[0:02] During our technical checks for
[0:02] the live webcast, we've
[0:04] confirmed the attendance of a
[0:07] quorum of Judicial Council
[0:08] members.
[0:08] Based on our agenda, we
[0:11] anticipate we'll adjourn at
[0:13] about 12:05 p.
[0:14] m.
[0:14] Before we continue with the
[0:15] business meeting, I'd like to
[0:17] take a moment to acknowledge
[0:19] the loss of two extraordinary
[0:20] members of our branch, justice
[0:27] Joan Irion and Richard Blake.
[0:29] Justice Irion passed away last
[0:31] month and leaves behind a
[0:33] remarkable legacy.
[0:34] Having devoted her career to
[0:36] the fair and effective
[0:37] administration of justice.
[0:39] >> She brought to her Judicial
[0:42] Council service that same
[0:45] commitment to excellence on the
[0:48] Fourth district Court of Appeal
[0:51] division one where she served
[0:52] following her time with a judge
[0:54] with the San Diego Superior
[0:56] Court.
[0:57] As Chair of the Judicial
[0:59] Council's rule committee she
[1:01] helped shape California court
[1:02] users for many years to come.
[1:06] Her engagement in the
[1:07] information technology
[1:08] modernization program was
[1:09] equally impactful, helping to
[1:13] expand access and improve
[1:16] services statewide.
[1:18] Justice Irion was a tireless
[1:19] advocate for civic education
[1:20] and trust and confidence in the
[1:24] judicialry.
[1:25] >> Her leadership of the
[1:27] national association of women
[1:30] judges, informed judges project
[1:32] reflected her deep belief that
[1:35] an independent judiciary
[1:36] understood and trusted by the
[1:37] public is essential to a
[1:42] functioning democracy.
[1:45] That same commitment was
[1:45] evident in her work with the
[1:46] civil appellate self-help
[1:47] workshop, which has provided
[1:51] vital assistance to self-
[1:52] represented litigants in San
[1:53] Diegocounty.
[1:54] >> I know to many of you
[1:56] justice Irion was more than a
[1:57] trusted and respected colleague.
[1:59] She was also a kind, caring,
[2:04] and thoughtful friend.
[2:05] Our entire Judicial Branch is
[2:06] stronger for her dedicated
[2:10] service, her insight, her
[2:13] compassion and her leadership.
[2:16] We also learned of tribal court
[2:18] leader chief judge Richard
[2:19] Blake's passing in may and
[2:21] express our appreciation, too,
[2:23] for the contributions he made
[2:24] to the Council's work.
[2:27] In particular the Tribal
[2:27] CourtCourt state forum and to
[2:29] the California justice system
[2:31] as a whole.
[2:34] >> Judge Blake served the
[2:35] California judiciary for over
[2:37] 20 years with dedication and
[2:39] integrity.
[2:39] As a judge he was committed to
[2:42] protecting the rights and
[2:45] liberties of all Californians
[2:47] and ensuring it was fair and
[2:48] accessible.
[2:49] Judge Blake is perhaps best
[2:50] remembered for a pivotal moment
[2:53] in 2009 when he reached out to
[2:56] Chief Justice Ron George to
[2:57] request a meeting between
[2:59] tribal court and state court
[3:01] judges.
[3:02] >> That initiative helped
[3:03] strengthen the relationship
[3:05] between California's tribal and
[3:08] state courts based on his
[3:09] vision of collaboration, mutual
[3:11] respect and a shared commitment
[3:13] to justice.
[3:14] Throughout his career he worked
[3:16] to strengthen the judicial
[3:17] systems that our communities
[3:19] depend on.
[3:20] Judge Blake leaves behind a
[3:21] legacy of fairness, leadership,
[3:24] and the lasting positive change.
[3:26] We're grateful for his service,
[3:28] too, and proud to honor his
[3:31] memory.
[3:32] >> Now I want to recognize and
[3:35] thank our departing members who
[3:36] are finishing their terms on
[3:39] the council and also to welcome
[3:42] our incoming members who will
[3:42] begin their terms, most of you,
[3:45] in September.
[3:45] Thank you, also, to our
[3:49] Judicial Council staff who
[3:50] facilitated orientation,
[3:51] introducing them to their new
[3:52] roles and responsibilities.
[3:54] I'd like to start with our
[3:55] departing members first.
[3:57] I want to acknowledge the
[3:58] service and contributions of
[4:00] the following six departing
[4:03] councilmembers.
[4:03] Judge Maureen Hallahan, for her
[4:06] three years of service, which
[4:07] included serving as Vice-Chair
[4:09] of the executive and planning
[4:12] committee.
[4:12] Thank you, Maureen.
[4:12] You can applaud for all of them.
[4:17] [ Applause ]
[4:19] >> I'm not sure the microphone
[4:20] is on, but it's been an honor
[4:22] and a privilege to serve on the
[4:24] Judicial Council.
[4:24] I will miss each and every one
[4:27] of you, but I know the great
[4:28] work will continue.
[4:29] Thank you.
[4:30] >> Thank you, judge Hallahan.
[4:31] Judge Jeffrey Kauffman for his
[4:33] one year of service as
[4:34] president of the California
[4:37] judges association.
[4:40] [ Applause ]
[4:42] >> Thank you for the
[4:42] opportunity.
[4:43] It's very important work that
[4:44] we do here, and I'm happy to
[4:46] see such a great group of
[4:47] people doing it.
[4:48] So thank you for the
[4:48] opportunity to spend a brief
[4:50] amount of time with you.
[4:51] >> Thank you.
[4:52] And next we have -- where is
[4:54] she, Presiding Judge Patricia
[4:55] Kelly for her year of service
[4:57] including Chair of the
[4:58] council's Trial Court presiding
[4:59] judges Advisory Committee.
[5:01] [ Applause ]
[5:07] >> Thank you.
[5:07] I echo what's already been said.
[5:08] It's just been one of the
[5:10] highlights of my career to work
[5:13] with everybody here, especially
[5:15] you, Chief.
[5:15] It's been an honor.
[5:16] >> Thank you.
[5:17] And next we have Commissioner
[5:20] and now Judge Ryan Davis for
[5:21] his two years of service
[5:23] including membership on the
[5:25] council's executive and
[5:27] planning and rules committee.
[5:32] [ Applause ]
[5:34] >> Thank you.
[5:34] It has been an honor, and I
[5:36] hope to find ways to continue
[5:36] to serve the judiciary through
[5:39] Advisory Committees, et cetera,
[5:41] in the future.
[5:43] So I hope to see you soon.
[5:45] >> Thank you.
[5:45] And next we have someone with a
[5:47] little bit more time, Ms.
[5:48] Rachel Hill, for her nine years
[5:51] of service.
[5:51] On behalf of the state bar and
[5:54] her participation with our
[5:55] budget, legislation, technology
[5:57] and rules committee.
[5:58] [ Applause ]
[6:04] >> Thank you, Chief.
[6:06] I first want to saysay I am
[6:10] awed and have continued to be
[6:10] awed from day one for the work
[6:12] that's done on the council, the
[6:17] staff that is unparalleled.
[6:19] I think --I said this last
[6:21] night --but I think that if the
[6:24] general public could get a look
[6:26] under the hood and see all ofof
[6:31] dedicated, tireless work,
[6:33] meticulous work that is done by
[6:35] the council and this staff and
[6:38] all of the Advisory Committees
[6:39] that they would have a renewed
[6:42] faith in government and in the
[6:43] judiciary.
[6:44] And I am deeply grateful for
[6:47] the opportunity to work with
[6:48] you and to work with all of you.
[6:51] I will miss you dearly.
[6:53] It's become like a second home.
[6:57] So it's actually a little
[6:59] emotional for me, but thank you
[7:01] so much.
[7:02] >> Well, you can always come
[7:04] back.
[7:05] >> Thank you.
[7:06] [ Applause ]
[7:09] >> Another individual who has
[7:11] made remarkable contributions
[7:12] and also nine years of them, Ms.
[7:15] Gretchen Nelson, who served on
[7:15] behalf of the state bar and was
[7:18] involved primarily in our
[7:20] executive and planning and also
[7:27] >> Well, thank you very much.
[7:27] This has been an honor of a
[7:31] lifetime.
[7:31] I never thought when it started
[7:33] nine years ago it would last
[7:34] nine years, but I was thrilled
[7:36] to be a part of it, I will say,
[7:40] and echo what Rachel said.
[7:42] The work that this organization
[7:42] does, the people that are
[7:46] committed to it, both staff,
[7:49] members of the judiciary and
[7:52] the lawyer members, is
[7:53] extraordinaryextraordinary and
[7:55] what makes the California
[7:58] judicial system the best in the
[7:58] world.
[7:59] >> Thank you.
[8:00] Thank you all.
[8:00] On behalf of all of your
[8:02] colleagues, I express our
[8:04] gratitude for your public
[8:05] service, your dedication and
[8:07] commitment to the rule of law
[8:09] and all of your contributions
[8:11] and enhancing access to justice
[8:12] for all Californians through
[8:15] your service.
[8:16] Thank you.
[8:16] We will also continue to see
[8:19] six councilmembers who are
[8:19] reappointed to new terms.
[8:22] I would like to thank them each.
[8:22] And they are as follows.
[8:27] Justice Carol Corrigan, judge
[8:30] Bunmi Awoniyi -- I'm sorry, at
[8:34] some point, I'm sorry --judge
[8:38] Charles Crompton, judge Ann
[8:40] more are Moorman and Charles
[8:40] Johnson.
[8:41] There he is.
[8:42] Thank you.
[8:42] And also our court executive
[8:43] officer Kate Bieker.
[8:44] Thank you all.
[8:46] MRAUS PRAUS
[8:50] [ Applause ] I'm so grateful to
[8:52] each of you for agreeing to
[8:54] stay on with us.
[8:56] We appreciate your commitment
[8:56] to continued service and will
[8:58] continue to rely on your talent
[8:59] and your expertise for the
[9:01] benefit of all Californians
[9:06] statewide.
[9:07] We are also fortunate to have
[9:09] the following individuals who
[9:11] are joining us as new
[9:13] councilmembers and will help us
[9:15] advance our key goals and
[9:16] objectives that are reflected
[9:18] in the Judicial Council's
[9:19] strategic plan.
[9:20] So grateful to everyone who
[9:22] volunteers for these positions.
[9:24] It's the mix of experience and
[9:25] institutional knowledge
[9:28] combined with your new ideas
[9:30] and your fresh perspectives
[9:31] that really enables the council
[9:33] to do our work on behalf of the
[9:34] public.
[9:35] So I am pleased to announce
[9:37] we're adding to our knowledge
[9:41] and experience base with eight
[9:43] new incoming members, two of
[9:43] the new members have already
[9:45] begun their duties, and I will
[9:46] be administration their oaths
[9:48] of office shortly.
[9:49] Administrative Presiding
[9:50] Justice Mary Greenwood of the
[9:53] sixth district Court of Appeal.
[9:57] [ Applause ] And Mr.
[10:02] Chad Finke, court EX EK
[10:05] executive officer for the
[10:07] Alameda Superior Court.
[10:07] [ Applause ] We also have six
[10:10] additional new members who will
[10:11] begin their terms in September.
[10:13] I would like to welcome them
[10:15] all and recognize those who are
[10:16] with us here today.
[10:18] We have judge Nicole Bershon
[10:19] from Los Angeles Superior Court.
[10:22] She will be representing the
[10:23] California judges association,
[10:24] and I see her in the back.
[10:26] [ Applause ]
[10:32] >> We have Presiding Judge
[10:34] Rodney Cortez from the San
[10:35] Bernardino Superior Court.
[10:36] I don't believe he's with us,
[10:38] but he was with us last night.
[10:41] We have judge Eric Wersching
[10:42] from Orange County who is
[10:44] present.
[10:45] [ Applause ] We have
[10:49] Commissioner Benjamin Cassady
[10:50] of the Sacramento Superior
[10:53] Court.
[10:54] [ Applause ] We have Ms.
[10:59] Marta Alcumbrac, attorney from
[11:00] Los Angeles.
[11:02] Thank you.
[11:03] [ Applause ] And Ms.
[11:05] Alekxia Torres Stallings, an
[11:07] attorney member from
[11:07] Bakersfield.
[11:08] [ Applause ]
[11:12] >> Thank you all for
[11:13] volunteering for these
[11:14] positions.
[11:14] Thank you to everyone who
[11:17] submitted nominations for these
[11:20] positions as well.
[11:21] Just as I have enjoyed working
[11:22] with our members, I'm looking
[11:24] forward and excited about
[11:25] working with each of you here.
[11:28] I want to briefly comment on
[11:30] our Judicial Branch budget as
[11:31] well.
[11:31] This budget, as you know,
[11:35] reflects the governor's and the
[11:40] ors commitment to the branch.
[11:40] The funding helps to address
[11:43] increased operational costs for
[11:43] the trial courts and the rising
[11:47] cost for court interpreter
[11:49] services, appellate court
[11:50] appointed council.
[11:53] It accelerates progress on the
[11:55] five-year Infrastructure Plan
[11:55] for our courthouse construction
[12:00] and maintenance and importantly
[12:02] it also includes funding for 13
[12:04] new judgeships.
[12:04] This will be over a period of
[12:08] five years to help meet the
[12:08] ongoing judicial work load
[12:10] challenges that our courts face.
[12:11] In particular in the counties
[12:14] with the greatest need.
[12:16] I very much appreciate the
[12:16] contributions of our Judicial
[12:19] Branch Budget Committee, the
[12:21] Trial Court Budget Advisory
[12:25] Committee, judge Moorman, Judge
[12:29] Hernandez, Judge Conklin and
[12:29] Fleming for guiding our budget
[12:31] process over the past year and
[12:32] also the planning and
[12:33] information sharing by all of
[12:35] the appellate and Trial Court
[12:38] leadership and court
[12:39] professionals through our
[12:41] committees.
[12:41] And, of course, I'd like to
[12:54] Rob, Erica and now Francine is
[12:55] joining the team, too.
[12:59] I think she's here.
[13:00] >> I'm here.
[13:01] >> Thank you, Francine.
[13:03] And their teams including cory
[13:08] and Zlatko.
[13:10] I think they all deserve a
[13:10] round of applause, too.
[13:12] [ Applause ] And Shelley will
[13:16] have more detailed information
[13:17] to share on the budget during
[13:19] her report, and we'll also
[13:21] address the important processes
[13:23] of allocation and budget change
[13:26] proposals later during our
[13:28] discussion agenda.
[13:29] >> I also want to acknowledge
[13:30] staff members who areare here.
[13:31] We have a full, packed room in
[13:32] the back, from the Orange
[13:34] County Superior Court joining
[13:36] us in the audience today as
[13:39] part of their level- up
[13:41] leadership development program,
[13:44] our Court Executive Officer,
[13:47] David Yamasoki.
[13:48] I think they're here.
[13:50] Yes, there they are.
[13:52] We have also present and
[13:54] welcome a court interpreter
[13:57] manager.
[13:58] We have Beatrice Ademis, in the
[14:03] criminal division, Lori Mayes,
[14:05] rose Marie Garcia, deputy court
[14:08] operations, criminal division,
[14:08] and Teresa Chen, financial
[14:11] services manager.
[14:12] I had an opportunity to meet
[14:12] them all yesterday, and we
[14:13] appreciate you being here with
[14:14] us today.
[14:14] Thank you.
[14:16] [ Applause ]
[14:24] >> Okay.
[14:24] You now invite our two Judicial
[14:25] Council members beginning their
[14:27] term to join me in taking your
[14:29] oath of office.
[14:31] Please stand.
[14:33] Okay.
[14:34] You're both together.
[14:39] You will repeat I do after me
[14:42] if you do, and I hope that you
[14:44] do.
[14:44] I do solemnly swear or affirm
[14:46] that I will support and defend
[14:47] the Constitution of the United
[14:49] States and the Constitution of
[14:51] the state of California against
[14:53] all enemies foreign and
[14:56] domestic, that I will bear true
[14:56] faith and allegiance toto
[14:59] Constitution of the United
[14:59] States and the Constitution of
[15:02] the state of California, that I
[15:04] take this obligation freely,
[15:05] without any mental reservation
[15:08] or purpose of evasion, and that
[15:11] I will well and faithfully
[15:13] discharge the duties upon which
[15:14] I'm about to enter.
[15:16] >> I do.
[15:16] >> I do.
[15:17] >> Yay.
[15:18] [ Applause ]
[15:21] >> Okay.
[15:24] I was holding my breath.
[15:24] Thank you.
[15:25] I'm really looking forward to
[15:26] working with you guys.
[15:28] Thank you.
[15:28] We will now begin our public
[15:30] comment period.
[15:31] We welcome public comments and
[15:32] appreciate the time and effort
[15:33] that members of the public take
[15:35] to provide them both in writing
[15:39] and in person.
[15:40] All comments are noted and on
[15:41] specific agenda items or on one
[15:44] of the general topics of
[15:44] judicial administration, they
[15:47] all help us to better
[15:48] understand the issues that
[15:51] Californians face when
[15:52] accessing our court system.
[15:54] When further consideration or
[15:56] response is warranted, we do
[15:56] follow up appropriately.
[15:59] However, it's important to note
[16:02] that councilmembers cannot
[16:04] intervene on behalf of any
[16:05] individual or with respect to
[16:07] any case or offer legal advice
[16:08] to anyone.
[16:09] I'll now turn it over to the
[16:11] council's executive and
[16:15] planning committee Chair,
[16:16] Administrative Presiding
[16:17] Justice Brad Hill to begin
[16:17] public comment.
[16:18] >> Thank you very much, Chief.
[16:22] It's nice to have everyone with
[16:24] us today.
[16:24] We have a number who have
[16:25] joined us in person.
[16:26] We thank you very much for
[16:26] taking the time to be with us.
[16:32] I would note when you do
[16:32] approach to speak, that you
[16:34] should state your name, and if
[16:35] applicable, your title and
[16:38] affiliation.
[16:38] On the podium are lights that
[16:41] will inform you of the time
[16:41] remaining.
[16:42] A yellow light will come on
[16:44] when you have one minute
[16:44] remaining and a red light will
[16:47] come on when your time has
[16:50] expired.
[16:51] And we'll turn first to Nick,
[16:55] to speak to court
[16:56] administration.
[16:57] And if you wouldn't mind
[17:00] stepping forward.
[17:03] >> Good morning.
[17:06] >> Good morning.
[17:07] >> Honorable members of
[17:08] California Judicial Council,
[17:10] thank you for having me.
[17:13] Highly appreciate it.
[17:15] Civil engineer, civil rights
[17:18] activist, Orange County.
[17:18] For 700 days I cannot get a
[17:22] signature on stipulation for
[17:25] retirement with the state.
[17:30] This add ministerial duty
[17:36] cleared by all parties of
[17:40] interest, child support
[17:42] services, pending action in
[17:45] district court against
[17:51] government Newsom.
[17:54] Looking for relief, punitive
[17:57] and damages of multimillion
[18:01] dollars, a legal precedent of
[18:06] Jean E.
[18:07] Carroll and president trump.
[18:12] Pending since August 19, '24.
[18:15] For parties two motions for
[18:17] challenge.
[18:18] Motion to stop any hearing,
[18:21] with the Appellate District,
[18:21] petition for review with
[18:27] California Supreme Court, late,
[18:29] unfortunately, with U.
[18:29] S.
[18:29] Supreme Court.
[18:30] Complaints to commission and
[18:33] judicial performance to
[18:35] judiciary who sent me here to U.
[18:39] S.
[18:39] Supreme Court Chief Justice
[18:42] John Roberts to join
[18:44] legislation to presiding judges
[18:47] and court CEOs, complaints to
[18:55] Governor Newsom and was
[18:58] submitted January 2023.
[18:59] On February 18, he stated that
[19:02] he's going to produce an order
[19:05] and ask to prepare the file.
[19:07] On February 27, he overruled
[19:13] himself and denied it.
[19:14] Both yes and no documented in
[19:17] certified court transcripts.
[19:20] >> You might note that the red
[19:21] light has come on, so if you
[19:24] wouldn't mind, perhaps wrapping
[19:25] things up.
[19:27] >> Yes.
[19:28] My question to all mentioned
[19:32] places and to Honorable council
[19:36] here is why the judges were not
[19:39] suspended after ing the order
[19:40] for more than six months, both
[19:44] of them.
[19:45] If they committed perjury in
[19:48] their 90-day pending cases,
[19:51] Government Code 68210,
[19:54] obviously they violated
[19:58] judicial 3 b7 and article 6
[20:03] paragraph 19.
[20:03] Presiding Judge Maria Hernandez
[20:07] felt California rules of court
[20:10] 10608 and 10608, too.
[20:10] I can answer any questions.
[20:12] Thank you for the opportunity
[20:15] to speak.
[20:16] >> Thank you for joining us
[20:18] this morning, and we now have
[20:21] 22 others behind you, so we'll
[20:23] thank and excuse you at this
[20:24] point.
[20:24] We have some interpreters with
[20:26] us.
[20:26] Again, thank you for joining us.
[20:28] We appreciate.
[20:29] We know that it's not easy to
[20:30] take time andand come here to
[20:34] join us.
[20:36] We understand that three of you
[20:36] will be speaking for three
[20:39] minutes apiece and then the
[20:40] others will be indicating their
[20:42] support for what has been said.
[20:47] And we'll turn first to Jean
[20:55] Carasia.
[20:55] I may not have done justice to
[20:58] your name.
[20:59] >> Good morning.
[21:01] >> Thank you for joining us.
[21:03] >> You're welcome.
[21:03] Good morning, Chief Justice and
[21:07] councilmembers.
[21:09] My name is Jean, I'm a staff
[21:13] interpreter atat Superior Court.
[21:17] Over the past decade region two
[21:18] two have lost 42% of their
[21:21] staff interpreters with many
[21:23] returning as contractors
[21:24] earning double or even triple
[21:26] of what staff interpreters make.
[21:28] We do not have a stable
[21:31] interpreter workforce right now.
[21:34] Because of this, the region two
[21:36] courts do not always meet the
[21:37] mandate of providing equal
[21:39] access for all languages.
[21:40] Those of us on the ground see
[21:42] unequal treatment for court
[21:42] users needing our services,
[21:45] unreasonable delays for
[21:47] attorneys and judges, and
[21:48] people denied the right to be
[21:50] heard.
[21:52] >> We see this daily.
[21:54] For decades, the Judicial
[21:54] Council of California has been
[21:57] setting language access
[21:57] standards to ensure equal
[22:01] access to justice, aspirational
[22:02] policy directives won't
[22:04] translate into access without a
[22:08] commitment to workforce
[22:10] recruitment and retention.
[22:11] With long-term, unfilled
[22:12] vacancies and high attrition,
[22:15] some court administrators
[22:16] propose cutting the
[22:19] certification process pass
[22:22] score another 10% down to 60%.
[22:22] Make no mistake, 60% is a
[22:25] failing grade for anything that
[22:28] matters.
[22:28] Imagine yourself in a court
[22:30] proceeding in a foreign
[22:30] language getting maybe six out
[22:34] of ten words being spoken.
[22:34] Would you call that due process?
[22:36] High standards for
[22:37] certification is the right
[22:42] policy.
[22:43] Lowering standards is not a
[22:45] workforce solution.
[22:47] >> For complete, accurate,
[22:49] real-time interPRETing of
[22:50] complex matters, which is
[22:51] necessary for language access,
[22:53] the courts need interpreters
[22:54] who are knowledgeable, skilled,
[22:58] and dedicated.
[22:58] How can the courts meet this
[23:01] need while also refusing to set
[23:01] a competitive salary for staff
[23:05] interpreters?
[23:06] Thank you.
[23:07] >> Thank you very much.
[23:09] Next up we have Laura
[23:13] villanueva, if you wouldn't
[23:15] mind stepping forward.
[23:16] Good morning.
[23:17] >> Good morning, honorable
[23:18] councilmembers.
[23:19] My name is Laura villanueva.
[23:22] I'm a staff interpreter at San
[23:25] Francisco Superior Court and
[23:25] have been a California court
[23:28] interpreter for 11 years.
[23:31] The courts have been neglecting
[23:34] compensation for decades.
[23:34] Courts in the most expensive
[23:37] region of the state are facing
[23:40] daily staffing shortages and
[23:43] persistent vacancies that go
[23:43] unfilled for years.
[23:46] This leaves immigrants without
[23:48] interpreters, harms language
[23:49] access, and undermines civil
[23:53] rights.
[23:54] >> Staff and contract
[23:54] interpreters have the same
[23:58] skills and provide the same
[24:00] service, but staff interpreters
[24:01] work longer hours under less
[24:04] favorable working conditions
[24:05] and earn far less than our
[24:08] contractor colleagues.
[24:10] Even after accounting for the
[24:12] cost of benefits, which not all
[24:16] employees get, we still make 50
[24:19] to 60% less.
[24:22] Paying contractors less is no
[24:22] solution.
[24:23] Paying staff more is.
[24:27] >> The disparate treatment is
[24:28] extreme.
[24:29] What makes us different and
[24:32] unequal?
[24:34] How can the region two courts
[24:37] justify paying us less than
[24:39] federal court interpreters,
[24:42] less than court reporters, and
[24:44] so much less than contract
[24:46] interpreters doing the same job?
[24:50] >> If the courts keep
[24:52] neglecting the interpreter
[24:53] workforce and suppressing staff
[24:55] pay, what's behind the unequal
[24:59] treatment?
[25:00] Is it because our services are
[25:01] legally mandated but unfunded?
[25:05] Is it because the courts don't
[25:08] have public --don't value
[25:09] public service for immigrants?
[25:12] Is it because most interpreters
[25:13] are women?
[25:13] Very many of us immigrants.
[25:17] How do you explain the stark
[25:18] disparities in pay and
[25:19] treatment for an essential
[25:21] workforce?
[25:23] Thank you.
[25:26] >> Thank you very much.
[25:28] Michelle, if you wouldn't mind
[25:32] stepping forward at this time.
[25:44] >> Good morning, Honorable
[25:46] councilmembers, and you said my
[25:48] last name right, which is very
[25:50] unusual.
[25:50] My name is Michelle and I'm a
[25:52] staff interpreter for Alameda
[25:53] county Superior Court and I've
[25:55] been a certified court
[25:57] interpreter for 25 years.
[26:00] Eight of those I was also an
[26:01] interpreter services manager.
[26:04] And for several of those I was
[26:04] also the court language access
[26:08] liaison to the Judicial Council.
[26:11] >> Interpreting over Zoom does
[26:14] not provide equal and
[26:17] meaningful access for LEP court
[26:19] users except for very basic
[26:20] communications.
[26:22] Ad hoc solutions for remote
[26:22] appearances don't work for
[26:26] interpreting.
[26:27] Poor sound, inadequate tech,
[26:29] and the lack of enforceable
[26:31] standards of current systems
[26:35] leave access buffering.
[26:36] Remote interpreting isolates
[26:38] LEP users and impedes their
[26:39] participation, and it puts
[26:41] interpreter hearing at risk.
[26:45] >> Tech without specs is not a
[26:48] workforce solution.
[26:50] The interpreter act was enacted
[26:53] in 2003.
[26:53] The law envisioned a finite
[26:55] transition period to shift from
[26:56] contract interpreter services
[26:58] to an employment system.
[27:02] Stable workforce doesn't happen
[27:04] overnight.
[27:05] But after 23 years, growing
[27:06] disparities in pay and
[27:07] treatment reflect the failure
[27:09] of the California courts to
[27:10] implement the law's intent and
[27:14] purpose.
[27:15] >> Deliver on the law's mandate
[27:17] to provide quality language
[27:18] access services to all LEP
[27:22] court users and the skilled and
[27:23] reliable workforce.
[27:24] Thank you.
[27:25] >> Thank you very much.
[27:29] At this time I'm going to call
[27:29] three at a time and then you
[27:34] can certainly register your
[27:36] support or anything else with
[27:38] respect to those comments.
[27:41] Naomi, Carol and Ryan, step
[27:54] forward, please.
[28:02] And then in the queue, if you
[28:05] wouldn't mind, we'll have Molly
[28:08] Smith and Maria Delcarmen
[28:10] Munoz, if you could get ready
[28:11] to approach.
[28:13] Thank you.
[28:14] >> Hi, I'm Naomi Adelson, a
[28:16] Steph interpreter at Superior
[28:16] Court and I've been a court
[28:19] interpreter for 18 years,
[28:19] dedicated to public service.
[28:23] I support everything that my
[28:24] colleagues said and really hope
[28:25] you fund the mandate.
[28:26] Thank you.
[28:29] >> Thank you.
[28:30] >> Hello, Carol, court
[28:31] certified interpreter for San
[28:33] Mateo county Superior Court.
[28:35] I've been a court interpreter
[28:37] for 27 years, started in 1999
[28:41] for Alameda County, worked in
[28:44] Santa Clara County, San
[28:44] Francisco County and San Mateo
[28:47] County for close to 20 years.
[28:50] I've also been on the court
[28:52] interpreter Judicial Council
[28:53] advisory panel, and I do
[28:55] support everything that my
[28:55] colleagues just stated.
[29:00] Thank you.
[29:02] >> Thank you.
[29:03] >> Good morning, Honorable
[29:05] councilmembers.
[29:05] My name is Ryan Lee, an
[29:09] interpreter working with Santa
[29:11] Clara County in the last five
[29:15] years, and I support and
[29:16] endorse everything been said so
[29:17] far by my colleagues.
[29:19] Thank you.
[29:21] >> Thank you.
[29:24] Now Molly Smith and Maria Munoz
[29:27] can step forward and in the
[29:30] queue we'll have Katie Van
[29:33] Zandt and Shannon.
[29:36] >> Good morning, Honorable
[29:37] councilmembers.
[29:37] My name is Molly Smith, and I
[29:40] am a certified California state
[29:41] interpreter, and I have been a
[29:45] staff interpreter for 14 years
[29:47] with contra Costa County and II
[29:49] and endorse all the comments
[29:49] that have been made so far by
[29:50] my colleagues.
[29:52] Thank you.
[29:57] >> Good morning.
[29:57] I work for San Mateo County.
[29:59] I've been a court interpreter
[30:02] since 2008.
[30:02] We worked through the pandemic,
[30:09] some of our colleagues lost
[30:12] their lives, and many of us got
[30:13] COVID severalseveral times.
[30:14] We're in the holding cells,
[30:16] we're in the court hearings,
[30:17] and it's disheartening to see
[30:21] the lack of pay parity.
[30:25] Thank you.
[30:27] >> Good morning, Honorable
[30:29] councilmembers and Chief
[30:32] Justice.
[30:32] I'm a staff interpreter at San
[30:35] Francisco Superior Court.
[30:35] I have been a California court
[30:38] interpreter for 11 years, and I
[30:40] endorse and support everything
[30:41] my colleagues have said.
[30:43] Thank you for your time.
[30:45] >> Thank you very much.
[30:46] And then in the queue I would
[30:47] ask that Brenda Oliver, Karla
[30:51] quevas and Jenny step forward
[30:53] and then we'll start.
[30:54] Go right ahead.
[30:55] >> Good morning, Chief Justice
[30:56] and Honorable councilmembers.
[30:59] My name is Katie Van Sant, a
[31:02] Spanish court interpreter at
[31:03] the Alameda County Superior
[31:04] Court.
[31:05] I've been a court interpreter
[31:09] for 25 years.
[31:10] I'm also on the Judicial
[31:12] Council committee for access
[31:13] and fairness and the
[31:14] subcommittee for language
[31:15] access.
[31:17] I'm here to support my
[31:17] colleagues, and I endorse
[31:19] everything that they have said
[31:21] today.
[31:22] Thank you.
[31:24] >> Thank you.
[31:27] >> Good morning, Honorable
[31:28] councilmembers.
[31:29] My name is Francisco, and I'm a
[31:33] staff interpreter at Alameda
[31:34] Superior Court, and I have been
[31:35] a staff interpreter for 20
[31:39] years.
[31:39] A recent survey of region
[31:41] twotwo interpreters highlighted
[31:41] all the years of education it
[31:46] takes to do a job.
[31:48] 40% of staff members now depend
[31:50] on side jobs for extra income
[31:50] just to make end meet.
[31:54] I'm one of those interpreters.
[31:56] Thank you.
[31:57] >> Thank you.
[32:00] I would ask christian Guerrero
[32:04] and Margaret layman and Mary
[32:06] Lou --I really didn't do
[32:07] justice to that name, but I'll
[32:08] --
[32:09] >> I'm used to it.
[32:11] >> Okay.
[32:12] Thank you.
[32:13] Please proceed.
[32:15] >> Morning, Chief Justice.
[32:15] Morning Honorable
[32:17] councilmembers.
[32:17] I'm Shannon Raintree, a staff
[32:20] interpreter at San Francisco
[32:21] Superior Court, a certified
[32:22] interpreter for 25 years and a
[32:24] staff interpreter for 19 of
[32:27] those years I support and
[32:27] endorse everything my
[32:30] colleagues have said.
[32:32] Thank you.
[32:33] >> Thank you.
[32:36] >> Chief Justice, Honorable
[32:38] councilmembers, good morning.
[32:42] My name is -- I'm a staff
[32:44] interpreter and I have been a
[32:48] court interpreter for 15 years.
[32:51] I'm dedicated to public service.
[32:51] I'm here today because staff
[32:53] interpreters are underpaid by
[32:57] any measure.
[32:59] In the most expensive region in
[33:00] the fourth largest economy in
[33:06] the world, why are we seeing
[33:09] such low income?
[33:12] Thank you.
[33:13] >> Good morning, Chief Justice
[33:14] and councilmembers.
[33:15] My name is Brenda Oliver.
[33:18] I've been a court interpreter
[33:21] for 27 years, and I echo the
[33:25] comments of my colleagues.
[33:27] And just an example of the
[33:29] shortage in pay, I have to rely
[33:31] on credit cards to buy my basic
[33:32] groceries.
[33:33] Think about that.
[33:35] Thank you.
[33:36] >> Thank you.
[33:39] We would ask Danielle Navarro
[33:42] and Benjamin Young to get in
[33:45] the cue.
[33:45] Please proceed.
[33:46] >> Good morning,
[33:46] councilmembers, Honorable Chief
[33:47] Justice.
[33:48] My name is Jenny Foray, a court
[33:51] interpreter here in California
[33:53] for over 17 years, 15 years I
[33:55] served in Los Angeles county.
[33:58] I'm currently employed as a
[34:00] staff interpreter in Sonoma
[34:00] county courts.
[34:01] Madam Chief Justice, thank you
[34:02] for coming to our inauguration.
[34:05] We are open for service
[34:07] officially on Monday.
[34:08] I want to thank you for your
[34:10] time, and I just want to say
[34:12] that I fully endorse and
[34:13] support what my colleagues are
[34:15] here to say personally and
[34:16] anything that has been
[34:19] submitted in written comment.
[34:22] Thank you.
[34:23] >> Thank you.
[34:26] >> Good morning, Honorable
[34:27] Chief Justice and committee
[34:30] members, councilmembers, I've
[34:32] been a certified California
[34:33] court interpreter for ten
[34:35] years, seven of which I worked
[34:36] as a staff interpreter in
[34:39] Sonoma County and three point
[34:40] at Marin County and I support
[34:42] and endorse the comments made
[34:45] by my colleagues and friends.
[34:51] Thank you.
[34:54] >> Good morning, Honorable
[34:56] councilmembers.
[34:58] My name is Margaret Layman.
[35:00] I've been a staff interpreter
[35:02] for more than 18 years, and I
[35:05] strongly endorse and support
[35:08] everything my colleagues have
[35:09] said, and I just wanted to
[35:11] mention that I am also one of
[35:12] these interpreters who is
[35:15] living paycheck to paycheck
[35:18] despite working full time.
[35:20] And I love my job too much to
[35:21] quit it, but I'm not sure how
[35:22] much longer I can afford to do
[35:24] it.
[35:24] Thank you.
[35:25] >> Thank you.
[35:31] >> Good morning.
[35:32] I'm Mary Lou.
[35:32] I've served the courts for over
[35:36] 34 years as a contract
[35:36] interpreter and as a staff
[35:40] interpreter for Alameda
[35:41] CountyCounty 2003.
[35:42] I've worked in courts all over
[35:44] the state of California at
[35:46] different times, and I just
[35:49] want to say that most of the
[35:50] folks that you're hearing from
[35:53] today have masters degrees.
[35:54] Many are federally certified
[35:57] and we truly are low income
[35:59] under the definition for low
[36:00] income in the Bay area.
[36:04] Thank you.
[36:06] >> Thank you.
[36:06] >> Good morning, Chief Justice.
[36:09] Good morning, councilmembers.
[36:09] My name is Daniel Navarro.
[36:11] I'm a Spanish interpreter at
[36:13] San Francisco Superior Court
[36:15] and have been for 25 years.
[36:21] I want to echo the comments of
[36:24] my colleagues, and I think -- I
[36:28] think what they've said is a
[36:28] testament to our dedication to
[36:30] public service.
[36:31] I would encourage you to read
[36:33] the comments submitted on
[36:35] behalf of our labor union,
[36:41] thank you.
[36:43] >> Hello.
[36:44] My name is Benjamin Young.
[36:49] I am a court certified
[36:51] interpreter for over 25 years
[36:51] in San Mateo County.
[36:53] I have worked as a contractor
[36:54] and staff interpreter, so I
[36:56] know the disparity.
[36:57] And, also, I'm getting old and
[36:59] I'm going to be retiring soon,
[37:01] and at this really think a way
[37:03] should be found to replace
[37:06] people like us and endorse the
[37:07] comments of my colleagues.
[37:10] Thank you.
[37:11] >> Thank you very much.
[37:12] Now that is the group that
[37:12] checked in, but I see a couple
[37:16] folks here that may have gotten
[37:19] here a tad late and didn't
[37:20] check in and we'll certainly
[37:21] want to hear from them as well.
[37:24] So please step forward.
[37:28] >> Good morning, Honorable
[37:29] councilmembers.
[37:31] Thank you for your time this
[37:31] morning.
[37:33] I traveled here all the way
[37:35] from Monterey county, and that
[37:36] is why I am a bit late.
[37:40] I apologize.
[37:40] I have been a certified Spanish
[37:42] court interpreter for the past
[37:44] 20 years, 19 of those years I
[37:45] have been a staff interpreter
[37:47] in Monterey County and I just
[37:48] wanted to mention we provide
[37:52] essential Constitutionally
[37:55] mandated services, and I urge
[37:59] you to provide equal pay for
[38:01] equal work that we've been
[38:03] providing as dedicated public
[38:03] servants for the past couple of
[38:06] decades.
[38:06] Thank you.
[38:07] >> Thank you.
[38:08] No apology necessary.
[38:09] And thank you for making the
[38:12] trip.
[38:13] >> Thank you.
[38:19] >> Good morning, Honorable
[38:21] councilmembers.
[38:21] My name is Farrah Taylor.
[38:23] I have been a court certified
[38:26] interpreter since 2009.
[38:28] I worked as a private
[38:31] contractor for many years, and
[38:31] I've been an employee at Marin
[38:36] County Superior Court since
[38:41] 2017.
[38:41] I endorse all the comments that
[38:42] my colleagues have made, and I
[38:46] would also like to point out
[38:48] that I am well aware of the
[38:49] disparity between what contract
[38:52] interpreters make versus what
[38:55] employees make, and I truly
[38:57] believe that as civil servants,
[38:57] I come from a long line of
[39:01] civil servants.
[39:03] It's unfortunate that court
[39:04] interpreters are so low on the
[39:09] pay scale compared to other
[39:10] people who work in public
[39:13] service, and we are providing
[39:15] such a really important
[39:16] service, and I hope you realize
[39:18] that and are aware of it.
[39:20] Thank you.
[39:21] >> Thank you.
[39:25] >> Good morning, Chief Justice
[39:26] and councilmembers.
[39:27] My name is jack Medina.
[39:30] I work for Marin Superior Court
[39:31] and have been a court
[39:34] interpreter for 20 years.
[39:34] endorse and support everything
[39:36] that my colleagues have said
[39:37] before me.
[39:37] Also, I'd like to point out
[39:41] that some full-time interpreter
[39:43] positions have been announced
[39:44] and candidates have called to
[39:46] apply and have not gotten
[39:47] callbacks.
[39:48] Thank you very much.
[39:49] Have a great day.
[39:50] >> Thank you.
[39:56] >> Good morning.
[39:57] My name is Tatiana and I'm
[39:59] certified Russian interpreter
[40:01] for the County of San Francisco.
[40:04] I endorse and full heartedly
[40:04] support my colleagues and very
[40:09] proud to be of a group of
[40:10] wonderful, well-educated and
[40:12] brave people.
[40:13] Thank you.
[40:14] >> Thank you.
[40:14] I want to thank all of you for
[40:18] your thoughtful and very
[40:20] important comments.
[40:22] Obviously court interpreters
[40:22] are a critical part of our
[40:24] system and we appreciate you
[40:26] taking your time to share your
[40:27] thoughts with us.
[40:28] Chief, that concludes public
[40:31] comment.
[40:32] >> Thank you, Justice Hill.
[40:33] Thank you to everybody who took
[40:35] the time to provide these
[40:36] public comments, whether it
[40:37] related to, as our first
[40:40] speaker, an individual issue,
[40:44] or more broadly language access
[40:47] issues, something we're
[40:47] committed to.
[40:48] We thank you for work that you
[40:49] do, the comments today and all
[40:51] the comments we received in
[40:52] writing.
[40:52] That concludes our public
[40:55] comment period.
[40:56] Thank you.
[40:57] >
[40:57] >> Next on our agenda is my
[40:58] regular report as Chief Justice
[41:01] summarizing some of my
[41:01] engagements and ongoing
[41:04] outreach activities on behalf
[41:06] of the Judicial Branch since
[41:07] our last meeting on April 24th.
[41:11] As part of my power of
[41:13] democracy civic learning
[41:13] initiative, we commemorated law
[41:17] day, as you know, on May 1st at
[41:19] the 3rd district Court of
[41:20] Appeal in Sacramento where we
[41:23] welcomed judges, educators,
[41:24] students and their parents to a
[41:25] program recognizing the rule of
[41:28] law and its role in our
[41:28] democracy.
[41:30] >> We also took the opportunity
[41:31] to announce our 2026 civic
[41:36] learning award honorees at the
[41:37] event and presented the civic
[41:39] learning award of excellence,
[41:40] which is the top honor, to
[41:47] three schools.
[41:48] Prep elementary school, south
[41:51] junior high school in Orange
[41:53] County, and norwalk High School
[41:55] in LA County.
[41:55] I look forward to visiting
[41:57] these campuses.
[41:58] I do each year in the fall.
[42:00] >> In another major celebration
[42:01] of civics, I gave keynote
[42:03] remarks at an event celebrating
[42:06] the 250th anniversary of the
[42:07] founding of our country.
[42:10] It was held on the USS Midway.
[42:20] Joan Webber was the principle
[42:23] organizer.
[42:24] Justice Judith McConnell of the
[42:26] Fourth District Court of Appeal
[42:30] and the Chair of my initiative
[42:33] attended the event alongside
[42:35] numerous judges in San Diego
[42:36] Superior Court and also our
[42:37] federal courts.
[42:38] It was really a wonderful
[42:40] opportunity to engage with the
[42:41] community and highlight the
[42:43] importance of our founding
[42:43] principles and the work of our
[42:46] independent judiciary in
[42:49] upholding the rule of law.
[42:50] >
[42:50] >> Turning to judicial
[42:53] appointments, we had five
[42:54] justices who were unanimously
[42:55] confirmed by the commission on
[42:57] judicial appointments, which I
[43:00] Chair.
[43:00] During hearings in May.
[43:02] The hearings resulted in the
[43:05] confirmations of justice Steven
[43:08] Govovic, division three in Los
[43:11] Angeles, Presiding Justice
[43:13] Joanne Muduwike with the fourth
[43:15] district Court of Appeal
[43:16] division three in Santa Ana,
[43:17] justice Deborah Sorvino with
[43:21] the fourth district court,
[43:26] Justice Aaron Bermudez in San
[43:29] Diego and Justice Amy Gara in
[43:32] Fresno.
[43:33] You're welcome, Justice Hill.
[43:34] I also had the pleasure of
[43:37] welcoming four groups of new
[43:37] judges to my chambers during
[43:40] our new judge orientation
[43:40] program.
[43:42] >> In total we had 25 judges,
[43:46] 24 commissioners and one
[43:47] hearing officer representing 20
[43:49] different counties.
[43:51] In San Francisco I attended the
[43:53] American Bar Association
[43:55] opportunity program where I
[43:57] spoke to law students who were
[44:00] selected for a six-week summer
[44:02] internship to do legal work in
[44:05] writing work with our federal
[44:05] and state court judges.
[44:08] And I always make a pitch for
[44:08] the state side of that equation.
[44:15] I spoke for high school
[44:17] students from several counties
[44:21] attending the young legislators
[44:24] program hosted by senator
[44:25] Caballero.
[44:25] As part of the program
[44:27] dedicated to fostering civic
[44:28] engagement and leadership among
[44:30] central valley youth.
[44:31] I participated in a Q&A session
[44:35] regarding the work of our
[44:36] courts and my role and
[44:37] responsibilitiesresponsibilities
[44:37] Chief Justice.
[44:39] >> I also helped send off
[44:41] graduates from our judicial
[44:43] fellows, the judicial
[44:45] fellowship program during their
[44:47] end of year ceremony held in
[44:47] Sacramento after they spent ten
[44:50] months working in either our
[44:52] Judicial Council offices or
[44:54] with one of seven of our
[44:55] Superior Courts throughout the
[44:57] state under the mentorship of
[44:59] our court executive officers
[44:59] and professional staff.
[45:03] We thank our s for their
[45:05] contribution to our bran:we
[45:06] also hope it's inspired them to
[45:07] commit to continue public
[45:08] service as many of our fellows
[45:11] have done over the years.
[45:12] >> Also in Sacramento earlier
[45:14] this week, I participated in a
[45:18] very lively Q&A session, very
[45:21] lively because it was moderated
[45:25] by Justice Macy Wala and
[45:29] Presiding Justice Earl.
[45:31] There were about 60
[45:33] participants, ex terns and law
[45:37] students who asked questions.
[45:38] I'm very grateful for the time
[45:40] they take and invest to help
[45:41] build the pipeline of our
[45:45] future lawyers and judges.
[45:48] >> In Santa Rosa, Shelley and I
[45:49] were pleased to attend a
[45:50] dedication for one of our new
[45:54] courthouses.
[45:55] It was a lovely gathering to
[45:57] honor the justice for Sonoma
[45:59] county.
[46:00] >> In San Francisco I was
[46:02] honored to speak at a reception
[46:05] for the Glide Foundation and
[46:05] legal services they provide to
[46:08] vulnerable communities through
[46:09] their legal advice and referral
[46:11] clinic.
[46:12] This was actually an initiative
[46:16] that Judge Crompton spearheaded
[46:17] prior to joining the San
[46:20] Francisco Superior Court, so we
[46:20] also thank him for his tireless
[46:23] work in improving the civil
[46:26] justice gap.
[46:27] >> Finally, in Sacramento I was
[46:30] pleased to join Governor
[46:33] Newsom, the attorney general
[46:37] rob Bonta at the annual peace
[46:39] officers memorial.
[46:41] It recognizes peace officers
[46:41] who died in the line of duty
[46:44] the previous year.
[46:45] >> As you know, our courthouses
[46:47] could not function without the
[46:49] work of our bailiffs, sheriffs,
[46:54] CHP, marshals and others to
[46:56] access our justice system and
[46:59] allows judicial officers and
[46:59] court employees to do our jobs
[47:03] without fearing for our safety.
[47:06] As always, it was a somber and
[47:07] moving tribute to peace
[47:08] officers who paid the ultimate
[47:11] sacrifice in order to protect
[47:12] the public and an important
[47:16] recognition to honor the
[47:17] families, in particular this
[47:17] year there were numerous
[47:20] children who were impacted by
[47:20] the loss of their loved ones,
[47:24] so at this appreciate the
[47:26] opportunity to be there with
[47:26] them and that concludes my
[47:29] remarks to the council of my
[47:31] activities since our past
[47:32] meeting.
[47:33] >> We now will hear from our
[47:35] Administrative Director,
[47:35] Shelley Curran, with her report
[47:37] to all of you.
[47:39] >> Good morning.
[47:39] Thank you, everyone.
[47:40] Thank you, chief.
[47:41] I would like to begin this
[47:42] morning by asking to call you
[47:45] recall attention to my regular
[47:47] written Administrative
[47:47] Director's report in your
[47:50] material.
[47:50] It represents a roundup of the
[47:53] work that the council staff has
[47:54] undertaken since the April
[47:56] business meeting in support of
[47:57] the council's mission.
[47:59] It's separate and apart from
[48:00] the matters that are on today's
[48:03] agenda.
[48:03] So I'm going to begin, of
[48:04] course, with the discussion of
[48:06] the budget.
[48:07] >> The report notes that a new
[48:09] budget for fiscal year began on
[48:13] July 1st.
[48:14] For today's meeting, we are
[48:15] presenting for your
[48:16] consideration an approval
[48:17] recommended budgetary
[48:18] allocations for the fiscal year
[48:22] '26-27 and we're seeking your
[48:23] approval for budget change
[48:27] proposals for the following
[48:27] year, fiscal year '27-28 for
[48:30] submission to the Department of
[48:32] Finance.
[48:32] I want to echo the Chief
[48:34] Justice's appreciation to
[48:35] councilmembers and court
[48:37] leaders for the advocacy that
[48:38] you did over the course of the
[48:41] last several months to advance
[48:42] our issues before the
[48:44] legislature and the governor's
[48:45] administration.
[48:46] It makes a very big difference
[48:47] in the work that we do.
[48:52] >> Good news for our state, the
[48:53] final budget agreement between
[48:54] the legislature and legislative
[48:57] leaders and Governor Newsom
[48:57] balances California's
[48:58] government for the current
[49:00] fiscal year now, so for '26- 27
[49:03] and also next year for fiscal
[49:04] year '27-28.
[49:05] When the Governor's Budget was
[49:09] released in January, the state
[49:11] was projecting deficit's it
[49:13] have $26 billion for fiscal
[49:16] year '27-28 and $22 billion for
[49:19] fiscal year '28-29.
[49:21] Those estimates are now reduced
[49:24] to $10 billion and $8 billion
[49:25] respectively.
[49:26] In addition to state budget
[49:26] reserves also being in better
[49:30] shape, better than being
[49:32] anticipated, these reserves
[49:32] hopefully will put us in a
[49:35] better position when it comes
[49:37] to budget stability and,
[49:38] frankly, predictability as we
[49:41] look to the future.
[49:43] >> Also, positively, the final
[49:44] budget reflects investments for
[49:45] the Judicial Branch beyond what
[49:47] the governor had included in
[49:50] his initial may revise.
[49:51] It includes $70 million for
[49:54] Trial Court operations, $20
[49:57] million each in the next two
[49:57] fiscal years to address court
[50:00] --rising court interpreter
[50:01] costs, and $11 million ongoing
[50:04] for court-appointed counsel
[50:06] programs in the Supreme Court
[50:09] and the Courts of Appeal.
[50:12] >> Additionally, they've
[50:15] included $1.
[50:16] 9 billion for a comprehensive
[50:19] --including $150 million,
[50:20] much-needed dollars, I should
[50:24] say -- for deferred maintenance
[50:25] in our Court Facilities.
[50:27] >> Also included is about $100
[50:30] million to begin funding 13 new
[50:32] judgeships over the course of
[50:34] the next five fiscal years, and
[50:37] $30 million one time to
[50:40] continue implementation of
[50:42] proposition 36, and increase
[50:42] dollars for pretrial programs.
[50:45] >> Also on the budget front,
[50:48] they included a recommendation
[50:48] and ultimately a decision to
[50:51] extend the ability for courts
[50:54] to conduct remote proceedings
[50:54] with the consent and the
[50:57] agreement and at the request of
[50:58] parties to a matter, so that
[51:00] was also a big priority for us,
[51:04] and that has been included
[51:06] until 2032.
[51:08] >> As you consider today's
[51:09] allocations and new budget
[51:10] change proposals for '26-27 and
[51:15] '28 budget, the budget released
[51:16] in January is going to be the
[51:19] first budget for our next
[51:20] governor, so a lot of work will
[51:23] commence over the coming months
[51:27] to educate the incoming
[51:28] administration about branch
[51:30] functions and certainly branch
[51:31] priorities.
[51:33] So a lot to follow on that.
[51:35] >> We're also going to continue
[51:37] to monitor actions that are
[51:39] happening at the federal level
[51:40] and also economic conditions
[51:42] that will certainly impact the
[51:46] state.
[51:47] >> Also in today's written
[51:49] report under the role ofof
[51:50] Advisory activities, republic
[51:51] Peted references to spring
[51:53] cycle of public comment on
[51:56] rules and forums proposals.
[51:58] They were prepared by six
[52:00] different Advisory Committees,
[52:00] many driven by legislative
[52:02] requirements, and they were
[52:04] posted for public comment
[52:06] during our spring cycle.
[52:08] >> These proposals will include
[52:13] a total of 176 forms, 167 are
[52:16] proposed new or revised forms,
[52:19] and nine existing forms
[52:21] proposed for revocation.
[52:23] >> On the rules side there are
[52:25] 71 new rules proposals, 65
[52:28] proposed new or revised rules
[52:29] one appendix to the rules as
[52:30] well as five existing rules
[52:34] proposed for repeal.
[52:35] >> Proposals range from new
[52:38] probate rules, joint
[52:39] guardianship appointments and
[52:40] implementation of AB 747 on
[52:43] combatting fraudulent practices
[52:44] related to civil process
[52:48] servers.
[52:49] >
[52:49] >> A total of 320 comments were
[52:50] provided on the different
[52:51] proposals during the spring
[52:53] cycle alone.
[52:54] That public comment process is
[52:55] central to ensuring the full
[52:57] and fair consideration of
[52:59] potential issues relating to
[53:00] the proposed rules and forms
[53:03] and can be really helpful to
[53:06] the Advisory Committees as they
[53:08] are working on developing those
[53:10] forums and ultimately to you as
[53:13] you consider adopting those
[53:13] changes.
[53:15] >> This public --our public
[53:18] comment process generally not
[53:19] only for the rules and forums
[53:21] but budget allocations, our
[53:22] funding methodology, our
[53:24] legislative proposals, any
[53:25] number of things that come
[53:28] before the council --and,
[53:30] frankly, our work at meetings
[53:33] --helps to ensure that our work
[53:35] reflects the various interests
[53:36] of various stakeholders
[53:37] throughout the state.
[53:39] >> Ultimately I think it helps
[53:39] us provide better service to
[53:43] the public, so we really
[53:43] appreciate all of the public
[53:45] comments that are made and all
[53:46] of the work that we do.
[53:49] And I also really want to do a
[53:50] shoutout, now that I've gone
[53:52] through all of that, that
[53:54] laundry list of things
[53:55] accomplished to the members of
[53:55] the council who serve on our
[53:58] rules committee chaired by
[53:59] Judge Wood and all of you for
[54:00] the immense amount of work that
[54:02] you do on that.
[54:04] So thank you.
[54:05] >> Turning to a different topic.
[54:06] In early June, you all received
[54:09] an announcement about ourour
[54:09] chief operating officer for the
[54:13] council.
[54:13] I want to take this opportunity
[54:16] to formally recognize and thank
[54:19] Francine Burn who joined.
[54:22] Francine is known by, I think
[54:24] probably, all of you, and has
[54:25] worked with you in her over two
[54:29] decades of work at the council.
[54:31] Her work at the council has
[54:32] really been focused on research.
[54:33] She was part of our original
[54:35] office of court research.
[54:37] She worked at the center for
[54:40] the court in the last five
[54:40] years has been the director
[54:43] over our criminal justice
[54:46] services office.
[54:47] >> As chief operating officer,
[54:49] Francine will be responsible,
[54:49] her portfolio will include,
[54:51] criminal justice services,
[54:53] center for judicial education
[54:55] and resources, center for
[54:58] family children and the courts
[54:58] and IT.
[55:00] I am appreciative, happy,
[55:01] grateful that she's joined our
[55:03] executive team and know that
[55:04] she's going to continue to
[55:08] excel in her contributions to
[55:10] the council and to all of you
[55:10] and ultimately the public.
[55:14] >> Finally, as the chief
[55:15] mentioned, we had the
[55:16] opportunity to mark the
[55:20] completion and attend a
[55:22] courthouse dedication.
[55:22] During this time period, we had
[55:25] three different openings.
[55:26] One was in April for the new
[55:28] Sacramento courthouse named
[55:32] after former Chief Justice, an
[55:34] 18-story, 53-room courthouse.
[55:37] It opened for business in April.
[55:39] A dedication, as the chief
[55:42] mentioned, for the 15 courtroom
[55:45] courthouse in Santa Rosa for
[55:47] Sonoma County and then also
[55:48] down south we had the
[55:49] rededication then a newly
[55:51] expanded space andand for the
[55:58] juvenile dependency courthouse
[55:59] in San Bernardino expanding the
[56:00] number of courtrooms from four
[56:01] to six.
[56:02] To conclude my remarks today,
[56:07] I'm going to quote from
[56:08] something that that judge from
[56:09] Sonoma said during that
[56:09] courthouse dedication that
[56:11] really resonated for me, and I
[56:18] think it is important for us to
[56:19] keep in mind as we work on
[56:19] these projects and advocate to
[56:22] others about the importance of
[56:23] our capital outlay program.
[56:25] >> So I'm going to borrow from
[56:27] him for two minutes.
[56:27] Too often litigants and members
[56:29] of the public entering members
[56:31] courthouse can feel intimidated
[56:33] or overwhelmed.
[56:33] Many individuals arrive with
[56:35] fear, stress, grief, conflict,
[56:37] and uncertainty.
[56:37] This building was thoughtfully
[56:41] designed to help ease those
[56:42] emotions.
[56:43] Its natural light, grand, open
[56:43] spaces on the first floor,
[56:45] magnificent views from the
[56:47] higher floors, the jury
[56:50] rotunda, and overall
[56:51] architectural splendor send a
[56:52] powerful message.
[56:53] The Judicial Branch is a
[56:56] unique, revered, special
[56:57] institution, and this is a
[56:58] place where people should feel
[57:00] respected, heard, and safe.
[57:03] The beauty of this courthouse
[57:04] is not merely aesthetic.
[57:05] It serves a deeper purpose.
[57:08] Thoughtful architecture can
[57:09] inspire calm, dignity and
[57:10] confidence.
[57:10] It can remind visitors that
[57:12] justice is not cold or distant
[57:15] but human.
[57:17] The details of this building
[57:17] reflect the belief that public
[57:20] institutions should uplift the
[57:22] communities they serve.
[57:22] That concludes my remarks,
[57:24] chief.
[57:25] >> Thank you.
[57:25] Thank you for your report and
[57:26] thank you for those remarks, I
[57:28] thought were very powerful and
[57:30] really captured the importance
[57:33] of the funding requests that we
[57:34] make for the dedication to
[57:36] occur.
[57:37] >
[57:37] >> Next we'll move on to the
[57:37] Consent Agenda.
[57:39] We have 16 items that are on
[57:40] our agenda today.
[57:41] The council's executive and
[57:43] planning committee, as you
[57:45] know, worked really hard to
[57:46] identify those matters in order
[57:48] to optimize the best use of our
[57:49] time during the council
[57:51] meeting, but I'd just like to
[57:51] remind everybody, and we have
[57:52] new members, so I'd like to
[57:55] take this opportunity to remind
[57:56] you that anyone really can move
[58:00] an item from the consent to the
[58:02] discussion agenda item --the
[58:04] discussion agenda if you
[58:06] believe it would benefit for us
[58:07] to have further deliberation
[58:08] and discussion on this item.
[58:10] As always, we appreciate the
[58:10] many ours of work that are put
[58:14] in by our Advisory Committees
[58:15] and our council staff.
[58:17] That have enabled these
[58:18] recommendations to come before
[58:20] us for our consideration.
[58:22] At this time I'd like to ask
[58:22] members if there are any
[58:24] comments or questions before I
[58:26] entertain a motion to move the
[58:28] Consent Agenda items.
[58:29] >> Chief, I'd like to make a
[58:31] comment.
[58:31] Thank you.
[58:32] Before the council considers
[58:34] the Consent Agenda before us
[58:35] today, I would like to
[58:38] highlight the civil council
[58:41] act, eye NEM 26-033 on the
[58:43] Consent Agenda and share my
[58:44] support for the recommendation
[58:46] for continued funding of the
[58:46] projects for the 2026-2029
[58:53] grant cycle.
[58:56] As you might recall, the
[58:58] Shriver program is California
[58:59] it's commitment to ensuring
[59:02] meaningful access to justice
[59:04] for low-income litigants facing
[59:08] issues that affect basic needs.
[59:12] In my Superior Court we
[59:14] participated since the
[59:14] program's inception in 2011.
[59:16] Shriver funded attorneys are
[59:17] essential in helping
[59:20] self-represented litigants
[59:21] navigate evolving eviction
[59:22] procedures, rental assistance
[59:23] programs and plex housing laws.
[59:29] We have legal assistants who
[59:29] help parties every day with
[59:31] these issues.
[59:31] Our partnership with the
[59:33] greater Bakersfield legal
[59:35] assistance program produced
[59:36] strong results.
[59:37] About one-third of clients
[59:40] remain housed and many others
[59:41] resolve cases in ways that
[59:44] lessen long-term consequences
[59:45] such as sealing records,
[59:47] protecting credit or securing
[59:49] time to find alternative
[59:50] housing.
[59:51] The funding provides for
[59:52] mediation services that most
[59:54] recently resulted in an
[59:56] agreement rate of 71%, solving
[59:59] those cases without court
[1:00:00] hearings.
[1:00:01] I appreciate the extensive work
[1:00:01] of our Judicial Council staff,
[1:00:05] our legal services partners,
[1:00:07] and courts statewide who
[1:00:08] provide act funding.
[1:00:11] I respectfully support the
[1:00:12] recommendation before our
[1:00:13] council today and ask that you
[1:00:15] all do the same.
[1:00:15] Thank you.
[1:00:17] >> Thank you for your comments.
[1:00:18] I'll take that as a motion to
[1:00:20] move approval.
[1:00:21] >> That would be a motion for
[1:00:23] approval for the Consent Agenda.
[1:00:25] >> Is there a second?
[1:00:26] >> Moorman seconds.
[1:00:27] >> Thank you, judge Moorman.
[1:00:30] All of those in favor say aye.
[1:00:34] Any nos?
[1:00:36] Any abstentions?
[1:00:37] Thank you.
[1:00:39] The Consent Agenda is approved.
[1:00:45] We have four items on the
[1:00:48] discussion agenda, the first
[1:00:49] consideration allocations for
[1:00:50] Trial Court operations for
[1:00:53] fiscal year 2026-2027, item
[1:00:56] 26-041 in your agenda.
[1:00:58] We welcome our presenters,
[1:00:59] judge Jonathan Conklin, retired
[1:01:01] now, right?
[1:01:02] Congratulations.
[1:01:05] That's why he's smiling.
[1:01:09] Chair of the Trial Court
[1:01:12] advisory.
[1:01:13] Welcome.
[1:01:15] >> Good morning, chief, and
[1:01:17] councilmembers.
[1:01:17] So nice to see all of you.
[1:01:19] Thank you very much for the
[1:01:20] opportunity this morning to
[1:01:20] present the preliminary
[1:01:22] allocations to the trial courts
[1:01:25] for the fiscal year '26-27 on
[1:01:27] behalf of the Trial Court
[1:01:28] Budget Advisory Committee.
[1:01:29] Each of those members, I thank
[1:01:31] for their exceptional work.
[1:01:33] We have a slide presentation
[1:01:34] for you this morning.
[1:01:37] I assure you, it will be brief
[1:01:39] and on time.
[1:01:40] This budget allocation
[1:01:41] controlled by an agenda item
[1:01:43] 2641 for the Trial Court
[1:01:46] operations of '26-27.
[1:01:48] Per state law, that is
[1:01:51] Government Code 68502.
[1:01:53] 3, the Judicial Council is
[1:01:54] required to make these
[1:01:55] preliminary allocations to the
[1:01:59] trial courts in July of each
[1:02:01] fiscal year.
[1:02:03] >> The final allocations which
[1:02:04] incorporate year- end
[1:02:05] adjustments must be completed
[1:02:05] by January of each year, and
[1:02:08] the Trial Court Budget Advisory
[1:02:09] Committee will bring those
[1:02:11] final allocations back to you
[1:02:12] at your December meeting for
[1:02:14] your anticipated approval.
[1:02:18] >> These allocations are the
[1:02:18] primary funding source for the
[1:02:20] trial courts and are essential
[1:02:23] to support the court operations
[1:02:24] and sustain critical programs
[1:02:26] and services for court users
[1:02:28] and the public.
[1:02:29] They may help us maintain a
[1:02:31] skilled and experienced court
[1:02:35] workforce to deliver those
[1:02:36] services, and they protect and
[1:02:38] expand access to justice for
[1:02:40] all Californians.
[1:02:42] >> The total preliminary
[1:02:44] allocations for the Trial Court
[1:02:45] Trust Fund and General Fund for
[1:02:48] fiscal year '26-27, which, as
[1:02:49] was mentioned, we just started,
[1:02:53] are $3.
[1:02:54] 2 billion, based on the
[1:02:54] recommended and previously
[1:02:56] approved methodologies from
[1:02:58] this council.
[1:03:00] Of this amount T $3.
[1:03:02] 1 billion comes from the Trial
[1:03:03] Court Trust Fund and $117.
[1:03:06] 8 million comes from the
[1:03:07] General Fund to support Trial
[1:03:08] Court operations.
[1:03:09] Once approved by this council,
[1:03:11] these funds are allocated to
[1:03:14] the courts in monthly
[1:03:15] distributions.
[1:03:17] >> The fiscal year '26-27
[1:03:19] budget includes additional
[1:03:20] funding for the trial courts
[1:03:24] including $70 million to help
[1:03:24] those courts address rising
[1:03:28] operational costs and to
[1:03:30] mitigate potential reductions
[1:03:30] to court programs and services
[1:03:33] due to the impact of inflation.
[1:03:36] $23.
[1:03:36] 3 million for the Trial Court
[1:03:38] employee health benefit and
[1:03:39] retirement cost increases.
[1:03:42] As a reminder, the state budget
[1:03:45] process adjusts funding levels
[1:03:48] each year to reflect those
[1:03:50] actual benefit cost changes.
[1:03:50] And, as previously mentioned as
[1:03:53] well, a $20 million annual
[1:03:55] increase for court interpreters
[1:03:56] for each of the next two years.
[1:03:59] This additional funding will
[1:04:01] help address the rising costs
[1:04:04] it have court interpreter
[1:04:05] services and support critical
[1:04:06] program needs to ensure
[1:04:07] language access in all of our
[1:04:11] courts.
[1:04:12] >> The work load funding policy
[1:04:15] separate from the calculation
[1:04:17] of court allocations applies
[1:04:22] the Judicial Council's weighted
[1:04:25] caseload study.
[1:04:26] Appropriate for programs that
[1:04:29] rely on the work load funding
[1:04:33] on determined work load, the
[1:04:35] approved calculations will be
[1:04:37] applied.
[1:04:39] The Workload Formula policy
[1:04:41] promotes funding, equity,
[1:04:41] stability and predictability.
[1:04:45] The work load funding
[1:04:47] methodology with calculated
[1:04:47] funding need, which represents
[1:04:48] how much funding the trial
[1:04:49] courts need based upon their
[1:04:51] work load.
[1:04:54] >> And the need is then updated
[1:04:57] annually to incorporate the
[1:04:59] most current information
[1:04:59] including filings, salaries,
[1:05:03] benefits, operating
[1:05:05] expenditures and equipment,
[1:05:06] bureau of labor statistics data
[1:05:09] and court executive officers.
[1:05:12] >> An important note for this
[1:05:12] is that the fiscal year '26- 27
[1:05:18] need calculation now reflects
[1:05:18] the updates to the 2024 case
[1:05:22] work load, case weight.
[1:05:24] Those were updated in 2024 and
[1:05:28] approved by the council at the
[1:05:30] business meeting.
[1:05:31] Last year, as you will all
[1:05:33] remember, the council deferred
[1:05:35] implementation of those 2024
[1:05:38] case weights until this fiscal
[1:05:40] year, '26-27.
[1:05:41] That allowed sufficient time to
[1:05:42] understand the reason for the
[1:05:46] changes and to compare the 2024
[1:05:49] case weights to the prior 2017
[1:05:51] case weights and evaluate their
[1:05:54] impact on Trial Court funding.
[1:05:55] Using those new case weights
[1:05:57] the funding needed for the
[1:06:02] fiscal year '26-27 is $3.
[1:06:05] 26 billion.
[1:06:06] >> Based on the funding
[1:06:06] included in the enacted budget
[1:06:10] as well as local Trial Court
[1:06:11] revenues, available for this
[1:06:14] year, is $2.
[1:06:16] 7 billion.
[1:06:17] >> Comparing the calculated
[1:06:18] funding need to the available
[1:06:21] funding, the statewide average
[1:06:21] funding level for the trial
[1:06:25] courts is now 73% of their work
[1:06:27] load need as identified through
[1:06:31] the Workload Formula policy
[1:06:33] calculation.
[1:06:34] >> So, in conclusion, the Trial
[1:06:36] Court Budget Advisory Committee
[1:06:36] has two recommendations for
[1:06:38] your consideration and
[1:06:40] recommended approval today.
[1:06:42] First, to approve total
[1:06:42] allocations of $3.
[1:06:46] 2 billion from the Trial Court
[1:06:48] Trust Fund and General Fund
[1:06:49] including base, discretionary
[1:06:51] and nondiscretionary program
[1:06:53] funding.
[1:06:54] >> These allocations are based
[1:06:54] on recommended and previously
[1:06:56] approved methodologies and
[1:06:58] subject to technical
[1:06:59] adjustments in funding included
[1:07:01] in the final enacted budget for
[1:07:05] this fiscal year '26-27.
[1:07:08] >> Additionally, we recommend
[1:07:09] you approve application of the
[1:07:10] work load funding methodology
[1:07:12] previously mentioned which will
[1:07:14] result in a statewide average
[1:07:15] funding level of 73% and that
[1:07:19] concludes this presentation.
[1:07:20] We are both available for any
[1:07:22] questions you may have.
[1:07:27] Otherwise we move for approval.
[1:07:28] >> Any questions for our
[1:07:32] presenters?
[1:07:34] No?
[1:07:34] No questions?
[1:07:35] I'll provide a comment and
[1:07:36] thank you, again, for all the
[1:07:38] wonderful work that you
[1:07:40] continue to do.
[1:07:41] The funding that we seek every
[1:07:42] year is critical to our
[1:07:45] operations.
[1:07:45] There's a lot of thought and
[1:07:46] hard work and it goes into
[1:07:48] ensuring that the funds that we
[1:07:51] provide are allocated in a fair
[1:07:52] way so that our courts can
[1:07:54] provide access to justice.
[1:07:55] We really appreciate your
[1:07:57] ongoing work during your
[1:07:59] retirement even.
[1:08:02] Thank you.
[1:08:04] >> I would move approval with
[1:08:05] thanks to Judge Conklin, his
[1:08:07] incredible service as Chair.
[1:08:09] I think this might be your
[1:08:11] final report as Chair.
[1:08:13] And, I tell you, what you have
[1:08:15] meant to our branch and what
[1:08:21] you have done and cobbling
[1:08:22] agreement between our courts
[1:08:23] time and time again and the
[1:08:26] legacy of service that you have
[1:08:27] provided has been extraordinary
[1:08:28] and we thank you.
[1:08:30] >> Appreciate it.
[1:08:30] Thank you very much.
[1:08:31] >> I was hoping you would stay
[1:08:38] on.
[1:08:38] I didn't have the heart to say
[1:08:39] out loud it would be your last
[1:08:43] time.
[1:08:43] I'm still in denial.
[1:08:44] >> If I could ask for ten
[1:08:46] seconds to acknowledge the work
[1:08:48] of this council and just I've
[1:08:51] been in the cat bird seat and
[1:08:53] watched the work they've done,
[1:08:54] beyond measure.
[1:08:55] And I just wanted to thank them
[1:08:59] very much from Zlatko and staff
[1:09:00] for getting us through the time
[1:09:03] helping me look like I knew
[1:09:03] what I was doing, and I would
[1:09:07] be remiss if I didn't leave
[1:09:07] with my final comment of, go
[1:09:11] Dodgers.
[1:09:13] >> Thank you.
[1:09:13] >> Chief, I'll second the
[1:09:14] motion.
[1:09:16] >> Thank you.
[1:09:17] So judge Moorman seconds it.
[1:09:20] Is there any further discussion?
[1:09:21] Okay, at this time all of those
[1:09:23] in favor please say aye.
[1:09:28] Any nos?
[1:09:29] Any abstentions?
[1:09:31] Thank you.
[1:09:32] This item is approved.
[1:09:33] Our second agenda item relates
[1:09:36] to the Judicial Branch
[1:09:37] five-year Infrastructure Plan
[1:09:38] and capital outlay budget
[1:09:39] change proposals for the same
[1:09:44] fiscal year, 2027-28.
[1:09:47] Item 26- 104 in your agenda.
[1:09:51] We welcome our presenters,
[1:09:53] Administrative Presiding
[1:09:54] Justice Brad Hill, who is also
[1:09:55] the Chair of the Court
[1:09:57] Facilities Advisory Committee.
[1:09:57] Judge Eric Wersching,
[1:09:59] Vice-Chair of the Court
[1:10:01] Facilities Advisory Committee,
[1:10:04] also our new member, and we
[1:10:06] welcome Mr.
[1:10:07] Jagan Singh as well from
[1:10:07] Judicial Council facilities
[1:10:11] services and Mr.
[1:10:13] Magnusson from facilities
[1:10:15] services.
[1:10:15] Welcome.
[1:10:16] >> Good morning, chief, and
[1:10:18] fellow members of the council.
[1:10:18] The report that we were
[1:10:21] planning to present to you
[1:10:22] today changed rather
[1:10:23] dramatically about two weeks
[1:10:25] ago, and we couldn't be more
[1:10:27] pleased.
[1:10:27] The final budget announcement
[1:10:29] in June provided the following
[1:10:31] additions to our plans for this
[1:10:35] year and next.
[1:10:36] First, through a combination of
[1:10:37] appropriations from the General
[1:10:40] Fund and the public building's
[1:10:41] construction fund, an
[1:10:44] additional $188 million for
[1:10:46] starting and completing all
[1:10:50] phases of the following four
[1:10:53] projects will be accomplished,
[1:10:55] Clear Lake, Tracey, Kern and
[1:10:59] Tahoe.
[1:10:59] And $1.
[1:11:00] 6 billion for completing all
[1:11:01] remaining phases of the
[1:11:05] following five projects --
[1:11:08] Solano, Nevada City, Plumas,
[1:11:10] Santa Clarita and San Luis
[1:11:13] Obispo.
[1:11:13] And for the following year
[1:11:14] control section 4.
[1:11:17] 85 was DLUD in the budget bill
[1:11:20] authorizing the use of up to 1.
[1:11:22] 3 billion in '27-28 for the
[1:11:25] purpose of acquisitions,
[1:11:27] performance criteria and design
[1:11:29] build phases of construction
[1:11:32] for the following courthouses
[1:11:34] -- Richmond, San Francisco,
[1:11:36] Santa Barbara, Fresno, and the
[1:11:37] Orange County collaborative
[1:11:38] courthouse.
[1:11:40] >> This budget takes us right
[1:11:40] up to the next critically
[1:11:46] needed courthouse, in Los
[1:11:49] Angeles, a project that is
[1:11:51] vitally important.
[1:11:53] Los Angeles lost their last
[1:11:56] courthouse back in 1933 to an
[1:11:58] earthquake.
[1:11:58] It took 25 years to get a
[1:12:02] replacement, which was mosque
[1:12:04] and they can't afford nor can
[1:12:05] we afford to lose another
[1:12:07] courthouse in Los Angeles.
[1:12:08] This increased funding just
[1:12:10] approved is a significant boost
[1:12:14] for the program, and we all
[1:12:15] thank the governor, the
[1:12:16] Department of Finance, the
[1:12:18] legislature for shining a light
[1:12:20] on this critical need and
[1:12:23] helping all Californians in the
[1:12:26] process.
[1:12:27] >> We have long said this is
[1:12:30] not a matter of just building
[1:12:31] shiny new courthouses.
[1:12:32] This is all about providing
[1:12:37] safe and secure courthouses to
[1:12:39] communities across our state.
[1:12:40] Jurors, parties, court staff
[1:12:44] and others deserve safe
[1:12:46] courthouses.
[1:12:47] Courthouses that are ADA
[1:12:49] compliant and courthouses that
[1:12:50] will not be destroyed in an
[1:12:54] earthquake.
[1:12:55] >> Initially we'd like to talk
[1:12:56] just a bit aboutabout we've
[1:12:58] been, where we are right now,
[1:12:59] and our plans for the future.
[1:13:02] About 18 years ago we started
[1:13:06] controlling our own destiny
[1:13:08] with the passage of SB 1407.
[1:13:11] That legislation provided for
[1:13:11] the funding of courthouse
[1:13:15] construction through lease
[1:13:16] revenue bonds, $5 billion
[1:13:19] worth, and our very own Shelley
[1:13:20] Curran was right in the middle
[1:13:24] of that working alongside
[1:13:26] senator Prada to craft this
[1:13:29] historic bill.
[1:13:30] >> At this point --after that,
[1:13:33] a couple years later, we did
[1:13:34] have funding challenges where
[1:13:35] we lost and deferred about a
[1:13:37] billion and a half and had to
[1:13:38] tell a number of courthouses
[1:13:40] that were about ready to start
[1:13:41] that they had to put the brakes
[1:13:44] on.
[1:13:44] But all of us around this table
[1:13:46] and the Court Facilities
[1:13:47] committee and courthouses
[1:13:49] around the state persevered.
[1:13:51] And since that time, we have
[1:13:53] with the continuing commitment
[1:13:55] from the governor, legislature
[1:13:58] and others, we have General
[1:14:00] Fund funding for our program
[1:14:01] that provides the secured
[1:14:03] funding that we need from now
[1:14:07] into the future.
[1:14:10] >> Currently we have 17
[1:14:12] projects ongoing around the
[1:14:15] state totaling $1.
[1:14:17] 8 billion.
[1:14:19] In construction
[1:14:19] currentlycurrently port, the
[1:14:23] juvenile family courthouse,
[1:14:29] Modesto, Ukiah.
[1:14:30] The process of prioritizing
[1:14:32] these courthouses is a long and
[1:14:36] rather arduous one thatthat a
[1:14:38] very detailed criteria.
[1:14:40] >> At the start of a process,
[1:14:42] when we're initially
[1:14:43] prioritizing all of thesethese
[1:14:44] courthouses, we were looking at
[1:14:48] courthouses around the state
[1:14:49] most of which were in dire need
[1:14:52] of replacement.
[1:14:54] So ranking became a process of
[1:14:56] determining the most dire needs
[1:14:59] and working our way
[1:15:00] throughthrough balance.
[1:15:03] >> Our rating and ranking
[1:15:04] criteria looks at detailed
[1:15:05] factors like --and we'll name
[1:15:07] just a few of those --seismic.
[1:15:11] Now you'll see the San Diego
[1:15:13] new courthouse.
[1:15:14] The old courthouse sat directly
[1:15:16] on an earthquake fault, and I
[1:15:20] remember talking to and seeing
[1:15:22] courtrooms in San Diego that
[1:15:23] had cracks going along the
[1:15:26] walls, and judges were pointing
[1:15:28] out that it was just a matter
[1:15:30] of time before that courthouse
[1:15:32] collapsed.
[1:15:33] >> Sacramento was in a similar
[1:15:35] circumstance, and there's the
[1:15:38] new Sacramento courthouse that
[1:15:38] we havehave now.
[1:15:41] Other factors that we look at
[1:15:41] include the facility condition
[1:15:44] index, the fire and life safety
[1:15:49] index, security factors, ADA
[1:15:50] compliance, access to court
[1:15:54] services, and cost per project
[1:15:56] per court users and this
[1:15:57] accounts for large population
[1:15:59] areas that are stressed by the
[1:16:03] number of court users, ie, Los
[1:16:05] Angeles.
[1:16:05] This overall ranking criteria
[1:16:09] relies on these quantitative
[1:16:11] measures and takes politics out
[1:16:13] of the process.
[1:16:16] >> Outside consultants give us
[1:16:18] detailed reports as to each
[1:16:20] factor at each and every
[1:16:22] courthouse.
[1:16:23] In addition, every meeting of
[1:16:26] the Court Facilities Advisory
[1:16:28] Committee and every discussion
[1:16:29] of project ranking is on the
[1:16:33] record and open to the public
[1:16:34] and the public weighs in at
[1:16:36] each and every meeting.
[1:16:39] In other words, there are no
[1:16:42] secrets and no surprises.
[1:16:44] >> We believe it is our core
[1:16:44] mission to build courthouses
[1:16:47] that will stand the test ofof
[1:16:51] time.
[1:16:52] But they have to be built
[1:16:54] economically.
[1:16:54] In our very first year as a
[1:16:56] committee, we formed the
[1:16:58] courthouse cost reduction
[1:16:59] subcommittee.
[1:16:59] Every courthouse project goes
[1:17:02] through this committee, and it
[1:17:04] is a rigorous process.
[1:17:05] One example of what this
[1:17:08] committee did a while back is
[1:17:09] each time a courthouse would be
[1:17:13] built previously by DGS and
[1:17:14] others before that, an
[1:17:18] architect would design all of
[1:17:20] the courtrooms from scratch at
[1:17:22] each courthouse costing
[1:17:23] millions of dollars in
[1:17:24] architectural fees.
[1:17:28] >> We have now developed a book
[1:17:29] of templates, over 20 of them,
[1:17:29] so that courts can pick and
[1:17:33] choose from standardized and
[1:17:34] previously designed and
[1:17:36] approved courtroom layouts.
[1:17:38] The courts across the state
[1:17:40] have chosen and liked and,
[1:17:45] obviously, the new courthouse
[1:17:46] projects can rely upon those
[1:17:47] time-tested models.
[1:17:51] We save money in the process.
[1:17:54] We save time in the process and
[1:17:54] a lot of aggravation.
[1:17:58] >> Our goal is to be good
[1:18:00] stewards of the public's money.
[1:18:02] And to demonstrate courthouse
[1:18:06] by courthouse that we are
[1:18:06] deserving of the governor's and
[1:18:08] legislature's trust to spend
[1:18:09] every penny wisely.
[1:18:12] I'm now pleased to introduce
[1:18:14] the Vice-Chair of the Court
[1:18:16] Facilities Advisory Committee,
[1:18:17] Judge Eric Wersching.
[1:18:20] >> Thank you very much, Justice
[1:18:20] Hill.
[1:18:21] Good morning, Chief Justice,
[1:18:22] and members of the council.
[1:18:24] In your materials for today's
[1:18:26] meeting is a recommendation
[1:18:28] from the Court Facilities
[1:18:31] Advisory Committee, CFAC, the
[1:18:33] proposed five-year plan for
[1:18:33] construction of new courthouses
[1:18:37] as well as a capital outlay
[1:18:40] budget change proposal for
[1:18:43] fiscal year 2027-28.
[1:18:44] We're asking for that
[1:18:45] recommendation to be approved
[1:18:47] and for staff to be directed to
[1:18:49] make the applicable submissions
[1:18:52] to the Department of Finance.
[1:18:53] Justice Hill spoke of many of
[1:18:54] the exciting recent
[1:18:55] developments on this facility
[1:18:57] front with respect to the
[1:18:58] budget.
[1:18:59] >> In order to provide you with
[1:18:59] a little more context for the
[1:19:02] work that that CFAC has done to
[1:19:06] facilitate the building of
[1:19:07] dignified, economical
[1:19:08] courthouses throughout the
[1:19:10] state and to develop and to
[1:19:11] recommend the present five-year
[1:19:12] plan, we think it's important
[1:19:14] to highlight several of CFAC's
[1:19:18] considerations and actions.
[1:19:20] >> First, as to the standards
[1:19:23] Justice Hill spoke to.
[1:19:25] On the building of courthouses,
[1:19:28] Justice Hill described
[1:19:30] standards that CFAC has
[1:19:31] developed.
[1:19:33] Every three years CFAC's
[1:19:36] standards working group
[1:19:39] meticulously considers
[1:19:40] literally hundreds of pages of
[1:19:42] standards, revising them and
[1:19:45] updating them.
[1:19:46] >> The standards are detailed
[1:19:48] but appropriately complexable.
[1:19:50] They form the basis of
[1:19:51] construction bid documents and
[1:19:53] provide the use of a variety of
[1:19:54] templates to fit the needs of
[1:19:58] specific courthouses and
[1:19:59] courtrooms.
[1:20:00] >> They also alleviate the time
[1:20:03] and the expense that in the
[1:20:03] past was used designing and
[1:20:06] building courthouses from
[1:20:08] scratch.
[1:20:08] In other words, we no longer
[1:20:12] build bespoke courthouses but,
[1:20:14] instead, build courthouses from
[1:20:16] standards and a selection of
[1:20:18] templates that best meets the
[1:20:20] needs of the community.
[1:20:24] Justice hill referenced the
[1:20:27] cost reduction subcommittee.
[1:20:27] CFAC is interested in, and we
[1:20:29] know the council is as well,
[1:20:31] being good stewards of taxpayer
[1:20:35] dollars.
[1:20:36] We ran into a challenge, though.
[1:20:43] Small courthouses cost more per
[1:20:44] square foot to build than large
[1:20:47] projects.
[1:20:48] This reduced competitiveness
[1:20:48] for state funding and
[1:20:51] potentially left communities in
[1:20:55] outdated, unsafe facilities.
[1:20:57] It's an economies of scale
[1:20:58] issue.
[1:20:59] >> To that end, the cost
[1:21:00] reduction committee of CFAC
[1:21:03] looked to the standard we just
[1:21:04] discussed to provide a path to
[1:21:13] cut costs.
[1:21:14] We have used those standards
[1:21:15] and reduced the size of many
[1:21:18] courthouses allowing us to
[1:21:18] avoid using excess square
[1:21:20] footage that dries up the cost
[1:21:22] of construction.
[1:21:24] >> Most recently the cost
[1:21:27] reduction subcommittee reduced
[1:21:27] building sizes for the San Joe
[1:21:34] Quinn, Tracy, and Plumas
[1:21:37] projects.
[1:21:37] You can see the results of the
[1:21:38] subcommittee's work.
[1:21:40] >> It makes smaller courthouse
[1:21:42] projects viable and dignified
[1:21:45] because we're using our
[1:21:46] standards where those
[1:21:47] courthouses were previously not
[1:21:49] cost competitive.
[1:21:52] Those recommendations were
[1:21:55] advanced and approved at a
[1:21:57] savings of tens of millions of
[1:21:58] dollars.
[1:21:59] >> But we're not just building
[1:22:00] cookie cutter courthouses as a
[1:22:03] result of these processes.
[1:22:07] For instance, the Falasco was a
[1:22:10] courthouse that was built at a
[1:22:13] 30% cost savings and utilized
[1:22:15] tilt-up construction similar to
[1:22:15] that used in private
[1:22:20] construction of Target and
[1:22:21] Costco stores.
[1:22:21] Combined with our standards is
[1:22:25] very dignified.
[1:22:26] >> Other examples of us not
[1:22:27] building cookie cutter
[1:22:31] courthouses include the.
[1:22:34] L Centro courthouse which the
[1:22:35] chief attended the dedication
[1:22:36] of on your screen.
[1:22:40] We have the Yreka courthouse.
[1:22:44] We have the Sonora courthouse
[1:22:45] and the Santa Rosa courthouse
[1:22:49] that we just heard about today
[1:22:51] the dedication that you two
[1:22:51] attended.
[1:22:53] >> So more economicaleconomical
[1:22:54] efficient does not equate to
[1:22:57] less dignified.
[1:22:57] But in addition to CFAC working
[1:23:02] on replacing aging courthouses
[1:23:03] with seismically safe
[1:23:06] structures, defining standards
[1:23:06] for courthouses and examining
[1:23:10] cost cutting where appropriate,
[1:23:10] CFAC also looks very closely at
[1:23:14] deferred maintenance and
[1:23:16] facility modification costs
[1:23:17] when recommending its five-year
[1:23:18] plan that's before you.
[1:23:20] >> In many respects, deferred
[1:23:22] maintenance and facility
[1:23:24] modification expenses are the
[1:23:27] hidden costs of aging buildings
[1:23:27] because dollars that we spend
[1:23:32] on aging obsolete buildings are
[1:23:33] dollars not invested in new
[1:23:36] purpose-built courthouses.
[1:23:37] >> We have an estimated $5.
[1:23:40] 37 billion in estimated
[1:23:41] deferred maintenance costs
[1:23:42] which approximately $3.
[1:23:46] 96 billion is the branch's
[1:23:48] Chair.
[1:23:49] >> New construction, however,
[1:23:50] by contrast, 50-plus years of
[1:23:51] service life and dramatically
[1:23:54] reduces the long-term
[1:23:54] maintenance burden on the state
[1:23:58] and on the branch.
[1:23:59] At CFAC we're very much aware
[1:24:00] of these deferred maintenance
[1:24:02] hidden expenses when
[1:24:03] recommending the five-year plan
[1:24:04] before you.
[1:24:07] >> As is set forth in your
[1:24:10] materials, the five- year plan
[1:24:13] includes 17 courthouses,
[1:24:14] projects for construction, and
[1:24:15] they're up on the slide, very
[1:24:18] small, in front of you.
[1:24:18] But you have them in your
[1:24:22] material.
[1:24:22] But please remember as Justice
[1:24:24] Hill mentioned, up until about
[1:24:26] two weeks ago, this five-year
[1:24:28] plan included many other
[1:24:31] courthouses.
[1:24:31] They're no longer part of that
[1:24:33] five-year plan because of the
[1:24:33] budget.
[1:24:34] >> Those projects that are not
[1:24:37] on this five-year plan because
[1:24:40] they've been fully funded
[1:24:42] through the budget, include
[1:24:46] Clearlake, Tracy, Kern, Nevada
[1:24:49] city, Plumas, Santa Clarita and
[1:24:51] San Luis Obispo.
[1:24:52] Before moving on to the action
[1:24:54] item, we'd be remiss if we did
[1:24:58] not thank our dedicated,
[1:24:59] hard-working, very competent
[1:25:00] Judicial Council staff.
[1:25:02] >> They provide us with such
[1:25:03] wonderful guidance on a daily
[1:25:06] basis and, really, we couldn't
[1:25:07] do the work without them and
[1:25:09] make these recommendations
[1:25:09] without their tremendous
[1:25:11] insight.
[1:25:12] And I know that we just have
[1:25:13] two of them here but it is a
[1:25:16] team that stands behind
[1:25:17] everything that our CFAC
[1:25:19] committee does.
[1:25:20] >> And I have the privilege of
[1:25:22] being able to address you
[1:25:23] today, but it really is the
[1:25:25] work of all of the CFAC
[1:25:27] committee members as well that
[1:25:27] have contributed to this five-
[1:25:31] year plan including Judge
[1:25:32] Kelly, Justice Hill as well.
[1:25:35] With that, CFAC recommends
[1:25:36] approval of its proposed
[1:25:37] five-year plan and the capital
[1:25:42] outlay budget change proposal
[1:25:42] and staff be directed to make
[1:25:44] their submission to the
[1:25:45] Department of Finance.
[1:25:45] We're prepared to answer any
[1:25:49] questions.
[1:25:50] >> Thank you for your
[1:25:52] presentation, for such a
[1:25:52] thorough and thoughtful plan
[1:25:54] that you've put before us to
[1:25:55] consider and for helping us be
[1:25:58] good stewards with the money
[1:25:59] that we receive.
[1:26:00] We appreciate all the hard work
[1:26:01] and the teamwork that went into
[1:26:03] the proposal.
[1:26:04] >> Are there any comments or
[1:26:05] questions?
[1:26:09] I'll entertain a motion for
[1:26:10] movement of approval of this
[1:26:11] agenda item.
[1:26:13] >> I'll move.
[1:26:13] >> Thank you.
[1:26:14] >> I'll second, chief.
[1:26:18] >> Thank you, Boulware Eurie
[1:26:19] and justice Corrigan.
[1:26:20] All those in favor please say
[1:26:24] aye.
[1:26:25] Any nos or abstentions?
[1:26:26] This item is approved, thank
[1:26:27] you.
[1:26:28] >> Thank you.
[1:26:29] >> Good job.
[1:26:32] >> For our third item, we will
[1:26:39] consider our IT modernization
[1:26:41] funding for 2026-27, item
[1:26:43] 26-107 in your materials.
[1:26:46] We welcome our presenters Judge
[1:26:48] Maria Hernandez, Chair of the
[1:26:49] Technology Committee and Mr.
[1:26:52] David Slayton, Vice-Chair of
[1:26:57] the Technology Committee.
[1:27:02] >> Good morning.
[1:27:06] Thank you, Chief.
[1:27:07] We are pleased and, again,
[1:27:07] thank you for allowing us the
[1:27:12] opportunity to share with you
[1:27:17] this morning the IT project
[1:27:19] grant for fiscal year '26-27.
[1:27:21] I'm pleased to be joined by our
[1:27:22] Vice-Chair, Mr.
[1:27:23] David Slayton, the CEO from Los
[1:27:26] Angeles County.
[1:27:27] We're going to try to get
[1:27:29] through this and get everybody
[1:27:29] out on time.
[1:27:31] I'm going to move to what we
[1:27:32] intend to cover here this
[1:27:33] morning.
[1:27:34] I'll start with an overview of
[1:27:39] the IT mod guiding principles
[1:27:43] and will turn it over to David
[1:27:45] to share the new funding
[1:27:48] methodology including the focus
[1:27:50] on collaborative efforts
[1:27:52] amongst all the courts.
[1:27:52] We'll close by highlighting the
[1:27:55] impacts of this important grant
[1:27:56] project for the courts and also
[1:27:59] requesting your approval.
[1:28:01] First of all, going to the
[1:28:01] guiding principles.
[1:28:03] It's important, and I know
[1:28:04] you've heard from us before,
[1:28:07] but IT modernization grant
[1:28:07] funding has remained consistent
[1:28:10] over the many years.
[1:28:11] >> These principles include a
[1:28:14] commitment to promote
[1:28:16] innovation through technology.
[1:28:18] This year's funding priorities
[1:28:19] were informed by court
[1:28:20] technology assessments and
[1:28:24] surveys that identified the top
[1:28:25] five priorities and funding
[1:28:28] needs of the court.
[1:28:28] The next our Technology
[1:28:29] Committee, who we are very
[1:28:31] honored to serve with, and as
[1:28:32] judge Wersching just said, this
[1:28:35] takes a team and a village in
[1:28:36] working behind all of the
[1:28:38] efforts.
[1:28:39] >> We adopt an approach to
[1:28:40] distribution of methodology
[1:28:44] each year based on the branch
[1:28:45] needs.
[1:28:45] In other words, we need to be
[1:28:47] flexible in these changing
[1:28:48] times.
[1:28:49] David's going to discuss with
[1:28:49] you in just a moment that
[1:28:52] transformation and what we're
[1:28:53] doing now.
[1:28:56] >> Finally, given our limited
[1:28:56] resources and at its core we
[1:28:58] always want to encourage
[1:29:00] collaboration in all aspects of
[1:29:03] our IT modernization funds.
[1:29:04] From the way we evaluate the
[1:29:07] process and the applications
[1:29:07] themselves, we are encouraging
[1:29:10] collaboration at every step of
[1:29:14] this impactful program.
[1:29:16] >> What I would like to do is a
[1:29:16] quick overview before I turn it
[1:29:19] over to David to discuss.
[1:29:19] When you look at this number,
[1:29:24] we had 46 courts that applied,
[1:29:29] submitting over $62 million,
[1:29:32] almost $73 million in requests
[1:29:35] for this mod fundsing.
[1:29:38] As you know there's only $12.
[1:29:41] 5 available to allocate for
[1:29:43] that funding.
[1:29:44] >> What I will say is that also
[1:29:46] included 149 separate proposals
[1:29:50] that a tremendous team through
[1:29:54] our team reviewed each and
[1:29:58] every step along the way.
[1:29:59] We have had funding requests
[1:30:00] far ex receipting what is
[1:30:02] available for allocation for
[1:30:05] the past five years, the
[1:30:07] amounts have ranged from $50
[1:30:12] million to $68 million for
[1:30:17] modernization.
[1:30:18] This really limits a local
[1:30:19] court's ability to maintain
[1:30:23] reliability services, address
[1:30:25] the rising costs and, of
[1:30:26] course, keeping up with our
[1:30:29] public's expectations for
[1:30:32] secure, reliable, efficient
[1:30:32] technology.
[1:30:33] Given the imbalance, and we've
[1:30:34] talked through some of the
[1:30:36] budget and you'll hear more
[1:30:37] later this morning, those gaps,
[1:30:41] it's more important now than
[1:30:44] ever that our funding approach
[1:30:45] and how we allocate these funds
[1:30:47] is deliberate, that it's
[1:30:50] thoughtful and is strategic.
[1:30:51] >> At this point I'd like to
[1:30:53] turn it over to Mr.
[1:30:53] Slayton to run through that
[1:30:55] methodology for you.
[1:30:56] >> Thank you, Judge Hernandez,
[1:30:58] and good morning, everyone.
[1:30:59] The tech committee spent time
[1:31:02] before we released the IT mod
[1:31:04] applications trying to adopt a
[1:31:04] new approach that could
[1:31:07] continue to align with the
[1:31:07] program's guiding principles
[1:31:09] but would think about how we
[1:31:10] could use the very limited
[1:31:12] resources we have as
[1:31:14] effectively as possible.
[1:31:15] >> The approach we adopted
[1:31:18] aimed to rank for funding
[1:31:19] consideration similar to the
[1:31:21] way that we -- great
[1:31:23] traditional grant programs rank
[1:31:25] applications, and the intent
[1:31:26] was to prioritize the most
[1:31:29] impactful proposals submitted
[1:31:31] by the courts.
[1:31:33] >> We also wanted to promote
[1:31:33] the three funding priorities
[1:31:35] for this cycle chosen by the
[1:31:36] council based upon the
[1:31:37] responses from the court's
[1:31:37] needs, and those included cyber
[1:31:41] and information security, case
[1:31:42] management system improvements
[1:31:44] and enhancements, and IT
[1:31:46] infrastructure.
[1:31:47] And to help drive progress in
[1:31:48] these top priority areas that
[1:31:50] have been identified by the
[1:31:53] courts.
[1:31:54] >> We wanted to encourage
[1:31:55] collaborative proposals, as
[1:31:55] Judge Hernandez was mentioning.
[1:31:56] Collaboration is important.
[1:31:59] We have limited resources, so
[1:32:01] when we can have courts
[1:32:02] collaborate and reuse
[1:32:04] technology that's a way we can
[1:32:05] maximize the funds.
[1:32:06] And so courts were urged to
[1:32:08] submit joint projects supported
[1:32:10] by letters of endorsement from
[1:32:11] other courts to maximize that
[1:32:13] funding.
[1:32:14] >> And then we wanted to invest
[1:32:14] funding where it was most
[1:32:16] needed to help level up courts
[1:32:18] and support achievement of
[1:32:20] baseline technology initiatives
[1:32:22] like basic cyber security,
[1:32:23] making sure everyone was at the
[1:32:26] same basic level.
[1:32:27] >> So to implement this new
[1:32:29] approach, the work stream from
[1:32:30] the information technology
[1:32:33] Advisory Committee led by Judge
[1:32:36] Hanson, the Chair of that
[1:32:37] committee, and comprised of
[1:32:38] members across the branch
[1:32:40] including judges, CEOs, other
[1:32:42] administrative staff,
[1:32:44] technology and operational
[1:32:45] officers, they were tasked with
[1:32:47] completing a more in- depth
[1:32:51] criteria, reviewed all 149
[1:32:52] applications in detail and
[1:32:53] scored them based upon criteria.
[1:32:56] >> The purpose of this change
[1:32:57] was to provide a more
[1:32:59] comprehensive review of project
[1:33:00] proposals, establish a
[1:33:03] framework that will support
[1:33:04] project ranking --that
[1:33:05] supported project ranking for
[1:33:07] funding consideration and that
[1:33:09] would align our evaluation
[1:33:10] approach with practices
[1:33:12] commonly used in traditional
[1:33:14] grant funding programs.
[1:33:15] >> In addition to ensuring the
[1:33:17] project met project
[1:33:17] requirements, the work street
[1:33:19] evaluated key factors such as
[1:33:21] the project's alignment with
[1:33:23] this year's funding priorities.
[1:33:23] The number of courts that were
[1:33:26] involved in a collaboration
[1:33:27] with the project, the level of
[1:33:29] public benefit, the impact to
[1:33:33] improving a court's baseline
[1:33:33] security posture and the level
[1:33:35] of modernization or innovation
[1:33:37] proposed by the court.
[1:33:38] The work stream's role was
[1:33:41] simply this, to evaluate
[1:33:41] projects according to a set of
[1:33:44] criteria we provided to them.
[1:33:45] They were not aware of the
[1:33:47] impacts of each factor or its
[1:33:48] weighting in our final
[1:33:50] recommendations but they were
[1:33:51] looking at does the proposal
[1:33:53] meet these criteria?
[1:33:54] Once that was done and
[1:33:55] following that work stream's
[1:33:56] review, the Technology
[1:33:57] Committee applied weights to
[1:33:59] the evaluation criteria.
[1:33:59] They allowed us to score and
[1:34:03] rank those projects by those
[1:34:05] scores they'd been provided by
[1:34:08] ITAC.
[1:34:09] >> After we did all of that,
[1:34:10] after that ranking was done and
[1:34:11] we reviewed the results, we
[1:34:13] determined that we wanted to
[1:34:15] check a few --have a few other
[1:34:16] checks to make sure that we
[1:34:18] were using our funding as
[1:34:20] wisely as we could.
[1:34:20] Those included ensuring both
[1:34:22] appellate and trial courts
[1:34:23] receive funding even with the
[1:34:26] ranked model, confirming that
[1:34:26] there was no duplication of
[1:34:29] funding with other council
[1:34:29] grants, some of which are on
[1:34:32] today's agenda.
[1:34:32] And if a project was already
[1:34:34] funded by one of those
[1:34:35] projects, it was removed from
[1:34:36] consideration here.
[1:34:38] >> We corrected requested
[1:34:38] amounts to align with program
[1:34:40] requirements.
[1:34:41] Sometimes there were items that
[1:34:42] were included that were not
[1:34:45] allowed to be funded by this
[1:34:45] program, so included
[1:34:47] facility-related costs.
[1:34:47] And then we monitored for
[1:34:50] excessive allocation where a
[1:34:52] court had multiple highly
[1:34:54] ranked projects to avoid
[1:34:55] creating large overages trying
[1:34:56] to spread the money as far as
[1:34:59] we could.
[1:35:00] >> Ultimately this year the
[1:35:01] Technology Committee is
[1:35:02] recommending this new funding
[1:35:05] approach.
[1:35:05] We want to fully fund the
[1:35:08] highest ranked projects until
[1:35:10] the $12.
[1:35:11] 5 billion allocated is
[1:35:11] exhausted.
[1:35:12] One project, because of that,
[1:35:14] is receiving partial funding
[1:35:15] because it fell right at the
[1:35:18] cut line, so we're just fund
[1:35:20] every every that we can, and
[1:35:21] one of those projects will be
[1:35:22] partially funded because of
[1:35:24] that.
[1:35:25] >> You'll see and Judge
[1:35:25] Hernandez will talk about the
[1:35:27] wait list where perhaps that
[1:35:28] project will receive full
[1:35:30] funding if there's additional
[1:35:32] revenue available.
[1:35:33] >> The goal of this model is to
[1:35:34] direct to the projects with the
[1:35:37] greatest impact.
[1:35:39] In prior years the IT was to
[1:35:41] all courts regardless of the
[1:35:42] impact leaving many projects
[1:35:44] underfunded and unable to move
[1:35:46] forward.
[1:35:47] Courts often had to scale back
[1:35:47] or delay projects because
[1:35:50] partial allocations were not
[1:35:50] sufficient to deliver full
[1:35:53] outcomes.
[1:35:54] >> And lastly, the prior model
[1:35:56] made it difficult to assess
[1:35:59] statewide progress because it
[1:36:00] was fragmented across
[1:36:03] technology areas.
[1:36:03] Our new model ensures courts
[1:36:06] can fully deliver high-impact
[1:36:06] projects instead of stretching
[1:36:08] limited dollars across too many
[1:36:10] partially funded efforts.
[1:36:13] >> It creates greater
[1:36:14] transparency and
[1:36:15] predictability, highlighting
[1:36:15] specific projects for funding
[1:36:17] and enabling courts to plan
[1:36:18] with confidence, and it focuses
[1:36:21] limited funds on the projects
[1:36:23] that address the established
[1:36:24] priorities of greatest 23450ED
[1:36:25] by the Technology Committee and
[1:36:27] the council and this year
[1:36:29] security, case management and
[1:36:30] infrastructure.
[1:36:31] >> Therefore, we can assess
[1:36:32] better statewide progress as we
[1:36:36] move forward.
[1:36:36] This summary on the screen in
[1:36:39] front of you shows how the $12.
[1:36:40] 5 allocation is being
[1:36:42] recommended to be distributed
[1:36:44] across the top funding
[1:36:45] priorities.
[1:36:46] You'll see cyber and
[1:36:47] information security.
[1:36:48] We have 24 projects, the most
[1:36:51] number of projects that we're
[1:36:53] recommending funding but only
[1:36:54] $3.
[1:36:55] 27 million of that 12.
[1:36:57] 5.
[1:36:57] In the case management system
[1:36:58] fewer projects, ten projects,
[1:37:00] but because of the extensive
[1:37:03] cost of the projects $6.
[1:37:04] 41 million, the largest of the
[1:37:07] investment area.
[1:37:09] >> IT infrastructure we're
[1:37:09] recommending funding 12
[1:37:12] projects that would total $2.
[1:37:12] 1 million and a few other
[1:37:14] projects that are being funded
[1:37:16] that's just under $700,000.
[1:37:17] And these include things such
[1:37:19] as a records automation review
[1:37:21] pilot, electronic evidence and
[1:37:24] electronic filing.
[1:37:25] >> I'll point out electronic
[1:37:26] filing in some of our smallest
[1:37:27] counties in the state who have
[1:37:28] not previously been able to
[1:37:30] offer that will be a big
[1:37:31] improvement.
[1:37:32] The $12.
[1:37:33] 5 million will be awarded to 32
[1:37:35] courts including seven small
[1:37:36] courts and the fifth District
[1:37:38] Court of appeal who submitted
[1:37:40] for a collaborative on behalf
[1:37:41] of the appellate courts.
[1:37:43] >> Importantly, five of those
[1:37:44] projects, including the fifth
[1:37:45] District Court of appeals are
[1:37:47] these collaborative efforts
[1:37:48] that benefit 23 courts in
[1:37:51] total, so just those five also
[1:37:52] help 23 additional courts.
[1:37:55] >> With that I will turn it
[1:37:57] back over to Judge Hernandez
[1:37:57] who will speak more about the
[1:37:58] collaborative projects.
[1:38:00] >> Thank you so much, David.
[1:38:01] And as you can see, it's a very
[1:38:04] pro-bust comprehensive
[1:38:05] evaluation and assessment we
[1:38:07] have moved to and as DavidDavid
[1:38:10] finished up with speaking to
[1:38:10] those collaboration projects,
[1:38:12] this was a new focus for our
[1:38:15] tech committee and this grant
[1:38:16] this year.
[1:38:18] The tech committee was driven
[1:38:18] by our commitment to better
[1:38:20] serve the branch with shared
[1:38:21] solutions, to realize those
[1:38:25] economies of scale, and support
[1:38:27] community problem solving
[1:38:27] together, ing that limited
[1:38:30] funding that you see in these
[1:38:31] charts that we've presented for
[1:38:33] you.
[1:38:34] >> With that in mind, included
[1:38:36] in our recommendation is the
[1:38:38] five approved projects for
[1:38:40] collaboration.
[1:38:42] I would like to bring your
[1:38:44] attention to that last Sierra
[1:38:45] project which is a
[1:38:47] collaborative project that was
[1:38:48] initiated by Sierra's Superior
[1:38:53] Court, but, as you note, it
[1:38:56] includes Modoc, Plumas and
[1:39:00] trinity.
[1:39:01] These projects are ones that
[1:39:02] the courts will initiate the
[1:39:03] projects and partner courts
[1:39:05] will participate in that.
[1:39:06] With the example from the
[1:39:08] Sierra, they will seek to adopt
[1:39:10] and access modernization
[1:39:11] through respective case
[1:39:12] managements for their
[1:39:14] electronic filing.
[1:39:16] As we know electronic filing
[1:39:18] enables litigants, attorneys
[1:39:19] and justice partners to submit
[1:39:21] their documents online.
[1:39:23] The project reduces the need
[1:39:27] for in-person courthouse visits
[1:39:28] and removes significant
[1:39:30] geographic, financial and
[1:39:30] procedural barriers that we've
[1:39:33] all been talking about to make
[1:39:33] sure we're providing access to
[1:39:37] justice.
[1:39:38] >> Ultimately this project
[1:39:41] operationalizes while
[1:39:43] strengthening equitable access
[1:39:44] to justice offering our rural
[1:39:45] residents faster, more reliable
[1:39:48] and more accessible court
[1:39:50] services.
[1:39:51] The shared investments allowed
[1:39:51] the courts to pull their
[1:39:54] resources and maximize the
[1:39:58] limited funding.
[1:39:58] This covers our urban to rural,
[1:40:01] from small to large.
[1:40:03] >> Moving to the wait list
[1:40:05] David spoke about.
[1:40:07] We have ten prioritized
[1:40:09] projects that are on a wait
[1:40:14] list.
[1:40:16] If a court cannot use its full
[1:40:16] award or can't complete the
[1:40:18] project within the time lines,
[1:40:22] the weight list will allow us
[1:40:25] to realskate to those ready to
[1:40:27] move forward.
[1:40:28] This process keeps that local
[1:40:31] court project funding with our
[1:40:32] courts supporting timely
[1:40:33] project completion and
[1:40:35] maximizing the benefit of those
[1:40:40] funds.
[1:40:42] >> The impact is on how
[1:40:43] important techie is.
[1:40:46] The IT projects will deliver
[1:40:48] meaningful, measurable impact
[1:40:48] across our court operations.
[1:40:52] Investments in modern
[1:40:53] technology as you all know will
[1:40:55] expand our access to justice,
[1:40:57] broadening public access to
[1:40:58] court services and ensure more
[1:41:03] consistent service delivery
[1:41:07] across our appellate and
[1:41:09] Supreme Court.
[1:41:10] Improving our court
[1:41:10] collaboration by enabling
[1:41:13] information sharing and
[1:41:13] investing and a shared solution
[1:41:16] to limited funds.
[1:41:18] By replacing our aging and
[1:41:19] sometimes quite archaic systems
[1:41:21] that we all work within which
[1:41:23] then will reduce those
[1:41:25] operational risks and
[1:41:26] strengthening performance,
[1:41:27] security and reliability.
[1:41:29] And, of course, deploying our
[1:41:33] scalable solutions and
[1:41:37] duplication ensuring technology
[1:41:40] can quickly adapt to new Lastly
[1:41:44] but certainly not least, to
[1:41:46] mature court technology, the
[1:41:48] world that we are a part of by
[1:41:49] strengthening our cyber
[1:41:52] security and overall
[1:41:52] operational readiness to meet
[1:41:56] future demands.
[1:42:00] The needs continue.
[1:42:01] Technology is a foundation to
[1:42:03] what we do every day to keep
[1:42:07] our courts operational,
[1:42:09] security reliable across the
[1:42:10] state.
[1:42:11] >> I say it is the backbone to
[1:42:13] justice and how we deliver
[1:42:15] service to our public.
[1:42:17] Public expectations demand that
[1:42:18] the courts provide more digital
[1:42:20] and remote service.
[1:42:22] We've heard about that so many
[1:42:25] times and how important more
[1:42:27] data transparency and, of
[1:42:28] course, faster responses that
[1:42:31] the public also wants from us.
[1:42:33] >> We just can't keep pace at
[1:42:34] the rate we're at right now.
[1:42:36] With the rising costs that
[1:42:37] we've all heard about, some
[1:42:40] licensing fees that we just
[1:42:40] heard about, case management
[1:42:43] systems, hosting an operational
[1:42:45] IT expenses are increasing
[1:42:48] exponentially.
[1:42:50] But as we've discussed on other
[1:42:52] occasions and this morning,
[1:42:53] there is no dedicated funding
[1:42:55] for the maintenance and
[1:42:57] operational technology needs to
[1:42:58] keep our systems running and
[1:43:01] providing that access to
[1:43:01] justice.
[1:43:02] >> As a result of that lack of
[1:43:07] dedicated funding, on going IT
[1:43:10] support covered by the baseline
[1:43:11] budget which creates that
[1:43:13] competition for very limited
[1:43:14] resources at a time when
[1:43:15] technology needs to continue to
[1:43:17] grow and support our operations.
[1:43:21] >> You will see a presentation
[1:43:22] following this one talking
[1:43:24] about those budget change
[1:43:27] proposals and we're so very
[1:43:28] encouraging you to support
[1:43:32] those as well.
[1:43:35] >> The request of our entire
[1:43:35] tech committee as well as
[1:43:37] thanking all of our JCIT staff,
[1:43:39] I join in all of those comments
[1:43:40] about our Judicial Council
[1:43:43] staff, but specifically this
[1:43:43] JCIT staff and the work they
[1:43:47] have done with this IT mod
[1:43:49] funding but every single day on
[1:43:52] so many different fronts.
[1:43:52] We're so grateful to you, Lisa,
[1:43:58] to Mr.
[1:43:59] Ye, your team.
[1:44:02] >> Chief, thank you to you for
[1:44:05] your incredible leadership and
[1:44:06] dedication to serving access to
[1:44:07] justice, but especially in this
[1:44:11] space for technology.
[1:44:11] I always carry this quote
[1:44:13] around.
[1:44:13] It's from one of your
[1:44:14] statements at the judiciary,
[1:44:16] because it's really important
[1:44:16] as we do so many of the words
[1:44:20] that you say, but when you talk
[1:44:21] about technology and you make
[1:44:22] sure it's a priority for our
[1:44:23] branch.
[1:44:24] >> You say, together we will
[1:44:25] continue to shape the future
[1:44:29] for the courts ensuring that
[1:44:31] technology serves as a bridge
[1:44:32] to justice.
[1:44:35] So what we're asking today is
[1:44:35] your consideration and approval
[1:44:38] to continue with that bridge in
[1:44:41] technology.
[1:44:42] >> Thank you.
[1:44:42] Thank you both for your
[1:44:44] presentation today.
[1:44:45] Judge Hernandez, Mr.
[1:44:46] Slayton, in particular the
[1:44:47] level of detail that you've
[1:44:51] gone through to to us through
[1:44:53] the methodology andand
[1:44:56] selection criteria that you've
[1:44:57] applied, emphasizing quite
[1:44:58] clear in your presentation and
[1:44:59] the materials as well the focus
[1:45:02] on collaboration and the
[1:45:03] transparency that's involved in
[1:45:05] the process, so we appreciate
[1:45:06] that.
[1:45:07] >> Are there any questions or
[1:45:11] comments?
[1:45:12] >> Very impressive.
[1:45:13] >> Thank you, judge Moorman.
[1:45:16] Is that a motion for approval?
[1:45:20] >> Yes.
[1:45:20] Is there a second?
[1:45:20] Oh, my gosh.
[1:45:23] I heard judge Hal lahan on the
[1:45:25] side.
[1:45:25] Thank you.
[1:45:25] All in favor say aye.
[1:45:30] >> Aye.
[1:45:31] >> Aye.
[1:45:31] >> Any nos?
[1:45:32] Any abstentions?
[1:45:34] Thank you.
[1:45:35] This item is approved.
[1:45:36] >> Thank you, Chief.
[1:45:39] >> Thank you.
[1:45:40] And now with our fourth and
[1:45:41] final item, we will consider
[1:45:44] the fiscal year 2027-28 budget
[1:45:47] change proposals for the
[1:45:49] Supreme Court, Courts of Appeal
[1:45:52] and our Superior Courts as well
[1:45:54] as the Habeas Corpus Resource
[1:45:55] Center.
[1:45:56] This is related to our Judicial
[1:45:57] Branch Facilities Program, item
[1:45:59] 26-40.
[1:46:01] >> We welcome our presenters,
[1:46:04] Judge Ann Moorman, Chair of the
[1:46:05] Budget Committee and, again, we
[1:46:09] welcome Zlatko.
[1:46:12] Thank you.
[1:46:14] >> Thank you, Chief.
[1:46:14] Good morning, everyone.
[1:46:16] As the chief indicated, we are
[1:46:21] here on item 26-040, the
[1:46:23] Judicial Branch budget fiscal
[1:46:25] year '27-28 budget change
[1:46:30] proposals, affectionately
[1:46:31] called BCPs, I will probably
[1:46:32] use the acronym all morning.
[1:46:36] On behalf of BCP, we're here
[1:46:41] today to present the proposed
[1:46:41] budget change proposals.
[1:46:44] Part of the Budget Committee's
[1:46:47] charge under 10.
[1:46:50] 15 subdivision 52 branch budget
[1:46:52] priorities.
[1:46:53] To do this the Budget Committee
[1:46:55] makes recommendations annually
[1:46:56] to the council regarding which
[1:46:58] budget change proposals should
[1:46:59] be moved forward to the
[1:47:03] Department of Finance.
[1:47:04] The Judicial Branch budget
[1:47:05] development process is a
[1:47:07] comprehensive seven-month
[1:47:08] process of seeking ideas from
[1:47:12] various Judicial Council
[1:47:13] advisory bodies for the highest
[1:47:14] priority needs in the branch.
[1:47:18] >> Advisory bodies submitting
[1:47:20] concepts must vote in open
[1:47:21] meetings to recommend a concept
[1:47:23] to the Budget Committee.
[1:47:26] Judicial staff and subject
[1:47:26] matter experts provide
[1:47:30] presentations on the concepts
[1:47:30] to the Judicial Branch Budget
[1:47:31] Committee and answer any
[1:47:32] questions Budget Committee
[1:47:33] members may have regarding any
[1:47:36] or each of the concepts.
[1:47:38] >> After all the concepts are
[1:47:40] gathered and all Advisory
[1:47:41] Committees have an opportunity
[1:47:45] to provide input on the
[1:47:48] concept, we -- any are
[1:47:50] considered by the Budget
[1:47:50] Committee in an open meeting.
[1:47:54] As the process is conducted in
[1:47:55] an open meeting, the public and
[1:47:58] other stakeholders also have
[1:48:00] the opportunity for public
[1:48:02] comment.
[1:48:03] >> In previous years, as you
[1:48:05] have heard me say, the
[1:48:05] committee took the approach
[1:48:08] that it would recommend to the
[1:48:08] council only those concepts
[1:48:11] that we felt were essential for
[1:48:15] us to fulfill our core mission
[1:48:18] as a branch.
[1:48:19] At the same time recognizing
[1:48:20] fiscal conditions in the state.
[1:48:23] This year things are a little
[1:48:25] different.
[1:48:26] The fiscal year '27-28 budget
[1:48:26] will be the first budget
[1:48:29] considered by the new governor
[1:48:31] and their team.
[1:48:32] It is important to emphasize to
[1:48:34] the new administration, in our
[1:48:35] view, all of the critical needs
[1:48:39] of the branch that have been
[1:48:42] identified through our process.
[1:48:44] This change in executive is a
[1:48:47] unique and important
[1:48:47] opportunity to educate and
[1:48:49] inform the new administration
[1:48:50] of the challenges and the needs
[1:48:53] that we have as a branch in
[1:48:56] continuing to provide equal
[1:48:56] access to justice for all
[1:49:00] Californians, all court users,
[1:49:01] while at the same time
[1:49:02] acknowledging the state's
[1:49:06] multiyear projected deficit.
[1:49:09] >> The proposals before you
[1:49:11] today were not presented to you
[1:49:13] in any sort of order or
[1:49:14] priority because we believe
[1:49:18] through experience that the
[1:49:19] recommended proposals each
[1:49:20] represents something that is a
[1:49:21] high priority for the branch.
[1:49:25] This approach also gives
[1:49:27] greater flexibility to our
[1:49:28] chief Administrative Director
[1:49:29] and our Chief Justice in their
[1:49:32] budget advocacy efforts for for
[1:49:35] programs and services.
[1:49:38] >> This year we had a total it
[1:49:39] have 33 concepts presented.
[1:49:41] Those include some of the
[1:49:42] capital outlay projects.
[1:49:45] The Judicial Branch Budget
[1:49:46] Committee reviewed and
[1:49:47] considered each of those.
[1:49:50] Some of those were combined.
[1:49:51] Some of those are not before
[1:49:54] you today.
[1:49:54] Those that are before you
[1:49:56] today, as I've indicated,
[1:49:59] represent the highest priority.
[1:50:01] >> These budget change concepts
[1:50:03] represent the highest values
[1:50:04] and priorities of the branch
[1:50:05] and represent the input of
[1:50:09] various branch advisory bodies,
[1:50:10] acknowledge the state's
[1:50:12] multiyear projected deficit,
[1:50:13] support greater access to
[1:50:15] justice for all Californians
[1:50:16] and assist vulnerable
[1:50:19] populations by advancing equity
[1:50:21] and justice.
[1:50:22] >> The fiscal year '27-28
[1:50:24] recommended proposals focus on
[1:50:27] funding the branch's needs.
[1:50:30] If included in the '27 Budget
[1:50:31] Act, these proposals will
[1:50:32] provide funding for Judicial
[1:50:35] Branch priorities, some of
[1:50:36] which include inflationary
[1:50:38] funding adjustments to support
[1:50:41] Trial Court operations,
[1:50:43] facility support, security
[1:50:45] assessment and capital outlay,
[1:50:47] court-appointed council
[1:50:47] programs for the Supreme Court,
[1:50:50] and the courts Courts of
[1:50:57] Appeal, racial justice act
[1:51:00] retroactivity, and branch wide
[1:51:01] cyber security just to name a
[1:51:02] few.
[1:51:03] >> The list represents a budget
[1:51:05] package that will provide the
[1:51:05] new executive and their team
[1:51:08] with information on the highest
[1:51:09] priorities for the Judicial
[1:51:11] Branch.
[1:51:12] With the goal to increase equal
[1:51:15] access to justice for all
[1:51:15] Californians while also
[1:51:19] acknowledging a state's
[1:51:20] significant multiyear projected
[1:51:21] deficit and limited resources.
[1:51:26] >> The proposals before you
[1:51:27] today will benefit court users
[1:51:29] and the public by investing in
[1:51:30] interpreter services and
[1:51:32] increased compensation for
[1:51:33] court- appointed council,
[1:51:36] improving service quality and
[1:51:36] ensuring timely equitable
[1:51:38] justice for all Californians.
[1:51:40] >> Significant funding is
[1:51:42] allocated for ongoing
[1:51:42] technology support, cyber
[1:51:45] security improvements and
[1:51:45] modernization of data analytics
[1:51:48] and case management systems.
[1:51:50] >> These will protect sensitive
[1:51:51] court systems from cyber
[1:51:54] threats, improve operational
[1:51:55] reliability and support public
[1:51:58] access to digital court
[1:52:00] services, some of which we just
[1:52:00] heard a little bit about.
[1:52:03] >> The proposals also address
[1:52:03] the facility modifications and
[1:52:05] capital outlay projects to
[1:52:07] ensure safe, secure and
[1:52:09] efficient courthouses statewide
[1:52:11] that will protect court users
[1:52:12] and staff and support access to
[1:52:17] justice for all Californians.
[1:52:20] >> Speaking for a moment about
[1:52:21] the current budget year, the
[1:52:23] Budget Act of 2026 included
[1:52:24] several funding priorities that
[1:52:27] are currently before the
[1:52:27] council, or were earlier today.
[1:52:30] The Budget Act of 2026 included
[1:52:33] funding for 13 new judgeships
[1:52:34] over the next five years, $150
[1:52:38] in one-time funding for
[1:52:39] deferred maintenance, a
[1:52:40] significant increase in the
[1:52:42] number of new courthouse
[1:52:43] construction projects for the
[1:52:47] next two fiscal years, and, as
[1:52:48] we've also heard, it includes
[1:52:49] $20 million for the current
[1:52:51] fiscal year and the next fiscal
[1:52:56] year for language access
[1:52:58] services.
[1:52:59] Given the funding included in
[1:53:00] the '26 budget on behalf of the
[1:53:02] Judicial Branch Budget
[1:53:03] Committee today, I am making
[1:53:06] some modifications to the
[1:53:06] proposals before you.
[1:53:10] I'm suggesting some
[1:53:12] modifications, I should say.
[1:53:13] >> With regard to number 19,
[1:53:16] which speaks to 26 judgeships,
[1:53:18] I recommend and we recommend
[1:53:21] that should not go forward in
[1:53:21] light of the '26 Budget Act and
[1:53:25] considered as part of a future
[1:53:28] budget concept discussion.
[1:53:31] BCP number 16 for deferred
[1:53:32] maintenance for recommendation,
[1:53:33] should not go forward in light
[1:53:36] of the $150 million in the 2026
[1:53:40] Budget Act.
[1:53:41] However, part of BCP number 16
[1:53:44] includes $2 million to assess
[1:53:47] 15 building management systems
[1:53:48] and we're asking that be
[1:53:49] included in BCP number 13 which
[1:53:51] relates to Trial Court facility
[1:53:54] modification.
[1:53:55] >> Finally, with regard to
[1:53:58] number 21, that's capital
[1:54:01] outlay funding for '27-28
[1:54:03] through fiscal year 2031 and
[1:54:06] '32, we're asking that be
[1:54:08] modified and that staff be
[1:54:08] given the authority to modify
[1:54:09] it to reflect the updated
[1:54:12] approved courthouse
[1:54:13] construction funding in the
[1:54:15] 2026 Budget Act.
[1:54:17] >> As the Budget Committee
[1:54:18] Chair, I recommend adopting the
[1:54:20] concepts before you today with
[1:54:23] these modifications.
[1:54:24] These modifications will then
[1:54:25] be submitted to the Department
[1:54:27] of Finance in September of 2026
[1:54:30] for consideration by the new
[1:54:31] administration for the '27-28
[1:54:35] budget -- Governor's Budget.
[1:54:39] One final modification or
[1:54:39] approach we're suggesting
[1:54:43] relates to number 24 which is
[1:54:44] Lang language access in the
[1:54:45] California courts.
[1:54:46] >> We are suggesting that that
[1:54:49] concept not be forwarded in the
[1:54:51] fall and that we reserve it for
[1:54:52] the springtime at which time we
[1:54:54] will have a better idea how the
[1:54:58] $20 million we're receiving
[1:54:59] this year and we will receive
[1:55:00] in the next fiscal year is
[1:55:02] being spent throughout the
[1:55:03] branch, and we will have a
[1:55:05] better idea what our actual
[1:55:07] needs are.
[1:55:08] >> I would like to thank the
[1:55:09] Budget Committee members, the
[1:55:11] advisory --all the advisory
[1:55:12] committees that gave input, all
[1:55:13] the members of the public and
[1:55:16] other stakeholders that
[1:55:17] provided input to our meetings,
[1:55:21] Budget Committee staff.
[1:55:22] I will say to echo Judge
[1:55:24] Conklin to the extent that I
[1:55:24] sound even moderately
[1:55:28] intelligent, it is thanks to
[1:55:28] them.
[1:55:29] >> They put in a lot of work.
[1:55:31] We get a spread sheet.
[1:55:34] We get excel spread sheets that
[1:55:36] are color coded, thoroughly
[1:55:40] vetted, very informative, and
[1:55:42] so I do want to acknowledge
[1:55:44] Budget Committee staff for all
[1:55:48] of your support.
[1:55:50] And, lastly, I want to say, I'm
[1:55:51] going to go off script to say,
[1:55:54] thank you, chief, and thank
[1:55:56] you, Shelley, for carrying
[1:55:57] these concepts forward through
[1:55:57] what I call the offsee, which
[1:56:01] is really just the on season,
[1:56:03] because without your advocacy
[1:56:03] and the really consistent and
[1:56:09] inspiring way that you carry
[1:56:11] forward our budgetary needs for
[1:56:13] the branch, we wouldn't be
[1:56:15] seeing the success that we are
[1:56:18] seeing, so thank you both for
[1:56:19] all your hard work and all your
[1:56:22] leadership in this area.
[1:56:26] Zlatko and I are here, happy to
[1:56:27] take any of your questions.
[1:56:28] >> Thank you for a wonderful
[1:56:29] presentation and all of your
[1:56:31] efforts and advocacy and the
[1:56:32] thorough work that you put into
[1:56:34] thoughtful proposals before us.
[1:56:36] We really appreciate it.
[1:56:37] And also looking forward to
[1:56:39] working with the new
[1:56:40] administration.
[1:56:42] And someone said educating
[1:56:43] --I'm not sure if that's the
[1:56:44] right word -- but our ongoing
[1:56:46] dialogue with them.
[1:56:47] Look forward to that, too.
[1:56:50] And I will open it up for
[1:56:52] questions.
[1:56:53] >> I have a question.
[1:56:54] >> Yes?
[1:56:55] >> I'm just wondering, based on
[1:56:55] some of the public comment we
[1:56:58] heard, if there's anything in
[1:56:59] the $20 million we previously
[1:57:01] heard about or in the BCPs that
[1:57:04] might help address some of
[1:57:06] those concerns specifically as
[1:57:09] it relates to interpreter staff
[1:57:14] pay?
[1:57:15] >> A great question.
[1:57:16] Zlatko Theodorovic and glad to
[1:57:16] be here this morning.
[1:57:19] The bargaining that occurs
[1:57:20] happens regionally, and so
[1:57:22] those concerns are brought to
[1:57:25] thethe --each of the bargaining
[1:57:26] teams that are engaging in sort
[1:57:29] of the conditions of working
[1:57:31] pay, and so the funding will,
[1:57:32] if the cost of the staff
[1:57:34] increase, will address those
[1:57:38] costs, but this is currently
[1:57:40] based on our existing, sort of,
[1:57:42] expenditure pattern.
[1:57:43] As Judge Moorman has said, we
[1:57:44] will be looking to see if that
[1:57:46] is sufficient and to the extent
[1:57:48] there are additional costs
[1:57:49] happening locally, how do those
[1:57:51] fit within our budget.
[1:57:53] We also do have a limited
[1:57:55] budget so it can't be an
[1:57:56] unlimited increase in the
[1:57:58] salaries either, just like
[1:57:58] every other employee within the
[1:58:01] branch, it has to be funded
[1:58:03] within the resources we have
[1:58:05] available.
[1:58:06] >> Thanks.
[1:58:08] I appreciate it.
[1:58:09] >> Just to jump on to that.
[1:58:12] You know, the $20 million that
[1:58:14] is in the current fiscal year
[1:58:16] we're in, the $20 million we've
[1:58:17] been promised, I think is an
[1:58:19] indication that the executive
[1:58:23] and legislative
[1:58:24] branchesbranches hearing what's
[1:58:25] been a consistent call for the
[1:58:29] branch for --my cough button
[1:58:31] was on.
[1:58:31] That a consistent message we've
[1:58:33] been trying to send that our
[1:58:36] language access needs have not
[1:58:37] only grown in terms of volume
[1:58:38] and numbers but in terms of
[1:58:41] dollars and cents, because
[1:58:42] getting certified, qualified,
[1:58:43] certified interpreters, whether
[1:58:45] you're a contract interpreter
[1:58:47] or a staff interpreter, is an
[1:58:49] absolutely essential need for
[1:58:49] us to perform our services.
[1:58:53] >> And the $20 million, you
[1:58:54] know, we're going to watch how
[1:58:55] it gets spent.
[1:58:55] We're going to listen, we'll
[1:58:58] hear information about the
[1:58:59] interpreter needs throughout
[1:59:01] the courts and make
[1:59:02] recommendations about how the
[1:59:04] $20 million will be spent.
[1:59:05] And then we'll go back and do
[1:59:07] surveys and we'll collect more
[1:59:08] information on how it was spent
[1:59:10] and short.
[1:59:12] >> So we can continue in our
[1:59:13] advocacy efforts in that area.
[1:59:17] >> Thank you.
[1:59:17] Thank you, Mr.
[1:59:18] Peters.
[1:59:19] Mr.
[1:59:20] Slayton.
[1:59:21] >> Thank you very much, Chief.
[1:59:23] I just wanted to comment, not a
[1:59:26] question, just to thank the
[1:59:27] budget committee and all the
[1:59:28] Advisory Committees for this
[1:59:28] list.
[1:59:29] I started to highlight a few of
[1:59:31] them but as I looked through,
[1:59:32] so many things that are so
[1:59:34] important to the functioning of
[1:59:35] the branch.
[1:59:36] I'm glad that the Budget
[1:59:37] Committee is recommending to
[1:59:38] put them all forward because I
[1:59:39] think it's an opportunity to
[1:59:40] show where the needs are.
[1:59:42] >> As I look through the list,
[1:59:43] there are so many things in
[1:59:45] here that if this funding were
[1:59:46] provided would improve the
[1:59:47] services we can deliver to the
[1:59:50] public and the way we could
[1:59:50] operate.
[1:59:51] And so just thanks to all the
[1:59:52] Advisory Committees for putting
[1:59:53] it forward and the Budget
[1:59:55] Committee did to put these
[1:59:56] forward.
[1:59:56] I think they're great.
[1:59:58] Thank you.
[2:00:00] >> Thank you, Mr.
[2:00:01] Slayton.
[2:00:01] Anyone else?
[2:00:02] Yes?
[2:00:03] >> I just had one final comment
[2:00:06] and that is my last
[2:00:08] recommendation I would say to
[2:00:09] the council would be that at
[2:00:10] some point in time you
[2:00:12] undertake a feasibility study
[2:00:17] to see if Zlatko could be
[2:00:20] cloned.
[2:00:21] I have received Emails from him
[2:00:23] on a Friday to everyone on the
[2:00:26] committee at midnight.
[2:00:28] He needs some sleep.
[2:00:30] >> If we could take a vote on
[2:00:32] that, it would be unanimous.
[2:00:34] I'll entertain a motion to love
[2:00:35] move approval of the item
[2:00:37] before us with the
[2:00:37] modifications as stated.
[2:00:41] >> So moved.
[2:00:42] >> Second.
[2:00:43] >> Thank you.
[2:00:44] Mr.
[2:00:44] Slayton moves approval.
[2:00:44] Who was the second?
[2:00:48] >> Peters.
[2:00:48] >> Mr.
[2:00:48] Peters, thank you for your
[2:00:50] second.
[2:00:51] All those in favor, please say
[2:00:53] aye.
[2:00:54] >> Aye.
[2:00:54] >> Any nos or abstentions?
[2:00:57] Okay, this item is approved.
[2:00:59] Thank you.
[2:00:59] That does conclude our business
[2:01:02] meeting for today.
[2:01:03] Our next meeting is scheduled
[2:01:05] for October 15th and 16th.