The Watchdog

4012 Alamo Court

El Dorado Hills, CA

E-mail: Noethics1@aol.com

Web: www.noethics.org

 

December 3, 2003

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Governor of California

 

Re:    Proposal to Reduce Waste/Abuse in California’s Budget

 

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger:

 

I recently moved to the Sacramento area as well, and I certainly wish you all success in your efforts toward putting an end to the waste and abuse of taxpayer funds.  Interestingly enough, your stated goal in cutting such waste parallels the efforts I have made in Ohio for the past decade, and continue to make now here in California with regard to the California Judiciary and other agencies so infiltrated by the lack of common ethics. 

 

During the past several days, articles appearing in the LA Times and OC Register have exposed to one degree or another the outrageous abuses involving travel expenses billed by judicial officers and/or their staff.  Under the guise of attending judicial conferences and/or “continuing legal-education classes,” many of our judges are, in reality, focused solely on “hosing” the public by embarking on taxpayer-funded vacations held at luxurious resorts in exotic venues throughout the United States and abroad.

 

Unfortunately, this type of conduct is not limited to the Judiciary.  In fact, the Sacramento Bee published an extended expose on the obscene abuses involving members of water boards throughout the State.  My limited review of public records to date shows other government employees find it acceptable to stick-it-to-the-taxpayers so to speak by billing tens of thousands of dollars under the guise of attending so-called conferences at exotic venues such as Tahoe, Vegas, Palm Springs and Carmel. 

 

It has become evident that many judges and other public officials believe they have been endowed with a God-given right to “pork out” at the “public trough” as they consistently embark on hosing the public for wages and/or expenses that could never be honestly justified.  Moreover, my cursory review of the use of retired visiting judges here in California clearly indicates that abuses are rampant.  In fact, we would be more accurate if we referred to the visiting-judge system as simply “Judicial Welfare.” 

 

After personally investigating and filing repeated complaints addressing abuses involving retired judges in Ohio, and after assisting the media in extensive coverage of the facts, the Ohio Supreme Court changed the manner in which retired judges were paid, which should result in an annual savings to the State of approximately $2 million.  My efforts also led to positive changes in travel rules, which will result in an additional annual savings approaching the mid six figures.

 

The annual cost to Californians for the use of retired judges is approximately ten times that of Ohio; therefore, I believe that the annual savings from such a focus here could easily approach $10-12 million.  Annual savings on abuses involving travel throughout the State system could just as easily climb beyond $30 million.  In addition, the annual savings from reducing a bloated and unjustified judiciary could easily result in annual savings of about $200 million.  (See attached appendixes)

 

Over the past ten years, Governor Schwarzenegger, I have developed a methodology in reviewing expenditures that uncovers abuses and/or outright fraud in a minimal amount of time.  After decades of abuse, those holding sufficient power in Ohio finally changed the rules many judges were “loopholing” to engage in “wholesale bilking of the public.”  This unnecessary, but quite intentional, “foot-dragging cost Ohio taxpayers at least $10 million. 

 

It is my intent to achieve the same outcome here in the state of California, in terms of inducing the same type of policy changes on behalf of California taxpayers as I effectuated in the state of Ohio.  As school funding and other desperately needed state support is slashed from the California budget, there can be no excuse for allowing this type of frivolity to continue.  I trust you agree.

 

I stand ready to offer any assistance to you that I can in your efforts to rid this state of such waste and abuse wherever it can be found. The only possible delay in lending such support is the anticipated reluctance of some public officials to provide me with unfettered access to the public records required to continue my work. Working from your office could only serve to minimize any such barriers and maximize a fruitful outcome for the state and its people.  

 

In following your campaign for Governor, I am confident that you possess both the will and fortitude to so act.  I am just as confident that, working together, we could make such a significant difference in the manner in which taxpayer funds are expended here in California that yet another precedent will be set for the rest of the nation, not to mention a huge difference in the amount of expendable funds for far loftier pursuits such as our children’s education. 

 

Thank you for your time and consideration.  I realize this is going to be a tremendously busy time for you. All the more reason to have a strong supporter with no ulterior motives behind you, already silently moving to effectuate your goals for California voters and taxpayers.

 

I ask for nothing more, but an office (free coffee/parking would be appreciated) from which to work from for two months to prove to you the progress that can be made in rapidly uncovering abuses and vastly decreasing our budgetary crisis solely by demanding honesty from those who claim to be our servants.    It is high time that public officials realize that they are our servants and they sit at our pleasure. 

 

I would also be more than happy to meet with you and/or your designated representative in order to clarify the cost savings alluded to herein.  Such savings could occur in other state agencies along the same parameters as I have detailed regarding abuses and waste in California’s judiciary.

 

The voracious appetites that many arrogant government officials have and continue to exhibit for “public pork” must come to a screeching halt.   The time to remove their collective snouts from the “public trough” has arrived and I am confidant that working together we can make a significant difference towards that end.

 

Lastly, find attached hereto several appendixes (A-D) with tables that set forth waste and abuse involving the judiciary in an annual amount exceeding $200 million.  This is but a modest beginning, but at least it’s a beginning, Governor.

 

Respectfully yours,

 

__________________________

David Palmer

The Watchdog

 

cc:     Ms. Donna Arduin, Finance Director

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX “A”—SUPERIOR COURTS

 

SUPERIOR COURTS V. OHIO CASELOADS—2001

Ohio = Common Pleas and Municipal Court Caseloads

 

State

Judges

New Filings

New Filings

Per Judge

Excess

Judges

Excess

Costs

OH

   604  1

3,053,672

5,056

 

 

CA

2,035  1

8,112,899

3,987

430 2

$172 mil.

1                     Includes retired judge days.

2                     Based on Superior Court Judges working same caseloads as Ohio judges.

 

Would California’s taxpayers be too demanding to expect their judges to carry as heavy a workload as their counterparts in Ohio? 

 

COMPARISONS OF OHIO & CALIFORNIA COUNTIES—2001

California Superior Courts

Ohio Common Pleas and Municipal Courts

County

Judges

New Filings

Filings Per

Judge

Excess

Judges

Excess

Costs

Alameda

85

336,965

3,964

49  1

$19.6 mil  2

Hamilton

36

339,073

9,418

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Santa Clara

89

350,322

3,936

53  1

$21.2 mil  2

Franklin

37

361,418

9,768

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

San Francisco

65

192,217

2,947

40  1

$16.0 mil  2

Lucas

25

188,797

7,522

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fresno

44

167,397

3,720

22  1

$  8.8 mil  2

Summit

22

158,169

7,189

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contra Costa

45

189,629

4,214

18  1

$  7.2 mil  2

Montgomery

25

179,086

7,163

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

El Dorado

9

34,860

3,873

5  1

$  2.0 mil  2

Wood

4

35,199

8,800

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

San Diego

153

635,244

4,152

71  1

$28.4 mil  2

Cuyahoga

65

574,024

7,776

 

 

 

 

 

 

258

$103.2 mil

1                     Figure arrived at by taking CA new filings and dividing by OH judicial filings.

2                     Estimated annual cost of one judgeship is $400,000.

 

 

APPENDIX “B”—SUPREME COURT

 

SUPREME COURT EXPENDITURES-2002

 

The vast majority of state supreme courts employ law clerks to assist the justices.  The average salary for law clerks is about $50,000.  According to the records of the California Legislative Counsel Bureau, the California Supreme Court employs and expends the following amounts per annum:

 

Position/Title

Salary

Total Paid

Positions

Average Staff Salary

Positions

Per Justice

Chief Supervising Atty.

$156,072

$   156,072

1

 

 

Prin. Atty. Chief Justice

$141,048

$   141,048

1

 

 

Chief Supervising Atty.

$141,048

$   141,048

1

 

 

Managing App. Atty.

$134,352

$   268,704

2

 

 

Supervising Sp. Atty.

$132,190

$1,057,527

8

 

 

Lead S. Ct. Atty.

$121,860

$   243,720

2

 

 

Sp. Ct. Atty-Range F

$121,277

$2,486,183

20.5

 

 

Sp. Ct. Atty-Range E

$111,790

$   391,266

3.5

 

 

Senior Sp. Ct. Atty.

$112,336

$3,257,749

29

 

 

Sp. Ct. Atty-Range D

$  96,213

$   673,492

7