
remarks at an event celebrating
the 250th anniversary of the
founding of our country.
It was held on the USS Midway.
Joan Webber was the principle
organizer.
Justice Judith McConnell of the
Fourth District Court of Appeal
and the Chair of my initiative
attended the event alongside
numerous judges in San Diego
Superior Court and also our
federal courts.
It was really a wonderful
opportunity to engage with the
community and highlight the
importance of our founding
principles and the work of our
independent judiciary in
upholding the rule of law.
>
>> Turning to judicial
appointments, we had five
justices who were unanimously
confirmed by the commission on
judicial appointments, which I
Chair.
During hearings in May.
The hearings resulted in the
confirmations of justice Steven
Govovic, division three in Los
Angeles, Presiding Justice
Joanne Muduwike with the fourth
district Court of Appeal
division three in Santa Ana,
justice Deborah Sorvino with
the fourth district court,
Justice Aaron Bermudez in San
Diego and Justice Amy Gara in
Fresno.
You're welcome, Justice Hill.
I also had the pleasure of
welcoming four groups of new
judges to my chambers during
our new judge orientation
program.
>> In total we had 25 judges,
24 commissioners and one
hearing officer representing 20
different counties.
In San Francisco I attended the
American Bar Association
opportunity program where I
spoke to law students who were
selected for a six-week summer
internship to do legal work in
writing work with our federal
and state court judges.
And I always make a pitch for
the state side of that equation.
I spoke for high school
students from several counties
attending the young legislators
program hosted by senator
Caballero.
As part of the program
dedicated to fostering civic
engagement and leadership among
central valley youth.
I participated in a Q&A session
regarding the work of our
courts and my role and
responsibilitiesresponsibilities
Chief Justice.
>> I also helped send off
graduates from our judicial
fellows, the judicial
fellowship program during their
end of year ceremony held in
Sacramento after they spent ten
months working in either our
Judicial Council offices or
with one of seven of our
Superior Courts throughout the
state under the mentorship of
our court executive officers
and professional staff.
We thank our s for their
contribution to our bran:we
also hope it's inspired them to
commit to continue public
service as many of our fellows
have done over the years.
>> Also in Sacramento earlier
this week, I participated in a
very lively Q&A session, very
lively because it was moderated
by Justice Macy Wala and
Presiding Justice Earl.
There were about 60
participants, ex terns and law
students who asked questions.
I'm very grateful for the time
they take and invest to help
build the pipeline of our
future lawyers and judges.
>> In Santa Rosa, Shelley and I
were pleased to attend a
dedication for one of our new
courthouses.
It was a lovely gathering to
honor the justice for Sonoma
county.
>> In San Francisco I was
honored to speak at a reception
for the Glide Foundation and
legal services they provide to
vulnerable communities through
their legal advice and referral
clinic.
This was actually an initiative
that Judge Crompton spearheaded
prior to joining the San
Francisco Superior Court, so we
also thank him for his tireless
work in improving the civil
justice gap.
>> Finally, in Sacramento I was
pleased to join Governor
Newsom, the attorney general
rob Bonta at the annual peace
officers memorial.
It recognizes peace officers
who died in the line of duty
the previous year.
>> As you know, our courthouses
could not function without the
work of our bailiffs, sheriffs,
CHP, marshals and others to
access our justice system and
allows judicial officers and
court employees to do our jobs
without fearing for our safety.
As always, it was a somber and
moving tribute to peace
officers who paid the ultimate
sacrifice in order to protect
the public and an important
recognition to honor the
families, in particular this
year there were numerous
children who were impacted by
the loss of their loved ones,
so at this appreciate the
opportunity to be there with
them and that concludes my
remarks to the council of my
activities since our past
meeting.
>> We now will hear from our
Administrative Director,
Shelley Curran, with her report
to all of you.
>> Good morning.
Thank you, everyone.
Thank you, chief.
I would like to begin this
morning by asking to call you
recall attention to my regular
written Administrative
Director's report in your
material.
It represents a roundup of the
work that the council staff has
undertaken since the April
business meeting in support of
the council's mission.
It's separate and apart from
the matters that are on today's
agenda.
So I'm going to begin, of
course, with the discussion of
the budget.
>> The report notes that a new
budget for fiscal year began on
July 1st.
For today's meeting, we are
presenting for your
consideration an approval
recommended budgetary
allocations for the fiscal year
'26-27 and we're seeking your
approval for budget change
proposals for the following
year, fiscal year '27-28 for
submission to the Department of
Finance.
I want to echo the Chief
Justice's appreciation to
councilmembers and court
leaders for the advocacy that
you did over the course of the
last several months to advance
our issues before the
legislature and the governor's
administration.
It makes a very big difference
in the work that we do.
>> Good news for our state, the
final budget agreement between
the legislature and legislative
leaders and Governor Newsom
balances California's
government for the current
fiscal year now, so for '26- 27
and also next year for fiscal
year '27-28.
When the Governor's Budget was
released in January, the state
was projecting deficit's it
have $26 billion for fiscal
year '27-28 and $22 billion for
fiscal year '28-29.
Those estimates are now reduced
to $10 billion and $8 billion
respectively.
In addition to state budget
reserves also being in better
shape, better than being
anticipated, these reserves
hopefully will put us in a
better position when it comes
to budget stability and,
frankly, predictability as we
look to the future.
>> Also, positively, the final
budget reflects investments for
the Judicial Branch beyond what
the governor had included in
his initial may revise.
It includes $70 million for
Trial Court operations, $20
million each in the next two
fiscal years to address court
--rising court interpreter
costs, and $11 million ongoing
for court-appointed counsel
programs in the Supreme Court
and the Courts of Appeal.
>> Additionally, they've
included $1.
9 billion for a comprehensive
--including $150 million,
much-needed dollars, I should
say -- for deferred maintenance
in our Court Facilities.
>> Also included is about $100
million to begin funding 13 new
judgeships over the course of
the next five fiscal years, and
$30 million one time to
continue implementation of
proposition 36, and increase
dollars for pretrial programs.
>> Also on the budget front,
they included a recommendation
and ultimately a decision to
extend the ability for courts
to conduct remote proceedings
with the consent and the
agreement and at the request of
parties to a matter, so that
was also a big priority for us,
and that has been included
until 2032.
>> As you consider today's
allocations and new budget
change proposals for '26-27 and
'28 budget, the budget released
in January is going to be the
first budget for our next
governor, so a lot of work will
commence over the coming months
to educate the incoming
administration about branch
functions and certainly branch
priorities.
So a lot to follow on that.
>> We're also going to continue
to monitor actions that are
happening at the federal level
and also economic conditions
that will certainly impact the
state.
>> Also in today's written
report under the role ofof
Advisory activities, republic
Peted references to spring
cycle of public comment on
rules and forums proposals.
They were prepared by six
different Advisory Committees,
many driven by legislative
requirements, and they were
posted for public comment
during our spring cycle.
>> These proposals will include
a total of 176 forms, 167 are
proposed new or revised forms,
and nine existing forms
proposed for revocation.
>> On the rules side there are
71 new rules proposals, 65
proposed new or revised rules
one appendix to the rules as
well as five existing rules
proposed for repeal.
>> Proposals range from new
probate rules, joint
guardianship appointments and
implementation of AB 747 on
combatting fraudulent practices
related to civil process
servers.
>
>> A total of 320 comments were
provided on the different
proposals during the spring
cycle alone.
That public comment process is
central to ensuring the full
and fair consideration of
potential issues relating to
the proposed rules and forms
and can be really helpful to
the Advisory Committees as they
are working on developing those
forums and ultimately to you as
you consider adopting those
changes.
>> This public --our public
comment process generally not
only for the rules and forums
but budget allocations, our
funding methodology, our
legislative proposals, any
number of things that come
before the council --and,
frankly, our work at meetings
--helps to ensure that our work
reflects the various interests
of various stakeholders
throughout the state.
>> Ultimately I think it helps
us provide better service to
the public, so we really
appreciate all of the public
comments that are made and all
of the work that we do.
And I also really want to do a
shoutout, now that I've gone
through all of that, that
laundry list of things
accomplished to the members of
the council who serve on our
rules committee chaired by
Judge Wood and all of you for
the immense amount of work that
you do on that.
So thank you.
>> Turning to a different topic.
In early June, you all received
an announcement about ourour
chief operating officer for the
council.
I want to take this opportunity
to formally recognize and thank
Francine Burn who joined.
Francine is known by, I think
probably, all of you, and has
worked with you in her over two
decades of work at the council.
Her work at the council has
really been focused on research.
She was part of our original
office of court research.
She worked at the center for
the court in the last five
years has been the director
over our criminal justice
services office.
>> As chief operating officer,
Francine will be responsible,
her portfolio will include,
criminal justice services,
center for judicial education
and resources, center for
family children and the courts
and IT.
I am appreciative, happy,
grateful that she's joined our
executive team and know that
she's going to continue to
excel in her contributions to
the council and to all of you
and ultimately the public.
>> Finally, as the chief
mentioned, we had the
opportunity to mark the
completion and attend a
courthouse dedication.
During this time period, we had
three different openings.
One was in April for the new
Sacramento courthouse named
after former Chief Justice, an
18-story, 53-room courthouse.
It opened for business in April.
A dedication, as the chief
mentioned, for the 15 courtroom
courthouse in Santa Rosa for
Sonoma County and then also
down south we had the
rededication then a newly
expanded space andand for the
juvenile dependency courthouse
in San Bernardino expanding the
number of courtrooms from four
to six.
To conclude my remarks today,
I'm going to quote from
something that that judge from
Sonoma said during that
courthouse dedication that
really resonated for me, and I
think it is important for us to
keep in mind as we work on
these projects and advocate to
others about the importance of
our capital outlay program.
>> So I'm going to borrow from
him for two minutes.
Too often litigants and members
of the public entering members
courthouse can feel intimidated
or overwhelmed.
Many individuals arrive with
fear, stress, grief, conflict,
and uncertainty.
This building was thoughtfully
designed to help ease those
emotions.
Its natural light, grand, open
spaces on the first floor,
magnificent views from the
higher floors, the jury
rotunda, and overall
architectural splendor send a
powerful message.
The Judicial Branch is a
unique, revered, special
institution, and this is a
place where people should feel
respected, heard, and safe.
The beauty of this courthouse
is not merely aesthetic.
It serves a deeper purpose.
Thoughtful architecture can
inspire calm, dignity and
confidence.
It can remind visitors that
justice is not cold or distant
but human.
The details of this building
reflect the belief that public
institutions should uplift the
communities they serve.
That concludes my remarks,
chief.
>> Thank you.
Thank you for your report and
thank you for those remarks, I
thought were very powerful and
really captured the importance
of the funding requests that we
make for the dedication to
occur.
>
>> Next we'll move on to the
Consent Agenda.
We have 16 items that are on
our agenda today.
The council's executive and
planning committee, as you
know, worked really hard to
identify those matters in order
to optimize the best use of our
time during the council
meeting, but I'd just like to
remind everybody, and we have
new members, so I'd like to
take this opportunity to remind
you that anyone really can move
an item from the consent to the
discussion agenda item --the
discussion agenda if you
believe it would benefit for us
to have further deliberation
and discussion on this item.
As always, we appreciate the
many ours of work that are put
in by our Advisory Committees
and our council staff.
That have enabled these
recommendations to come before
us for our consideration.
At this time I'd like to ask
members if there are any
comments or questions before I
entertain a motion to move the
Consent Agenda items.
>> Chief, I'd like to make a
comment.
Thank you.
Before the council considers
the Consent Agenda before us
today, I would like to
highlight the civil council
act, eye NEM 26-033 on the
Consent Agenda and share my
support for the recommendation
for continued funding of the
projects for the 2026-2029
grant cycle.
As you might recall, the
Shriver program is California
it's commitment to ensuring
meaningful access to justice
for low-income litigants facing
issues that affect basic needs.
In my Superior Court we
participated since the
program's inception in 2011.
Shriver funded attorneys are
essential in helping
self-represented litigants
navigate evolving eviction
procedures, rental assistance
programs and plex housing laws.
We have legal assistants who
help parties every day with
these issues.
Our partnership with the
greater Bakersfield legal
assistance program produced
strong results.
About one-third of clients
remain housed and many others
resolve cases in ways that
lessen long-term consequences
such as sealing records,
protecting credit or securing
time to find alternative
housing.
The funding provides for
mediation services that most
recently resulted in an
agreement rate of 71%, solving
those cases without court
hearings.
I appreciate the extensive work
of our Judicial Council staff,
our legal services partners,
and courts statewide who
provide act funding.
I respectfully support the
recommendation before our
council today and ask that you
all do the same.
Thank you.
>> Thank you for your comments.
I'll take that as a motion to
move approval.
>> That would be a motion for
approval for the Consent Agenda.
>> Is there a second?
>> Moorman seconds.
>> Thank you, judge Moorman.
All of those in favor say aye.
Any nos?
Any abstentions?
Thank you.
The Consent Agenda is approved.
We have four items on the
discussion agenda, the first
consideration allocations for
Trial Court operations for
fiscal year 2026-2027, item
26-041 in your agenda.
We welcome our presenters,
judge Jonathan Conklin, retired
now, right?
Congratulations.
That's why he's smiling.
Chair of the Trial Court
advisory.
Welcome.
>> Good morning, chief, and
councilmembers.
So nice to see all of you.
Thank you very much for the
opportunity this morning to
present the preliminary
allocations to the trial courts
for the fiscal year '26-27 on
behalf of the Trial Court
Budget Advisory Committee.
Each of those members, I thank
for their exceptional work.
We have a slide presentation
for you this morning.
I assure you, it will be brief
and on time.
This budget allocation
controlled by an agenda item
2641 for the Trial Court
operations of '26-27.
Per state law, that is
Government Code 68502.
3, the Judicial Council is
required to make these
preliminary allocations to the
trial courts in July of each
fiscal year.
>> The final allocations which
incorporate year- end
adjustments must be completed
by January of each year, and
the Trial Court Budget Advisory
Committee will bring those
final allocations back to you
at your December meeting for
your anticipated approval.
>> These allocations are the
primary funding source for the
trial courts and are essential
to support the court operations
and sustain critical programs
and services for court users
and the public.
They may help us maintain a
skilled and experienced court
workforce to deliver those
services, and they protect and
expand access to justice for
all Californians.
>> The total preliminary
allocations for the Trial Court
Trust Fund and General Fund for
fiscal year '26-27, which, as
was mentioned, we just started,
are $3.
2 billion, based on the
recommended and previously
approved methodologies from
this council.
Of this amount T $3.
1 billion comes from the Trial
Court Trust Fund and $117.
8 million comes from the
General Fund to support Trial
Court operations.
Once approved by this council,
these funds are allocated to
the courts in monthly
distributions.
>> The fiscal year '26-27
budget includes additional
funding for the trial courts
including $70 million to help
those courts address rising
operational costs and to
mitigate potential reductions
to court programs and services
due to the impact of inflation.
$23.
3 million for the Trial Court
employee health benefit and
retirement cost increases.
As a reminder, the state budget
process adjusts funding levels
each year to reflect those
actual benefit cost changes.
And, as previously mentioned as
well, a $20 million annual
increase for court interpreters
for each of the next two years.
This additional funding will
help address the rising costs
it have court interpreter
services and support critical
program needs to ensure
language access in all of our
courts.
>> The work load funding policy
separate from the calculation
of court allocations applies
the Judicial Council's weighted
caseload study.
Appropriate for programs that
rely on the work load funding
on determined work load, the
approved calculations will be
applied.
The Workload Formula policy
promotes funding, equity,
stability and predictability.
The work load funding
methodology with calculated
funding need, which represents
how much funding the trial
courts need based upon their
work load.
>> And the need is then updated
annually to incorporate the
most current information
including filings, salaries,
benefits, operating
expenditures and equipment,
bureau of labor statistics data
and court executive officers.
>> An important note for this
is that the fiscal year '26- 27
need calculation now reflects
the updates to the 2024 case
work load, case weight.
Those were updated in 2024 and
approved by the council at the
business meeting.
Last year, as you will all
remember, the council deferred
implementation of those 2024
case weights until this fiscal
year, '26-27.
That allowed sufficient time to
understand the reason for the
changes and to compare the 2024
case weights to the prior 2017
case weights and evaluate their
impact on Trial Court funding.
Using those new case weights
the funding needed for the
fiscal year '26-27 is $3.
26 billion.
>> Based on the funding
included in the enacted budget
as well as local Trial Court
revenues, available for this
year, is $2.
7 billion.
>> Comparing the calculated
funding need to the available
funding, the statewide average
funding level for the trial
courts is now 73% of their work
load need as identified through
the Workload Formula policy
calculation.
>> So, in conclusion, the Trial
Court Budget Advisory Committee
has two recommendations for
your consideration and
recommended approval today.
First, to approve total
allocations of $3.
2 billion from the Trial Court
Trust Fund and General Fund
including base, discretionary
and nondiscretionary program
funding.
>> These allocations are based
on recommended and previously
approved methodologies and
subject to technical
adjustments in funding included
in the final enacted budget for
this fiscal year '26-27.
>> Additionally, we recommend
you approve application of the
work load funding methodology
previously mentioned which will
result in a statewide average
funding level of 73% and that
concludes this presentation.
We are both available for any
questions you may have.
Otherwise we move for approval.
>> Any questions for our
presenters?
No?
No questions?
I'll provide a comment and
thank you, again, for all the
wonderful work that you
continue to do.
The funding that we seek every
year is critical to our
operations.
There's a lot of thought and
hard work and it goes into
ensuring that the funds that we
provide are allocated in a fair
way so that our courts can
provide access to justice.
We really appreciate your
ongoing work during your
retirement even.
Thank you.
>> I would move approval with
thanks to Judge Conklin, his
incredible service as Chair.
I think this might be your
final report as Chair.
And, I tell you, what you have
meant to our branch and what
you have done and cobbling
agreement between our courts
time and time again and the
legacy of service that you have
provided has been extraordinary
and we thank you.
>> Appreciate it.
Thank you very much.
>> I was hoping you would stay
on.
I didn't have the heart to say
out loud it would be your last
time.
I'm still in denial.
>> If I could ask for ten
seconds to acknowledge the work
of this council and just I've
been in the cat bird seat and
watched the work they've done,
beyond measure.
And I just wanted to thank them
very much from Zlatko and staff
for getting us through the time
helping me look like I knew
what I was doing, and I would
be remiss if I didn't leave
with my final comment of, go
Dodgers.
>> Thank you.
>> Chief, I'll second the
motion.
>> Thank you.
So judge Moorman seconds it.
Is there any further discussion?
Okay, at this time all of those
in favor please say aye.
Any nos?
Any abstentions?
Thank you.
This item is approved.
Our second agenda item relates
to the Judicial Branch
five-year Infrastructure Plan
and capital outlay budget
change proposals for the same
fiscal year, 2027-28.
Item 26- 104 in your agenda.
We welcome our presenters,
Administrative Presiding
Justice Brad Hill, who is also
the Chair of the Court
Facilities Advisory Committee.
Judge Eric Wersching,
Vice-Chair of the Court
Facilities Advisory Committee,
also our new member, and we
welcome Mr.
Jagan Singh as well from
Judicial Council facilities
services and Mr.
Magnusson from facilities
services.
Welcome.
>> Good morning, chief, and
fellow members of the council.
The report that we were
planning to present to you
today changed rather
dramatically about two weeks
ago, and we couldn't be more
pleased.
The final budget announcement
in June provided the following
additions to our plans for this
year and next.
First, through a combination of
appropriations from the General
Fund and the public building's
construction fund, an
additional $188 million for
starting and completing all
phases of the following four
projects will be accomplished,
Clear Lake, Tracey, Kern and
Tahoe.
And $1.
6 billion for completing all
remaining phases of the
following five projects --
Solano, Nevada City, Plumas,
Santa Clarita and San Luis
Obispo.
And for the following year
control section 4.
85 was DLUD in the budget bill
authorizing the use of up to 1.
3 billion in '27-28 for the
purpose of acquisitions,
performance criteria and design
build phases of construction
for the following courthouses
-- Richmond, San Francisco,
Santa Barbara, Fresno, and the
Orange County collaborative
courthouse.
>> This budget takes us right
up to the next critically
needed courthouse, in Los
Angeles, a project that is
vitally important.
Los Angeles lost their last
courthouse back in 1933 to an
earthquake.
It took 25 years to get a
replacement, which was mosque
and they can't afford nor can
we afford to lose another
courthouse in Los Angeles.
This increased funding just
approved is a significant boost
for the program, and we all
thank the governor, the
Department of Finance, the
legislature for shining a light
on this critical need and
helping all Californians in the
process.
>> We have long said this is
not a matter of just building
shiny new courthouses.
This is all about providing
safe and secure courthouses to
communities across our state.
Jurors, parties, court staff
and others deserve safe
courthouses.
Courthouses that are ADA
compliant and courthouses that
will not be destroyed in an
earthquake.
>> Initially we'd like to talk
just a bit aboutabout we've
been, where we are right now,
and our plans for the future.
About 18 years ago we started
controlling our own destiny
with the passage of SB 1407.
That legislation provided for
the funding of courthouse
construction through lease
revenue bonds, $5 billion
worth, and our very own Shelley
Curran was right in the middle
of that working alongside
senator Prada to craft this
historic bill.
>> At this point --after that,
a couple years later, we did
have funding challenges where
we lost and deferred about a
billion and a half and had to
tell a number of courthouses
that were about ready to start
that they had to put the brakes
on.
But all of us around this table
and the Court Facilities
committee and courthouses
around the state persevered.
And since that time, we have
with the continuing commitment
from the governor, legislature
and others, we have General
Fund funding for our program
that provides the secured
funding that we need from now
into the future.
>> Currently we have 17
projects ongoing around the
state totaling $1.
8 billion.
In construction
currentlycurrently port, the
juvenile family courthouse,
Modesto, Ukiah.
The process of prioritizing
these courthouses is a long and
rather arduous one thatthat a
very detailed criteria.
>> At the start of a process,
when we're initially
prioritizing all of thesethese
courthouses, we were looking at
courthouses around the state
most of which were in dire need
of replacement.
So ranking became a process of
determining the most dire needs
and working our way
throughthrough balance.
>> Our rating and ranking
criteria looks at detailed
factors like --and we'll name
just a few of those --seismic.
Now you'll see the San Diego
new courthouse.
The old courthouse sat directly
on an earthquake fault, and I
remember talking to and seeing
courtrooms in San Diego that
had cracks going along the
walls, and judges were pointing
out that it was just a matter
of time before that courthouse
collapsed.
>> Sacramento was in a similar
circumstance, and there's the
new Sacramento courthouse that
we havehave now.
Other factors that we look at
include the facility condition
index, the fire and life safety
index, security factors, ADA
compliance, access to court
services, and cost per project
per court users and this
accounts for large population
areas that are stressed by the
number of court users, ie, Los
Angeles.
This overall ranking criteria
relies on these quantitative
measures and takes politics out
of the process.
>> Outside consultants give us
detailed reports as to each
factor at each and every
courthouse.
In addition, every meeting of
the Court Facilities Advisory
Committee and every discussion
of project ranking is on the
record and open to the public
and the public weighs in at
each and every meeting.
In other words, there are no
secrets and no surprises.
>> We believe it is our core
mission to build courthouses
that will stand the test ofof
time.
But they have to be built
economically.
In our very first year as a
committee, we formed the
courthouse cost reduction
subcommittee.
Every courthouse project goes
through this committee, and it
is a rigorous process.
One example of what this
committee did a while back is
each time a courthouse would be
built previously by DGS and
others before that, an
architect would design all of
the courtrooms from scratch at
each courthouse costing
millions of dollars in
architectural fees.
>> We have now developed a book
of templates, over 20 of them,
so that courts can pick and
choose from standardized and
previously designed and
approved courtroom layouts.
The courts across the state
have chosen and liked and,
obviously, the new courthouse
projects can rely upon those
time-tested models.
We save money in the process.
We save time in the process and
a lot of aggravation.
>> Our goal is to be good
stewards of the public's money.
And to demonstrate courthouse
by courthouse that we are
deserving of the governor's and
legislature's trust to spend
every penny wisely.
I'm now pleased to introduce
the Vice-Chair of the Court
Facilities Advisory Committee,
Judge Eric Wersching.
>> Thank you very much, Justice
Hill.
Good morning, Chief Justice,
and members of the council.
In your materials for today's
meeting is a recommendation
from the Court Facilities
Advisory Committee, CFAC, the
proposed five-year plan for
construction of new courthouses
as well as a capital outlay
budget change proposal for
fiscal year 2027-28.
We're asking for that
recommendation to be approved
and for staff to be directed to
make the applicable submissions
to the Department of Finance.
Justice Hill spoke of many of
the exciting recent
developments on this facility
front with respect to the
budget.
>> In order to provide you with
a little more context for the
work that that CFAC has done to
facilitate the building of
dignified, economical
courthouses throughout the
state and to develop and to
recommend the present five-year
plan, we think it's important
to highlight several of CFAC's
considerations and actions.
>> First, as to the standards
Justice Hill spoke to.
On the building of courthouses,
Justice Hill described
standards that CFAC has
developed.
Every three years CFAC's
standards working group
meticulously considers
literally hundreds of pages of
standards, revising them and
updating them.
>> The standards are detailed
but appropriately complexable.
They form the basis of
construction bid documents and
provide the use of a variety of
templates to fit the needs of
specific courthouses and
courtrooms.
>> They also alleviate the time
and the expense that in the
past was used designing and
building courthouses from
scratch.
In other words, we no longer
build bespoke courthouses but,
instead, build courthouses from
standards and a selection of
templates that best meets the
needs of the community.
Justice hill referenced the
cost reduction subcommittee.
CFAC is interested in, and we
know the council is as well,
being good stewards of taxpayer
dollars.
We ran into a challenge, though.
Small courthouses cost more per
square foot to build than large
projects.
This reduced competitiveness
for state funding and
potentially left communities in
outdated, unsafe facilities.
It's an economies of scale
issue.
>> To that end, the cost
reduction committee of CFAC
looked to the standard we just
discussed to provide a path to
cut costs.
We have used those standards
and reduced the size of many
courthouses allowing us to
avoid using excess square
footage that dries up the cost
of construction.
>> Most recently the cost
reduction subcommittee reduced
building sizes for the San Joe
Quinn, Tracy, and Plumas
projects.
You can see the results of the
subcommittee's work.
>> It makes smaller courthouse
projects viable and dignified
because we're using our
standards where those
courthouses were previously not
cost competitive.
Those recommendations were
advanced and approved at a
savings of tens of millions of
dollars.
>> But we're not just building
cookie cutter courthouses as a
result of these processes.
For instance, the Falasco was a
courthouse that was built at a
30% cost savings and utilized
tilt-up construction similar to
that used in private
construction of Target and
Costco stores.
Combined with our standards is
very dignified.
>> Other examples of us not
building cookie cutter
courthouses include the.
L Centro courthouse which the
chief attended the dedication
of on your screen.
We have the Yreka courthouse.
We have the Sonora courthouse
and the Santa Rosa courthouse
that we just heard about today
the dedication that you two
attended.
>> So more economicaleconomical
efficient does not equate to
less dignified.
But in addition to CFAC working
on replacing aging courthouses
with seismically safe
structures, defining standards
for courthouses and examining
cost cutting where appropriate,
CFAC also looks very closely at
deferred maintenance and
facility modification costs
when recommending its five-year
plan that's before you.
>> In many respects, deferred
maintenance and facility
modification expenses are the
hidden costs of aging buildings
because dollars that we spend
on aging obsolete buildings are
dollars not invested in new
purpose-built courthouses.
>> We have an estimated $5.
37 billion in estimated
deferred maintenance costs
which approximately $3.
96 billion is the branch's
Chair.
>> New construction, however,
by contrast, 50-plus years of
service life and dramatically
reduces the long-term
maintenance burden on the state
and on the branch.
At CFAC we're very much aware
of these deferred maintenance
hidden expenses when
recommending the five-year plan
before you.
>> As is set forth in your
materials, the five- year plan
includes 17 courthouses,
projects for construction, and
they're up on the slide, very
small, in front of you.
But you have them in your
material.
But please remember as Justice
Hill mentioned, up until about
two weeks ago, this five-year
plan included many other
courthouses.
They're no longer part of that
five-year plan because of the
budget.
>> Those projects that are not
on this five-year plan because
they've been fully funded
through the budget, include
Clearlake, Tracy, Kern, Nevada
city, Plumas, Santa Clarita and
San Luis Obispo.
Before moving on to the action
item, we'd be remiss if we did
not thank our dedicated,
hard-working, very competent
Judicial Council staff.
>> They provide us with such
wonderful guidance on a daily
basis and, really, we couldn't
do the work without them and
make these recommendations
without their tremendous
insight.
And I know that we just have
two of them here but it is a
team that stands behind
everything that our CFAC
committee does.
>> And I have the privilege of
being able to address you
today, but it really is the
work of all of the CFAC
committee members as well that
have contributed to this five-
year plan including Judge
Kelly, Justice Hill as well.
With that, CFAC recommends
approval of its proposed
five-year plan and the capital
outlay budget change proposal
and staff be directed to make
their submission to the
Department of Finance.
We're prepared to answer any
questions.
>> Thank you for your
presentation, for such a
thorough and thoughtful plan
that you've put before us to
consider and for helping us be
good stewards with the money
that we receive.
We appreciate all the hard work
and the teamwork that went into
the proposal.
>> Are there any comments or
questions?
I'll entertain a motion for
movement of approval of this
agenda item.
>> I'll move.
>> Thank you.
>> I'll second, chief.
>> Thank you, Boulware Eurie
and justice Corrigan.
All those in favor please say
aye.
Any nos or abstentions?
This item is approved, thank
you.
>> Thank you.
>> Good job.
>> For our third item, we will
consider our IT modernization
funding for 2026-27, item
26-107 in your materials.
We welcome our presenters Judge
Maria Hernandez, Chair of the
Technology Committee and Mr.
David Slayton, Vice-Chair of
the Technology Committee.
>> Good morning.
Thank you, Chief.
We are pleased and, again,
thank you for allowing us the
opportunity to share with you
this morning the IT project
grant for fiscal year '26-27.
I'm pleased to be joined by our
Vice-Chair, Mr.
David Slayton, the CEO from Los
Angeles County.
We're going to try to get
through this and get everybody
out on time.
I'm going to move to what we
intend to cover here this
morning.
I'll start with an overview of
the IT mod guiding principles
and will turn it over to David
to share the new funding
methodology including the focus
on collaborative efforts
amongst all the courts.
We'll close by highlighting the
impacts of this important grant
project for the courts and also
requesting your approval.
First of all, going to the
guiding principles.
It's important, and I know
you've heard from us before,
but IT modernization grant
funding has remained consistent
over the many years.
>> These principles include a
commitment to promote
innovation through technology.
This year's funding priorities
were informed by court
technology assessments and
surveys that identified the top
five priorities and funding
needs of the court.
The next our Technology
Committee, who we are very
honored to serve with, and as
judge Wersching just said, this
takes a team and a village in
working behind all of the
efforts.
>> We adopt an approach to
distribution of methodology
each year based on the branch
needs.
In other words, we need to be
flexible in these changing
times.
David's going to discuss with
you in just a moment that
transformation and what we're
doing now.
>> Finally, given our limited
resources and at its core we
always want to encourage
collaboration in all aspects of
our IT modernization funds.
From the way we evaluate the
process and the applications
themselves, we are encouraging
collaboration at every step of
this impactful program.
>> What I would like to do is a
quick overview before I turn it
over to David to discuss.
When you look at this number,
we had 46 courts that applied,
submitting over $62 million,
almost $73 million in requests
for this mod fundsing.
As you know there's only $12.
5 available to allocate for
that funding.
>> What I will say is that also
included 149 separate proposals
that a tremendous team through
our team reviewed each and
every step along the way.
We have had funding requests
far ex receipting what is
available for allocation for
the past five years, the
amounts have ranged from $50
million to $68 million for
modernization.
This really limits a local
court's ability to maintain
reliability services, address
the rising costs and, of
course, keeping up with our
public's expectations for
secure, reliable, efficient
technology.
Given the imbalance, and we've
talked through some of the
budget and you'll hear more
later this morning, those gaps,
it's more important now than
ever that our funding approach
and how we allocate these funds
is deliberate, that it's
thoughtful and is strategic.
>> At this point I'd like to
turn it over to Mr.
Slayton to run through that
methodology for you.
>> Thank you, Judge Hernandez,
and good morning, everyone.
The tech committee spent time
before we released the IT mod
applications trying to adopt a
new approach that could
continue to align with the
program's guiding principles
but would think about how we
could use the very limited
resources we have as
effectively as possible.
>> The approach we adopted
aimed to rank for funding
consideration similar to the
way that we -- great
traditional grant programs rank
applications, and the intent
was to prioritize the most
impactful proposals submitted
by the courts.
>> We also wanted to promote
the three funding priorities
for this cycle chosen by the
council based upon the
responses from the court's
needs, and those included cyber
and information security, case
management system improvements
and enhancements, and IT
infrastructure.
And to help drive progress in
these top priority areas that
have been identified by the
courts.
>> We wanted to encourage
collaborative proposals, as
Judge Hernandez was mentioning.
Collaboration is important.
We have limited resources, so
when we can have courts
collaborate and reuse
technology that's a way we can
maximize the funds.
And so courts were urged to
submit joint projects supported
by letters of endorsement from
other courts to maximize that
funding.
>> And then we wanted to invest
funding where it was most
needed to help level up courts
and support achievement of
baseline technology initiatives
like basic cyber security,
making sure everyone was at the
same basic level.
>> So to implement this new
approach, the work stream from
the information technology
Advisory Committee led by Judge
Hanson, the Chair of that
committee, and comprised of
members across the branch
including judges, CEOs, other
administrative staff,
technology and operational
officers, they were tasked with
completing a more in- depth
criteria, reviewed all 149
applications in detail and
scored them based upon criteria.
>> The purpose of this change
was to provide a more
comprehensive review of project
proposals, establish a
framework that will support
project ranking --that
supported project ranking for
funding consideration and that
would align our evaluation
approach with practices
commonly used in traditional
grant funding programs.
>> In addition to ensuring the
project met project
requirements, the work street
evaluated key factors such as
the project's alignment with
this year's funding priorities.
The number of courts that were
involved in a collaboration
with the project, the level of
public benefit, the impact to
improving a court's baseline
security posture and the level
of modernization or innovation
proposed by the court.
The work stream's role was
simply this, to evaluate
projects according to a set of
criteria we provided to them.
They were not aware of the
impacts of each factor or its
weighting in our final
recommendations but they were
looking at does the proposal
meet these criteria?
Once that was done and
following that work stream's
review, the Technology
Committee applied weights to
the evaluation criteria.
They allowed us to score and
rank those projects by those
scores they'd been provided by
ITAC.
>> After we did all of that,
after that ranking was done and
we reviewed the results, we
determined that we wanted to
check a few --have a few other
checks to make sure that we
were using our funding as
wisely as we could.
Those included ensuring both
appellate and trial courts
receive funding even with the
ranked model, confirming that
there was no duplication of
funding with other council
grants, some of which are on
today's agenda.
And if a project was already
funded by one of those
projects, it was removed from
consideration here.
>> We corrected requested
amounts to align with program
requirements.
Sometimes there were items that
were included that were not
allowed to be funded by this
program, so included
facility-related costs.
And then we monitored for
excessive allocation where a
court had multiple highly
ranked projects to avoid
creating large overages trying
to spread the money as far as
we could.
>> Ultimately this year the
Technology Committee is
recommending this new funding
approach.
We want to fully fund the
highest ranked projects until
the $12.
5 billion allocated is
exhausted.
One project, because of that,
is receiving partial funding
because it fell right at the
cut line, so we're just fund
every every that we can, and
one of those projects will be
partially funded because of
that.
>> You'll see and Judge
Hernandez will talk about the
wait list where perhaps that
project will receive full
funding if there's additional
revenue available.
>> The goal of this model is to
direct to the projects with the
greatest impact.
In prior years the IT was to
all courts regardless of the
impact leaving many projects
underfunded and unable to move
forward.
Courts often had to scale back
or delay projects because
partial allocations were not
sufficient to deliver full
outcomes.
>> And lastly, the prior model
made it difficult to assess
statewide progress because it
was fragmented across
technology areas.
Our new model ensures courts
can fully deliver high-impact
projects instead of stretching
limited dollars across too many
partially funded efforts.
>> It creates greater
transparency and
predictability, highlighting
specific projects for funding
and enabling courts to plan
with confidence, and it focuses
limited funds on the projects
that address the established
priorities of greatest 23450ED
by the Technology Committee and
the council and this year
security, case management and
infrastructure.
>> Therefore, we can assess
better statewide progress as we
move forward.
This summary on the screen in
front of you shows how the $12.
5 allocation is being
recommended to be distributed
across the top funding
priorities.
You'll see cyber and
information security.
We have 24 projects, the most
number of projects that we're
recommending funding but only
$3.
27 million of that 12.
5.
In the case management system
fewer projects, ten projects,
but because of the extensive
cost of the projects $6.
41 million, the largest of the
investment area.
>> IT infrastructure we're
recommending funding 12
projects that would total $2.
1 million and a few other
projects that are being funded
that's just under $700,000.
And these include things such
as a records automation review
pilot, electronic evidence and
electronic filing.
>> I'll point out electronic
filing in some of our smallest
counties in the state who have
not previously been able to
offer that will be a big
improvement.
The $12.
5 million will be awarded to 32
courts including seven small
courts and the fifth District
Court of appeal who submitted
for a collaborative on behalf
of the appellate courts.
>> Importantly, five of those
projects, including the fifth
District Court of appeals are
these collaborative efforts
that benefit 23 courts in
total, so just those five also
help 23 additional courts.
>> With that I will turn it
back over to Judge Hernandez
who will speak more about the
collaborative projects.
>> Thank you so much, David.
And as you can see, it's a very
pro-bust comprehensive
evaluation and assessment we
have moved to and as DavidDavid
finished up with speaking to
those collaboration projects,
this was a new focus for our
tech committee and this grant
this year.
The tech committee was driven
by our commitment to better
serve the branch with shared
solutions, to realize those
economies of scale, and support
community problem solving
together, ing that limited
funding that you see in these
charts that we've presented for
you.
>> With that in mind, included
in our recommendation is the
five approved projects for
collaboration.
I would like to bring your
attention to that last Sierra
project which is a
collaborative project that was
initiated by Sierra's Superior
Court, but, as you note, it
includes Modoc, Plumas and
trinity.
These projects are ones that
the courts will initiate the
projects and partner courts
will participate in that.
With the example from the
Sierra, they will seek to adopt
and access modernization
through respective case
managements for their
electronic filing.
As we know electronic filing
enables litigants, attorneys
and justice partners to submit
their documents online.
The project reduces the need
for in-person courthouse visits
and removes significant
geographic, financial and
procedural barriers that we've
all been talking about to make
sure we're providing access to
justice.
>> Ultimately this project
operationalizes while
strengthening equitable access
to justice offering our rural
residents faster, more reliable
and more accessible court
services.
The shared investments allowed
the courts to pull their
resources and maximize the
limited funding.
This covers our urban to rural,
from small to large.
>> Moving to the wait list
David spoke about.
We have ten prioritized
projects that are on a wait
list.
If a court cannot use its full
award or can't complete the
project within the time lines,
the weight list will allow us
to realskate to those ready to
move forward.
This process keeps that local
court project funding with our
courts supporting timely
project completion and
maximizing the benefit of those
funds.
>> The impact is on how
important techie is.
The IT projects will deliver
meaningful, measurable impact
across our court operations.
Investments in modern
technology as you all know will
expand our access to justice,
broadening public access to
court services and ensure more
consistent service delivery
across our appellate and
Supreme Court.
Improving our court
collaboration by enabling
information sharing and
investing and a shared solution
to limited funds.
By replacing our aging and
sometimes quite archaic systems
that we all work within which
then will reduce those
operational risks and
strengthening performance,
security and reliability.
And, of course, deploying our
scalable solutions and
duplication ensuring technology
can quickly adapt to new Lastly
but certainly not least, to
mature court technology, the
world that we are a part of by
strengthening our cyber
security and overall
operational readiness to meet
future demands.
The needs continue.
Technology is a foundation to
what we do every day to keep
our courts operational,
security reliable across the
state.
>> I say it is the backbone to
justice and how we deliver
service to our public.
Public expectations demand that
the courts provide more digital
and remote service.
We've heard about that so many
times and how important more
data transparency and, of
course, faster responses that
the public also wants from us.
>> We just can't keep pace at
the rate we're at right now.
With the rising costs that
we've all heard about, some
licensing fees that we just
heard about, case management
systems, hosting an operational
IT expenses are increasing
exponentially.
But as we've discussed on other
occasions and this morning,
there is no dedicated funding
for the maintenance and
operational technology needs to
keep our systems running and
providing that access to
justice.
>> As a result of that lack of
dedicated funding, on going IT
support covered by the baseline
budget which creates that
competition for very limited
resources at a time when
technology needs to continue to
grow and support our operations.
>> You will see a presentation
following this one talking
about those budget change
proposals and we're so very
encouraging you to support
those as well.
>> The request of our entire
tech committee as well as
thanking all of our JCIT staff,
I join in all of those comments
about our Judicial Council
staff, but specifically this
JCIT staff and the work they
have done with this IT mod
funding but every single day on
so many different fronts.
We're so grateful to you, Lisa,
to Mr.
Ye, your team.
>> Chief, thank you to you for
your incredible leadership and
dedication to serving access to
justice, but especially in this
space for technology.
I always carry this quote
around.
It's from one of your
statements at the judiciary,
because it's really important
as we do so many of the words
that you say, but when you talk
about technology and you make
sure it's a priority for our
branch.
>> You say, together we will
continue to shape the future
for the courts ensuring that
technology serves as a bridge
to justice.
So what we're asking today is
your consideration and approval
to continue with that bridge in
technology.
>> Thank you.
Thank you both for your
presentation today.
Judge Hernandez, Mr.
Slayton, in particular the
level of detail that you've
gone through to to us through
the methodology andand
selection criteria that you've
applied, emphasizing quite
clear in your presentation and
the materials as well the focus
on collaboration and the
transparency that's involved in
the process, so we appreciate
that.
>> Are there any questions or
comments?
>> Very impressive.
>> Thank you, judge Moorman.
Is that a motion for approval?
>> Yes.
Is there a second?
Oh, my gosh.
I heard judge Hal lahan on the
side.
Thank you.
All in favor say aye.
>> Aye.
>> Any nos?
Any abstentions?
Thank you.
This item is approved.
>> Thank you, Chief.
>> Thank you.
And now with our fourth and
final item, we will consider
the fiscal year 2027-28 budget
change proposals for the
Supreme Court, Courts of Appeal
and our Superior Courts as well
as the Habeas Corpus Resource
Center.
This is related to our Judicial
Branch Facilities Program, item
26-40.
>> We welcome our presenters,
Judge Ann Moorman, Chair of the
Budget Committee and, again, we
welcome Zlatko.
Thank you.
>> Thank you, Chief.
Good morning, everyone.
As the chief indicated, we are
here on item 26-040, the
Judicial Branch budget fiscal
year '27-28 budget change
proposals, affectionately
called BCPs, I will probably
use the acronym all morning.
On behalf of BCP, we're here
today to present the proposed
budget change proposals.
Part of the Budget Committee's
charge under 10.
15 subdivision 52 branch budget
priorities.
To do this the Budget Committee
makes recommendations annually
to the council regarding which
budget change proposals should
be moved forward to the
Department of Finance.
The Judicial Branch budget
development process is a
comprehensive seven-month
process of seeking ideas from
various Judicial Council
advisory bodies for the highest
priority needs in the branch.
>> Advisory bodies submitting
concepts must vote in open
meetings to recommend a concept
to the Budget Committee.
Judicial staff and subject
matter experts provide
presentations on the concepts
to the Judicial Branch Budget
Committee and answer any
questions Budget Committee
members may have regarding any
or each of the concepts.
>> After all the concepts are
gathered and all Advisory
Committees have an opportunity
to provide input on the
concept, we -- any are
considered by the Budget
Committee in an open meeting.
As the process is conducted in
an open meeting, the public and
other stakeholders also have
the opportunity for public
comment.
>> In previous years, as you
have heard me say, the
committee took the approach
that it would recommend to the
council only those concepts
that we felt were essential for
us to fulfill our core mission
as a branch.
At the same time recognizing
fiscal conditions in the state.
This year things are a little
different.
The fiscal year '27-28 budget
will be the first budget
considered by the new governor
and their team.
It is important to emphasize to
the new administration, in our
view, all of the critical needs
of the branch that have been
identified through our process.
This change in executive is a
unique and important
opportunity to educate and
inform the new administration
of the challenges and the needs
that we have as a branch in
continuing to provide equal
access to justice for all
Californians, all court users,
while at the same time
acknowledging the state's
multiyear projected deficit.
>> The proposals before you
today were not presented to you
in any sort of order or
priority because we believe
through experience that the
recommended proposals each
represents something that is a
high priority for the branch.
This approach also gives
greater flexibility to our
chief Administrative Director
and our Chief Justice in their
budget advocacy efforts for for
programs and services.
>> This year we had a total it
have 33 concepts presented.
Those include some of the
capital outlay projects.
The Judicial Branch Budget
Committee reviewed and
considered each of those.
Some of those were combined.
Some of those are not before
you today.
Those that are before you
today, as I've indicated,
represent the highest priority.
>> These budget change concepts
represent the highest values
and priorities of the branch
and represent the input of
various branch advisory bodies,
acknowledge the state's
multiyear projected deficit,
support greater access to
justice for all Californians
and assist vulnerable
populations by advancing equity
and justice.
>> The fiscal year '27-28
recommended proposals focus on
funding the branch's needs.
If included in the '27 Budget
Act, these proposals will
provide funding for Judicial
Branch priorities, some of
which include inflationary
funding adjustments to support
Trial Court operations,
facility support, security
assessment and capital outlay,
court-appointed council
programs for the Supreme Court,
and the courts Courts of
Appeal, racial justice act
retroactivity, and branch wide
cyber security just to name a
few.
>> The list represents a budget
package that will provide the
new executive and their team
with information on the highest
priorities for the Judicial
Branch.
With the goal to increase equal
access to justice for all
Californians while also
acknowledging a state's
significant multiyear projected
deficit and limited resources.
>> The proposals before you
today will benefit court users
and the public by investing in
interpreter services and
increased compensation for
court- appointed council,
improving service quality and
ensuring timely equitable
justice for all Californians.
>> Significant funding is
allocated for ongoing
technology support, cyber
security improvements and
modernization of data analytics
and case management systems.
>> These will protect sensitive
court systems from cyber
threats, improve operational
reliability and support public
access to digital court
services, some of which we just
heard a little bit about.
>> The proposals also address
the facility modifications and
capital outlay projects to
ensure safe, secure and
efficient courthouses statewide
that will protect court users
and staff and support access to
justice for all Californians.
>> Speaking for a moment about
the current budget year, the
Budget Act of 2026 included
several funding priorities that
are currently before the
council, or were earlier today.
The Budget Act of 2026 included
funding for 13 new judgeships
over the next five years, $150
in one-time funding for
deferred maintenance, a
significant increase in the
number of new courthouse
construction projects for the
next two fiscal years, and, as
we've also heard, it includes
$20 million for the current
fiscal year and the next fiscal
year for language access
services.
Given the funding included in
the '26 budget on behalf of the
Judicial Branch Budget
Committee today, I am making
some modifications to the
proposals before you.
I'm suggesting some
modifications, I should say.
>> With regard to number 19,
which speaks to 26 judgeships,
I recommend and we recommend
that should not go forward in
light of the '26 Budget Act and
considered as part of a future
budget concept discussion.
BCP number 16 for deferred
maintenance for recommendation,
should not go forward in light
of the $150 million in the 2026
Budget Act.
However, part of BCP number 16
includes $2 million to assess
15 building management systems
and we're asking that be
included in BCP number 13 which
relates to Trial Court facility
modification.
>> Finally, with regard to
number 21, that's capital
outlay funding for '27-28
through fiscal year 2031 and
'32, we're asking that be
modified and that staff be
given the authority to modify
it to reflect the updated
approved courthouse
construction funding in the
2026 Budget Act.
>> As the Budget Committee
Chair, I recommend adopting the
concepts before you today with
these modifications.
These modifications will then
be submitted to the Department
of Finance in September of 2026
for consideration by the new
administration for the '27-28
budget -- Governor's Budget.
One final modification or
approach we're suggesting
relates to number 24 which is
Lang language access in the
California courts.
>> We are suggesting that that
concept not be forwarded in the
fall and that we reserve it for
the springtime at which time we
will have a better idea how the
$20 million we're receiving
this year and we will receive
in the next fiscal year is
being spent throughout the
branch, and we will have a
better idea what our actual
needs are.
>> I would like to thank the
Budget Committee members, the
advisory --all the advisory
committees that gave input, all
the members of the public and
other stakeholders that
provided input to our meetings,
Budget Committee staff.
I will say to echo Judge
Conklin to the extent that I
sound even moderately
intelligent, it is thanks to
them.
>> They put in a lot of work.
We get a spread sheet.
We get excel spread sheets that
are color coded, thoroughly
vetted, very informative, and
so I do want to acknowledge
Budget Committee staff for all
of your support.
And, lastly, I want to say, I'm
going to go off script to say,
thank you, chief, and thank
you, Shelley, for carrying
these concepts forward through
what I call the offsee, which
is really just the on season,
because without your advocacy
and the really consistent and
inspiring way that you carry
forward our budgetary needs for
the branch, we wouldn't be
seeing the success that we are
seeing, so thank you both for
all your hard work and all your
leadership in this area.
Zlatko and I are here, happy to
take any of your questions.
>> Thank you for a wonderful
presentation and all of your
efforts and advocacy and the
thorough work that you put into
thoughtful proposals before us.
We really appreciate it.
And also looking forward to
working with the new
administration.
And someone said educating
--I'm not sure if that's the
right word -- but our ongoing
dialogue with them.
Look forward to that, too.
And I will open it up for
questions.
>> I have a question.
>> Yes?
>> I'm just wondering, based on
some of the public comment we
heard, if there's anything in
the $20 million we previously
heard about or in the BCPs that
might help address some of
those concerns specifically as
it relates to interpreter staff
pay?
>> A great question.
Zlatko Theodorovic and glad to
be here this morning.
The bargaining that occurs
happens regionally, and so
those concerns are brought to
thethe --each of the bargaining
teams that are engaging in sort
of the conditions of working
pay, and so the funding will,
if the cost of the staff
increase, will address those
costs, but this is currently
based on our existing, sort of,
expenditure pattern.
As Judge Moorman has said, we
will be looking to see if that
is sufficient and to the extent
there are additional costs
happening locally, how do those
fit within our budget.
We also do have a limited
budget so it can't be an
unlimited increase in the
salaries either, just like
every other employee within the
branch, it has to be funded
within the resources we have
available.
>> Thanks.
I appreciate it.
>> Just to jump on to that.
You know, the $20 million that
is in the current fiscal year
we're in, the $20 million we've
been promised, I think is an
indication that the executive
and legislative
branchesbranches hearing what's
been a consistent call for the
branch for --my cough button
was on.
That a consistent message we've
been trying to send that our
language access needs have not
only grown in terms of volume
and numbers but in terms of
dollars and cents, because
getting certified, qualified,
certified interpreters, whether
you're a contract interpreter
or a staff interpreter, is an
absolutely essential need for
us to perform our services.
>> And the $20 million, you
know, we're going to watch how
it gets spent.
We're going to listen, we'll
hear information about the
interpreter needs throughout
the courts and make
recommendations about how the
$20 million will be spent.
And then we'll go back and do
surveys and we'll collect more
information on how it was spent
and short.
>> So we can continue in our
advocacy efforts in that area.
>> Thank you.
Thank you, Mr.
Peters.
Mr.
Slayton.
>> Thank you very much, Chief.
I just wanted to comment, not a
question, just to thank the
budget committee and all the
Advisory Committees for this
list.
I started to highlight a few of
them but as I looked through,
so many things that are so
important to the functioning of
the branch.
I'm glad that the Budget
Committee is recommending to
put them all forward because I
think it's an opportunity to
show where the needs are.
>> As I look through the list,
there are so many things in
here that if this funding were
provided would improve the
services we can deliver to the
public and the way we could
operate.
And so just thanks to all the
Advisory Committees for putting
it forward and the Budget
Committee did to put these
forward.
I think they're great.
Thank you.
>> Thank you, Mr.
Slayton.
Anyone else?
Yes?
>> I just had one final comment
and that is my last
recommendation I would say to
the council would be that at
some point in time you
undertake a feasibility study
to see if Zlatko could be
cloned.
I have received Emails from him
on a Friday to everyone on the
committee at midnight.
He needs some sleep.
>> If we could take a vote on
that, it would be unanimous.
I'll entertain a motion to love
move approval of the item
before us with the
modifications as stated.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
>> Thank you.
Mr.
Slayton moves approval.
Who was the second?
>> Peters.
>> Mr.
Peters, thank you for your
second.
All those in favor, please say
aye.
>> Aye.
>> Any nos or abstentions?
Okay, this item is approved.
Thank you.
That does conclude our business
meeting for today.
Our next meeting is scheduled
for October 15th and 16th.