Judicial oversight commission spared

The secretive state agency that disciplines unethical judges has been spared a $500,000 budget cut in a deal between the governor and legislative leaders.

California lawmakers had moved to reduce funding to the San Francisco-based Commission on Judicial Performance by about 10 percent after the agency refused to release thousands of confidential judicial complaints and investigations to the state auditor.

But in the 2018-19 budget passed this week, the money had been restored. The commission’s budget is now $5.2 million, which is what the governor’s office had proposed earlier this year. Gov. Jerry Brown has until June 30 to sign the budget.

Kathleen Russell, executive director of the Center for Judicial Excellence, an advocacy organization that has pushed for an audit of the commission, said she was disappointed but not surprised by the outcome.

“The judicial branch, including its oversight agency, wield a tremendous amount of power in this state,” Russell said. “But the issue of judicial accountability is not going away.”

In August 2016, a legislative committee directed state auditor Elaine Howle to conduct the first audit ever of the commission, which was established in 1960 and oversees about 2,000 judges.

But the audit has been stalled ever since as the commission has fought in court to keep most of its investigative records secret.

A San Francisco Superior Court judge ruled in December that the state Constitution gives the 11-member commission the power to shield certain records, effectively trumping the auditor’s legislative authority to review

government agencies.

In a budget subcommittee hearing in April, lawmakers had expressed frustration with the length of the audit impasse, indicating that it would be hard to approve funding for the agency if the Legislature had no means to review how the commission was functioning.

Joe Kocurek, spokesman for Assemblywoman Shirley Weber, D-San Diego, who chairs the budget subcommittee on public safety, said they were surprised by the late decision to restore funding, given the Assembly and Senate agreement on the cut.

“Legislative oversight is one of our responsibilities. Through this action, we were trying to enforce that because the commission has not been complying with the state auditor,” Kocurek said.

“We still think this is important, and we will be having discussions about what to do next.”

The legal fight over the audit is now on appeal.