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
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?
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.
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 |
|
|
|
Sp. Ct. Atty-Range D |
$ 90,754 |
$ 90,754 |
1 |
|
|
|
Sp. Ct. Atty-Range C |
$ 88,250 |
$ 88,250 |
1 |
|
|
|
Sp. Ct. Atty-Range C |
$ 81,864 |
$ 163,729 |
2 |
|
|
|
Sp. Ct. Atty-Range B |
$ 69,016 |
$ 138,033 |
2 |
|
|
|
Sp. Ct. Atty-Range A |
$ 50,046 |
$ 50,046 |
1 |
|
|
|
Sp. Ct. Atty-Range A |
$ 48,535 |
$ 97,071 |
2 |
|
|
|
Grad. Legal Assistant |
$ 47,268 |
$ 47,268 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
$9,491,960 |
85 |
$1,355,994 |
12.14 |
The table below sets forth the Ohio Supreme Court’s annual costs and projected savings via the implementation of cost saving measures comparable to Ohio’s annual costs.
State
|
Position/Title
|
Salary
|
Total
Paid
|
Positions
|
Position
Per Judge |
Cost
Per
Judge |
Ohio
|
Law Clerk
|
$50,000
|
$950,000
|
19
|
2.7
|
$135,714
|
Ohio
|
Magistrates
|
$70,000
|
$490,000
|
7
|
1.0
|
$ 70,000
|
|
|
|
|
$1,440,000
|
26
|
3.7
|
$205,714
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are 105 appellate judges in California. In most states appellate courts, judges are
assigned two law clerks. In 2001, there
were 15,842 new filings in the District Appellate Courts, which equates
to 151 filings per judge. The table below details the annual cost of the
staff attorneys (law clerks) employed by California’s appellate courts.
|
Position/Title |
Salary |
Total Paid |
Positions |
Atty Per Judge |
Cost Per Judge |
|
Managing App Atty. |
$127,654 |
$ 765,924 |
6 |
|
|
|
Supervising App Atty. |
$120,305 |
$ 601,524 |
5 |
|
|
|
Lead App Atty. |
$120,709 |
$10,501,683 |
87 |
|
|
|
Senior Appellate Atty. |
$110,311 |
$23,937,517 |
217 |
|
|
|
App Atty. Range D |
$ 88,902 |
$ 3,289,339 |
37 |
|
|
|
App Atty. Range C |
$ 73,204 |
$ 658,836 |
9 |
|
|
|
App Atty. Range B |
$ 78,806 |
$ 630,445 |
8 |
|
|
|
App Atty. Range A |
$ 54,359 |
$ 407,693 |
7.5 |
|
|
|
Law Clerks/Interns |
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
$40,792,961 |
376 |
3.6 |
$388,504 |
Now,
let’s compare the above with Ohio’s Appellate Courts, which has 68 judges. In 2001, there were 10,840 new
filings, which equates to 159 per judge.
|
Appellate District |
Law Clerk Salary |
Total For Law Clerks |
Atty/Mag Salary |
Cost Per Judge |
|
1st—Cincinnati |
$50,000 |
$600,000 (12) |
$65,000 |
$110,833 |
|
2nd—Dayton |
$50,000 |
$500,000 (10) |
$60,000 |
$112.000 |
|
3rd—Lima |
$50,000 |
$400,000 (8) |
|
$100,000 |
|
4th—Circleville |
$50,000 |
$400,000 (8) |
$60,000x2
|
$130,000 |
|
5th—Canton |
$50,000 |
$600,000 (12) |
|
$100,000 |
|
6th—Toledo |
$52,000 |
$620,000 (12) |
$60,000 |
$113,333 |
|
7th—Youngstown |
$50,000 |
$400,000 (8) |
|
$100,000 |
|
8th—Cleveland |
$54,885 |
$1,317,240 (24) |
$63,026x6 |
$132,500 |
|
9th—Akron |
$50,000 |
$500,000 (10) |
|
$100,000 |
|
10th—Columbus |
$52,000 |
$936,000 (18) |
$65,000x4 |
$149,500 |
|
11th—Warren |
$50,000 |
$500,000 (10) |
$65,000 |
$113,000 |
|
12th—Middletown |
$46,994 |
$375,952 (8) |
|
$ 93,988 |
|
Ohio |
|
$6,749,192 (136) |
$1,020,000 |
$114,253 |
The waste and abuse by the appellate courts is
obvious. The average cost of attorneys
in California’s appellate courts is $108,492 in comparison to $57,126 in
Ohio. The cost of living differential does
not justify the almost doubling of wages in California. Adding 30% to Ohio’s average to cover higher
living costs in California, would equate to an average salary of $74,240, which
would result in a reduction of $34,252 per position or annual savings on 376
positions of $12,878,752.
Obviously,
it would take frivolity to new heights for anyone to suggest that appellate
cases in California are more complicated then those filed in Ohio. What we have here are judicial positions that
are in reality nothing more than part-time jobs. The heavy-lifting of researching the law and
drafting opinions is being performed in California by overpaid attorneys who
are being paid two to three times what law clerks/staff attorneys in other
states are paid to perform the same services.
Because Ohio and California Appellate Court judges
handle about the same annual caseloads, there can be no justification for the
employment of 376 staff attorneys to handle 15,800 new filings when 136 law
clerks/staff attorneys in Ohio handle 10,500.
With California’s filings at about 50% more per annum than Ohio’s,
appellate courts should be able to operate efficiently with 204 staff
attorneys, which would result in a reduction in staff of 172. With retirement and other benefit costs added
to the average salary of $108,492, a reduction of 172 staff would save the
taxpayers about $21.6 million per annum. Add to this a reduction of $34,252 for the
remaining 204 staff attorneys and the taxpayers would realize savings of an
additional $6.9 million for a total of $28.5
million per year.
The
abuses visited upon the taxpayers of California via the use of retired visiting
judges are obscene. Retired judges are paid
a daily (per diem) stipend of about $513 regardless of the amount of time they
work on any given day. In addition to
this daily stipend, many retired judges receive annual state (CALPERS)
retirements of $85,000 or more per annum.
Some also receive deferred state retirement benefits, and some also
receive Social Security benefits. Many
states prohibit a retired judge from receiving retirement and per diem payments
in excess of what an elected judge earns, however, California isn’t one of
them. In some instances, retired judges
are paid nearly twice the amount an elected judge is paid.
The
annual cost in per diem payments alone in 2001 was 33,237 days at $513, which
equals almost $17 million, and this figure does not include travel expenses,
retirement payments, and/or staff costs, etc.
This annual Judicial Welfare program likely costs the taxpayers in
excess of $20 million per year.
While
residing in Columbus, Ohio over the past several years, I spent a great deal of
time investigating and reporting on abuses involving the use of retired
judges. As a result of my efforts the
annual cost of this unjustified program went from $3.5 in 2001 to $1.7 in
2002. Had the Ohio Supreme Court taken
remedial steps as I suggested in 1998, Ohio’s taxpayer’s would have saved at
least $6 million prior to 2002.
In
early 2002, Chief Justice Thomas Moyer of the Ohio Supreme Court changed the
rules that previously allowed a retired judge to collect a full day’s pay
($412) for working as little as 30 minutes.
Rules were also changed to prohibit retired judges from billing and
collecting two full day’s wages on the same day. Retired judges are now limited to eight hours
per day. Additionally, retired judges in Ohio are now paid on an hourly basis
and are required to submit a detailed accounting of the work they claimed to
have performed.
A changing of the rules here in California in
accordance with Ohio’s rule changes would or should result in annual savings to
the taxpayers of at least $10 million.
Lastly, I must give credit to Chief Justice George
for having the courage to have recently incorporated rules prohibiting retired
judges from acting as renta-judges while accepting assignments in California’s
courts, which he rightfully concluded constituted the appearance of a conflict
of interest. Based on Chief George’s
actions, I have recently asked Chief Justice Thomas Moyer of the Ohio Supreme
Court to follow suit, which I am hopeful he will do in a timely fashion. Hopefully, Chief Justice George will join us
in doing whatever is necessary in eliminating waste and abuse within the
judicial branch.
The Watchdog
4012 Alamo Court
El Dorado Hills, CA
E-mail: Noethics1@aol.com
Web: www.noethics.org
December 3, 2003
Ms.
Donna Arduin
California’s
Finance Director
Re: Proposal to Reduce Waste/Abuse in
California’s Budget
Dear Ms. Arduin:
Please find attached hereto a copy of a three-page letter with attachments that I submitted this date to Governor Schwarzenegger that is intended to offer positive steps in reducing California’s mounting budget problems as it relates to waste and abuse.
I trust that we can work together in assuring that each and every tax dollar is properly accounted for and expended in the future. We cannot be dissuaded from performing this thankless task on behalf of the hard working and overtaxed citizens of California by obstructionists who will continue to benefit if things don’t drastically change.
Many apologists and/or enablers who have dedicated their careers to porking out at the public trough have spent a great deal of time attacking the Governor for allegedly not putting forth budget proposals to eliminate waste, abuse and/or outright fraud. Patently, to suggest that anyone could have possibly reviewed this massive budget and supporting documents and put forth a comprehensive report exposing waste and abuse is absurd.
I am confident that Governor Schwarzenegger fully intends to eliminate any and all waste, abuse and/or fraud that can reasonably be discovered in a timely fashion in California’s massive $100 billion budget. To meet this laudable but clearly necessary goal, I have offered to provide whatever assistance I can to the Governor.
If you have any questions regarding these matters, feel free to contact me. I stand at the ready to do what I can to assure that Governor Schwarzenegger succeeds in the discovery of, exposing of, and total elimination of all waste, abuse and fraud wherever it exists.
Thanks for your time and attention to this serious matter.
__________________________
David Palmer
The Watchdog