binder for issa letter
TRANSCRIPT
!!!!
December 21, 2013 !The Honorable Darrell E. Issa !49th District, California United States House of Representatives 2347 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 c/o Amy Walker1800 Thibodo Road, #310 Vista, CA 92081 !Dear Representative: I am a constituent, retired economist and satellite engineer. I am concerned about judicial bias in the California Courts. The judicial partnership and collaboration with the county bureaucracies is greatly damaging our families and my two children.
I am requesting assistance on two federal matters. Both involve alleged campaign payments to judges by county officials. Either the IRS is ignoring widespread mis-application of wage and salary rules or the counties have established a new mechanism for unlimited campaign financing.
The first federal issue concerns the failure of the Internal Revenue Service to properly classify payments to California’s Superior Court judges by 35 counties as campaign contributions instead of wage and salary payments. The judges are not county employees and any tax-favored treatment of those county payments is fraudulent. Use of the county payroll system also leads to mis-representation on state Fair Political Practices reports like the Form-700.
Dennis Ettlin 27222 Paseo Lomita
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 T 949-542-3036 C 310-795-9507
The second federal issue is a consequence of the first issue. Federal judges who were previously Superior Court judges in those 35 counties, most likely, failed to properly disclose the campaign funds, from the counties in which they served, on their application for a federal judgeship (Items 30(b) and 31). This failure to properly disclose outside payments conceals a large potential judicial bias and also makes the District Court judges parties to a sophisticated county racketeering (RICO) enterprise which makes payments to judges in exchange for favorable treatment.
I am requesting that your office investigate the failure of the IRS to properly classify and collect the appropriate current taxes due on the annual $50,000 payments to every judge, every year in Los Angeles County. Lesser amounts are paid in other counties.
I am also requesting your office to investigate the ethics and legality of my using the same technique of what I call “fictitious wage donations”. I would like to make contributions to political candidates and campaigns by writing a payroll check to the candidate of my choice and sending that candidate/staffer a W-2 at the end of the year. As payroll, there is no limit on the amount, the payments are not reportable to election monitoring organizations and the IRS would not release data on either side of the transaction.
In a similar fashion, I would like to make charitable donations by writing a payroll check to the organization of my choice and sending that organization a W-2 at the end of the year. The gift/donation would 100% tax-deductible as wages paid.
I have attached a summary presentation and supporting material to this request. I greatly appreciate your time reviewing this request. I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Dennis Ettlin CC: Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration P.O.Box 589 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044-0589
CALI
FORN
IA C
OUN
TY S
UPPL
EMEN
TAL
JUD
ICIA
L B
ENEF
ITS
INNO
VATI
VE C
AMPA
IGN
FINA
NCIN
G
OR
SIM
PLE
BRIB
E
JUDI
CIAL
PAY
MEN
TS•
Judg
es a
re s
tate
em
ploy
ees
•Ju
dges
are
pol
itical
can
dida
tes
ever
y six
yea
rs
•35
of 5
8 co
untie
s tre
at ju
dges
as
empl
oyee
s
•Th
e su
pple
men
tal p
aym
ents
are
eith
er
•Ille
gal B
ribes
, or
•In
nova
tive
Cam
paig
n Fi
nanc
ing
HIST
ORY
•Ju
dici
al s
alar
y in
crea
ses
diffi
cult
to o
btai
n
•19
85 S
B124
8 au
thor
ized
use
of L
.A. C
ount
y pa
yrol
l sy
stem
for p
ayin
g co
unty
judg
es
•19
88 L
.A. C
ount
y co
nvin
ced
L.A.
Sup
. Cou
rt to
use
op
erat
ing
fund
s to
pay
tem
pora
ry ju
dges
•19
97 L
ocky
er-Is
enbe
rg T
rial C
ourt
Fund
ing
Act
•20
00 P
ropo
sitio
n 22
0 m
erge
d co
urts
L.A.
CO
UNTY
•Pr
ovid
es p
ayro
ll ser
vices
to s
tate
for j
udge
s
•St
ate
Cont
rolle
r rei
mbu
rses
cou
nty
only
for s
tate
sal
arie
s
•Su
pple
men
tal J
udic
ial B
enefi
ts a
re th
e ad
ditio
nal
paym
ents
mad
e by
L.A
. Cou
nty
to th
e ju
dges
•Cu
rrent
ly $5
0,00
0 ev
ery
judg
e, e
very
yea
r
•$2
0,00
0 M
edic
al, $
25,0
00 4
01K,
$5,
000
Trai
ning
•Ap
pear
ance
of b
ias
when
cou
nty
has
inte
rest
in c
ase
L.A.
SUP
ERIO
R CO
URT
•L.
A. S
uper
ior C
ourt
Com
miss
ione
rs a
re e
mpl
oyee
s of
loca
l Sup
erio
r Cou
rt, n
ot s
tate
em
ploy
ees
•L.
A. S
uper
ior C
ourt
pays
Com
miss
ione
rs a
nd
sele
ct c
ourt
empl
oyee
s fro
m o
pera
ting
fund
s to
m
atch
cou
nty
paym
ents
to ju
dges
CHAL
LENG
ES•
2008
Stu
rgeo
n I,
Judi
cial
Wat
ch
•20
09 S
BX2
11, J
udic
ial C
ounc
il and
CA
Judg
es A
ssn
•20
09 R
icha
rd I.
Fin
e, w
hist
lebl
ower
disb
arre
d
•20
10 S
turg
eon
II, J
udic
ial W
atch
•20
11 E
ttlin
-Coo
per-L
ocat
elli,
10 F
amily
Law
cas
es
•20
13 E
ttlin
, L.A
. Sup
ervis
ors
and
AG K
amal
a Ha
rris
1995
LEG
ISLA
TIVE
DAR
EA
lthou
gh th
ere
is c
erta
inly
a p
ossi
bilit
y th
at S
B 16
2 w
ill
be h
eld
to b
e an
inva
lid d
eleg
atio
n of
legi
slat
ive
auth
ority
to d
eter
min
e th
e nu
mbe
r of s
uper
ior c
ourt
an
d m
unic
ipal
cou
rt ju
dges
, !a
case
can
be
mad
e th
at th
is w
ill n
ot o
ccur
. !T
he p
robl
ems
that
wou
ld b
e cr
eate
d if
it is
hel
d in
valid
ar
e su
bsta
ntia
l. Th
e st
aff b
elie
ves
som
ethi
ng s
houl
d be
do
ne in
ant
icip
atio
n of
this
pos
sibi
lity.
CALI
FORN
IA L
AW R
EVIS
ION
COM
MIS
SIO
N ST
AFF
MEM
ORA
NDUM
, Stu
dy J
-120
1, N
ovem
ber 2
7, 1
995,
Mem
oran
dum
95-
77, T
rial C
ourt
Unifi
catio
n: D
eleg
atio
n of
Leg
isla
tive
Auth
ority
2010
JUD
ICIA
L DA
RETh
us, w
e w
ould
be
rem
iss
in d
isch
argi
ng o
ur d
utie
s if
we
did
not s
tate
that
whi
le th
e Le
gisl
atur
e's
inte
rim
re
spon
se to
Stu
rgeo
n I d
efea
ts th
e pa
rtic
ular
cha
lleng
es
asse
rted
by
Stur
geon
in th
is li
tigat
ion,
that
inte
rim
re
med
y, if
not
sup
plan
ted
by th
e m
ore
com
preh
ensi
ve
resp
onse
SBX
211
pla
inly
con
tem
plat
es, m
ost l
ikel
y w
ill
give
ris
e to
fur
ther
cha
llen
ges
by ta
xpay
ers
or
mem
bers
of t
he b
ench
them
selv
es. A
s w
e no
ted
at th
e ou
tset
, the
issu
e of
judi
cial
com
pens
atio
n is
a s
tate
, not
a
coun
ty, r
espo
nsib
ility
.!
Stur
geon
II, l
ast p
arag
raph
, Con
clus
ion
2011
JUD
ICIA
L AC
TIO
N•
CJP
— C
omm
issio
n on
Jud
icia
l Per
form
ance
•20
11 M
emo
to K
amal
a Ha
rris
on S
BX2
11
•Se
ctio
n 5
retro
activ
e im
mun
ity in
valid
•Se
ctio
ns 2
and
4 q
uest
iona
ble
•AG
refu
sal t
o de
cide
in 2
009
and
2011
FOIA
, Let
ters
from
CJP
to A
G J
erry
Bro
wn a
nd A
G K
amal
a Ha
rris
2012
NEW
SMAK
ER(e
x-sp
okes
man
) “
…th
ere
wer
e co
urts
, a c
oupl
e of
them
, th
at w
ere
illeg
ally
div
ertin
g C
ourt
ope
ratin
g m
oney
to
pay
extr
a be
nefit
s, s
o th
e fa
rthe
r the
AO
C
[Adm
inis
trat
ive
Offi
ce o
f the
Cou
rts]
got
into
it, t
he
clea
rer i
t bec
ame
that
ther
e w
as th
e m
akin
gs o
f a
wid
espr
ead
scan
dal a
bout
!se
lf-d
eali
ng, a
nd s
elf
inte
rest
by
judg
es”;
!! (t
he re
port
er)
“in
othe
r wor
ds, !
stea
ling
on
a gr
and
scal
e by
the
judg
es, s
tate
wid
e”.
See
http
://w
ww
.fulld
iscl
osur
e.ne
t/201
2/11
/cou
rt-in
side
r-ex
pose
s-ju
dici
al- t
reac
hery
/ at “
Part
3 Pr
evie
w”
MO
NEY
LAUN
DERI
NG•
Judg
es a
re n
ot c
ount
y em
ploy
ees,
no
empl
oym
ent
cont
ract
exis
ts
•$5
0,00
0 ca
sh p
aym
ents
inte
nded
to “i
nflue
nce”
•IR
S de
term
inat
ion
need
ed o
n pa
ymen
ts
•G
ift, W
age,
Cam
paig
n Co
ntrib
utio
n, qu
id-p
ro-q
uo B
ribe
•Al
lege
d pu
blic
pur
pose
, cita
tion
of S
tuge
on n
ot a
gift
•Us
e of
pay
roll s
yste
m o
bscu
res
purp
ose
IRS
FRAU
D
•Ju
dges
are
not
cou
nty
empl
oyee
s,
•10
99-fo
rm a
ppro
pria
te, n
ot W
-2
•Pa
ymen
ts/b
ribes
laun
dere
d us
ing
med
ical
ben
efit
and
defe
rred
com
pens
atio
n de
duct
ions
CAM
PAIG
N FR
AUD
•CA
FPP
C Fo
rm 7
00 ru
les
excl
ude
listin
g of
sal
ary
•Ju
dges
repo
rt no
inco
me
repo
rted
on W
-2
•W
age
dona
tion
not s
ubje
ct to
any
cam
paig
n lim
its
•Re
tirem
ent p
ortio
n of
don
atio
n no
t sub
ject
to
cam
paig
n us
e an
d re
tain
ed fo
r per
sona
l use
•Ca
ndid
ate
uses
“fict
itious
wag
e” d
onat
ions
as
lo
an to
cam
paig
n co
mm
ittee
RACK
ETEE
RING
BRI
BES
•Ju
dici
al p
aym
ents
are
"brib
es" u
nder
CA
law
•U
nite
d St
ates
v. F
rega
,
17
9 F.3
d 79
3, 8
09–1
0
•RI
CO c
onsp
iracy
18 U
.S.C
. §19
62(d
)
•In
tang
ible
Rig
ht To
Hon
est S
ervic
es
18 U
.S.C
. §13
46
PERS
PECT
IVE
•Th
e co
unty
pay
men
ts a
re u
ncon
stitu
tiona
l,
ar
e br
ibes
and
vio
late
IRS
and
FPPC
rule
s
OR
•Ne
w av
enue
for u
nlim
ited
cam
paig
n co
ntrib
utio
ns
Cam
paig
n Co
mm
ittee
$$$
PAC
DONO
R
$65,
000!
Com
plex
Lim
its
No L
imits
$$$
DONO
R
$35,
000!
Com
plex
Lim
its
$$$
Cand
idat
e
Self-
Fund
ing!
No L
imits
W-2!
No L
imits
L.A.
CO
UNTY
Per-
sona
l
401K
Cam
paig
n Co
mm
ittee
$$$
PAC
DONO
R
$65,
000!
Com
plex
Lim
its
No L
imits
$$$
DONO
R
$35,
000!
Com
plex
Lim
its
$$$
Cand
idat
e
Self-
Fund
ing!
No L
imits
W-2!
No L
imits
$$$
SUPE
R PA
C
No L
imits
Elec
tion!
Effo
rt
No L
imits
DONO
RL.
A.
COUN
TY
Ms. Leslie DuttonRe: Public Records Act RequestJuly 31, 2012Page: 2
As to item one, we have found no contract between the Los Angeles County BOaTdofSupervisors and the Superior Court of Los Angeles covering payment of county benefits toSuperior Court judges, and do not believe that there has ever been such a contract. Prior to 1997,Los Angeles Superior Court judges and employees were treated as officers and employees of theCounty of Los Angeles for the purpose of benefits. Government Code section 69894.3 has longprovided that officers and employees of superior courts in each county with a population of over2,000,000 shall be entitled to county benefits as directed by the court. Los Angeles SuperiorCourt Local Rule 1.6(b) has long provided that employees and officers of the court shall betreated as County employees for purposes of salary and benefits in accordance with section69894.3. When the Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act of 1997 was passed, it specificallyprovided that such local benefits should continue. Although the Legislature's mode of soproviding was initially invalidated by the court in Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles (2008) 167Cal.App.4th 630, the Legislature, in response, mandated the continuation of those benefits inGovernment Code section 68220. That requirement was upheld as constitbtio'nal in Sturgeon v.County of Los Angeles (2010) 191 Cal. App. 4th 344.
As to item 2, we have found no administrative or security policy memos, emails, oradvisory notices that have been retained by the court that were distributed to court personnelthroughout the Los Angeles court system during the period of January 2000 through July 2012,addressing security notifications and precautions that were to be taken if attorney Richard 1. Finewere to enter any court buildings. In response to my inquiry, the Court's Director of Security,who administers the agreement with the Sheriff of the County of Los Angeles for providing courtsecurity, including weapons screening and courtroom security, advised that a search of email andretained files did not result in the discovery of any such policy memos, emails, or advisorynotices. However, in response to my inquiry to the Sheriffs Department, the attachedMemorandum dated March 4,2009, was provided. Please transmit to me your check in theamount of $0.10, made payable to the Los Angeles Superior Court for the cost of this copy.
~.~Frederick R. BennettCourt Counsel
c: Presiding JudgeExecutive Officer/ClerkDirector of SecurityAdministrative Records Administrator
Mr. Ettlin: In response to your inquiries please see my responses below in blue. From: Dennis M Ettlin [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 10:47 AMTo: Revuelta, JenniferSubject: Re: Tax withholding payments documentation for Judge James Otero Dear Ms. Revuelta,Mr. Iverson said that their was no evidence that any W-2 or 1099 was generated or sent to Judge Otero forthe period 1990-2003. Normally, I understand your statement about payments being reported on a W-2.However, Judge Otero was an employee of the State not the County, but he received money from thecounty. My main question is whether any tax document was provided to Judge Otero covering the judicialpayments from the county and secondly, whether any withholding was made by the County for Fed andCA taxes. I understand the confidentiality issue regarding a W-2, so I am really asking 1) if James Otero received any kind of tax document from the county – Yes 2) what the form number of that document might be, and – W-2 3) if the county paid any withheld taxes on behalf of James Otero for any of the years 1990-2003. –Personal withholding(s) is personal, confidential information. For now, I am not asking for amounts or copies of the appropriate documents from the County. I am notseeking information on the judges compensation from the State (I doubt you would have that).I hope this clarifies my request.Thank you,Dennis Ettlin On Jun 7, 2013, at 9:39 AM, "Revuelta, Jennifer" <[email protected]> wrote:
Mr. Ettlin: In response to your inquiry, cafeteria plan benefits paid as taxable cash and Professional DevelopmentAllowance payments are reported as taxable wages on an employee’s W-2. We are unable to providea W-2 or 1099 information because this is confidential information. On behalf of Mr. Iverson, I apologize for the miscommunication. Mr. James Otero is a retired judge forthe Superior Court. Sincerely,Jennifer
"Revuelta, Jennifer" <[email protected]>To: Ettlin DennisRE: Tax withholding payments documentation for Judge James Otero
June 17, 2013 11:02 AM
A-3
Thank you for the quick turnaround. Please clarify if the benefits are for Luis Lavin or James OteroSincerely On Oct 22, 2012, at 11:30 AM, "Revuelta, Jennifer" <[email protected]> wrote:
Mr. Ettlin: Per your request, the following are the “local judicial benefits” paid to Superior Court Luis A. Lavin. Ifyou have questions, please contact me by e-mail at [email protected]
Year
CafeteriaPlan
Benefits
401(k)/457County
Contribution
ProfessionalDevelopment
AllowanceJames Otero
1990
6,690.59 3,265.57 4,012.00
1991
15,192.52 3,474.76 1,960.00
1992
18,866.40 4,726.56 4,704.00
1993
18,866.40 4,332.68 5,162.50
1994
19,731.22 2,067.85 5,004.00
1995
20,354.56 7,442.24 5,161.50
1996
20,404.08 7,667.64 5,184.00
1997
20,404.08 7,420.97 5,331.00
1998
20,659.16 5,175.66 5,352.00
1999
21,594.24 5,409.92 5,499.00
2000
22,627.29 8,651.91 5,520.00
2001
25,114.87 11,315.72 5,814.00
2002
26,290.67 12,121.39 5,856.00
2003
6,625.11 3,054.51 990.00 Jennifer RevueltaAuditor-ControllerCountywide Payroll Division From: Iverson, Gregg M.
A-5
Mr. Ettlin, I thought the information was provided to you, nonetheless the following arethe “local judicial benefits” paid to Superior Court Judge Jan G. Levine. Jan G. Levine
YearCafeteria Plan
Benefits
401(k)/457County
Contribution
ProfessionalDevelopment
Allowance2003 - - 516.002004 27,329.28 12,600.24 6,192.002005 28,256.14 13,027.59 6,528.002006 29,177.76 13,452.48 6,838.502007 32,965.52 15,198.83 7,075.502008 33,969.96 15,661.92 7,366.502009 33,969.96 15,661.92 7,404.002010 35,182.87 17,729.92 7,404.002011 35,182.87 15,661.92 7,614.002012 27,095.39 10,983.60 2,229.50
From: Dennis Ettlin [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2012 8:06 PMTo: Revuelta, JenniferSubject: Fwd: Judicial Payments by Los Angeles county to Judge Jan Levine
Dear Ms. Revuelta,WIl you also be providing information for Judge Jan Levine? I did already
"Revuelta, Jennifer" <[email protected]>To: Ettlin DennisRE: Judicial Payments by Los Angeles county to Judge Jan Levine
October 31, 2012 9:17 AM
A-25
From: "Iverson, Gregg M." <[email protected]>Subject: Request for Local Judicial Benefits
Date: June 9, 2011 3:25:33 PM PDTTo: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Dear Mr. Ettlin: I’m responding to your request for amounts paid for judicial benefits (commonly referred to as “Local Judicial Benefits”)from 1985 to 2010. I have provided the requested information below for years 1989 through 2010. I do not haverecords for years prior to 1989. Please note, all except for Kenneth H. Taylor are Los Angeles County Superior CourtJudges. Mr. Taylor is a Superior Court Commissioner. As for who pays the cost of Local Judicial Benefits, the Los Angeles County, not the Court, pays for the cost of LocalJudicial Benefits for Superior Court Judges, but the Court pays the cost for commissioners. Please email me at [email protected] if you have any questions. Year Cafeteria
PlanBenefits
401(k)/457CountyContributions
ProfessionalDevelopmentAllowance
Kenneth H. Taylor
2009 27,944.65 13,195.52 5,553.00
2010 45,322.16 1,162.73 7,404.00
Marjorie S. Steinberg
2001 2,106.66 - 1,220.00
2002 26,190.23 11,057.49 5,856.00
2003 26,845.62 12,485.22 6,150.00
2004 27,329.28 12,600.24 6,192.00
2005 28,256.14 13,027.59 6,528.00
2006 29,177.76 13,452.48 6,838.50
2007 32,965.52 15,198.83 7,075.50
2008 33,969.96 15,661.92 7,366.50
2009 33,969.96 15,661.92 7,404.00
2010 33,969.96 12,246.26 7,404.00
A-35
A-96
A-97
A-98
A-99
Los Angeles $53,860Orange $22,042Sonoma $21,403San Luis Obispo $19,147San Bernardino $16,413Yolo $15,905Napa $15,105Santa Clara $14,956San Diego $14,745Tuolumne $13,938San Mateo $10,960Ventura $10,146Solano $8,579Siskiyou $8,202San Francisco $8,036Kern $6,505Riverside $6,279Kings $5,862Glenn $5,632Monterey $4,033San Benito $3,291Contra Costa $3,225Sacramento $1,510Mono $1,263Alameda $972Mendocino $750Nevada $639Tulare $526San Joaquin $449Trinity $336Calaveras $275Mariposa $212Fresno $166Butte $150Placer $85Alpine $0Amador $0Colusa $0Del Norte $0El Dorado $0Humboldt $0Imperial $0Inyo $0Lake $0Lassen $0Madera $0Marin $0Merced $0Modoc $0Plumas $0Santa Barbara $0Santa Cruz $0Shasta $0Sierra $0Stanislaus $0Sutter $0Tehama $0Yuba $0
A-100
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:(a) It is the intent of the Legislature to address the decision of the Court
of Appeal in Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th630, regarding county-provided benefits for judges.
(b) These county-provided benefits were considered by the Legislaturein enacting the Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act of 1997, in whichcounties could receive a reduction in the county’s maintenance of effortobligations if counties elected to provide benefits pursuant to paragraph (l)of subdivision (c) of Section 77201 of the Government Code for trial courtjudges of that county.
(c) Numerous counties and courts established local or court supplementalbenefits to retain qualified applicants for judicial office, and trial courtjudges relied upon the existence of these longstanding supplemental benefitsprovided by the counties or the court.
SEC. 2. Section 68220 is added to the Government Code, to read:68220. (a) Judges of a court whose judges received supplemental judicial
benefits provided by the county or court, or both, as of July 1, 2008, shallcontinue to receive supplemental benefits from the county or court thenpaying the benefits on the same terms and conditions as were in effect onthat date.
(b) A county may terminate its obligation to provide benefits under thissection upon providing the Administrative Director of the Courts and theimpacted judges with 180 days’ written notice. The termination shall notbe effective as to any judge during his or her current term while that judgecontinues to serve as a judge in that court or, at the election of the county,when that judge leaves office. The county is also authorized to elect toprovide benefits for all judges in the county.
SEC. 3. Section 68221 is added to the Government Code, to read:68221. To clarify ambiguities and inconsistencies in terms with regard
to judges and justices and to ensure uniformity statewide, the followingshall apply for purposes of Sections 68220 to 68222, inclusive:
(a) “Benefits” and “benefit” shall include federally regulated benefits,as described in Section 71627, and deferred compensation plan benefits,such as 401(k) and 457 plans, as described in Section 71628, and may alsoinclude professional development allowances.
(b) “Salary” and “compensation” shall have the meaning as set forth inSection 1241.
SEC. 4. Section 68222 is added to the Government Code, to read:68222. Nothing in this act shall require the Judicial Council to increase
funding to a court for the purpose of paying judicial benefits or obligate thestate or the Judicial Council to pay for benefits previously provided by thecounty, city and county, or the court.
SEC. 5. Notwithstanding any other law, no governmental entity, orofficer or employee of a governmental entity, shall incur any liability or besubject to prosecution or disciplinary action because of benefits provided
� 96
— 2 —Ch. 9
A-141
14
employment as a judge is not a fundamental right (see Rittenband v. Cory (1984) 159
Cal.App.3d 410, 418-419) and there is no fundamental right to a certain level of
compensation. (See American Federation of Teachers v. Los Angeles Community
College Dist. (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 942, 945, fn. 1) Thus we consider the disparity
under the rational basis test and have no difficulty finding such a basis in the Legislature's
express recognition that payment of the benefits by various counties and courts is needed
to retain qualified judicial officers. (See Sturgeon I, supra, 167 Cal.App.4th at p. 639.)
CONCLUSION
As the parties have recognized, SBX 211 both preserved the status quo ante
Sturgeon I and commenced a process by which the Legislature looks to adoption of a
comprehensive judicial compensation scheme. As we have explained, this response to
Sturgeon I meets the requirements of the Constitution and is wholly sensible under the
circumstances. The Legislature is uniquely competent to deal with the complex policy
problem of establishing a judicial compensation scheme which both assures recruitment
and retention of fully qualified judicial officers throughout the state while at the same
time providing equity between judges in different parts of the state. By the same token
our role in ensuring that the more general requirements of the Constitution have been met
is, under our system of separate governmental powers, quite limited. (See Community
Redevelopment Agency v. Abrams (1975) 15 Cal.3d 813, 831-832.) Thus, whatever
permanent remedy the Legislature eventually adopts will be entitled to the well-
established "judicial deference to the legislative branch." (Ibid.)
A-157
15
However, on its face SBX 211 is not a permanent response to either the
constitutional issues we identified in Sturgeon I or the difficult problem of adopting a
compensation scheme that deals with varying economic circumstances in an equitable
and efficient manner. Thus, we would be remiss in discharging our duties if we did not
state that while the Legislature's interim response to Sturgeon I defeats the particular
challenges asserted by Sturgeon in this litigation, that interim remedy, if not supplanted
by the more comprehensive response SBX 211 plainly contemplates, most likely will
give rise to further challenges by taxpayers or members of the bench themselves. As we
noted at the outset, the issue of judicial compensation is a state, not a county,
responsibility. We are confident that the Legislature within a reasonable period of time
will act to adopt a uniform statewide system of judicial compensation.
Judgment affirmed.
BENKE, Acting P. J. WE CONCUR: NARES, J. HALLER, J.
A-158
TRIAL COURT OPERATIONSBudget Summaries
FY 2010-11 Proposed Budget Volume One 60.1 County of Los Angeles
Trial Court Operations
Trial Court Operations Budget Summary
2010-11 Budget MessageThe Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act of 1997,Assembly Bill (AB) 233, Chapter 850, Statutes of 1997, requirescounties to make an annual Maintenance of Effort (MOE)payment to the State for support of trial courts and to continueto fund certain court-related expenditures such as indigentdefense, collections enhancement, and local judicial benefits.The Trial Court Facilities Act, Senate Bill 1732, Chapter 1082,Statutes of 2002, authorized the transfer of responsibility forcourt facilities from the counties to the State and requires thatcounties make County Facilities Payment (CFP). Revenue fromcourt fines and fees is used to partially finance the MOEobligation to the State and other court-related expenditures.
The 2010-11 Proposed Budget reflects funding for the County’s$294.7 million MOE payment to the State, which is comprisedof $245.9 million base MOE; $37.6 million CFP; and$11.2 million representing 50 percent of any excess above theAB 233 fines and forfeitures MOE, and $93.0 million forcourt-related expenditures that are the County’s responsibility.The Proposed Budget reflects anticipated increases in costsrelated to court collections enhancement.
Changes From 2009-10 Budget
TRIAL COURT OPERATIONS BUDGET SUMMARYFY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2010-11 CHANGE FROM
CLASSIFICATION ACTUAL ESTIMATED BUDGET REQUESTED PROPOSED BUDGET
FINANCING REQUIREMENTS
SALARIES & EMPLOYEE BENEFITS $ 28,216,975.26 $ 28,865,000 $ 30,773,000 $ 31,130,000 $ 30,854,000 $ 81,000
SERVICES & SUPPLIES 86,717,568.87 75,607,000 58,946,000 79,106,000 62,150,000 3,204,000
OTHER CHARGES 282,914,026.89 294,596,000 295,938,000 295,938,000 294,650,000 (1,288,000)
GROSS TOTAL $ 397,848,571.02 $ 399,068,000 $ 385,657,000 $ 406,174,000 $ 387,654,000 $ 1,997,000
REVENUE $ 151,882,922.64 $ 143,720,000 $ 146,302,000 $ 149,215,000 $ 148,218,000 $ 1,916,000NET COUNTY COST $ 245,965,648.38 $ 255,348,000 $ 239,355,000 $ 256,959,000 $ 239,436,000 $ 81,000
BUDGETED POSITIONS $ 50.0 $ 50.0 $ 50.0 $ 50.0 $ 50.0 $ 0.0
GrossAppropriation
($)
IntrafundTransfer
($)Revenue
($)
NetCounty Cost
($)Budg
Pos
2009-10 Final Adopted Budget 385,657,000 0 146,302,000 239,355,000 50.0
Other Changes1. Salaries and Employee Benefits: Primarily reflects
Board-approved increases in health insurance subsidies.81,000 -- -- 81,000 --
2. Services and Supplies: Reflects an increase in costs for the Court’s Cost Recovery Program fully offset by fines and forfeitures revenues.
3,276,000 -- 3,276,000 -- --
3. Intergovernmental Revenue: Reflects a reduction in services and supplies due to the elimination of the grant funding for the Drug Court program.
(72,000) -- (72,000) -- --
A-160
Cour
tsA
utho
rize
d Ju
dges
hips
Cour
tsA
utho
rize
d Ju
dges
hips
Cour
tsA
utho
rize
d Ju
dges
hips
Cour
tsA
utho
rize
d Ju
dges
hips
FRES
NO
44
ALA
MED
A
69CO
NTR
A C
OST
A
38A
LPIN
E 2
LOS
AN
GEL
ES
436
BUTT
E12
KERN
38A
MA
DO
R 2
MEN
DO
CIN
O8
CALA
VERA
S 2
KIN
GS
8CO
LUSA
2
MO
NTE
REY
20G
LEN
N
2M
ON
O
2D
EL N
ORT
E 3
RIVE
RSID
E 64
MA
RIPO
SA
2O
RAN
GE
112
EL D
ORA
DO
6
SAN
BER
NA
RDIN
O
78N
APA
6
SACR
AM
ENTO
64
HU
MBO
LDT
7SA
N F
RAN
CISC
O
51N
EVA
DA
6
SON
OM
A
19IM
PERI
AL
9SA
N M
ATE
O26
PLA
CER
12YO
LO
11IN
YO
2
SAN
TA C
LARA
79SA
N B
ENIT
O
2LA
KE
4TR
INIT
Y 2
SAN
DIE
GO
13
0LA
SSEN
2
VEN
TURA
29
SAN
JOA
QU
IN
32M
AD
ERA
10
SAN
LU
IS O
BISP
O
12M
ARI
N
10SI
SKIY
OU
4
MER
CED
10
SOLA
NO
19
MO
DO
C 2
TULA
RE
20PL
UM
AS
2TU
OLU
MN
E 4
SAN
TA B
ARB
ARA
19
SAN
TA C
RUZ
10SH
AST
A
11SI
ERRA
2
STA
NIS
LAU
S 22
SUTT
ER
5TE
HA
MA
4
YUBA
5
23 c
ourt
s15
1 Ju
dges
hips
16 c
ourt
s33
4 Ju
dges
hips
11 c
ourt
s83
7 Ju
dges
hips
8 co
urts
292
Judg
eshi
ps
Supp
lem
enta
l Jud
icia
l Ben
efits
by
Cour
tas
of J
uly
1, 2
008
Coun
ty-F
unde
d Be
nefit
sCo
urt-
Fund
ed B
enef
its
Cour
t- a
nd C
ount
y-Fu
nded
Be
nefit
sN
o Su
pple
men
tal B
enef
its
'��
A-167
Funding Source Total Cost
Benefit Available to All Judges
Imperial $0No Supplemental Judicial Benefits
Inyo $0No Supplemental Judicial Benefits
Kern $247,198County Total $120,258
Car allowance County $120,258 XCourt Total $126,940
Car allowance Court $118,014 XMileage allowance Court $8,926
Kings $46,899County Total $27,361
Dental County $3,270General Health Care County $23,521Vision County $570
Court Total $19,539457 Court $7,764 XBundled (Life and Supplemental) Court $1,955 XCash Supplement (Flex Plans) Court $0 XDental Court $0 XGeneral Health Care Court $0 XLife Insurance Court $73 XOther Disability Insurance Court $9,747 XVision Court $0 X
Lake $0No Supplemental Judicial Benefits
Lassen $0No Supplemental Judicial Benefits
Los Angeles $23,482,932401K County $3,957,130 X457 County $2,001,295 XCash Supplement (Flex Plans) County $14,454,245 XOther Allowances/Stipends (not specifically designated) County $3,070,262 X
Madera $0No Supplemental Judicial Benefits
Marin $0No Supplemental Judicial Benefits
Mariposa $424Life Insurance Court $424 X
Mendocino $6,000Other Allowances/Stipends (not specifically designated) County $6,000 X
Merced $0No Supplemental Judicial Benefits
Modoc $0No Supplemental Judicial Benefits
'���A-169
A-176
A-177
A-185
A-186
Case 2:09-cv-01914-JFW-CW Document 78 Filed 12/26/12 Page 28 of 43 Page ID #:957
A-241
Case 2:09-cv-01914-JFW-CW Document 78 Filed 12/26/12 Page 30 of 43 Page ID #:959
A-243
Case 2:09-cv-01914-JFW-CW Document 78 Filed 12/26/12 Page 31 of 43 Page ID #:960
A-244