tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9173416929829483433.post5881142370621897165..comments2024-03-23T22:45:11.889-04:00Comments on Divorce in Connecticut: LETS GET HONEST! THE CT JUDICIAL BRANCH COULD EASILY CUT $70 MILLION FROM ITS BUDGET IN NON JUDICIAL SERVICES!Catharine Sloperhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08915766638552096174noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9173416929829483433.post-36887789194010950922018-07-21T10:23:48.092-04:002018-07-21T10:23:48.092-04:00Did you see the auditors' hearing before the C...Did you see the auditors' hearing before the CGA on 7/9/18 re court reporters/monitors and audios/transcripts of hearings? CT-N.com has it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9173416929829483433.post-8613178311575235552016-03-02T16:44:29.402-05:002016-03-02T16:44:29.402-05:00Long ago, Justice Zarella wrote a law review artic...Long ago, Justice Zarella wrote a law review article arguing that when the Judicial Branch does anything more than necessary to resolve disputes it undermines its independence. Zarella's article got some publicity for a while, but has since been forgotten. The Judicial Branch has expanded into lots of other areas which, even if they are legitimate functions of government, should not be undertaken by the Judicial Branch. I suspect that has made them more bloated and more subject to cuts. I suspect the judges may rue the day they decided to coop the functions of the other branches of government.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9173416929829483433.post-13312910416386183712016-02-29T16:30:45.616-05:002016-02-29T16:30:45.616-05:00The problem with the proposed budget cuts isn'...The problem with the proposed budget cuts isn't that it would force the Judicial Branch to lay off one of every seven employees. The problem is that the other six would still be around to order parents to pay absence amounts to GALs and others who are connected to the judges and incarcerate them when they fail to do so. We should lay off the entire Judicial Branch and start over.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9173416929829483433.post-56851675496018666512016-02-23T11:32:26.938-05:002016-02-23T11:32:26.938-05:00The 2009 final report on audio recordings and cour...The 2009 final report on audio recordings and court reporters/monitors states on pg 10: “...However, Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers, in her January 2009 response, said, 'Not only does this implicate statutory issues, but also union contract rights.'” (Attachments 9 and 10) But the copy of Chief Justice Rogers' January 2009 letter that is attached doesn't say that—It says that the changes cannot be implemented due to “statutory provisions and other limiting concerns”--which is a lot more ambiguous. Question: Did CJ Rogers change her letter After it was sent to the committee to take out the reference to the union contract rights of the court reporters/monitors? (There's a CT criminal statute against changing a public record.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9173416929829483433.post-5273157228239892192016-02-23T09:52:57.092-05:002016-02-23T09:52:57.092-05:00The Judicial Branch should limit its activities to...The Judicial Branch should limit its activities to resolve the cases before it using admissible evidence and hearing appeals of the same. In fact, the Judicial Branch has engaged in enormous mission creep over the years, and now its activities extend far beyond that. That has warped its cost structure and undermined its independence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9173416929829483433.post-49069919784777852852016-02-23T09:26:43.282-05:002016-02-23T09:26:43.282-05:00Also consider the burden on taxpayers from the way...Also consider the burden on taxpayers from the way judicial branch employees' pension benefits may be calculated. The final report on court monitors and court reporters, 11/4/10, from Justice Katz to Chief Justice Rogers (can be found on CT Jud website) states on pg. 7-8:<br /><br />“The issue of separate payment for transcripts should not be discounted, particularly in a<br />frugal fiscal environment. In the fiscal year 2009-2010, court reporters and monitors earned<br />nearly $1 million in additional compensation beyond their base salaries for transcripts ordered by<br />the Judicial Branch and state agencies. Specifically, the Judicial Branch paid $356,862 for<br />transcripts and state agencies paid another $52,574.10 Additionally, the State’s Attorneys paid<br />$198,476 for regular transcripts, and another $58,785 for felony sentencing transcripts, and in the<br />same period, Public Defenders paid $198,173 for transcripts, and the Commission on Child<br />Protection spent an estimated $47,473, for a total of $912,345.<br /><br />“Additional compensation for transcripts does not simply increase an employee’s annual<br />salary, it also increases his or her state retirement pension, not unlike overtime that is earned by<br />police and firefighters boosts their pensions. This is concerning as the State Post-Employment<br />Benefits Commission reported in late October 2010 that the State Employee Retirement System<br />(SERS) plan is under-funded by more than $9 billion, and in 2008 had the fifth-lowest funding<br />ratio for its state-sponsored pension plans...”<br /><br />It doesn't say whether the transcripts they produce for parties or their counsel (which it is said can run over $10,000 in some appeals) are calculated into the pension benefits. That would be shocking if the payment is made by private parties or journalists, rather than by the state. In other states the transcript production for parties is considered to be independent contractor work. In CT, from what I've been told by a court reporter, they do it on state time and with state equipment. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com