BOB SUB FIVE OF THEM UP PUBLIC
SAFETY BUDGET IS SO CALLED ORDER
WE'RE GOING TO BEGAN BECAUSE.
CLEARLY A WE HAVE A LOT OF
THINGS GOING ON TODAY EVERYONE'S
IN A IN A SEPARATE MEETINGS
WE'RE HOPING TO HAVE A QUORUM
HERE FAIRLY SOON BECAUSE WE
CAN'T DO ANY. A VOTE ITEMS UNTIL
THERE IS A QUORUM. UP BUT WE CAN
BEGIN WITH THE INFORMATION ITEM
SINCE WE HAVE AT LEAST A ONE
MEMBER OF THE OTHER PARTY
PRESIDENT AND.
SHE'S GIVEN US PERMISSION BUT
NOT TO PROCEED WITH THE KITCHEN.
OF NON VOTING ITEMS OUT WE'RE
GOING TO BEGIN BECAUSE ONE OF
THE ITEMS IS A LITTLE BIT LONGER
THAN THE OTHER SO WE WILL BEGIN
TO ITEM FIFTY TWO TWENTY SEVEN.
WHICH IS THE BOARD OF STAVING
COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS BUT HAS A
OVERVIEW OF PROP FORTY SEVEN
WITHIN TO BEGIN WITH THAT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
HOLMAN.
OKAY GOOD AFTERNOON MADAM CHAIR
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE I'M
KATIE HOWARD THE EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF THAT THE SEC. AND.
HAPPY TO TALK TO YOU TODAY
ABOUT PROPOSITION FORTY SEVEN
I'M GOING TO START WITH A VERY
GENERAL OVERVIEW.
WE'RE DELIGHTED TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.
SO IT UP REAL HIGH ALTITUDE I
THINK AS MEMBERS ARE WELL AWARE.
PROP FORTY SEVEN WAS A VOTER
INITIATIVE ON THE BALLOT IN
NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN
AND IT RECLASSIFIED VARIOUS
LOWER LEVEL FELONIES TO
MISDEMEANORS.
AS A RESULT OF THOSE CHANGES
STATE SAVINGS WERE CALCULATED
AND A GRANT PROGRAM.
A SIGNIFICANT GRANT PROGRAM
ADMINISTERED BY THE B. SEC WITH
LAUNCHED
THE STATE SAVINGS WERE DIVIDED
UP INTO THREE POTS.
THE FIVE PERCENT OF THE SAVINGS
WOULD TO THE B. SEC'S OF COURSE
THAT'S WHAT I'LL FOCUS ON.
THE PURPOSE OF THAT GRANT IS.
.
I TREATMENT SERVICES BOTH MENTAL
HEALTH FOCUSED AND SUBSTANCE USE
DISORDER FOCUSED FOR THE
POPULATIONS.
AFFECTED BY PART FORTY SEVEN
AREN'T WE HAD THE MOST.
INCLUSIVE PROCESS THAT WE HAVE
EVER ENGAGED IN IN THE FORMATION
OF AN EGG AND EXECUTIVES DURING
COMMITTEE THE MOST ON DIVERSE
COMMITTEE WE'VE HAD IN TERMS OF.
GEOGRAPHY BACKGROUND WHO LIVED
EXPERIENCE IT WAS A COMMITTEE OF
EIGHTEEN MEMBERS.
SIX OF THOSE WERE PEOPLE WHO
HAD EXPERIENCE ON IN THE
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM DIRECT
EXPERIENCE IN THAT REALLY TRULY
HELPED INFORM THE PROCESS
WEALTHY DID PUBLIC HEARINGS
ACROSS THE STATE. ON I
UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTIONS MAY BE
RELATED TO THE DEPOSIT SO ALL
PAUSE THERE AND HAPPY TO GIVE
YOU ANY INFORMATION YOU MAY WANT
TO ABOUT THE STATUS OF THE
GRANTS. THE FUNDING AND SO FORTH
ON THE SHORT VERSION IS THAT THE
FIRST THREE YEARS OF SAVINGS
WERE ARE COMBINED TOGETHER INTO
A POT OF JUST OVER A HUNDRED AND
THREE MILLION DOLLARS AND WE'RE
COMPETITIVELY AWARDED. THOSE
GRANTS BEGAN IN JUNE OF TWO
THOUSAND SEVENTEEN TWENTY THREE
PROJECTS.
ARE IN VARIOUS STAGES OF UP AND
RUNNING ACROSS THE STATE WE
PROVIDED TO THE STAFF A SHORT
SUMMARY HAND OUT OF THOSE GRANT
DESCRIPTIONS AND. ON YOU HAVE
THAT THERE.
AND ALSO APPEARANCE IF YOU HAVE
QUESTIONS.
JAMIE COMES FROM FINANCE.
HELLO INCOME BRACKET ANNEAL LA
OWED I JUST KNOW THAT THE PAST
OUR OFFICE HAS RAISED CONCERNS
ABOUT THE METHODOLOGY USED BY
THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE TO
CALCULATE THE SAVINGS. HOWEVER
THE STATE AT THAT TIME CHOSE TO
EMPLOY THEIR APPROACH AYE THIS
YEAR'S CUT CALCULATION IS
CONSISTENT WITH THAT
METHODOLOGY.
POWER OF THE EVER IF THE
COMMITTEE WOULD LIKE I'D BE
HAPPY TO SHARE FILE ITEM.
THE DETAILS OF OUR CONCERNS
FURTHER PLEASE DO.
I THE MEASURE DOESN'T SPECIFY
HOW THE DEPOSIT MUST BE
CALCULATED SO THERE'S NO CORRECT
WAY TO MEET ITS FISCAL
REQUIREMENT.
HOWEVER IN OUR VIEW THE
ADMINISTRATION LIKELY
UNDERESTIMATES THE SAVINGS FOR
VARIOUS REASONS.
OF FOR EXAMPLE ONE KEY ACT
COMPONENT COMPONENT OF THE
SAVINGS ARE THOSE ASSOCIATED
WITH.
I'M HAVING A LOWER PRISON
POPULATION THAT WE WOULD HAVE IF
PROP FORTY SEVEN HADN'T PASSED.
I'M USING OUR APPROACH WE
ESTIMATE THAT THE PRISON
POPULATION SAVINGS AND SEVENTEEN
EIGHTEEN TO BE DEPOSITED IN.
TWENTY EIGHTEEN NINETEEN WE'RE
LIKELY TENS OF MILLIONS HIGHER
THAN OR ROUGHLY DOUBLE THE
ADMINISTRATION'S ESTIMATE OF OF
ABOUT FIFTY FIVE MILLION.
HOW WOULD WE ARE?
?
WELL I'LL I'LL SEE IF ANYONE IS
SENDING QUESTIONS THIS IS TONY
JUDD EQUIPMENT QUESTIONS.
HOW DO WE DISCERN WHO'S
METHODOLOGY IS CORRECT?
TERMS OF.
TELLING US ABOUT THE MONEY
BECAUSE I I YOU HEAR FROM A LOT
OF DIFFERENT INDIVIDUALS THAT.
IT'S AN UNDER ESTIMATE THE
SHOULD BE MORE DATA OUT OF THAT.
AND.
.
HOW DO WE DISCERN THAT IT WOULD
WE DISCERN AT THE END OF THE
YEAR WHEN AS EXTRA MONEY IN THE
BANK I MEAN?
HOW WOULD WE DISARM WHOSE
NUMBERS ARE CORRECT?
BUT MADELINE CLAIM DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE THE INITIATIVE ACTUALLY
GIVES THE AUTHORITY TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE TO MAKE
THE CALCULATION. AND ONCE THE
CALCULATION IS SET THAT AMOUNT
IS NOT ADJUSTED SO AGAIN
CONSISTENT WITH THE WAY.
SINCE PROP PROPOSITION FORTY
SEVEN WAS IMPLEMENTED WE HAVE
COMPLETED THAT CALCULATION WITH
SAME METHODOLOGY EACH YEAR.
IS THERE ANY ANY EXTRA MONEY
LEFT OVER.
OR IS THAT IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE.
YOU SAY IT IS IT MUST BE.
WHAT THE CALCULATION AGAIN IS
SET BY A CERTAIN PARAMETERS
WHICH I CAN?
WHEN HAPPY TO PROVIDE DETAILS
TO STAFF ON EXACTLY HOW WE DO
THE CALCULATION I BELIEVE THE
MAIN POINT OF CONCERN BETWEEN US
AND LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE
IS. A RATE.
THAT AMOUNT TO SEE OF SAVINGS
ATTRIBUTABLE AT THE CONTRACT BED
RATE VERSES THE MARGINAL RATE.
AGAIN WE HAVE A MORE DETAILED A
BREAKDOWN WHERE WE HAVE TO
ATTRIBUTE SAVINGS TO ALL OF THE
DIFFERENT POPULATION REDUCTION
MEASURES AND THEREFORE WE APPLY
A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE. OF THE
AMOUNT THAT SPECIFIC TO PROP FOR
FORTY SEVEN WHEN WE DO OUR
CALCULATIONS SO AGAIN ONCE THE
CALCULATION HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED
AS THAT IS NOT AMENDED FOR THAT
FISCAL YEAR. I WILL KNOW THAT
THE LEGISLATURE DID. DO A
GENERAL FUND AUGMENTATION AND
THE VERY FIRST YEAR OF TEN
MILLION DOLLARS BECAUSE THERE
WAS OFFSETTING COSTS RELATED TO
COURT WORKLOAD AND FULL
WORKLOAD.
OKAY AND YOU SAYING THAT THE
NUMBER IS A HUNDRED AND THREE
MILLION IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID
THAT WAS THE TOTAL OVER THREE
YEARS THE NUMBERS HAVE VARIED
OVER THE YEARS WE CAN BREAK IT
DOWN YEAR BY YEAR. BUT OVER THE
LAST THREE HUNDRED AND THREE
MILLION JUST PERFECTLY FOR BSE
SEE EXCUSE ME THERE WAS OTHER.
SO THIS YEAR THAT THE AMOUNT IS
OF ROUGHLY SIXTY FOUR MILLION
DOLLARS FOR IN THE PREVIOUS
YEARS IT WAS.
OF FORTY MILLION AND SIXTEEN
SEVENTEEN.
THAT SUITED ME THIRTEEN EIGHTEEN
AND FORTY FIVE MILLION AND.
SUPPORT YOURSELF THE TOTAL
AMOUNT OF THE SAVINGS THE
PORTABILITY SEC WAS JUST THE
HUNDRED THREE. OKAY ALRIGHT TO.
FOR THE ANY.
COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE
ANYONE. HAVING ANY COMMENT
STATEMENT THAT THEY LIKE.
TO MAKE IT THIS TIME.
OKAY NO THANK YOU VERY MUCH THAT
ALRIGHT THANK YOU. COMICS OF IN
THAT SPOT.
SINCE WE STILL HAVE A QUORUM
LET'S MOVE BACK TO OUR OTHER
ITEM. I WHICH IS THE.
.
THE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL
PERFORMANCE
WHEN IT STARTED WITH THE STATE
AUDITOR'S.
GOOD AFTERNOON MADAM CHAIR
MEMBERS MY NAME IS STEPHANIE
RUMORS RICH MAN CHIEF COUNSEL
FOR THE CALIFORNIA STATE AUBURN
WITH ME AS PRINCIPAL AUDITOR BOB
HARRIS.
WHILE WE WERE ASKED TO COME IN
AND SHARE WITH YOU OUR
PERSPECTIVE OF HOW WE A HAVE
PROGRESSED IN OUR LITIGATION
WITH C. JP AT THIS POINT UP TO
THIS POINT IN TIME. AS TODAY'S
AGENDA INDICATES ARE IN AUGUST
OF TWENTY SIXTEEN JOINT
LEGISLATIVE AUDIT COMMITTEE
APPROVED AN AUDIT OF THE
COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL
PERFORMANCE.
ALL THE AUDIT APPROVED OF THE
APPROVED AUDIT DIRECTED OUR
AUDIT TO OUR OFFICE TO
INDEPENDENTLY.
.
TO PROVIDE INDEPENDENTLY
DEVELOPED AND VERIFIED
INFORMATION RELATED TO THE
POLICIES AND PRACTICES THAT CGP
FOR HANDLING IN RESOLVING
COMPLAINTS. AGAINST JUDGES IT
INCLUDED NINETEEN OBJECTIVES AND
HAD AN ESTIMATED COST OF FOUR
HUNDRED NINETY THOUSAND DOLLARS.
AS IS OUR USUAL USUAL PRACTICE
WE.
SENT TO SEE JP.
ARE DO NOT DESTRUCT LETTER
ASKING THEM TO MAINTAIN THE
RECORDS THAT WE WOULD NEED FOR.
OUR WORK AYE BUT WE DIDN'T HAVE
A TEAM THAT WAS PREPARED TO
IMMEDIATELY START THE WORK AND
SO.
ON OCTOBER THIRD WE ACTUALLY
SENATE JOB START LETTER TO SEE
JP. ASKING AT LETTING THEM KNOW
THAT WE WOULD SOON BE OF HAVE
HOLDING OUR ENTRANCE CONFERENCE
AND WOULD SOON COMMENCE THE
AUDIT WORKING IT UP UNTIL THAT
POINT IN TIME WE HADN'T HEARD
FROM CGP AT ALL IN TERMS OF. OUR
OBJECTIONS TO THE AUDIT OR
CONCERNS ABOUT OUR ABILITY TO
ACCESS THE RECORDS THAT WE WOULD
NEED IN ORDER TO CONDUCT THE
WORK.
ON OCTOBER THIRD THE FORMER CGP
DIRECTOR AND CHIEF COUNSEL.
EMAILED MISTER HARRIS TO INFORM
HIM THAT CTP HAD SOUGHT OUTSIDE
OF THE TOP THE ADVICE ABOUT SITE
COUNCIL WITH REGARD TO ITS
OBLIGATIONS. WITH RESPECT TO THE
AUDIT AND THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF
C. JP'S RECORDS.
ON.
OCTOBER FOURTEENTH WE RECEIVED
A LENGTHY LETTER FROM C. JP
INFORMING US THAT IT HAD A
CONCERNS ABOUT OUR RIGHT TO
ACCESS THE INFORMATION IN FACT.
A WE WERE TOLD THAT ONLY CGP HAS
THE AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE
WHAT'S HE JP RECORDS ARE
CONFIDENTIAL AND THAT SHE JP IS
RULE ONE OH TO.
.
DOES NOT PERMIT THE STATE
AUDITOR'S OFFICE TO ACCESS THE
JP IS CONFIDENTIAL RECORDS.
IF YOU GET CLEAN IS TO JP ALSO
INFORMED US THAT OUTSIDE LEGAL
COUNSEL HAD ADVISED THAT THE
COMMISSION. IS NOT REQUIRED TO
AND COULD NOT PROVIDE OUR OFFICE
WITH ACCESS TO CONFIDENTIAL
FILES AND PROCEEDINGS.
IT WENT ON TO CLAIM THAT UNDER
THE SEPARATION OF POWERS
DOCTRINE THE LEGISLATURE HAD NO
AUTHORITY TO AUTHORIZE OUR
OFFICE TO PERFORM. THE AUDIT AND
TO REVIEW THE COMMISSION'S
DELIBERATE OF FILES.
NEVERTHELESS THE DAY BECAUSE
THAT LETTER BY SAYING THAT THEY
WANTED TO WORK WITH US AND WERE
EAGER TO HAVE THE INFERENCE
CONFERENCE THE BETRAYED WORK OUT
THESE ACCESS ISSUES. ABOUT
HEARTENED US MISTER HARRIS
CONFIRMED THAT OUR INTERESTS
CONFERENCE WHICH IS SCHEDULED
FOR OCTOBER SEVENTEENTH SHOULD
PROCEED AND SO THE TEAM OF LED
BY MISTER HARRIS AND SOME. OTHER
FOLKS FROM OUR OFFICE WENT OVER
TO HAVE OUR ENTRANCE CONFERENCE
WITH C. JP. I'M IT WAS A TENSE
MEETING.
AND AFTER THE ENTRANCE
CONFERENCE.
MISTER HARRIS AND HIS TEAM.
ASKED TO DO SOME SCOPING WORK
WHICH WAS SOME INITIAL WORK THAT
WE DO ON EVERY AUDIT. TO FORGET
THE LAY OF THE LAND AND
UNDERSTAND THE PROPHECIES THAT
ARE IN PLACE AT THE PLACE THAT
WE'VE BEEN ASKED TO EXAMINE.
.
MR OUGHT MISTER HARRISON IS AN
IS AUDIT TEAM WERE PLACED A
SMALL CONFERENCE ROOM WERE TOLD
THEY COULD NOT LEAVE THE ROOM.
AND ONE BY ONE SEE JP EMPLOYEES
BROUGHT TO THEM CERTAIN RECORDS
ON FILES MOST OF WHICH WE HAVE
ALREADY SEEN BECAUSE THEY'RE
PUBLICLY AVAILABLE.
TO EXAMINE TO LOOK AT.
BUT WE WERE NOT ALLOWED TO DO
WHAT WE TYPICALLY DO WHICH IS
GOING IN AND EXAMINE ALL THE
RECORDS THAT WE NEED TO PERFORM
OUR WORK IN GAME AND
UNDERSTANDING OF THE WORK THAT.
CGP DOES.
WHILE THE TEAM WAS.
IN THIS CONFERENCE ROOM TRYING
TO DO SOME WORK AT C. JP OUR
LEGAL OFFICE SENATE RESPONSIVE
LETTER TO SEE JP EXPLAINING
THAT.
DESPITE SEE JP'S ASSERTIONS WE
FEEL THAT THE LAW PERMITS US TO
ACCESS SEE JP IS CONFIDENTIAL
RECORDS AND ALSO IMPOSES ON US A
DUTY TO PROTECT THOSE RECORDS.
WE EXPLAIN THAT NO YOU SAW KNOW
OUR CONFLICT WITH A
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION THAT
YOU JP.
RELIES ON FOR ITS AUTHORITY IN
FACT WE ARGUED THAT WE NEED TO
HARMONIZE THOSE PROVISIONS IN
THAT ONCE WE HARMONIZE THOSE
PROVISIONS WOULD BE VERY EASY
FOR US TO ACCESS THE WORK. AND
ALSO PROTECTED AS WE DO IN EVERY
AUDIT WITH EVERY AUDIT T..
I'M. NEVERTHELESS AFTER SOME.
BACK AND FORTH.
WE WERE ULTIMATELY NEED TURNED
AWAY TOLD THAT WE COULD NOT HAVE
ACCESS TO ANY CONFIDENTIAL
FILES.
AND WE WERE SURPRISED A COUPLE
OF DAYS LATER ON OCTOBER
TWENTIETH NGUYEN CGP FILE OR A
WRIT WHEN THE SAN FRANCISCO
SUPERIOR COURT. TO PROHIBIT US
FROM ACCESSING OF CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMATION TO PROHIBIT US FROM
AUDITING ITS CORE JUDICIAL
FUNCTION AND IT FROM CHARGING
CGP FOR THE COST OF THE AUDIT.
ON NOVEMBER TWENTY FIRST TWENTY
SIXTEEN WE FILE OUR ANSWER TO
SEE GPS PETITION.
OF THE THE MATTER WAS SHIFTED
BETWEEN JUDGE JUST A FEW TIMES
BUT ULTIMATELY.
WE HAD OUR FIRST ORAL ARGUMENT
ON AUGUST SEVENTEENTH TWENTY
SEVENTEEN.
AFTER THAT HEARING THE TRIAL
COURT JUDGE ASKED BOTH PARTIES
TO SUPPLEMENT ONLY BRIEF THE
MEANING OF THE WORD CONFIDENTIAL
AS USED IN THE LAW. WE COMPLETED
THOSE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFINGS
SUBMITTED THAT I AM AND.
HAD OUR SECOND ORAL ARGUMENT ON
FRIDAY NOVEMBER THIRD OF TWENTY
SEVENTEEN.
ON DECEMBER TWENTIETH.
SUPERIOR COURT GRANTED SEE JP IS
RICK. HOLDING THAT COMMISSION
RULE ONE OH TO HOUSE
CONSTITUTIONAL ORIGINS AND
THEREFORE SEE JP IS THE ONLY
ENTITY. THAT CAN DETERMINE WHAT
RECORDS IT WILL RELEASE.
AND.
THAT THE STATE AUDITOR'S ACCESS
STATUTE GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
EIGHTY FIVE FORTY FIVE POINT TWO
IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED
TO SEE JP AND THEREFORE WE COULD
NOT ACCESS THE JP'S RECORDS.
THE COURT THE COURT FURTHER HELD
THAT WE.
COULD NOT PERFORM WORK ON AUDIT
OBJECTIVES TO FIVE AND TWELVE
BECAUSE THAT WORK WOULD ON
BEHALF OF THE LEGISLATURE
INTERFERE WITH C. JP'S CORE
FUNCTION. AND THAT IT THERE FOR
WOULD VIOLATE THE SEPARATION OF
POWERS DOCTRINE.
WE DISAGREE WITH THE LOWER COURT
HEARING WE HAVE APPEALED THAT
DECISION WE IMMEDIATELY FILED A
NOTICE OF APPEAL IT TOOK.
THE LOWER COURT A FEW WEEKS TO.
WORK THROUGH ITS BACKLOG AND IT
EVENTUALLY SENT OUR NOTICE OF
APPEAL TO THE COURT OF APPEAL IN
FEBRUARY. ON FEBRUARY TWENTY SIX
TWENTY EIGHTEEN WE FILED OUR
OPENING BRIEF WITH THE COURT
WILL ALSO FILED A PETITION TO
TRANSFER THE MATTER DIRECTLY TO
THE SUPREME COURT AND SEE JP.
DID NOT OBJECT TO THAT PROCESS
NEVERTHELESS THE THE US SUPREME
COURT DENIED THAT PETITION FOR
TRANSFER LAST WEDNESDAY ON APRIL
ELEVENTH. SO THIS MEANS THAT THE
CASE MUST BE HEARD IN THE COURT
OF APPEAL BEFORE EITHER PARTY
COULD ASK THE
SUPREME COURT TO HEAR IT. OF
THAT PROCESS TYPICALLY TAKES A
YEAR AND A HALF TO THREE YEARS.
C. JP'S APPELLATE BRIEF IS DUE
TO BE FILED ON APRIL TWENTY
SEVENTH.
I HAVE SPOKEN RECENTLY WITH C.
JP'S NEW CHIEF COUNSEL DIRECTOR
MISTER DRESSER.
HE CONTINUES TO INVITE US TO
PERFORM THE FINANCIAL ASPECTS OF
THE AUDIT.
NEVERTHELESS BECAUSE WE HAVE
NOT LEGAL OBLIGATION TO PERFORM
OUR WORK PURSUANT TO THE
GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS
THAT. ARE PUT OUT BY THE U. S.
COMPTROLLER.
FOR MANY DIFFERENT REASONS WE
WON'T BORE YOU WITH UNLESS YOU
LIKE THE DETAILS IT'S NOT REALLY
POSSIBLE FOR US TO PERFORM THE
LEGISLATURE'S WORK FILL BOTH
NINETEEN OBJECTIVES. AND ONLY
LOOK AT PUBLICLY AVAILABLE
FINANCIAL RECORDS.
SO AT THE PRESENT TIME WE ARE
PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COURT OF
APPEAL AND WE INTEND TO ASK THE
LOOK THE COURT OF APPEAL TO
EXPEDITE THE CASE HOPEFULLY THE
COURT WILL DO THAT.
UNTIL THEN WE WAIT FOR THE
COURT'S RULING AND MISTER HARRIS
MEYER HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE US.
ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS FROM.
.
BERMAN FINANCE A LA O. OR.
THEY'RE NOT HERE PART OF THIS
OKAY SO THE INNING.
.
ANY OF YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS
HERE FROM LEGACY JP.
WE ARE WE DO A THANK YOU MADAM
CHAIR AND OTHER.
OF MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE I
I HAVE A PREPARED SPEECH LIVES
IN NAME TO YES MY NAME IS
GREGORY DRESSER I'M THE DIRECTOR
CHEAT THE NEW DIRECTOR CHIEF
COUNSEL OF THE COMMISSION ON
JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE. OF THE
COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL
PERFORMANCE AGREES THAT IT
SUBJECT TO AUDIT AND HAD AND HAS
NEVER CONTENDED THAT IT ISN'T
SUBJECT TO AUDIT. THE COMMISSION
HAS SIMPLY SOUGHT TO PROTECT
CONFIDENTIALITY OF CERTAIN
COMMISSION RECORDS AS PRESCRIBED
BY THE STATE CONSTITUTION AND
COMMISSION RULE.
THE SUCH CONFIDENTIALITY ALLOWS
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC LAWYERS
COURT STAFF.
AND ARM OTHER JUDGES TO MAKE
COMPLAINTS TO THE COMMISSION
WITHOUT FEAR OF RETALIATION OR
REPRISAL. CONFIDENTIALITY ALSO
PROTECTS THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE
JUDICIARY AND THE REPUTATIONS OF
JUDGES WHEN COMPLAINTS ARE.
UNFOUNDED OR DO NOT HAVE FACTUAL
SUPPORT.
IT IN FACT IN ITS DECLARATORY
RELIEF COMPLAIN THE COMMISSION
STATED.
MANY OF THE TOPICS IN THE AUDIT
ARE CLEARLY APPROPRIATE AREAS OF
INQUIRY FOR THE STATE AUDITOR.
FOR EXAMPLE THE STATE AUDITOR
WANTS TO EXAMINE THE CDP'S
FINANCIAL RECORDS WORKLOAD
STATISTICS AND QUALIFICATIONS OF
STAFF.
ALL OF THESE TOPICS ARE CLEARLY
WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE
LEGISLATURE'S LEGITIMATE
INTEREST AS THE ENTITY
AUTHORIZING THE CJ PIECE BUDGET.
BEGINNING IN SEPTEMBER TWENTY
SIXTEEN.
THE COMMISSION HAS BEEN WILLING
TO MAKE AVAILABLE ALL RECORDS
RELATED TO THESE TOPICS FOR THE
AUDITOR FOR APPROPRIATE
EVALUATION.
AT THAT TIME THE COMMISSION
OFFERED TO PROCEED WITH THOSE
PORTIONS OF THE AUDIT IN THE
ENTIRETY OF THE FISCAL AUDIT.
PENDING RESOLUTION OF THE OTHER
ISSUES.
THE COMMISSION REPEATED THAT
OFFER TO THE AUDITOR'S OFFICE AS
RECENTLY AS LAST WEEK.
IN A STATEMENT OF DECISION THE
SUPERIOR COURT CONFIRMED THE
CONFIDENTIALITY OF RECORDS THAT
THE AUDITOR SOUGHT TO REVIEW.
I WAS A PART OF ITS RULING THE
SUPERIOR COURT AGREED WITH THE
COMMISSION THAT THE CALIFORNIA
CONSTITUTION. PROVIDES THAT
CERTAIN RECORDS ARE CONFIDENTIAL
AND GIVES THE COMMISSION THE
AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE
CONFIDENTIALITY FOR COMPLAINTS
AND INVESTIGATIONS.
AS MENTIONED THE COMMISSION
SINCE CONFIDENTIALITY RULE
PROTECTS COMPLAINANTS AND
WITNESSES IN ADDITION TO JUDGES.
THE SUPERIOR COURT RESOLVED.
THAT THE COMMISSION'S RECORDS
HAVE TOOK THAT HOW CLOSE TO
SHORE PROTECTION ARE NOT SUBJECT
TO REVIEW BY THE AUDITOR.
NONE THE LESS THE COMMISSION
REMAINS COMMITTED TO WORKING
WITH THE AUDITOR'S OFFICE TO
ACHIEVE A RESOLUTION THAT WILL
PERMIT THE AUDITOR'S STAFF.
TO HAVE ACCESS TO THE RECORDS IT
NEEDS TO AUDIT THE COMMISSION.
WHILE PROTECTING THE
CONFIDENTIALITY OF COMMISSION
RECORDS AS ESTABLISHED BY THE
CONSTITUTION AND COMMISSION
RULES.
I'M AS WAS MENTIONED IN AN
EFFORT TO EXPEDITE THE JUDICIAL
REVIEW OF THE CONFIDENTIALITY
ISSUE THE COMMISSION DID NOT
OPPOSE THE AUDITOR'S PETITION.
SEEKING REVIEW AND THE
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT WITHOUT
FIRST OBTAINING A DECISION FROM
THE CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL
ALTHOUGH THE SUPREME COURT
DENIED THAT PETITION LAST WEEK.
THE LIKELIHOOD THAT RECORDS IN
POSSESSION OF THE AUDITOR'S
OFFICE ARE SUBJECT TO THE PUBLIC
RECORDS ACT WOULD CREATE A
SUBSTANTIAL PROBLEM FOR THE
COMMISSION. IF IT HAD TO
DISCLOSE ITS CONFIDENTIAL
RECORDS TO THE AUDITOR.
ALTHOUGH THE MEMBERS OF THE
AUDITOR'S STAFF SAY THAT THEY
WILL NOT PUBLISH THE
COMMISSION'S CONFIDENTIAL
RECORDS. THEY CANNOT ASSURE THAT
THE COMMISSION'S CONFIDENTIAL
RECORDS WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO
DISCLOSURE PURSUANT TO REQUEST
UNDER THE PUBLIC RECORDS ACT.
GIVEN THIS POSSIBILITY AND THE
COMMISSION'S OBLIGATIONS TO
VARIOUS CONSTITUENCIES WHO
RELIED ON AND CONTINUE TO RELY
ON. THE COMMISSION'S
CONFIDENTIALITY PROTECTIONS THE
COMMISSION WAS COMPELLED TO FILE
AN ACTION TO SEEK JUDICIAL
GUIDANCE.
WITH AN ALREADY STRAINED BUDGET
THE COST OF OBTAINING A JUDICIAL
DETERMINATION WAS BURDENSOME TO
THE COMMISSION.
BUT PROCEEDING WITHOUT A
JUDICIAL DETERMINATION WOULD
HAVE BEEN MORE COSTLY HOWEVER
BOWLS TO THE TRUST AND
CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN THE
COMMISSION. AND FOR THE
POTENTIAL EXPOSURE FOR FAILING
TO SAFEGUARD THE LEGITIMATE
EXPECTATIONS AND RIGHTS OF
OTHERS.
THE COMMISSION IS CONFIDENT IN
ITS ABILITY TO DEMONSTRATE THAT
ITS MEMBERS AND STAFF.
IT BUT ITS MEMBERS AND STAFF
HAVE BEEN GOOD STEWARDS OF THE
STATE'S BONDS.
EVEN WHEN OPERATING ON A REDUCED
BUDGET FOR MANY YEARS.
SINCE.
SINCE GAINING BUT IT BUDGET
INDEPENDENCE IN NINETEEN NINETY
FIVE THE COMMISSION HAS RETURNED
MORE THAN FIVE POINT TWO MILLION
DOLLARS COULD TO THE GENERAL
FUND.
AND I HAVE LOVED BREAKDOWN OF
EACH OF THEM FISCAL YEAR FROM.
OP FROM BAND TO TOOK PRESIDENT
TOOK SHOWS TO SHOW THE AMOUNTS
RETURNED IN EACH BUDGET YEAR.
FOR NEARLY FIFTEEN YEARS THE
COMMISSION STAFF WAS REDUCED BY
TWENTY PERCENT TO MEET A SERIES
OF BUDGET CUTS.
TODAY THE COMMISSION CONTINUES
TO OPERATE WITH TEN PERCENT LESS
AGO.
ESPY INCREASES IN THE NUMBER OF
COMPLAINTS AND INVESTIGATIONS
THAT COMMISSION STAFF. THAT
COMMISSION STAFF HANDLES.
THIS AFFECTS THE COMMISSION'S
MISSION AND ITS ABILITY TO
RECRUIT AND RETAIN QUALIFIED
STAFF.
WE URGE THE COMMITTEE TO
MAINTAIN THE COMMISSION'S BUDGET
AT ITS CURRENT LEVEL TO SUPPORT
ITS MISSION AND TO PROTECT.
THE PUBLIC AND SAFEGUARD THE
INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY.
UP OF COURSE THE COMMISSION
WELCOMES ANY SUGGESTIONS THE
AUDITOR MAY HAVE AS TO HOW THE
COMMISSION CAN IMPROVE. ITS
EFFICIENCY GIVEN THE CONSTRAINTS
OF ITS BUDGET AND I JUST WANTED
TO A.
COMMENT ON.
.
THE PREVIOUS STATEMENT JUST A
LITTLE BIT ARM I WORRY WHEN
PEOPLE SAY OUR.
RECORDS THAT THE COMMISSION
DECIDES ARE CONFIDENTIAL AS IF
DOTS AND AT THAT IS A DECISION
MADE AD HOCIN ORDER TO. SAY
THAT CERTAIN RECORDS ARE
CONFIDENTIAL IN CERTAIN ARE NOT
IT'S WELL DEFINED THE RECORDS
THAT ARE CONFIDENTIAL COMPLAINTS
FROM THE PUBLIC ARE
CONFIDENTIAL.
INVESTIGATIONS ARE CONFIDENTIAL
IF ARM IF A JUDGE'S CHARGED WITH
ETHICAL VIOLATIONS IN FORMAL
PROCEEDINGS THE CHARGES ARE
PUBLIC AND ALL DOCUMENTS FILED
AFTER THAT OUR PUBLIC SO IT'S
NOT A DEFINITION. THAT IS USED
FOR HIDE THINGS IT IT'S COOLEY
YEAR AND.
AND IT'S AND IT'S SOMETHING
THAT HAS BEEN WELL DEFINED FOR A
LONG TIME ON HIM AND IS NOT
SOMETHING THAT IS DONE ON A AND
ON AN AD HOC BASIS IN AN ATTEMPT
TO.
HIDE THINGS OF MY GOING ON FOR
QUITE A WHILE I'M HERE WITH.
.
TWO COMMISSION MEMBERS ERICA YOU
WHO IS A JUDICIAL NUMBER OF THE
COMMISSION AND ALSO MARY LOU OUR
ANGER AND WHO IS A PUBLIC MEMBER
OF THE COMMISSION AS WELL AS. OF
MY COLLEAGUE.
JANICE PRICKLY WHO IS THE LEGAL
ADVISER TO THE COMMISSION CAT
WILL BE GOING TO FURTHER ONE
ESTABLISH A QUORUM.
WEBER HERE.
JONES SAWYER.
LACKEY HERE MOMENTOUS.
STONE.
FIND PERFORMANCE BUT ESTABLISH
OKAY IT COULD GET REALLY HAVING
OF THE COMMENTS FROM THOSE OF
YOU YES YES IF YOU HAVE TIME MY
NAME'S ERICA YOU I'M A JUDGE IN
SANTA CLARA COUNTY AND I'M A.
FORMER CHAIR OF THE COMMISSION
AND ALSO STILL SIT ON THE
COMMISSION.
I HAVE JUST SOME BRIEF COMMENTS
A WING WE KNOW THAT THE
PERCEPTION IS THAT THE
COMMISSION IS SECRETIVE AND. YOU
KNOW EVERYTHING IS DONE IN
CONFIDENTIALITY AND THAT THE
CONFIDENTIALITY SEEKS TO PROTECT
THE BENCH OFFICERS WHO ARE BEING
INVESTIGATED. BUT ACTUALLY THE
CURRENT SYSTEM OF
CONFIDENTIALITY IS A BALANCE IT
PROTECTS THE COMPLAINANTS
WITNESSES AS WELL AS THOSE
ACCUSED OF MISCONDUCT.
AND THE.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THIS
BALANCE SHOWS THAT THIS WAS
DEEPLY CONSIDERED AND THOUGHT
ABOUT BY THE LEGISLATURE BYTHE
COURT BY EMPLOYERS THE BAR. AND
BY THE PUBLIC WHEN THEY PASSED
PROPOSITION ONE NINETY IN
NINETEEN NINETY FIVE SO IT'S NOT
REALLY JUST THE COMMISSION
COMING UP WITH SOMETHING OUT OF
THIN AIR THIS WAS. YOU KNOW THE
CONCEPT CONFIDENTIALITY IS TRULY
IMPORTANT.
THERE'S.
IT'S EVEN SUCH A CONCEPT
RECOGNIZED BY THE UNITED STATES
SUPREME COURT THERE'S ACTUALLY
ONE STATE IN THE IN THE COUNTRY
THAT DOESN'T GIVE
CONFIDENTIALITY TO COMPLAINANTS
AND THAT'S THE STATE OF ALABAMA.
WOULD HAPPEN IS FORMER CHIEF
JUSTICE ROY MOORE INSTITUTED A
RULE THAT WAS PUNITIVE TO TRY TO
FIND OUT ABOUT WHO COMPLAIN
ABOUT HIM AND HE MADE IT
RETROACTIVE ANY DID NOT SEND IT
OUT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
SO IN IN THAT STATE THERE IS NO
CONFIDENTIALITY THE ABA STUDY
THAT SIT AND FOUND THAT THE
WHOLE SYSTEM IS NOW A MASS.
WHAT HAPPENED IS LAW
ENFORCEMENT REFUSES TO WORK THAT
COMMISSION IN THAT STATE NOW
BECAUSE THEY CAN'T PROTECT THE
IDENTITY OF VICTIMS? OF JUDICIAL
MISCONDUCT.
AND COMPLAINANTS
ERRORS IN A MISSION CARRIERS
WHO.
PROVIDE LEGAL MALPRACTICE
INSURANCE FOR LAWYERS ADVICE THE
ALABAMA STATE BAR AND ALL THE
LAWYERS WHO PRACTICE THERE THAT
EVER IF EVER A LAWYER COMPLAIN
ABOUT ANY PARTICULAR JUDGE
BECAUSE THAT'S NOT ALL PUBLIC.
THAT LAWYER AND THAT LAWYERS LAW
FIRM HAS TO ADVISE THAT LAW FIRM
IN THAT LAWYERS ALL THEIR
CLIENTS EVEN ONE UP BEFORE THE
JUDGE. THAT THAT LAWYER MADE A
COMPLAINT SO TO SUCH A CHILLING
EFFECT.
AND PRESIDING JUDGES IN
SUPERVISING JUDGES IN ALABAMA
AND COURT STAFF NO LONGER FILE
COMPLAINTS ABOUT JUDGES BECAUSE
THERE'S TOO MUCH FEAR OF
RETRIBUTION. AND THAT WHAT WE
FOUND IN TWENTY YEARS OF LOOKING
AT COMMISSION DATA IS THAT
THERE'S A VERY HIGH CORRELATION
BETWEEN COMPLAINTS MADE BY
JUDGES AND COURT STAFF AND
CALIFORNIA. AN ACTUAL DISCIPLINE
GIVEN TO BENCH OFFICERS AND
THAT'S BECAUSE.
THOSE PEOPLE KNOW WHAT THE CA
CANNONS REQUIRE OF US JUDGES IN
TERMS OF BEING ETHICAL. AND
THERE THEY HERE VARIED THERE
EVERY DAY SO THEY SEE IT AND SO
IT'S A VERY IMPORTANT I THINK TO
PROTECT THOSE PEOPLE'S
CONFIDENTIALITY. PARTICULARLY
BECAUSE A LOT OF THOSE PEOPLE
STILL WORKING COURT HOUSES WHERE
THE JUDGES STILL SET. AND SO MY
COLLEAGUE MS AYE AIRING DURING
WILL TALK ABOUT SORT OF THE
PERSPECTIVE OF COMPLAINANTS AND
COURT EMPLOYEES.
OKAY.
BIT.
GOOD AFTERNOON MARY LOU ANGER
AND I'M A CERTIFIED SPANISH
INTERPRETER HAVE WORKED IN THE
COURT SYSTEM IN COURTS ALL OVER
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA FOR TWENTY
SIX YEARS. ANIMAL SO PRESIDENT
ELECT OF THE CALIFORNIA
FEDERATION OF INTERPRETERS I
JUST WANTED TO ADD A LITTLE BIT
OF BUT MORE PERSONAL
PERSPECTIVE.
AS SOMEONE WHO HAS BEEN IN THE
COURT SYSTEM ND REPRESENTS
COURT EMPLOYEES.
I HAVE PERSONALLY EXPERIENCED
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT AND WORKED
WITH OTHER WORKERS AS A WIN I'VE
WITNESSED IT AND I'M A PUBLIC
MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION I'VE
SERVED ON THE COMMISSION FOR
SEVEN YEARS.
AND I JUST WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT
THAT I'VE REALLY SEEN HOW
INTIMIDATED PEOPLE ARE AT THE.
REAL A KIND OF AWESOME POWER
THAT JUDGES HOLD AND THEY THE
AUTHORITY THAT THEY HOLD SO OF
COURT WORKERS. ARE WORKING IN
COURTROOMS WHERE JUDGES ARE
DOING THEIR JOB AND TO. YOU KNOW
HAVE THIS POWER AND THEY'RE ALSO
TO THEIR EMPLOYERS AND SO I'VE
SEEN.
COURT WORKERS WHO ARE SUBJECTED
TO SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND ARE TOO
AFRAID TO REPORT IT TO THE COURT
ADMINISTRATION OR IN SOME CASES
EVEN HAVE NOT BEEN PROTECTED BY
THE COURT ADMINISTRATION. AND
IT'S BEEN THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF
THE C. JP'S COMPLAINT PROCESS
AND INVESTIGATIONS THAT HAS MADE
THESE WORKERS FEEL CONFIDENT AND
SAFE REALLY TO STEP FORWARD AND
SPEAK OUT ABOUT THE PROBLEMS
THAT THEY WITNESS EITHER
THEMSELVES OR. WITH OTHER
WORKERS OR WITH LITIGANTS AND
WITH THE PUBLIC
SO I JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU
THAT PERSPECTIVE THAT OF THE
CONFIDENTIALITY IS A VERY REAL.
AN IMPORTANT FACTOR IN THIS CGP
PROCESS THANK YOU.
IT DID YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS.
YOU'RE VERY VERY BRIGHT ARE
WHICH IS MY MY NAME IS JANICE
PRICKLY AND THE LEGAL ADVISER TO
THE COMMISSIONERS I THINK THE
LEGAL POINTS HAVE BEEN COVERED
BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE TWO
BRIEF COMMENTS. FROM THE
PERSPECTIVE OF STAFFS ARM OF THE
COMMISSION ONE IS THAT. BEFORE I
WAS HIRED AS THE LEGAL ADVISER I
WORK IS INVESTIGATING ATTORNEY.
AND I CAN TELL YOU FIRSTHAND
THAT WHEN I WOULD CALL WITNESSES
OR EVEN COMPLAINANTS TO GET
INFORMATION ABOUT THE CASE THEY
WERE VERY OFTEN RELUCTANT TO
TALK UNTIL THEY WERE ASSURED.
THAT THEIR STATEMENTS WOULD
REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND LESS THE
CASE WENT TO FORMAL PROCEEDING
WHICH IS VERY VERY SMALL
PERCENTAGE OF THE CASES.
HE'S OFTEN ATTORNEYS WHO
CONTINUE TO APPEAR BEFORE THESE
JUDGES.
COURT STAFF AS WAS MENTIONED AND
LED AGAINST WHAT I'M GOING
CASES.
THE OTHER BRIEF POINT I WANT TO
MAKE IS THAT.
STAFF IN OUR OFFICE WORKS VERY
VERY HARD THEY HAVE HEAVY
CASELOADS.
A HOT DAY ARE COMMITTED TO THE
MISSION OF THE COMMISSION WHICH
IS TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC
MAINTAIN PUBLIC TRUST AND
CONFIDENCE IN THE INTEGRITY OF
JUDICIARY.
AND.
ANY CUT IN OUR BUDGET WOULD
NECESSARILY MEAN MUCH HEAVIER
CASELOADS BACKLOG DELAY WHICH OF
COURSE MEANS IT WOULD HINDER THE
COMMISSION'S ABILITY. TO PROTECT
THE PUBLIC
THANK YOU.
NO I DIDN'T HAVE REQUEST.
THIS WAS THE STONE.
THANK YOU.
HERE'S THE DILEMMA.
THE QUESTION REALLY IS AND.
WHETHER NOT.
WE AGREE THAT THE RECORDS ARE TO
BE HELD CONFIDENCE.
THE QUESTIONS WHETHER.
THE AUDITOR.
PERFORMING A FUNCTION ASKED BY
THE LEGISLATURE.
WILL HOLD THOSE RECORDS
CONFIDENTIAL
AND THE OUTER SAYING YES THEY
WELL.
AND THAT'S SO THAT'S NOT
SOMETHING THAT.
SHOULD VIOLATE.
YOUR OBLIGATIONS OF OF
CONFIDENTIALITY AND THAT'S THE
PIECE THAT REALLY ULTIMATELY
NEEDS TO GET WORKED OUT HERE.
AND UNFORTUNATELY WE ARE IN THE
EDUCATION AND FORTUNATELY IT MAY
TAKE US AWHILE TO GET TO SOME
RESOLUTION AND IN THE MEANTIME.
THE LEGISLATURE.
AND WE.
WE TAKE AR OVERSIGHT OBLIGATION
VERY VERY SERIOUSLY
AND WE DO THAT A COUPLE OF WAYS
AND ONE OF THE WAYS WE DO THAT
IS ASKING THE AUDITOR TO GO IN
AND AUDIT. NOT JUST THE
FINANCIALS BUT THE FUNCTION OF
ORGANIZATION THIS HAPPENS TIME
AND TIME AGAIN THEY ACTUALLY CAN
HOLD THINGS CONFIDENTIAL WEARS
IF WE'RE DOING IT IT'S NOT HELD.
SO WE DO OVERSIGHT HEARINGS.
MY COMMITTEE OR HERE THROUGH THE
BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE.
WE CAN ASK PEOPLE TO COME IN AND
TALK ABOUT THE PROCESS.
SO.
FOR US TO WEIGH IN ON A BUDGET
ONE OF THE THINGS WE WANT TO
UNDER.
IS.
HOW WOULD ORGANIZATIONS
FUNCTIONING?
WHAT THE INTERNAL RULES ARE?
HOW DO RESPONSIVE THEY ARE OR
AREN'T IN SOME OF THE CONCERNS
THAT ARE RAISED BY THE PUBLIC?
AND.
NOT WANTING TO BREAK THE
CONFIDENTIALITY AGAIN THAT'S NOT
WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT HERE BUT
THERE HAVE BEEN.
YOU DESCRIBED ALABAMA WHERE
THERE'S NO TRUST ACCOUNTANTS IN
THE SYSTEM WE KEEP HEARING I
KEEP HEARING. CONCERNS ABOUT HOW
SEE JP IS IS FUNCTIONING AND AND
I FEEL THAT THAT'S OUR
RESPONSIBILITY TO TO FERRET OUT
AND FIGURE OU WHAT'S REAL
WHAT'S NOT REAL. AND HOW WE DO
THAT IT WOULD AND YES WE ARE.
SEPARATE YOUR GOVERNMENT
AND SO WE WE WOULD HAVE TO PASS
LAWS TO THE EXTENT WE CAN OR
SEEK CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES TO
THE EXTENT THAT THAT WE CAN'T IF
WE THOUGHT THERE WAS. AN ISSUE
THAT WE NEED IT TO RESOLVE BUT
WHAT WE'RE REALLY GOING TO DO IS
FIGURE OUT WHERE THE ISSUES ARE.
AND THAT'S WHY WE ASK THE
AUDITOR TO GO DO THAT FUNCTION.
AND I WORRY THAT THE LAWSUIT.
AND EVERY SIDES AND TELL ME WHAT
WE'RE RIGHT WE'RE RIGHT.
TEN CHILE.
AND FLICKS OR INFRINGES ON OUR
ABILITY TO DO OUR OVERSIGHT
FUNCTION AND AND GO GET
INFORMATION.
SO I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO FIGURE
OUT HOW WE CAN GET THE
INFORMATION THAT WE NEED THROUGH
THE OUTER.
HOLD IT CONFIDENTIAL SO THAT
YOU'RE SATISFIED THAT THAT THE
THE NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES OF
GETTING INFORMATION OUT THE
PUBLIC MARKET HAPPEN.
LET US POTENTIALLY FROM EITHER
POLICIES EMPLOYED AND OR BUDGET
STANDPOINT. REVIEW AND LOOK AT.
THE SYSTEM THAT
TGP USES TO HOLD JUDGES
ACCOUNTABLE THAT'S VERY VERY
IMPORTANT PART OF EVERYTHING
THAT WE DO.
AND IN THE MEANTIME BE ABLE TO
MAKE.
LEGITIMATE BUDGET.
DECISIONS THAT.
THAT GET YOU THE MONEY THE
RESOURCES TO GO DO THE FUNCTION
THAT THAT YOU NEED TO BEFORE.
THAT SORT OF WHERE WE ARE AND IF
WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO WAIT NOW A
COUPLE YEARS I THINK THAT'S CAN
BE VERY FRUSTRATING.
FOR EVERYBODY IF THIS ENDS UP
WITH OUR WITH.
PUTTING SOME LIMITS.
ON OUR ABILITY TO PERFORM
OVERSIGHT FUNCTION.
THE COURTS DECIDE THAT THE
COURTS DECIDE THAT BUT IT WILL
NOT GO VERY WELL WITH OUR
CONSTITUENTS.
WHO ARE ASKING US TO
PERFORMANCE?
WE'RE COMING OUT OF A HORT TERM
LIMITED ERA AND I THINK THE
ASSEMBLY ESPECIALLY HAD NOT
REALLY DONE ITS JOB FOR A LONG
TIME.
WITH THAT OVERSIGHT OBLIGATION.
THOSE OF US HERE NOW HAVE A
LITTLE LONGER HORIZON AND ARE
TRYING TO TAKE SOME OF THAT
SERIOUSLY SO WE'RE LEARNING.
WHICH AND FIGURE OUT HOW WE DO
OUR JOBS NOT JUST PASSED BILLS
WHICH OF WE IF NOTHING ELSE TO
DO WE'RE GONNA PASSED BILLS AND
WE DO THAT AD NAUSEUM AND WE
PASS BILLS THAT DON'T.
ALWAYS MAKE MUCH SENSE BUT.
BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE DO WHEN
WE DON'T OR OVERSIGHT THAN THEY
WERE SORT OF LEAVING BEHIND PART
OF PART OF OUR OBLIGATION.
SO I'M REALLY HOPING THAT
THERE'S.
A PATH HERE.
THAT WE CAN GET SOME OF THOSE
QUESTIONS ALL.
BUT FOR US TO BE ABLE TO DO IN
THIS IS A BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE SO
FOR US TO BUILD TO A BUDGET WE
DO NEED.
TO HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING
OF THE CHALLENGES.
THAT YOU FACE.
BUDGET RESOURCE CHALLENGES BUT
FUNCTIONS HOW THINGS WORK HOW
THINGS AREN'T WORKING.
SO THAT WE CAN MAKE DECISIONS OF
WHETHER WE THINK THAT'S GOOD BAD
DIFFERENT AYE I DON'T REALLY
KNOW IT THIS.
AND.
DON'T WANT OPEN UP SOMETHING
THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO OPEN UP.
BUT I ONE UNDERSTAND WHAT WE FEW
WE WE SHOULD.
AND SO THAT'S OUR CHALLENGE
HERE.
AND THE THE AUDITOR'S PERFORMING
THEIR FUNCTION BECAUSE WE ASK
THEM.
AND THAT'S SORT OF A NORMAL WAY
FOR US TO DO IT AND.
BEFORE GONNA FIGHT OVER SEPARATE
BRANCHES OF FOR UNIFIED OVER
AUTHORITIES YOU KNOW THAT'S ALL
WELL AND GOOD. BY THAT LEAVES US
WITH OUT MUCH TO WORK WITH AS WE
TRY TO MAKE DECISIONS WHEN
WHERE.
DECIDING. HOW TO HOW TO FUND
THINGS HOW DO YOU OUR
PERSPECTIVE ON WHAT'S HAPPENING
AND THAT'S THAT'S NOT A THREAT?
OTHER BECAUSE I THINK WE'RE
GONNA HOPEFULLY TAKE YOUR BUDGET
BUDGET REQUESTS AT FACE VALUE.
BUT I'M ASKING FOR HELP.
HELP US BETTER UNDERSTAND
YOUR FUNCTIONS
HOW YOU WORK.
ASIDE SO THAT WE CAN FIGURE OUT
WHAT.
WHERE CONTROVERSY IS OR ISN'T
AND?
AND SO NOW YOU'RE LITIGANTS AND
YOU'RE GOING TO FIGHT THAT OUT
IN THAT.
THAT MAKES OUR JOB A WHOLE LOT
HARDER HERE.
TRY TO SORT THIS THROW.
SO THAT'S
I DON'T NO WHERE THIS LEAVES US
SHORT TERM MAYBE WE HAVE TO WAIT
FOR THIS THING NOW TO BE
RESOLVED IN COURT I AM I HAD
HEARD BEEN DISAPPOINTED SUPREME
COURT DID TAKE THIS UP AS I
THOUGHT. THAT WOULD BE A FASTER
PATH TO RESOLUTION. OF THESE
QUESTIONS AND GET US TO PUT THIS
THIS ULTIMATELY BEHIND US
BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE
TO ASK QUESTIONS OF THE JUDICIAL
BRANCH JUST AS WE DO OF THE
EXECUTIVE BRANCH. THEIR LITTLE
MORE YOU DON'T LIKE IT EITHER
BUT THERE THE MORE USE TO US
PERFORMING SOME OF THAT FUNCTION
AND WE GET GOOD ANSWERS AND WE
HAVE. BUILT GOOD RELATIONSHIPS
AND I AM BOUND AND DETERMINED TO
BUILD AND MAINTAIN A GOOD
RELATIONSHIP WITH THE JUDICIAL
GRADS RECOGNIZING.
SEPARATE CO EQUAL BRANCH OF
GOVERNMENT.
AS ARE WEAK AND AND WE HAVE OUR
OBLIGATIONS OF.
LEGISLATION YES BUT OVERSIGHT.
GETTING QUESTIONS RAISED GETTING
QUESTIONS ANSWERED AND FIGURING
IT OUT
AND WE EITHER DO THAT OPEN
HEARINGS LIKE THIS.
WE DO IT THROUGH THE AUDITOR
WHICH
CAN'T HOLD INFORMATION
A LITTLE BIT MORE CONFIDENTIAL.
OR WERE SORT OF LEFT NOT KNOWING
QUITE WHAT TO DO.
SO MY PLEA IS
LET'S FIND A WAY TO RESOLVE THIS
LET'S BY THE WAY TO GET MOVING
FOR LET'S GET THE INFORMATION.
INTO THE LEGISLATIVE CONTACTS
PROTECT THE INFORMATION IS
CONFIDENTIAL.
AND IF WE DISAGREE WITH THAT
THAT'S A WHOLE OTHER SUBJECT WE
CAN HAVE CONVERSATION AROUND.
BUT HOW WE GET THE INFORMATION
THAT WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE
FUNCTION OF OF THE C. JP AND
THEN EITHER DEFEND WHAT YOU DO.
WHICH I'D BE HAPPY TO DO.
TO THE EXTENT I UNDERSTAND IT OR
SEEK POLICY CHANGES.
THAT ADDRESS
LEGITIMATE COMPLAINTS THAT THAT
ULTIMATELY BE MAYBE REYES. BUT
AS A POLICYMAKER EVEN SITTING ON
OF BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE HERE HAD
I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH ALL
THIS.
AND I'M FRUSTRATED HAVING
TWO WAY BUT EVEN IF WE WAIT A
COUPLE YEARS ALSO BE HERE.
AS ARE WILL STILL BE HERE SO WE
HAVE THE CHANCE TO GET THERE BUT
SO WE'LL GET THERE EVENTUALLY
BUT LET'S GET THERE. FIND A WAY
TO GET THERE SOONER RATHER THAN
LATER.
TONY COMES MISTER LACKEY.
ON SOME.
SO HOPE YOU UNDER MISTER STONE
WAS VERY ELOQUENT AND SHARING
WITH YOU THE DILEMMA WE FACE ARE
AS WE TALK ABOUT.
OF C. JP AND AND WE'VE HAD
SOMETIMES SIMILAR ISSUES OF
FOLKS NINE ONE TO SHARE
INFORMATION AND OWN WE DID A LOT
GANG LIST WE ALMOST HAVE TO GO
TO COURT ON THAT.
BUT IT IT BUT THE.
THE AUDITORS ARE ARE I REALLY.
IS IT DOG REALLY AN ARM OF US IN
TERMS OF BEING ABLE TO GET THE
INFORMATION WE NEED. OF KNOWING
THAT THEY AND NONE OF US DOUBT
THE ROLE OF EUROPE OF
CONFIDENTIALITY. WITH REGARDS TO
WHY YOU WANT TO KEEP CERTAIN
THINGS CONFIDENTIAL THAT'S
IMPORTANT. BUT THE AUDITORS ARE
ALSO INDIVIDUAL SWORN TO SOME
LEVEL OF SICK OF PRIVACY AND
CONFIDENTIALITY AND HANDLING THE
MATERIAL THAT'S THERE. ARE IN
ORDER FOR US TO GET.
THE PERSPECTIVE WE NEED ON HOW
THINGS OPERATE I THINK THE THIS
ALL UP COMMISSIONS EXIST AND
CERTAIN SINCE WHAT SIXTY ONE OF
SOMETHING. AND YOU NOT HAVE AN
AUDIT DONE AT ALL.
AND TO HAVE INTERNAL AUDITS OF
THE WORDS YOU ARE ADDING
YOURSELF WE FOUND THAT DOES
DOESN'T WORK WELL I MEAN YOU
HAVE TO HAVE. SOME OUTSIDE
PERSPECTIVE WITH REGARD TO THE
INFORMATION IS THERE NOW I KNOW
THAT THE ALL MEMBERS OF THE C.
JP CAN ALWAYS VOTE TO AMEND THE
RULES IN ORDER TO ALLOW.
THIS STATE AUDITOR'S TO
BASICALLY LOOK AT THAT THE
MATERIAL RULE ONE OUT TO MY
UNDERSTANDING I WAS TOLD.
AND I'M NOT SURE IF YOU IF THE
AS IT IS AN ORGANIZATION ONE
EVEN DISCUSS THAT AS WITH THE
NOT THAT WOULD BE. A AN OPTION
AVAILABLE TO ALL TOO MANY RULES
WE ALSO KNOW THAT THE JUDICIAL
COUNCILS AMENDING THE RULES AS
WELL TEN. A TEN POINT FIVE TO
DISCLOSE PAYMENTS MADE BY. THE
JUDICIAL COUNCIL TO SETTLE
SEXUAL HARASSMENT CASES SO THERE
ARE AMENDMENTS THAT DO EXIST IN
AND AND AND.
.
IN THIS SO IT ARENA AND I WOULD
IMAGINE HAVING NEVER BEEN ASKED
TO DO AN AUDIT IN WHAT'S IN
SIXTY ONE. WHICH IS A VERY LONG
TIME.
WHAT ALMOST FIFTY YEARS BECAUSE
IT'S BEEN IN EXISTENCE FIFTY
YEARS OF FIFTY YEARS NEVER
HAVING AN AUDIT PROBLEM NOBODY
ASKED TO? WEAR THE RULES.
APPROPRIATE FOR EVERY ENTITY
THAT ASK THAT NEEDS TO HAVE
ACCESS TO DATA THAT OBVIOUSLY
YOU HAVE ACCESS TO ALL THAT YOU
HAVE.
SO THAT'S ONE OF OUR OUR ISSUES
MEGA SAID IN AND AND THE
JUDICIAL COUNCIL IS AMENDING ITS
RULESBECAUSE THIS OTHER PIECE
IN TERMS OF PAYMENTS. THAT WENT
OUT ON ISSUES OF SEXUAL
HARASSMENT THAT TRADITIONALLY
WOULD NOT BE MADE AVAILABLE TO
THE PUBLIC SO. EVEN THOUGH YOU
HAVE THIS.
A RULE CONFIDENTIALITY WHICH I
THOROUGHLY UNDERSTAND AND WOULD
NOT WANT YOU NOT TO HAVE IT.
HAVING NEVER BEEN ASKED TO DO
AN AUDIT YOU PROBABLY NEVER HAVE
THE OPPORTUNITY EVEN THINK ABOUT
IT.
AND.
AFTER FIFTY SOME ODD YEARS OF
TO THINK ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS IF
SOMEONE IN A LEGITIMATE POSITION
LIKE THE LEGISLATURE THAT
BASICALLY IS OVERSIGHT BODY. OF
THAT FUNDS ALL OF THESE THINGS
THAT WE HAVE WE OFTEN CALL
FOUGHT IT'S ALMOST EVERYTHING WE
DO. A NOW BECAUSE OF THE FACT
pMUCH MORE.
A RESPONSIVE TO THE ISSUES THAT
PEOPLE MAKE WHEN TRYING TO COME
WATCH OR SPONSORED TO THE BUDGET
THAT THEY REQUEST AND MAKE YOU
SHOULD NOT THAT WE CUT BUDGETS
WOULD BE IF WE CAN AUGMENT
BUDGETS AND GOOD TIMES. IT'S
IMPORTED DO THAT TO YOU YOU
MENTION THAT YOU'VE GOT A
BACKLOG A YOU'VE BEEN CUT TEN
PERCENT.
HAVE A BACKLOG OF CASES MAY NOW
BE IMPORTANT FOR US TO KNOW OF A
IF WHETHER NOT TO AND AND IT
LOOKS LIKE YOUR AVERAGE IS
ABOUT.
NINETY SOME ODD PERCENT I THINK
IN THE REPORT FATHER EITHER
CLOSED AFTER INITIAL REVIEW A
CLOSE WITH THAT THIS POSITION.
AFTER INVESTIGATION SO I'M NOT
AND I ASSUME THAT'S A GOOD THING
I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S GOOD OR BAD
OF ME WE OFTEN HAVE. FOLKS WHO.
WOULD HAVE THESE HIGH NUMBERS
IN THOSE NOT GOOD NUMBERS.
AND BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT.
YOU HAVE NINETY SIX PERCENT OF
THE COMPLAINTS BEING FILED.
HAVING NO RESOLUTION TO A MORE
NEEDS NO ONE NO ACTION TAKEN BY
IN THAT SAME SET SO.
HAS YOUR ORGANIZATION THOUGHT
ABOUT WAVING THE RULES I SHOULD
GUESS I SHOULD ASK ALL SINCE YOU
HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO THAT.
JUST A.
JUST BRIEFLY MADAM CHAIR
BUT THERE THERE IS AN ISSUE WITH
THE STATUTORY SCHEME ABOUT THE
CONFIDENTIALITY OF RECORDS. ONCE
THEY'RE IN THE HANDS OF THE
AUDITOR. AND SECTION EIGHTY FIVE
FORTY FIVE ARM OF THE GOVERNMENT
CODE STATES THAT.
RECORDS IN THE HANDS OF THE
AUDITOR ARE PUBLIC RECORDS AND
EIGHTY FIVE FORTY FIVE C. TALKS
ABOUT. DOCUMENTS THAT ARE
SUBJECT TO DISCLOSURE BUT
DOCUMENTS THAT ARE USED IN
RELIED UPON FOR REPORTS THAT THE
AUDITOR. R. RENDERS ARE SUBJECT
ARE SUBJECT TO.
.
DISCLOSURE THROUGH.
THROUGH RECORD REQUESTS UNDER
THE PUBLIC RECORDS ACT
AND SO EVEN IT AND I WOULD SAY
THAT THIS IS AN AT BEST
AMBIGUOUS. AND THEN WOULD PUT
CONFIDENTIAL RECORDS IN THE
HANDS OF THE AUDITOR AT RISK OF
REQUEST AND DISCLOSURE PURSUANT
TO THE PUBLIC RECORDS ACT SO.
THAT WHAT THE COMMISSION NEEDS
IS IT NEED CERTAINTY THAT ALL
CONFIDENTIAL RECORDS IN THE
HANDS OF AUDITOR COULD REMAIN
CONFIDENTIAL. AND THEN.
AND AND ALONG WITH THAT YES
THE THERE COULD BE ARE AT IT AN
AMENDMENT TO RULE ONE NO TWO BUT
THOSE TWO THINGS WOULD HAVE TO
GO TOGETHER.
MADAM CHAIR IF I MONEY.
IT'S ARMS.
DOES IT THAT'S IT TO TO GET THAT
AT THE END OF.
WHEN YOU GET TOO MUCH IN IN THE
BACK AND FORTH BUT THIS IS A
VERY IMPORTANT POINT AND I THINK
THE AUDITOR CAN HELP. EXPLAIN
AND I DON'T NOT SURE THAT.
THE RULES NEED TO BE CHANGED I
THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE A COMMON
UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT. DIRECT
PUBLIC RECORDS ACT.
REQUIRES WHAT SOME THE
EXEMPTIONS ARE BECAUSE
OTHERWISE.
THE OTTER COULD NOT PERFORM
THEIR FUNCTION THAT WE ASK THEM
TO ON A REGULAR BASIS IS WE'RE
NOT.
IN
INSTRUCTING THE AUDITOR TO GO
GET RECORDS WHETHER IT'S FROM
TGP OR ANYBODY ELSE IN ORDER TO
VIOLATE CONFIDENTIALITY OR MAKE
RECORDS.
PUBLIC THAT WOULDN'T OTHERWISE
BE PUBLIC THAT'S THAT'S NOT IN
THE INTEREST OF THE LEGISLATURE
OR ANYONE HERE AND SO YEAH FOR
ME I THINK THESE MECHANISMS
EXIST OUT LIKE TO GET THE
AUDITOR TO RESPOND.
THANK YOU OF THEY ABSOLUTELY
EXIST EIGHTY FIVE FORTY FIVE
POINT TO THE GOVERNMENT CODE
MAKES IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR. THAT
HANDING US CONFIDENTIAL RECORDS
OR PRIVILEGED RECORDS DOES NOT
CONSTITUTE A WAIVER OF
CONFIDENTIALITY OR PRIVILEGE.
AB FIVE FORTY FIVE POINT TWO
MAKES IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR AS
WELL THAT WE STAND IN THE SHOES
OF OUR ODDITY WHICH MEANS THAT
FOR PURPOSES OF ACCESS WE ARE
JUST LIKE ANY OF YOU. AND WE
HAVE A COMPANION DUTY TO PROTECT
THAT INFORMATION THE SAME WAY
THAT YOU DO. THEREFORE IF WE GOT
US A SUPER REQUEST FOR YOUR
CONFIDENTIAL RECORDS.
FIRST THING THAT WOULD WE WOULD
DO IF WE DIDN'T ALREADY KNOW THE
RECORDS WERE CONFIDENTIAL IS TO
COMPARE WITH YOU TO MAKE SURE
THAT THE RECORDS IN QUESTION.
CAN BE RELEASED
AND IF NOT WE WOULD ASSERT BE
EXEMPTIONS UNDER THE LAW ALL
THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO US TO
PROTECT THOSE THAT THAT
INFORMATION WE WOULD INVITE YOU
TO PARTICIPATE AS THE REAL PARTY
OF INTEREST IN THE EVENT THAT WE
WERE SUED.
WE OBTAIN THOUSANDS OF HIGHLY
SENSITIVE RECORDS AND PRIVILEGED
CONFIDENTIAL RECORDS EVERY
SINGLE YEAR THROUGHOUT THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA AT THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT LETTER LEVEL IN THE
JUDICIAL BRANCH AT THE STATE
GOVERNMENT LEVEL WE DO NOT
RELEASE CONFIDENTIAL RECORDS. WE
WOULD NOT RELEASE YOUR
CONFIDENTIAL RECORDS
WE COULDN'T IT WOULD BE A CRIME.
NOBODY WANTS COMMIT A CRIME
AGAINST AND JUDGE THIS VISION.
SO I.
I DON'T WANT THIS TO BE A FORM
TO GO BACK FOR THAT WITHIN CITY
I JUST WANTED TO GET THE TWO
PERSPECTIVES OUT THERE YEAH
BECAUSE THIS THIS IS.
THIS IS OUR FRUSTRATION IF WE
WANT TO COMPLETE OUR WORK OF
GETTING AN AUDIT DONE. BEING
ABLE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT SOME OF
THE CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN
RAISED ABOUT SEE JP WHETHER
THEY'RE REAL WHETHER THEY'RE NOT
REAL THAT THAT'S WHAT THIS
INVESTIGATION IS ABOUT AND
WHETHER. WE NEED TO WEIGH IN OR
NOT.
FOR ONE I'M NOT CONVINCED WE
NEED TO CHANGE THINGS.
I'M HOPING THAT.
ABSENT THE LAWSUIT I WOULD HOPE
THAT THE PARTIES COULD FIGURE
THIS OUT.
AND BUT BECAUSE A LAWSUIT IS
THERE. YOU ARE ALSO LITIGANTS
AND ACTING LIKE LITIGANTS AS AS
I WOULD EXPECT BUT THAT IS AND
WILL CONTINUE TO FRUSTRATE.
OUR GOAL HERE WHICH IS TO GET.
RELIABLE INFORMATION THIRD PARTY
INFORMATION THE AUDITOR.
ABOUT THAT THE WAY THAT CGP
OPERATES IN ORDER FOR US TO MAKE
BUDGETARY AND POLICY DECISIONS
ABOUT WHAT WHAT WE NEED TO WORRY
ABOUT AND NOT WORRY ABOUT.
SO OUR GOAL IS NOT TO VARIOUS.
OUR GOAL IS NOT TO.
FORCE YOU TO RELEASE RECORDS OF
PUBLIC IT SEE THAT THAT YOU
WOULD WANT.
NOT WHAT RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC.
OUR GOAL IS TO GET INFORMATION
WE FEW WE NEED IN ORDER TO MAKE
DECISIONS THAT THAT ARE BEFORE
US AND WHETHER IT'S BUDGETARY
DECISIONS.
WHICH IS HERE OR ITS POLICY
DECISIONS WHICH WOULD GO THROUGH
MY COMMITTEE SEPARATE FROM.
THIS THIS BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE
THAT'S.
THAT'S THE GOAL HERE AND SO WHAT
WE'RE ASKING.
WHAT I'M ASKING FELLOW SPEAK FOR
THE CHAIR WERE FOR OTHER MEMBERS
OF THIS COMMITTEE IS?
HOW DO WE GET THERE AND THE LOOK
FOR AN ANSWER RIGHT NOW BUT
THAT'S OUR? GOAL IS LET'S GET US
THERE.
LET'S FIGURE THIS OUT SO THAT WE
CAN DO OUR JOB.
AND LET'S SEE JP DO ITS JOB LET
THE ODDITY.
.
OKAY DO IN A PUBLIC COMMENTS ON
THIS MATTER OH BOY IT WE DO
GOOD.
GIVE US YOUR NAME AND YOU EACH
HAVE A MINUTE TO.
BUT THEN IF YOU WITHIN YOUR
POSITION AND WALKED.
MY NAME IS STEVE RUSSELL'S I'M A
LOCAL ATTORNEY.
MORE THAN THIRTY FIVE YEARS
WITH THE STATE BAR HERE IN
SACRAMENTO. AND I'VE BEEN THE
VICTIM OF ABUSE BY A LOCAL
JUDGE.
HE WAS EVENTUALLY SANCTIONED BY
THE C. JP.
BUT FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND.
THE STATEMENTS HE MADE TO THE
CPAP WERE NOT TRUTHFUL.
AND IF I HAD BEEN CALLED TO
TESTIFY WITH MY RECORD SHE WOULD
BEEN STRIPPED OF HIS ROPE. MANY
GROSS VIOLATIONS ON AT LEAST
FIVE OF MY CASES ALONE. MORE
THAN HALF A MILLION DOLLARS MY
WASTED TIME. FIFTEEN TWENTY
THOUSAND CASH OUT OF POCKET JUST
IN THOSE CASES.
I WISHED I TALKED TO A SYMBIOTIC
KP INVESTIGATORWAS TOLD WE
DON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO GO GET
COPIES OF THESE RECORDS OF THESE
CASES.
THAT LEAVES IT TO ME.
I DID I'M SINGLE PLAYER I DON'T
HAVE.
TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS OF
TRYING.
THE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
OF CASH OUT OF POCKET TO GO GET
CERTIFIED COPIES OF THESE
RECORDS
SO THAT I CAN EVEN PRESENTER
CASE IN THE C. JP.
AND THAT'S ONLY ONE JUDGE OF
SEVERAL THAT HAVE UNFORTUNATELY
BEEN INVOLVED WITH. ANOTHER
LOCAL JUDGE STILL SITTING TODAY
SCREAMED AT ME DURING A CHILD
SUPPORT HEARING INSTEAD.
I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE TRUTH.
TRUTH IS NOT RELEVANT IN MY
COURTROOM.
ALL I CARE ABOUT IS COMPROMISE
FOR EXPEDIENCY I BASE MY
DECISIONS ON WHO I BELIEVE IS
THE BEST LIAR.
I CHALLENGED HIM ON THIS WITH
SEVERAL ATTEMPTS TO DISQUALIFY
ME SAYS I DON'T REMEMBER IT.
WELL I DO HE COULD'VE SLAPPED ME
ACROSS THE FACE AND DOUGLAS
SHOCK.
MY BOTTOM LINE IS THAT.
FROM MY POINT OF VIEW THE CJ P.
NEEDS THE ABILITY TO CONDUCT
THESE VALID INVESTIGATIONS.
I COULD SUPPLY THEM WITH TEN OR
TWELVE CASES BUT THAT'S MY
PERSPECTIVE THANK YOU THANK YOU.
THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR RICK
SIMPSON.
A RECENT RETIRED ME FROM THE
LEGISLATURE ARM AND UP UNTIL
JANUARY IT WAS A PUBLIC MEMBER.
OF THE C. JP I WAS A SPEAKERS
APPOINTEE FOR ABOUT ONE HALF
YEARS.
AND SERVED AS ITS VICE CHAIR AND
IN TWENTY SEVENTEEN. I'M I THINK
MR STONE.
CAPTURED THE ESSENCE OF WHAT'S
GOING ON HERE.
THERE IS A FUNDAMENTAL.
PARENT CONFLICT WITH IN THE
GOVERNMENT CODE THAT THAT
GOVERNS THE CGP.
ARM THAT THE EIGHTY FIVE FORTY
FIVE POINT TO THE AUDITOR
REFERENCE SPEECH TO THE
INABILITY OF AUDIT STAFF THAT
THEY STAND THE SHOES OF THE
AGENCY.
ARM.
THE AGENCY IS NOT SUBJECT THE
SUBJECT IS NOT SUBJECT TO PUBLIC
RECORDS ACT WITH RESPECT THE
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.
AND THERE IS A THERE ARE THE
OTHER SECTION OF THE GOVERNMENT
CODE SAYS EXPLICITLY AS MR
DRESSER SAID. THAT ALL BOOKS
PAPERS RECORDS CORRESPONDENCE OF
THE OFFICE PERTAINING TO HIS
WORK ARE PUBLIC RECORD SUBJECT
TO THAN THE REFERENCE OF PUBLIC
RECORDS ACT.
THERE ARE FOUR EXCEPTIONS
IN THE CODE SECTION
NOT A PUSHED APPLY.
BJP'S TYPE RECORD SO THERE IS A
AN APPARENT.
CONFLICT BETWEEN THE THE
AUDITOR'S STAFF OBLIGATION TO
NOT DISCLOSE MATERIAL ON THE ONE
HAND VERSUS THE AGENCIES
OBLIGATIONS OF THE PUBLIC
RECORDS ACT TO TO PROVIDE
INFORMATION I THINK THAT'S.
THE THE
SOURCE OF A LOT OF THE CONFLICT.
AND I THINK OF WOULD CONCUR WITH
MISTER STONE THAT. RESOLVING
THAT.
NO OF DIFFERENCE OF VIEW ABOUT
WHAT THE GOVERNMENT CODE DOESN'T
DOESN'T REQUIRE.
IS IS WHAT WOULD WOULD HELP
MITNICK THIS MOVES ON THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON MADAM CHAIRPERSON
AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS MY NAME IS
KEVIN LITTLE I'M AN ATTORNEY
FROM FRESNO CALIFORNIA.
THE REASON I'M HERE TO SPEAK
TODAY IS BECAUSE I AM AND WHAT I
THINK IS A SOMEWHAT UNIQUE
POSITION THAT I HAVE
REPRESENTED.
A COMPLAINANT.
IN A MATTER PENDING WITH THE C.
JP AND I ALSO HAVE BEEN. IN
ANOTHER INSTANCE A POTENTIAL
WITNESS.
AND I CAN TELL YOU FROM BOTH
PERSPECTIVES THAT.
I IT IS A TERRIFYING EXPERIENCE.
TWO HALF TO PROVIDE INFORMATION
ARE REPRESENT SOMEONE.
WHO IS PROVIDED INFORMATION
REGARDING A JUDICIAL OFFICER
BECAUSE OF THE AWESOME POWER?
THAT JUDICIAL OFFICERS HOLE.
COMPLAINANTS.
PROVIDE WITHOUT TALKING ABOUT
ANY SPECIFIC CASE.
VERY DETAILED INFORMATION
TWO INVESTIGATORS
INCLUDING FINANCIAL INFORMATION
ALL HEALTH INFORMATION.
PHYSICAL HEALTH INFORMATION AND
OTHER INFORMATION TO HELP
SUBSTANTIATE THEIR COMPLAINTS.
THOSE COMPLAINANTS DO NOT WANT
TO.
BE TOLD.
THAT.
THERE INFORMATION WILL LIKELY
BE HELD CONFIDENTIAL.
IN RESPONSE TO A PUBLIC RECORDS
REQUEST
THEY DO NOT WANT TO BE TOLD.
THAT.
.
WHAT THE LIKELY OUTCOME OF
LITIGATION REGARDING SUCH
RECORDS IS THEY WANT TO BE TOLD
THAT THERE IS NO CHANCE?
THAT THEIR INFORMATION COULD BE
TURNED OVER.
I I CANNOT TELL YOU HAVING STOOD
IN ISSUES OF BOTH A POTENTIAL
WITNESS AND A REPRESENT OF OF
THE COMPLAINANT.
THE CHILLING EFFECT THAT WOULD
OCCUR.
I IF.
THERE WERE. NO ABSOLUTE LUKE
CONFIDENTIALITY THAT COULD NOT
BE REPRESENTED TO COMPLAINANTS
AND UNDER THE CURRENT STATE OF
THE LAW.
THERE SIMPLY IS NOT.
THANK YOU THINKING IF YOU.
HI MY NAME IS CONNIE VALENTINE
AND FROM CALIFORNIA PROTECTIVE
PARENTS ASSOCIATION. AND THE
TAXPAYER ALONG WITH CALIFANO THE
REST THE CALIFORNIA TAXPAYERS.
AND FUNDING THE CJ P. AND
FINDING THE PSA. AND FUNDING THE
LITIGATION AND I'M PUTTING THE
LEGISLATURE.
IT'S A LOT OF.
A LOT OF EMPLOYEES ON MY
PAYROLL.
I'M THE LEGISLATURE AS THE
ESTATE OF AUDIT THE CIVIC PETE.
BJP SUED THE BSA.
I THINK THAT SETS A DANGEROUS
PRECEDENT.
IT WAS ALARMING TO HERE TODAY.
ABOUT HOW FRIGHTENED EVERYONE IS
OF JUDGES
THAT ALARMS ME.
BUT IS A SOLUTION I'M THINKING
MAYBE BOTH PARTIES COULD GO TO
MEDIATE.
THANK YOU THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON MADAM CHAIR
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ON
KATHLEEN RUSSELL WITH THE CENTER
FOR JUDICIAL EXCELLENCE WE.
A WORD INITIALLY THE GROUP THAT
BROUGHT THIS AUDIT ALONG WITH
TWENTY ONE OTHER ORGANIZATIONS
THAT REPRESENT THE PUBLIC. SO I
DON'T WANT THAT TO GET LOST IN
TODAY'S DISCUSSION. THAT OWNS
ASCII YOU CALIFORNIA THE
CALIFORNIA PARTNERSHIP TO END
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND THEN
DOUBLE ACP. SACRAMENTO CHAPTER
AMONG OTHER GROUPS JOINED US IN
SAYING THAT THE PUBLIC NEEDS.
ACCOUNTABILITY AND ITS JUDICIAL
OVERSIGHT AGENCY.
AND THE C. JP MISSION IS TO
PROTECT THE PUBLIC AND YET AS
MADAM CHAIR POINTED OUT LESS
THAN FIVE PERCENT.
PUBLIC LITIGANT COMPLAINTS AND
UP IN ANY SORT OF JUDICIAL
DISCIPLINE.
THE C. JP IS DIRECTED MUCH TOO
FAR OVER THE FIFTY SIX YEARS OF
NOT BEING AUDITED. TO ITS
MISSION OF PROTECTING THE PUBLIC
IN. THAT NEEDS TO STOP AND JUST
TO.
WE ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF JUDICIAL
ARROGANCE AND OBFUSCATION IN TWO
THOUSAND NINE SENATOR LENO PUT
THROUGH AN AUDIT OF TO.
FAMILY COURT SACRAMENTO IN MARIN
COUNTY THE AUDITOR WAS KEPT FOR
TEN MONTHS FROM GETTING IN TO DO
HER JOB AND NOT AUDIT THEY HAD
TO THREATEN SUBPOENAS. IN ORDER
TO ACCESS THOSE RECORDS AND IT
WAS LATER DISCOVERED THAT THERE
WAS A MASSIVE SHREDDING PARTY
DURING THOSE TEN MONTHS.
THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL ACTUALLY
WROTE A REPORT.
BASICALLY SAYING IN RETROSPECT
THAT IT WAS ALL OKAY WITH THEM
THAT THESE DOCUMENTS WERE
DESTROYED AND THESE WERE. COURT
RECORDS THAT WERE ROUTINELY
SUBPOENAED IN ON LEGAL MATTERS
SO THERE'S A LONG HISTORY OF THE
JUDICIAL BRANCH HIDING AN
OBFUSCATING AND THIS NOTION
THAT.
YOU'RE TRYING TO PROTECT THE
PUBLIC IN THE CONFIDENTIALITY.
FLIES IN THE FACE OF THE LONG
HISTORY OF JUDICIAL.
YOU KNOW SECRECY THANK YOU
THANK YOU
YEAH.
I GOOD AFTERNOON MADAM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS I'M THOMAS A CURRY.
I'M A COLLEGE PROFESSOR OF
POLITICAL SCIENCE FROM SPEAKING
AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN TODAY.
I'M FIRST ALERT VERY MUCH AGREE
WITH THE COMMENTS OF ASSEMBLY
MEMBER STONE.
HE WAS RIGHT ON POINT AND I
JUST WANT TO BRING UP A FEW
ADDITIONAL POINTS OUT BUT BUT
I'D PARTICULARLY WANT TO COMMEND
HIM FOR HIS COME ABOUT OVERSIGHT
THE LEGISLATURE'S ROLE WITH
RESPECT TO OVERSIGHT. AS WELL AS
ITS INVESTIGATIVE CAPACITY NOT
ONLY ITS LEAD ITS LAWMAKING
CAPACITY.
.
YOU KNOW JUDGE YOU MADE A
COMMENT ABOUT PERCEPTION THAT
THE PUBLIC'S PERCEPTION IS THAT
THE C. JP IS SECRETIVE. WHY
WOULD SUBMIT TO YOU THAT?
THEY ARE IN FACT SECRETIVE AN
EXCESSIVELY SECRETIVE OF THEIR
NOT SUBJECT AS WE LEARN TODAY IF
TO THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS
ACT ARE NOT SUBJECT THE BAGLEY
KEENE ACT. THEY ARE NOT SUBJECT
TO THE A TEN POINT FIVE HUNDRED
WHICH YOU MENTIONED MADAM CHAIR
THE JUDICIAL BRANCH IS ACQUITTED
OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS
ACT.
I COULD GO ON WITH ALL THE
THINGS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE
SUNSHINE ACT PROP FIFTY NINE
ARTICLE ONE SECTION THREE BE.
SO.
YOU KNOW IT OFTEN JUDGE YOU
PERCEPTION AS YOU KNOW IS IS
REALITY OFTEN.
AND SO I'M I WANT TO MAKE THAT
COMMENT THE OTHER THING IS THE
TAXPAYER MONEY THAT'S BEEN
INVOLVED IN ALL OF THIS AYE AYE
TOUMA TAXPAYER. ON ONLY POINT
OUT THAT BOTH SIDES HAVE HIRED
HIGH POWERED A LEGAL COUNSEL IN
THIS IS COST THE TAXPAYERS THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA TREMENDOUS
AMOUNT OF MONEY. ON BOTH THE
STATE AUDITOR AS WELL AS THE C.
JP IS A WELL RESPECTED APPELLATE
ATTORNEYS AND HERE WE HAVE
ONGOING LITIGATION I'D LIKE TO
KNOW THE EXACT. AMOUNT THIS IS
GOING TO CONTINUE TO COST THE
TAXPAYERS THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA FOR THIS LAWSUIT COME
UP PLEASE YES I'LL BE HAPPY TO
ARM. AND AND FINALLY.
IT SEEMS AS IF HE'S ASKING FOR
TWO AND FORTY THOUSAND
ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF MONEY FOR
THIS. BUDGET CYCLE ARM AND I
PERSONALLY WOULD WOULD SUPPORT
AT THAT AND IT EVEN ADDITIONAL
MONEY BUT WE JUST WANNA MAKE
SURE THAT THEY. ARE MEETING AND
THEIR GOALS AND THEIR AM ACTING
EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE MANNER.
AND IN FULLY PROTECTING THE
PUBLIC.
AND I JUST WILL ALSO SAY THAT
IT'S FIFTY SEVEN YEARS I THINK
THE CTP BUT EXISTENCE THANK YOU
MADAM CHAIR THANK YOU WHO.
YOU HAVE ONE MINUTE HOPEFULLY.
THANK YOU.
KATHERINE CAMPBELL I'M WITH
CALIFORNIA PROTECTIVE PARENTS
ASSOCIATION BUT I'M HERE TODAY
AS A CITIZEN.
IT IS CHILLING TO STAND IN A
COURT IN HERE A JUDGE.
GIVE CUSTODY.
OF A CHILD TO AN ABUSER.
THAT'S HAPPENING ALL THE TIME.
AND AS MS RUSSELL SPOKE.
THAT THIS ODYSSEUS BROUGHT
TOGETHER.
BECAUSE PEOPLE CAME FORWARD AND
SAID THIS ISN'T WORKING.
PUBLIC CAME FORWARD TO SAY.
OUR CHILDREN ARE BEING HURT.
AND THERE IS SECRECY.
YOU IN MY OPINION THIS IS
HIDING.
AND IN MY OPINION I HEARD THAT
THE AUDITORS SAID THAT THAT YOUR
RECORDS ARE COMPLETELY
CONFIDENTIAL.
TODAY.
SO I'M CONCERNED IF WE WALK OUT
OF THIS ROOM AND NUMBER ONE.
IF YOU DON'T SUMMIT.
TO HAVING ALL THE COMPLAINTS
BE SHOWN TO THE AUDITOR.
I FEEL AS IF YOU ARE WASTING
TAXPAYERS MONEY AT THIS POINT
NOT ESPECIALLY WHAT WE HEARD
TODAY.
AND I FEEL IS IF WE DO NOT MOVE
FORWARD AYE WITH A DECISION TO
GET ALL THESE COMPLAINTS I DON'T
FEEL THAT THEY SHOULD BE. FUNDED
UNTIL WE.
ATTACKED THE PEOPLE I'VE HEARD
YOU SAY YOU'RE GOING TO PROTECT
THE PEOPLE AND I CAN TELL YOU WE
HEAR PEOPLE ARE NOT BEING
PROTECTED THEY GET A FORM LETTER
BACK.
IT SAYS THIS WAS DISMISSED
AND THEY HAD VERY VERY.
PERFECT INFORMATION TO SHOW WHY
THIS JUDGE WAS AN ERROR.
AND WE DO NOT WANT THAT TO
CONTINUE WE WANT CALIFORNIA TO
BE STRONG WE WANT STRONG JUDGES.
AND YOU'RE NOT MAKING IT JUDGES
STRONG AT THIS POINT YOU'RE
ALLOWING THEM. TO BE THE WILD
WEST AND THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS
IS TODAY THANK YOU THANK YOU.
I THINK WE'VE HAD.
WIDE RANGE OF COMMENTS
CONCERNING IT OF. OUR OUR
CONCERN AS WE POINTED OUT AS
MISTER STONE POINTED OUT IN THE
COMMITTEE.
POINT OUT THAT OF WHICH. I
WASN'T ON THE COMMITTEE THAT
TIME THIS WAS DONE THE REQUEST
FOR THE AUDIT.
BUT SURELY IF WE ARE.
.
WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT
OVERSIGHT.
WE HAVE THE PUBLIC WHO COMES
AND BRINGS ISSUES TO US AND
AFTER A PERIOD OF TIME. IT IS
OUR RESPONSIBILITY REQUEST AN
AUDIT.
OF TO CONTINUE THE FUN THINGS
THAT WE HAVE NO INFORMATION
ABOUT. THAT WE DON'T HAVE A
SENSE OF CERTAINTY THAT.
IT'S OPERATING IN AND IN A
MANNER THAT'S IN THE BEST
INTEREST OF THE PEOPLE
CALIFORNIA MAKES IT VERY
DIFFICULT TO DO THAT. OF WE
REQUEST AUDITS OF ALL KINDS OF
THINGS.
AND.
BUT I HAVE YET TO HAVE ANYONE
REPORT THAT ALL THE MATERIAL AN
AUDIT GOT OUT IN THE PUBLIC AND
SO FORTH AND SO ON AND WE'VE HAD
SOME SENSITIVE AUDITS. AUDITOR'S
GENERALLY A VERY PROOF EFFICIENT
AND PROFICIENT WHAT THEY DO SO
UP AS POINT MRS DON'T WE WOULD
LOVE TO ENCOURAGE YOU TO THINK
ABOUT THIS.
TO FIGURE OUT A WAY THAT WE CAN
GET THE INFORMATION WE NEED IN
ORDER TO ARRIVE AT A CONCLUSION.
THAT THIS IS WHAT'S GOING ON
WITH AUDIT AND THE FACT THAT.
.
WHAT WE'RE DOING IS IN THE BEST
INTERESTS AND WHATEVER
RECOMMENDATIONS THAT COME OUT OF
THE AUDIT TO TO MAKE THE
ORGANIZATION BETTER? THAT THAT
THE THAT THE.
THE UP COMMISSION IS
CONSIDERING THOSE ITEMS SO I
THINK OF THE ISSUES A CLEAR.
WHAT WE WANT DONE WE WANT TO TRY
TO GET THIS DONE AS QUICKLY AS
POSSIBLE SO THAT WE CAN BE
SUPPORTIVE?
OKAY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU. FOR NOT GOING BACK TO
THE BEGINNING OF OUR AGENDA
WHICH OF THE VOTE ONLY ITEMS.
AND.
.
TWO THE FARCE WE KNOW AT THIS
POINT THERE'S BEEN LITTLE OFF
CONTROVERSY CONCERNING THE
SEVENTEEN ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN
RECOMMENDED. FOR FUNDING THIS
COMING YEAR. SO THAT I GO TO
EACH ITEM AND VOTE.
ON THOSE ITEMS.
.
WILL BEGIN WITH ITEM ONE IT
DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS
ABOUT ANY OF THEM.
OKAY SOLVE I GET A MOTION FOR
VOTE ONLY ITEM NUMBER ONE.
NOW TO GET A SECOND FOR THE ITEM
NUMBER ONE.
I'LL SECOND IT.
OKAY.
ITCOMMENTS QUESTIONS ROLL CALL.
WEBER I.
JONES SAWYER.
LACKEY AYE. MELENDEZ.
STONE.
OKAY THAT'S OUT ON A THREE OLD
VOTE WILL HOLD IT OPEN FOR THE
MEMBERS WHO ABSENT.
I'VE ISSUE NUMBER TO ADVANCING
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF STRATEGIC
PLAN PLAN WITH ACCESS IN THE
CALIFORNIA COURTS THEIR MOTION
FOR THAT.
SECOND MOVEMENT SECOND OKAY ROLL
CALL WEBER AYE JONES SAWYER.
LACKEY AYE MELENDEZ.
STONE.
THAT'S OUT OF THREE OH VOTE OF
WILL HOLD IT OPEN FOR OTHER
MEMBERS TO BRING THIS ISSUE
NUMBER THREE COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING.
OKAY I'LL SECOND IT.
WEBER I JONES SAWYER.
LACKEY NO.
MELENDEZ.
STONE.
OKAY THAT WILL BE HELD OPEN.
PHONE CALL FOR THIS TWO VOTES
RIGHT NEEDS THREE.
.
THAT'S ITEM NUMBER.
THE FOR WHICH ITEM NUMBER FOUR
THE COURT APPOINTED SPECIAL
ADVOCATES PROGRAM. AS THEIR
MOTION A SECOND. OKAY SECOND BY
MISTER
JONES SAWYER ROLL CALL WEBER AYE
JONES SAWYER. LACKEY AYE.
MELENDEZ.
STONE.
IT BRINGS US ITEM NUMBER OF
ISSUE NUMBER FIVE THE REGISTRY
OF CHARITABLE TRUST THEIR
MOTION.
MOVE IT MOVE BY MR LACKEY.
SECOND BY MISTER JONES SAWYER
ROLL CALL. WEBER AYE JONES
SAWYER. LACKEY HIGH MELENDEZ.
STONE.
IF IT'S OUT ON A FOUR OH WILL
HOLD IT OPEN FOR THE ABSENT
MEMBERS.
THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM NUMBERS
ISSUE NUMBER SIX WHICH IS A BILL
CHILDREN'S.
A JUSTICE IS THEIR MOTION.
IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECOND OF
STONE TO END JONES SAWYER ROLL
CALL WEBER AYE. JONES SAWYER AYE
LACKEY AYE MELENDEZ.
STONE.
PREVIOUS ITEM NUMBER SEVEN WHICH
IS CHAPTER FOUR NINETY FIVE
STATUTE OF TWENTY SEVENTEEN
IMMIGRATION DATA GOVERNANCE IS
THEIR MOTION SO LOW. SMOKE A
SECOND WEBER AYE JONES SAWYER.
LACKEY NO.
MELENDEZ.
STONE IF IT'S OUT OF THREE OH
VOTE OF THREE ONE AND.
WILL HOLD OPEN FOR.
OTHER MEMBERS TO VOTE THAT
BRINGS US TO ITEM NUMBER.
EIGHT TO WHICH IS THE CHAPTER
SEVEN SEATS.
EIGHT TO STATURE OF TWENTY
SEVENTEEN NONPROFIT HEALTH
FACILITIES THEIR MOTION.
WE.
OKAY MOVE BY STONE'S SECOND I
JONES SAWYER ROLL CALL WEBER AYE
JONES SAWYER. LACKEY NO.
MELENDEZ.
STONE.
THAT'S OF THREE ONE VOTE AND
WILL HOLD IT OPEN FOR ITS IT'S
OUT ON A THREE ONE BUT WILL HOLD
OPEN FOR ABSENT MEMBERS.
OF THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM NUMBER
NINE WHICH IS A CHAPTER EIGHTEEN
EIGHTEEN STATURE OF TWENTY
SEVENTEEN FAR ARMED VIOLENCE
RESEARCH CENTER.
SEVEN ROBUSTO SEKHEMRE JONES
SAWYER ROLL CALL WEBER AYE JONES
SAWYER. LACKEY NO.
MELENDEZ.
STONE.
IF IT'S ONLY THREE ONE VOTE WILL
HOLD IT OPEN FOR THE ABSENT
MEMBERS. OF THAT BRINGS US TO
ISSUE NUMBER TEN ADVANCE PLAN
AND STUDIES.
THERE AS WELL ABOUT STONE SECOND
BY JONES SAWYER ROLL CALL WEBER
AYE. JONES SAWYER. LACKEY AYE
MELENDEZ.
STONE.
YEAH THAT SURPASSES ALL FOURS
ZERO VOTE WILL HOLD IT OPEN FOR
THE ABSENT MEMBERS. OF THAT
BRINGS US TO ISSUE NUMBER ELEVEN
WHICH IS A CYBER NETWORK DEFENSE
TEAM REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE
INCREASE BROKAW OKAY AS SUDDEN.
MOVE BY. STONE SECOND BY LACKEY
ROCO WEBER AYE JONES SAWYER.
LACKEY AYE MELENDEZ.
STONE.
NO THAT'S OUT ON A FOUR OH VOTE
AND WE WILL HOLD IT OPEN FOR
ABSENT MEMBERS THAT DEBORAH
EXISTS OF THE LOS OUT.
MITOS NATIONAL GUARD READINESS
CENTER ITEM NUMBER TWELVE ZERO
MOTION SALUTE WILL BUY LACKEY.
SEC ABOUT JONES SAWYER ROCO
WEBER AYE JONES SAWYER. LACKEY
I'VE MELINDA'S.
STONE.
THAT'S DOUBT ONLY FOR OLD VOTES
VOTE WILL HOLD IT OPEN.
ALL THAT TAKE WINGS IS ISSUE
NUMBER THIRTEEN WHICH IS SAN
DIEGO NATIONAL GUARD READINESS
CENTER IS OUR MOTION.
WELL BUT NO BY STONE SECOND I
JONES SAWYER ROLL CALL WEBER AYE
JONES SAWYER. LACKEY AYE.
MELENDEZ.
STONE.
AND IT'S OUT ON A FOUR OH VOTE
WILL HOLD IT OPEN FOR THE ABSENT
MEMBERS TO BRING THIS ITEM
NUMBER FOURTEEN THE SUSTAINABLE
ARMORY RENOVATION PROGRAM AND
BURBANK SO MOVE SMOOTH BOND
LACKEY. SECOND BUT JONES SAWYER
ROLL CALL WEBER AYE JONES
SAWYER.
LACKEY AYE MELENDEZ
STONE.
OF THAT'S FOR A VOTE.
WILL YOU WILL.
XO WILL HOLD IT OPEN FOR THE
ABSENT MEMBER BUT IT'S OUT OF
FOR A VOTE THAT BRINGS THIS
ISSUE NUMBER FIFTEEN SUSTAINABLE
ARM ARMORY RENOVATION PROGRAM.
THIS MOVE WAS STONE SECOND BY
JONES SAWYER ROLL CALL WEBER AYE
JONES SAWYER. LACKEY AYE.
MELENDEZ.
THE ARMY RENOVATION SAN JOSE.
AND STONE.
AND IT'S OUT ON THE FIVE OH
VOTE.
ITEM NUMBER SIXTEEN SUSTAINABLE
ARMORY RENOVATION PROGRAM IN
SANTA ROSA AS THEIR MOTION.
WE'LL BUST DOWN SECOND BY JONES
SAWYER ROLL CALL WEBER AYE JONES
SAWYER. LACKEY AYE MELINDA'S.
SIXTEEN.
STONE.
I BRING THIS DROUGHT FINAL ITEM
WE SHOULD NUMBER SEVENTEEN
SUSTAINABLE ARMY RENOVATION
PROGRAM IN TORRANCE THEIR
MOTION.
SO LET'S DON'T SECOND BUT JONES
SAWYER ROLL CALL. WEBER AYE
JONES SAWYER. LACKEY AYE
MELENDEZ.
AND STONE.
OKAY.
.
THAT'S OUT OF A FIVE WILL VOTE
NOW WOULD YOU TELL HELD THE.
.
ROLL OPEN FOR OF. THE ONES THAT
OF THOSE WHO ABSENT SO WE'LL
CALL THOSE INDIVIDUALS CAP AND
OTHER THAN THAT THE MEETING IS
OF WE WON'T ADJOURN THE MEETING
BUT WE'RE FINISHED WITH OUR
AGENDA CLICK YOU. THANK YOU.
WILL START THE FIRST I DON'T.
.
WHICH IS OF VOTE ONLY ADDED
NUMBER ONE IT CURRENTLY HAS HOW
MANY VOTES THREE FAMILY HISTORY.
THREE VOTES I'LL CALL THE ABSENT
MEMBERS JONES SAWYER ARE.
MELENDEZ.
DAVID'S OUT OF BIBLE.
OF THE TAKES US TO ITEM NUMBER
TWO THE VOTE ON AT IS THREE.
VOTES.
THAT THIS IS ROLL CALL JONES
SAWYER.
MELENDEZ.
A FIVE WILL VOTE OUT OKAY.
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WHICH IS
A.
ISSUE NUMBER THREE.
AND.
ROLL CALL JONES SAWYER.
MELENDEZ.
YEAH THAT'S A THREE TWO VOTE.
OUT OF COMMITTEE.
A QUARTER POINT IT'S O. SPECIAL
ADVOCATE PROGRAM ITEM ISSUE
NUMBER FOUR MELENDEZ.
OKAY YEAH ACT AS A FIVE OLD VOTE
THAT'S OUT.
REGISTRY OF CHARITABLE TRUST
ISSUE NUMBER FIVE THAT HAS FOUR
VOTES RIGHT NOW. I WILL CALL THE
ABSENT MEMBERS MELENDEZ.
OKAY THAT'S FIVE OH THAT
BUILDINGS BUILT THAT BILLS OUT
OF FIVE OH.
THAT BRINGS US ISSUE NUMBER SIX
A BUREAU OF CHILDREN'S JUSTICE
MELENDEZ.
AND THAT BRINGS US TO FIVE O.
THANK YOU. OF THE TEXAS ISSUE
NUMBER SEVEN
IMMIGRATION DATA GOVERNANCE.
MELENDEZ.
SO THAT'S OUT ON A THREE TWO
VOTE OKAY. I NUMBER EIGHTY TWO
WHICH IS A STATUE TWENTY
SEVENTEEN NONPROFIT HEALTH
FACILITIES.
MELENDEZ.
OKAY THAT'S A THREE TWO VOTE
OKAY IT'S OUT.
THE COMMITTEE THAT BRINGS US
ISSUE NUMBER NINE WHICH IS
STATUTE EIGHTEEN STATUTE TWENTY
SEVENTEEN. ARMED VIOLENCE
RESEARCH.
MELENDEZ.
YEAH THAT'S ALSO OUT OF THE
THREE TO VOTE.
AND THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM
NUMBER TEN WHICH IS ADVANCE PLAN
AND STUDIES.
MELENDEZ.
OKAY THAT'S OUT ONLY FIVE ZERO
VOTES.
OTHER BRINGS US TO ISSUE NUMBER
ELEVEN.
THE CURRENTLY HAS FOUR VOTES.
AT ABSENT MEMBERS. MELENDEZ.
OKAY THAT FITS INTO A FIVE OH
VOTE THIS NUMBER TWELVE LAWS OUT
ALUM ALAMINOS NATIONAL GUARD
READINESS CENTER. THE VOTE ON IT
RIGHT NOW IS FOR MOST OF THE
ABSENT MEMBERS MELINDA'S.
YEAH THAT'S OUT ON THE FINAL
VOTE.
BRING USED TO ITEM NUMBER
THIRTEEN WHICH IS THE NATIONAL
GUARD READINESS CENTER.
MELENDEZ
OKAY THAT BRINGS US TO FIVE ALL
VOTE.
ISSUE NUMBER FOURTEEN WHICH IS
BURBANK OF THE ARMORY RENOVATION
I THINK THIS HAS FOUR VOTES NOW.
OF.
MELINDA THINK LINDA'S OKAY
THAT'S FIVE OH THAT FILTERS OUT.
OF AND I THINK THAT'S IT THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. MEETING IS
ADJOURNED.
SOON WITH THE FINE WHEN I'M
SUPPOSED TO BE FOR THIS OTHER
THING