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 |
|
|