Report 2016-137 All Recommendation Responses

Report 2016-137: Commission on Judicial Performance: Weaknesses in Its Oversight Have Created Opportunities for Judicial Misconduct to Persist (Release Date: April 2019)

Recommendation for Legislative Action

The Legislature should propose and submit to voters an amendment to the California Constitution to accomplish the following:

Establish a bicameral structure for the commission that includes an investigative and a disciplinary body. The proposed amendment should also require that members of the public are the majority in both bodies and that there is an odd number of members in each body.

Require that the disciplinary body directly hear all cases that go to formal proceedings and that CJP make rules to avoid prejudicial activity when it hears these cases. The amendment should also require that a majority of the commissioners who hear cases be members of the public and should establish that the State will compensate commissioners for their time preparing for and hearing cases.

Direct CJP to make rules for the implementation of corrective actions. Establish that such actions are discipline that should be authorized by the disciplinary body and that CJP should monitor whether judges complete the corrective actions.

Description of Legislative Action

As of April 25, 2022, the Legislature has not taken any action in the 2021-22 Legislative Session to address this specific recommendation.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: No Action Taken

Description of Legislative Action

As of April 25, 2021, the Legislature has not taken action to address this specific recommendation.

AB 3363 (Salas, 2020) would have, in part, created in the Committee to Review the Operations and Structure of the Commission on Judicial Performance to study and make recommendations for changes in the CJP's operations and structure and provide a written report about its findings and recommendations to the Governor, CJP, and the California Supreme Court no later than March 30, 2022. The bill failed passage in the Senate.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: No Action Taken

Description of Legislative Action

As of April 25, 2020, the Legislature has not taken action to address this specific recommendation.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: No Action Taken

Description of Legislative Action

The Legislature has not taken action during the 2019 Legislative Session to address this specific recommendation.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: No Action Taken

Description of Legislative Action

The Legislature has not taken action to address this specific recommendation.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: No Action Taken

Recommendation for Legislative Action

To make certain CJP has the resources necessary to implement our recommendations and to realize budget efficiencies, the Legislature should make a one-time appropriation to CJP of $419,000 in the Budget Act of 2019. This appropriation should be specifically for CJP to hire a limited-term investigations manager and update its electronic case management system.

Description of Legislative Action

The Budget Act of 2020 (as amended by AB 89, Chapter 7, Statutes of 2020) increased CJP's budget by $1.5 million, in part, to fund an investigations manager position and update the electronic case management system.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Legislation Enacted

Description of Legislative Action

As of April 25, 2020, the Legislature has not taken action to address this specific recommendation.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: No Action Taken

Description of Legislative Action

The Legislature has not taken action during the 2019 Legislative Session to address this specific recommendation.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: No Action Taken

Description of Legislative Action

The Legislature has not taken action to address this specific recommendation.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: No Action Taken

Recommendation for Legislative Action

To better ensure that those who observe or experience judicial misconduct realize that they can report it to CJP, the Legislature should require that all courthouses publicly display information that CJP prepares and provides that clearly and concisely presents CJP's mission, its process for submitting a complaint, and the definition of judicial misconduct.

Description of Legislative Action

As of April 25, 2022, the Legislature has not taken any action in the 2021-22 Legislative Session to address this specific recommendation.

AB 1842 (Salas, 2020) would have required CJP to:

1) Establish and implement a procedure to permit the electronic filing of complaints against judges on or before January 1, 2022.

2) Prepare and submit to each courthouse an informational bulletin describing CJP's mission, the procedure for filing a complaint with the commission, and the definition of judicial misconduct.

3) Ensure that the informational bulletin is publicly displayed at each courthouse.

4) Report to the Legislature on or before May 1 of each year, until the requirements of the bill have been completed, regarding, among other things, its progress in implementing these requirements and in purchasing and implementing a new electronic case management system.

This bill was substantially amended to address a different subject matter.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: No Action Taken

Description of Legislative Action

As of April 25, 2021, the Legislature has not taken action to address this specific recommendation.

AB 1842 (Salas, 2020) would have required CJP to:

1) Establish and implement a procedure to permit the electronic filing of complaints against judges on or before January 1, 2022.

2) Prepare and submit to each courthouse an informational bulletin describing CJP's mission, the procedure for filing a complaint with the commission, and the definition of judicial misconduct.

3) Ensure that the informational bulletin is publicly displayed at each courthouse.

4) Report to the Legislature on or before May 1 of each year, until the requirements of the bill have been completed, regarding, among other things, its progress in implementing these requirements and in purchasing and implementing a new electronic case management system.

This bill was substantially amended to address a different subject.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: No Action Taken

Description of Legislative Action

AB 1842 (Salas) was introduced on January 6, 2020, and would require CJP to:

1) Establish and implement a procedure to permit the electronic filing of complaints against judges on or before January 1, 2022.

2) Prepare and submit to each courthouse an informational bulletin describing CJP's mission, the procedure for filing a complaint with the commission, and the definition of judicial misconduct.

3) Ensure that the informational bulletin is publicly displayed at each courthouse.

4) Report to the Legislature on or before May 1 of each year, until the requirements of the bill have been completed, regarding, among other things, its progress in implementing these requirements and in purchasing and implementing a new electronic case management system.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Legislation Introduced

Description of Legislative Action

The Legislature has not taken action during the 2019 Legislative Session to address this specific recommendation.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: No Action Taken

Description of Legislative Action

The Legislature has not taken action to address this specific recommendation.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: No Action Taken

Recommendation #4 To: Commission on Judicial Performance

To ensure that it adequately investigates alleged judicial misconduct, by April 2020 CJP should implement processes to ensure that for each of its investigations, CJP's management reviews and approves an investigation strategy that includes all steps necessary to substantiate whether misconduct occurred .

1-Year Agency Response

Attorneys submit for management review a case plan for each case under investigation. Management reviews and approves the investigation strategy that includes all steps necessary to substantiate whether misconduct occurred.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Fully Implemented

We are assessing this recommendation as fully implemented based on the evidence we reviewed in CJP investigation files. We reviewed eight CJP investigations that were subject to CJP's new case planning process. In each of these files, we found case plans and determined that investigators had documented the reasonable steps that they could take to evaluate whether misconduct occurred. These steps included, as appropriate, interviewing relevant witnesses, reviewing documents, and obtaining court transcripts or recordings.

6-Month Agency Response

The efforts to implement this recommendation are ongoing.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Partially Implemented

60-Day Agency Response

For new investigations, staff will complete a Case Plan that sets forth witnesses to contact, documents to collect, and other investigative strategies. The Case Plan also sets forth an estimated time for completion of the investigation. The Case Plan is discussed with, reviewed, and approved by the Director.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Partially Implemented

We assessed this recommendation as partially implemented pending our verification that CJP's new case plan process sufficiently addresses the deficiencies we identified in our report. We reviewed CJP's new case planning documentation and verified that it contains reasonable elements to ensure quality investigations. However, the success of the new case plan process is highly dependent on the level of rigor CJP applies when developing, approving, and following its case plans.

Recommendation #5 To: Commission on Judicial Performance

To ensure that it adequately investigates alleged judicial misconduct, by April 2020 CJP should create and fill a new investigations manager position and task that individual with reviewing and approving investigative strategies, as well as overseeing the execution of those strategies.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2020

CJP fully implemented this recommendation. CJP was not able to create and fill the investigations manager position until funding for the position was included in its budget. That funding was included in CJP's budget, beginning in fiscal year 2020-2021. CJP created and filled this position in July 2020. Among other duties, the investigations manager is tasked with reviewing and approving investigative strategies, as well as overseeing the execution of those strategies.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Fully Implemented

We are rating this recommendation as fully implemented based on CJP creating and filling a new investigations manager position.

1-Year Agency Response

CJP intends to complete this recommendation when the funding recommended by the audit report is allocated to its budget. Without additional funds allocated to its budget, CJP will not be able to fund this position through "budget efficiencies," or otherwise. CJP has worked with the Department of Finance to have these funds, and others recommended by the audit report, added to its budget for fiscal year 2020-21. Given the fiscal impact of the coronavirus pandemic and the necessary responses thereto, CJP appreciates that the budget for 2020-21 is up in the air and has yet to be resolved.

The budget for an investigations manager position would amount to approximately $265,000. The budget efficiencies, identified in the audit report, that CJP could possibly implement this fiscal year amount to $52,000, at most. CJP anticipates that it will return zero dollars to the General Fund this fiscal year (2019-20). CJP returned zero dollars to the General Fund in fiscal year 2018-19. The prior fiscal year (2017-18), CJP returned $7,000 to the General Fund. Almost 90% of the budget efficiencies that the audit report identifies rely on CJP relocating its offices. There are statutory and practical constraints on CJP's ability to move its offices, and such savings are not achievable this fiscal year. Moreover, in the near term, any savings from lower rent would be more than offset by the cost of tenant improvements for a new office and by the cost of moving to the new office.

In addition, there are no other possible savings that would permit CJP to hire for an investigations manager position without a budget increase.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Partially Implemented

On June 29, 2020 the Governor signed the Budget Act of 2020 which allocated additional funding to CJP so it could hire an investigations manager. This recommendation will be fully implemented after we verify that CJP has filled the position and tasked that individual with reviewing and approving investigative strategies, as well as overseeing the execution of those strategies.

6-Month Agency Response

CJP intends to complete this recommendation when the funding recommended by the audit report is allocated to its budget. Without additional funds allocated to its budget, CJP will not be able to fund this position through "budget efficiencies," or otherwise. The budget for an investigations manager position would amount to approximately $265,000. The budget efficiencies, identified in the audit report, that CJP could possibly implement this fiscal year amount to $52,000, at most. CJP returned zero dollars to the General Fund in fiscal year 2018-19. The prior fiscal year, CJP returned $7,000 to the General Fund. Almost 90% of the budget efficiencies that the audit report identifies rely on CJP relocating its offices. There are statutory and practical constraints on CJP's ability to move its offices, and such savings are not achievable this fiscal year. Moreover, in the near term, any savings from lower rent would be offset by the cost of tenant improvements for a new office and by the cost of moving to the new office.

In addition, there are no other possible savings that would permit CJP to hire for an investigations manager position without a budget increase.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

As stated in our 60-Day assessment, we remain concerned that CJP did not work with the Legislature to obtain a budget increase so it could hire an investigations supervisor. This is an important recommendation that aims to improve CJP's investigations into judicial misconduct.

60-Day Agency Response

CJP intends to complete this recommendation when the funding recommended by the Audit Report is allocated to its budget.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

CJP did not work with the Legislature to obtain a budget increase so it could hire an investigations supervisor. CJP indicated that it did not approach the Legislature about this funding until after the Governor released his revised budget in May 2019. CJP reported to us that at that time, a legislative staff member directed it to work with the Department of Finance to pursue these funds through the budget change proposal process, which CJP plans to do. However, CJP did not indicate to us that it took any significant steps through the budget process to alert the Legislature to the results of the audit and the need for additional funding.

As it pursues additional funding, it will be important for CJP to identify budget efficiencies, like those we identify in our audit report. This will assist CJP in moving toward establishing an investigative manager position even if it does not successfully obtain additional funding.

Recommendation #6 To: Commission on Judicial Performance

To ensure that it adequately investigates alleged judicial misconduct, by April 2020 CJP should expand the role of its legal advisor's office to include periodic reviews of the quality of closed investigations and, as warranted, to recommend changes to CJP's investigative practices.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From April 2021

CJP fully implemented this recommendation. The legal advisor now conducts an annual review of closed investigation files and, if appropriate, makes recommendations for changes to CJP's investigative practices. For the most recent annual review, the legal advisor drafted a report after reviewing a random selection of closed investigation files and consulting with investigating the attorneys who conducted the investigations to resolve any questions that arose. The legal advisor provided that report to the commission. The legal advisor will continue to conduct a thorough review of investigation files on an annual basis.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Fully Implemented

We are rating this recommendation as fully implemented because the legal advisor improved the thoroughness of the review of closed investigations since our last assessment and reported pertinent information to the Commission.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2020

CJP fully implemented this recommendation. The legal advisor now conducts an annual review of closed investigation files and, if appropriate, makes recommendations for changes to investigative practices. The legal advisor will continue to conduct a thorough review of investigation files to implement this recommendation.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Partially Implemented

We are rating this recommendation as partially implemented based on concerns we identified with the legal advisor's first review evaluating the quality of closed investigations. We identified concerns with some of the investigations that the legal advisor did not resolve that were similar to the issues we identified in the audit. Overall, the legal advisor will need to conduct a more thorough review to fully implement this recommendation. We will update our assessment based on our evaluation of the legal advisor's second review of the quality of closed investigations.

1-Year Agency Response

CJP established a policy to have the legal advisor review a random sample of closed investigations and to recommend changes to investigative practices, if necessary. The legal advisor completed the first such review in February 2020.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Partially Implemented

We are rating this recommendation as partially implemented based on concerns we identified with the legal advisor's first review evaluating the quality of closed investigations. We identified concerns with some of the investigations that the legal advisor did not resolve that were similar to the issues we identified in the audit. Overall, the legal advisor will need to conduct a more thorough review to fully implement this recommendation.

6-Month Agency Response

The efforts to implement this recommendation are ongoing.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

60-Day Agency Response

Commission staff has established a process for the legal advisor to review one closed preliminary investigation for each investigating attorney on staff. This review will occur in the first quarter of every year.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

We assessed the implementation status of this recommendation as pending because CJP has provided insufficient detail regarding how it will conduct its periodic investigation reviews. The documentation CJP provided to us explaining its plans for periodic reviews details the time of year the legal advisor will review investigations and how many investigations the legal advisor will review. To fully implement this recommendation, we expect CJP's plans to include details about what the legal advisor will be assessing as part of her review and under what circumstances the legal advisor would expand her review to determine the cause of any identified deficiencies. Additionally, CJP should describe how and when the legal advisor will report to the commission the steps taken as part of her review and the results of the review, including any recommended changes to CJP's investigative practices. Finally, this recommendation will not be fully implemented until we verify that the legal advisor has conducted an adequate review of investigations in accordance with CJP's planned approach.

Recommendation #7 To: Commission on Judicial Performance

To ensure that it leverages all available information to uncover misconduct, CJP should establish procedures by April 2020 for more regularly exercising its oversight authority to open investigations into patterns of potential misconduct. At a minimum, these procedures should require that intake attorneys assess complaints to identify when patterns of complaints merit recommending an investigation.

1-Year Agency Response

CJP established policies to have intake attorneys and investigating attorneys assess the possibility that an investigation into a pattern of misconduct was warranted. When there is a determination that a pattern investigation was warranted, CJP attorneys recommend that a pattern investigation take place as a part of CJP's oversight authority.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Fully Implemented

We are rating this recommendation as fully implemented based on our on-site review of CJP's new procedures. We found sufficient evidence that CJP implemented its new procedures requiring intake attorneys to assess complaints to identify when patterns of complaints merit recommending an investigation.

6-Month Agency Response

The efforts to implement this recommendation are ongoing.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

60-Day Agency Response

The efforts to implement this recommendation are ongoing.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

Recommendation #8 To: Commission on Judicial Performance

To allow it to detect potential judicial misconduct associated with legal errors, CJP should immediately direct its staff to use more appropriate allegation codes when closing complaints at intake. By October 2019, CJP should determine what data it will need to begin tracking so it can trend information—voluntarily provided by complainants—that could indicate complaints about legal error should be investigated because there is a risk that legal error is the result of underlying misconduct, such as bias. By October 2019, CJP should also develop procedures that indicate how often it will evaluate its data for such trends and establish guidelines for when trends warrant CJP staff recommending that the commission open an investigation. CJP should begin tracking that information and implement these procedures as soon as possible.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From April 2021

CJP completed the "immediate" part of this recommendation by instructing CJP staff, as recommended. CJP has implemented a procedure to review information on an annual basis to determine whether complaints, closed for legal error, are indicative of a trend of misconduct, such as bias or abuse of authority. In conjunction with the implementation of its new case management system, CJP has also implemented enhanced procedures for tracking legal error to see if there are additional factors, associated with legal error, that might constitute judicial misconduct.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Fully Implemented

We are assessing this recommendation as fully implemented because CJP's adoption of a new case management system will reduce many of our concerns about its past data issues related to observing trends of legal error. CJP has established new procedures for monitoring legal error trends through its new case management system, which will allow it to detect potential judicial misconduct associated with legal errors.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2020

CJP completed the "immediate" part of this recommendation by instructing CJP staff, as recommended. CJP has implemented a procedure to review information on an annual basis to determine whether complaints, closed for legal error, are indicative of a trend of misconduct, such as bias or abuse of authority. Also, the problems with CJP's historical data that the Auditor's office perceived should not exist with data entered after CJP's new case management system (CMS) is available for use with its cases in January 2021. CJP was not able to acquire a new CMS until funding for the position was included in its budget. That funding was included in CJP's budget for fiscal year 2020-2021.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Partially Implemented

We are assessing this recommendation as partially implemented because the concerns we identified in the audit related to CJP's imprecise data on legal error hindered its review of possible trends associated with complaints closed for legal error. Although the Director Chief-Counsel instructed CJP staff to improve coding for legal error allegations, poor historical data limits CJP's ability to perform an analysis of trends because CJP cannot identify all complaints related to legal error.

1-Year Agency Response

CJP completed the "immediate" part of this recommendation by instructing CJP staff, as recommended. CJP has implemented a procedure to review information on an annual basis to determine whether complaints, closed for legal error, are indicative of a trend of misconduct, such as bias or abuse of authority. The first such review took place in April 2020.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Partially Implemented

We are assessing this recommendation as partially implemented because the concerns we identified in the audit related to CJP's imprecise data on legal error hindered its review of possible trends associated with complaints closed for legal error. Although the Director Chief-Counsel instructed CJP staff to improve coding for legal error allegations, poor historical data limits CJP's ability to perform an analysis of trends because CJP cannot identify all complaints related to legal error.

6-Month Agency Response

CJP completed the "immediate" part of this recommendation by instructing CJP staff, as recommended. CJP has implemented a procedure to review information on an annual basis to determine whether complaints, closed for legal error, are indicative of a trend of misconduct, such as bias or abuse of authority.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Partially Implemented

This recommendation is partially implemented because CJP has not addressed what additional data it will need to begin tracking so it can trend information that could indicate complaints about legal error that should be investigated because there is a risk that legal error is the result of underlying misconduct. For example, in our report we point out that analyzing complaints could reveal whether a judge consistently commits legal error in cases involving litigants of a certain protected class of people, which could indicate bias. Tracking and trending information voluntarily provided by complainants—such as their race and gender— could indicate that a judge may commit acts that lead to violations of the ethics code through repeated legal error.

60-Day Agency Response

The commission has completed the "immediate" part of this recommendation by instructing commission staff as recommended. The efforts to implement the remaining parts of this recommendation are ongoing.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

CJP sent us the guidance that it provided to its staff regarding the use of legal error allegation codes at intake. We believe this guidance sufficiently addresses the first portion of our recommendation. To reach full implementation, CJP will need to determine what data it will need to begin tracking so it can trend information that could indicate complaints about legal error should be investigated, develop procedures that describe how often it will evaluate its data for legal error trends, and establish guidelines for when trends warrant recommending that the commission open an investigation.

Recommendation #9 To: Commission on Judicial Performance

To prevent the risk that it will fail to detect chronic judicial misconduct, CJP should create and implement procedures by October 2019 that require an investigator to review all prior complaints when investigating a judge and determine whether the prior complaints are similar to the current allegations. Further, the procedures should require that if a pattern of complaints indicates the potential for chronic misconduct, the investigator must recommend that the commission expand the investigation.

1-Year Agency Response

As a part of a Case Plan for each new investigation, investigating attorneys review the system of record for potential patterns or indications of similar prior misconduct. If there is any such indication, the investigating attorney review the prior complaints to assess whether there is a potential pattern of misconduct.

Throughout the audit process, CJP noted that there are potential due process issues with examining closed complaints as a part of determining whether there is a pattern of misconduct. (See, e.g., Audit Report at p. 79.) Per prior comments from the Auditor's staff, CJP developed procedures that outline how its staff should assess whether allegations are similar to one another and the circumstances under which to recommend an investigation of a pattern of misconduct. If a pattern is detected, the staff attorney discusses that conclusion with the director to determine an appropriate recommendation to make to the commission.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Fully Implemented

We are rating this recommendation as fully implemented based on our on-site review of CJP's new procedures. We found sufficient evidence that CJP implemented its new procedures requiring investigators to review all prior complaints when investigating a judge and determine whether the prior complaints are similar to the current allegations.

6-Month Agency Response

As a part of a Case Plan for each new investigation, investigating attorneys will review the system of record for potential patterns or indications of similar prior misconduct. If there is any such indication, the investigating attorney will review the prior complaints to assess whether there is a potential pattern of misconduct.

Throughout the audit process, CJP noted that there are potential due process issues with examining closed complaints as a part of determining whether there is a pattern of misconduct. (See, e.g., Audit Report at p. 79.) Per prior comments from the Auditor's staff, CJP developed procedures that outline how its staff should assess whether allegations are similar to one another and the circumstances under which to recommend an investigation of a pattern of misconduct. If a pattern is detected, the investigating attorney will discuss that conclusion with the director to determine an appropriate recommendation to make to the commission.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Partially Implemented

Since our 60-day assessment, we found that CJP developed more robust procedures that describe in detail how CJP will perform its review of past complaints and identify patterns. We look forward to reviewing additional support to evaluate CJP's implementation of these procedures.

60-Day Agency Response

As a part of the use of a Case Plan for each new investigation, investigating attorneys will review the system of record for potential patterns or indications of similar prior misconduct. If there is any such indication, the investigating attorney will review the prior complaints to assess whether there is a potential pattern of misconduct. If a pattern is detected, the investigating attorney will discuss that conclusion with the Director to determine an appropriate recommendation to make to the commission.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

We assessed this recommendation as pending because CJP's guidance regarding reviewing prior complaints to determine if there is the potential for chronic misconduct is insufficient. During a recent Joint Legislative Oversight Hearing, the Director Chief Counsel stated there are due process issues with basing investigations on previous complaints that have been closed. Thus, we expected that CJP would develop strong procedures that outline how its investigators should assess whether allegations are similar to one another and that define under what circumstances a series of similar allegations represents a pattern that warrants expanding an investigation. However, the procedures that CJP provided to us do not describe in detail how CJP will perform its review of past complaints and identification of patterns. We recognize that directing CJP investigators to review prior allegations is a good first step, but to fully implement this recommendation CJP will need to develop more robust procedures.

Recommendation #10 To: Commission on Judicial Performance

To improve its transparency and accessibility to the general public, by April 2020 CJP should implement a plan to regularly engage in outreach activities that target the general public.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2021

CJP implemented this recommendation. CJP conducts an annual public meeting, including an annual meeting that will take place on October 15, 2021, at 10 a.m. In even-numbered years, CJP's public meetings will include a discussion of CJP's rule-making process. CJP has also engaged in targeted outreach to stakeholders with clients who regularly interact with the courts and who may be particularly harmed by judicial misconduct. CJP plans to engage in additional public outreach, including in-person presentations, once the COVID-19 pandemic has ended.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Fully Implemented

This recommendation is fully implemented now that CJP has held and plans to continue holding annual public meetings. CJP also provided us evidence of its targeted outreach to stakeholders.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From April 2021

The efforts to implement this recommendation are ongoing. CJP continued to engage in outreach and continues to develop a plan to have more outreach activities that target the general public. This will include an annual public meeting, as well as targeted outreach to stakeholders with clients who regularly interact with the courts. The pandemic has limited CJP's ability to engage in public outreach. CJP will continue to adapt its outreach plans once pandemic restrictions have ended.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2020

CJP continues to work to implement this recommendation. CJP plans to have an annual public meetings in even-numbered years regarding its rule-making process. CJP is engaged in additional planning for public outreach that takes into account the COVID-19 pandemic. It intends to have a complete plan in place by May 2021.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

1-Year Agency Response

The efforts to implement this recommendation are ongoing. CJP continued to engage in outreach, and was in the process of developing a plan to have more outreach activities that target the general public, prior to the coronavirus pandemic. Given the pandemic, CJP will need to change and adapt those plans. Some of the outreach presentations that were scheduled were canceled as a result of the pandemic.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Pending

6-Month Agency Response

The efforts to implement this recommendation are ongoing.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

60-Day Agency Response

The efforts to implement this recommendation are ongoing.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

Recommendation #11 To: Commission on Judicial Performance

To improve its transparency and accessibility to the general public, by April 2020 CJP should update its website to include better resources for complainants, including examples of high-quality complaints that illustrate what CJP looks for when evaluating a complaint to decide if it will open an investigation.

1-Year Agency Response

CJP updated its website, as recommended.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Fully Implemented

CJP has updated its website to include additional information on what should be included in complaints. It has also added fictitious examples of complaints that would warrant further inquiry, and could, if proven by clear and convincing evidence, result in a finding of judicial misconduct. The updated information can be found here: https://cjp.ca.gov/file_a_complaint/

6-Month Agency Response

The efforts to implement this recommendation are ongoing.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

60-Day Agency Response

The efforts to implement this recommendation are ongoing.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

Recommendation #12 To: Commission on Judicial Performance

To ensure that it expeditiously improves the public's ability to submit complaints, CJP should begin accepting complaints online upon updating its electronic case management system.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From April 2021

CJP began accepting online complaints in January 2021.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Fully Implemented

This recommendation is fully implemented now that CJP accepts online complaints.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2020

CJP is in the process of implementing this recommendation. CJP was not able to acquire a new case management system (CMS) that would allow it to accept complaints online until funding for the CMS was included in its budget. That funding was included in CJP's budget for fiscal year 2020-2021. CJP anticipates that the new CMS will be functional, and that it will be able to accept complaints online, by January 2021. In August 2020, CJP began the process of developing and installing a new CMS.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Partially Implemented

This recommendation will be fully implemented after we verify that CJP has began accepting complaints online after updating its electronic case management system.

1-Year Agency Response

CJP staff has researched a new case management system (CMS) that will also allow CJP to accept complaints online. CJP estimates that the cost of a new CMS, including necessary data migration, will amount to at least $150,000 (and potentially much more than $150,000). CJP has worked with the Department of Finance to have these funds, and others recommended by the audit report, added to its budget for fiscal year 2020-21. Given the fiscal impact of the coronavirus pandemic and the necessary responses thereto, CJP appreciates that the budget for 2020-21 is up in the air and has yet to be resolved.

Without additional funds allocated to its budget, CJP will not be able to cover the cost of a new CMS through "budget efficiencies," or otherwise. As noted, the cost of a new CMS would be not less than $150,000. The budget efficiencies, identified in the audit report, that CJP could possibly implement this fiscal year amount to $52,000, at most. CJP anticipates that it will return zero dollars to the General Fund this fiscal year (2019-20). CJP returned zero dollars to the General Fund in fiscal year 2018-19. The prior fiscal year, CJP returned $7,000 to the General Fund. Almost 90% of the budget efficiencies that the audit report identifies rely on CJP relocating its offices. There are statutory and practical constraints on CJP's ability to move its offices, and such savings are not achievable this fiscal year. Moreover, in the near term, any savings from lower rent would be offset by the cost of tenant improvements for a new office and by the cost of moving to the new office.

In addition, there are no other possible savings that would permit CJP to obtain a new CMS without a budget increase.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Partially Implemented

On June 29, 2020 the Governor signed the Budget Act of 2020 which allocated additional funding to CJP so that it could update its case management system. This recommendation will be fully implemented after we verify that CJP has began accepting complaints online after updating its electronic case management system.

6-Month Agency Response

CJP staff has researched a new case management system (CMS) that will also allow CJP to accept complaints online. CJP estimates that the cost of a new CMS, including necessary data migration, will amount to at least $150,000 (and potentially much more than $150,000). Without additional funds allocated to its budget, CJP will not be able to cover the cost of a new CMS through "budget efficiencies," or otherwise. As noted, the cost of a new CMS would be not less than $150,000. The budget efficiencies, identified in the audit report, that CJP could possibly implement this fiscal year amount to $52,000, at most. CJP returned zero dollars to the General Fund in fiscal year 2018-19. The prior fiscal year, CJP returned $7,000 to the General Fund. Almost 90% of the budget efficiencies that the audit report identifies rely on CJP relocating its offices. There are statutory and practical constraints on CJP's ability to move its offices, and such savings are not achievable this fiscal year. Moreover, in the near term, any savings from lower rent would be offset by the cost of tenant improvements for a new office and by the cost of moving to the new office.

In addition, there are no other possible savings that would permit CJP to obtain a new CMS without a budget increase.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

As stated in our 60-Day assessment, we remain concerned that CJP did not work with the Legislature to obtain a budget increase so it could hire an investigations supervisor. This is an important recommendation that aims to improve CJP's investigations into judicial misconduct.

60-Day Agency Response

Commission staff has begun to research a new case management system that will also allow the commission to accept complaints online. The commission intends to move forward with a new CMS with that capability once they have completed that research and once the necessary funds have been included as a part of its budget.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

The status of this recommendation is pending CJP accepting complaints online upon updating its electronic case management system.

CJP did not work with the Legislature to obtain a budget increase so it could purchase a case management system. CJP indicated that it did not approach the Legislature about this funding until after the Governor released his revised budget in May 2019. CJP reported to us that at that time, a legislative staff member directed it to work with the Department of Finance to pursue these funds through the budget change proposal process, which CJP plans to do. However, CJP did not indicate to us that it took any significant steps through the budget process to alert the Legislature to the results of the audit and the need for additional funding.

As it pursues additional funding, it will be important for CJP to identify budget efficiencies, like those we identify in our audit report. This will assist CJP in moving toward establishing a case management system even if it does not successfully obtain additional funding.

Recommendation #13 To: Commission on Judicial Performance

To improve public transparency and offer opportunities for the public to provide testimony on its proposed rules and operations, CJP should hold at least one public meeting during its biennial rulemaking process. It should ensure that it properly notifies the public about the meeting and provides the public the opportunity to comment at the meeting.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2020

CJP fully implemented this recommendation. For the biennial rule-making process that CJP just concluded, CJP held a public meeting by video-conference on September 15, 2020. (CJP conducted the public meeting by video-conference due to the COVID-19 pandemic.) CJP gave public notice of the meeting and provided the public with an opportunity to comment at the meeting. CJP intends to conduct similar public meetings on an ongoing basis as a part of its biennial rule-making process.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Fully Implemented

We are rating this recommendation as fully implemented because CJP noticed and held its first public meeting and stated it plans to hold similar meetings in the future.

1-Year Agency Response

CJP had planned to conduct a public meeting during the current rulemaking process (that occurs every other year). Given the coronavirus pandemic, CJP will need to determine the date of that meeting and how such a public meeting will take place.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Pending

6-Month Agency Response

The efforts to implement this recommendation are ongoing.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

60-Day Agency Response

The efforts to implement this recommendation are ongoing.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

Recommendation #14 To: Commission on Judicial Performance

To maximize the resources available for its core functions, CJP should immediately begin exploring options for relocating its office to a less expensive location and relocate as soon as possible.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From April 2024

CJP began to explore options to relocate its office immediately after the Auditor's office made this recommendation. CJP's ability to relocate was constrained by requirements in the Government Code, the cost of relocating to another office, the availability of space in alternate state office buildings, and the realities of the COVID-19 pandemic. The state fully paid off the bond that on the building in which CJP's offices are located. Thereafter, CJP's rent decreased by approximately 55%. As CJP's offices are in a state office building, the money that it expends on rent is returned to the state, as its landlord.

Also, the commission has increased its staffing in line with recommendations in the Audit Report and as the result of increased work that resulted from the implementation of other recommendations in the Audit Report (e.g., accepting online complaints). Thus, the commission could not move to office space that is any smaller than the space it now occupies.

In addition, in its Report and Recommendations, dated March 27, 2023, the Committee to Review the Operations and Structure of the Commission on Judicial Performance recommended that CJP "maintain its present San Francisco office." Among other things, the Committee noted, "Whatever savings in rent that may be realized by moving would likely be offset by the significant expense and disruption of relocating and duplicating the security associated with the present state government building that houses CJP. Moreover, the present CJP location could accommodate the expansion of staff that this Committee recommends for CJP." See Committee Report and Recommendations at pp. 29-30.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From September 2023

CJP began to explore options to relocate its office immediately after the Auditor's office made this recommendation. CJP's ability to relocate was constrained by requirements in the Government Code, the cost of relocating to another office, the availability of space in alternate state office buildings, and the realities of the COVID-19 pandemic. The state recently fully paid off the bond that on the building in which CJP's offices are located. Thereafter, CJP's rent decreased by approximately 55%. As CJP's offices are in a state office building, the money that it expends on rent is returned to the state, as its landlord.

Also, the commission has increased its staffing in line with recommendations in the Audit Report and as the result of increased work that resulted from the implementation of other recommendations in the Audit Report (e.g., accepting online complaints). Thus, the commission could not move to office space that is any smaller than the space it now occupies.

In addition, in its Report and Recommendations, dated March 27, 2023, the Committee to Review the Operations and Structure of the Commission on Judicial Performance recommended that CJP "maintain its present San Francisco office." Among other things, the Committee noted, "Whatever savings in rent that may be realized by moving would likely be offset by the significant expense and disruption of relocating and duplicating the security associated with the present state government building that houses CJP. Moreover, the present CJP location could accommodate the expansion of staff that this Committee recommends for CJP." See Committee Report and Recommendations at pp. 29-30.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From April 2023

CJP began to explore options to relocate its office immediately after the Auditor's office made this recommendation and continues to do so. CJP's ability to relocate was constrained by requirements in the Government Code, the cost of relocating to another office, the availability of space in alternate state office buildings, and the realities of the COVID-19 pandemic. The state recently fully paid off the bond that on the building in which CJP's offices are located. Thereafter, CJP's rent decreased by approximately 55%. As CJP's offices are in a state office building, the money that it expends on rent is returned to the state, as its landlord.

Also, the commission has increased its staffing in line with recommendations in the Audit Report and as the result of increased work that resulted from the implementation of other recommendations in the Audit Report (e.g., accepting online complaints). Thus, the commission could not move to office space that is any smaller than the space it now occupies.

In addition, in its Report and Recommendations, dated March 27, 2023, the Committee to Review the Operations and Structure of the Commission on Judicial Performance recommended that CJP "maintain its present San Francisco office." Among other things, the Committee noted, "Whatever savings in rent that may be realized by moving would likely be offset by the significant expense and disruption of relocating and duplicating the security associated with the present state government building that houses CJP. Moreover, the present CJP location could accommodate the expansion of staff that this Committee recommends for CJP." See Committee Report and Recommendations at pp. 29-30.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2022

CJP began to explore options to relocate its office immediately after the Auditor's office made this recommendation and continues to do so. CJP's ability to relocate is constrained by requirements in the Government Code, the cost of relocating to another office, the availability of space in alternate state office buildings, and the realities of the COVID-19 pandemic. CJP notes that its current office is in a state office building and the money that it expends on rent is returned to the state, as its landlord. Also, the commission has increased its staffing in line with recommendations in the Audit Report and as the result of increased work that resulted from the implementation of other recommendations in the Audit Report (e.g., accepting online complaints). As a result, the commission would not be able to move to office space that is any smaller than the space it now occupies.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

This recommendation is pending CJP relocating to a new office space. We updated our analysis to take into consideration the additional staff CJP is authorized to hire and found that, based on state space allowance standards, it should still move into a significantly smaller office space.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From April 2022

CJP began to explore options to relocate its office immediately after the Auditor's office made this recommendation and continues to do so. CJP has not located a suitable alternate office space, available in a state building. CJP's ability to relocate is constrained by requirements in the Government Code, the cost of relocating to another office, the availability of space in alternate state office buildings, and the COVID-19 pandemic. CJP notes that its current office is in a state office building and the money that it expends on rent is returned to the state, as its landlord. Also, the commission has increased its staffing in line with recommendations in the Audit Report and as the result of increased work that resulted from the implementation of other recommendations in the Audit Report (e.g., accepting online complaints). The commission would not be able to move to office space that is significantly smaller than the space it now occupies.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

This recommendation is pending CJP relocating to a new office space. We updated our analysis to take into consideration the additional staff CJP is authorized to hire and found that, based on state space allowance standards, it should still move into a significantly smaller office space.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2021

CJP began to explore options to relocate its office immediately after the Auditor's office made this recommendation and continues to do so. CJP's ability to relocate is constrained by requirements in the Government Code, the cost of relocating to another office, the availability of space in alternate state office buildings, and the realities of the COVID-19 pandemic. CJP notes that its current office is in a state office building and the money that it expends on rent is returned to the state, as its landlord. Also, the commission has increased its staffing in line with recommendations in the Audit Report and as the result of increased work that resulted from the implementation of other recommendations in the Audit Report (e.g., accepting online complaints). As a result, the commission would not be able to move to office space that is any smaller than the space it now occupies.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

This recommendation is pending CJP relocating to a new office space. We updated our analysis to take into consideration the additional staff CJP is authorized to hire and found that, based on state space allowance standards, it should still move into a significantly smaller office space.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From April 2021

CJP began to explore options to relocate its office immediately after the Auditor's office made this recommendation and continues to do so. CJP's ability to relocate is constrained by requirements in the Government Code, the cost of relocating to another office, the availability of space in alternate state office buildings, and the realities of the COVID-19 pandemic. CJP notes that its current office is in a state office building and the money that it expends on rent is returned to the state, as its landlord.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2020

CJP began to explore options to relocate its office immediately after the Auditor's office made this recommendation, and continues to do so. CJP's ability to relocate is constrained by requirements in the Government Code, the cost of relocating to another office, the availability of space in alternate state office buildings, and the realities of the COVID-19 pandemic. CJP notes that its current office is in a state office building and the money that it expends on rent is returned to the state, as its landlord.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

1-Year Agency Response

CJP continues to explore such options, as recommended. CJP will continue with such efforts.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Pending

6-Month Agency Response

CJP continues to explore such options, as recommended. CJP will continue with such efforts.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

60-Day Agency Response

The commission has begun exploring such options, as recommended. The commission will continue with such efforts.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

Recommendation #15 To: Commission on Judicial Performance

To ensure that it obtains the resources necessary to fulfill its mission, CJP should report to the Legislature by May of each of the next three years about the following:

- Its progress in implementing our recommendations and any associated effects on its workload.

- The steps it has taken to realize efficiencies in its operations.

- Its evaluation of whether the investigations manager is a full-time position and any funding it will need in the future to support that position.

- Its progress in purchasing and implementing a new electronic case management system.

- Its progress in relocating its office space to a more affordable location.

- Any savings or unforeseen costs arising from the changes we identify above.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2022

CJP fully implemented recommendation 15 because that recommendation calls for the commission to report to the Legislature for three years. CJP reported to the Legislature, per recommendation 15, in May 2020, May 2021, and May 2022.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Fully Implemented

CJP reported to the Legislature in May 2020, May 2021, and May 2022.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From April 2022

CJP made such reports to the Legislature in May 2020 and in May 2021. The final report is a future action that CJP intends to undertake on the date recommended.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Partially Implemented

CJP reported to the Legislature in May 2020 and May 2021. We look forward to reviewing the report it makes in May 2022.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2021

CJP made such reports to the Legislature in May 2020 and in May 2021. The final report is a future action that CJP intends to undertake on the date recommended.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Partially Implemented

CJP reported to the Legislature in May 2020 and May 2021. We look forward to reviewing the report it makes in May 2022.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From April 2021

CJP made such a report to the Legislature in May 2020. The additional reports are future actions that CJP intends to undertake on the dates recommended.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Partially Implemented

CJP reported to the Legislature in May 2020. We look forward to reviewing the reports it makes in May 2021 and May 2022.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2020

CJP reported to the Legislature, per this recommendation, in May 2020. CJP intends to make similar reports in May 2021 and May 2022.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Partially Implemented

CJP reported to the Legislature in May 2020. We look forward to reviewing the reports it makes in May 2021 and May 2022.

1-Year Agency Response

These are future actions that CJP intends to undertake on the dates recommended.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Pending

6-Month Agency Response

These are future actions that CJP intends to undertake on the dates recommended.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

60-Day Agency Response

These are future actions that the commission intends to undertake on the dates recommended.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

All Recommendations in 2016-137

Agency responses received are posted verbatim.