Archived Past Proposals

This proposal would adopt an amendment to the Conflict of Interest Code for the Judicial Council of California (Code) to include the classifications of Facilities AV Systems Specialist, Data Scientist, Compliance Architect, and Building Official. The proposal would also amend Category 7, Decision-making authority affecting real property and management, of the Code’s disclosure category to include the requirement to disclose interests in real property, which is applicable to all classifications within this category. Additionally, this amendment includes minor copyediting corrections for grammar and clarification that do not change the scope of the code.

In accordance with Government Code sections 87303 and 87306, the Code must be updated “when change is necessitated by changed circumstances, including the creation of new positions.” (Gov. Code, § 87306.) The council must review the proposed amendment to the Code and approve the Code as amended or direct that it be further revised and resubmitted for approval.

 

Under rule 10.63(c) of the California Rules of Court, the Advisory Committee on Audits and Financial Accountability for the Judicial Branch (Audit Committee) proposes revising the Judicial Branch Contracting Manual (JBCM) to add provisions regarding generative artificial intelligence, so that the JBCM will remain substantially similar to the State Contracting Manual and State Administrative Manual, as required by the Judicial Branch Contract Law. In addition, the Audit Committee’s proposal to revise the JBCM aligns with the judicial branch’s efforts to address the emerging technology of generative artificial intelligence.
 

The Court Executives Advisory Committee proposes that the Judicial Council amend standard 2.2 of the California Standards of Judicial Administration, which gives guidance to trial courts on the types of matters that remove a case from court control for purposes of calculating computation of time. The standard calls out cases in drug diversion programs under Penal Code section 1000 et seq. but is unclear as to whether other types of diversion programs should be treated similarly. The issue was raised to the committee’s Judicial Branch Statistical Information System Subcommittee by a court seeking clarity on whether the time reporting guidelines for drug diversion programs under Penal Code 1000 et seq. were intended to apply to other types of diversion programs. Revising the language in the standard is intended to increase clarity and help ensure consistent data reporting.

The Advisory Committee on Audits and Financial Accountability for the Judicial Branch (Audit Committee) proposes revising the Judicial Branch Contracting Manual (JBCM), in response to recommendations from the California State Auditor’s Office to add fraud reporting requirements that are substantially similar to State Administrative Manual section 20080. The Audit Committee invites public comment regarding these proposed revisions.

At the Judicial Council’s business meeting on August 26, 2011, the council adopted the Judicial Branch Contracting Manual (JBCM) effective October 1, 2011, the operative date of substantive requirements of the California Judicial Branch Contract Law. The council adopted revisions to the JBCM in December 2011, April 2012, August 2012, December 2013, June 2015, June 2016, July 2017, July 2018, September 2019, September 2020, and October 2021. Additional revisions to the JBCM are proposed below in tracked changes format, and staff invites public comment regarding the proposed revisions.

The chairs of the Executive and Planning Committee and the Technology Committee recommend adoption of proposed California Rules of Court, rule 10.68 to establish a data and information governance advisory committee. The committees also propose the repeal of rule 10.66 because the duties and responsibilities of the new proposed advisory body will include those of the Workload Assessment Advisory Committee established by that rule.

This proposal would adopt an amendment to the Conflict of Interest Code for the Judicial Council of California (Code) and amend the Code to include the classification of Construction Inspector. The Construction Inspector classification performs the same duties as the Engineering Specialist and should therefore be included on the Code as a classification required to disclose its statement of economic interest. In accordance with Government Code sections 87303 and 87306, the Code must be updated “when change is necessitated by changed circumstances, including the creation of new positions”. The council must review the proposed amendment to the Code and approve the Code as amended or direct that it be further revised and resubmitted for approval.

The Work Group to Enhance Administrative Standards Addressing Bias in Court Proceedings recommends amendments to California Standards of Judicial Administration, standard 10.20 (Court’s duty to prohibit bias), to support the integrity and impartiality of the judicial system and to promote a courtroom environment free of bias or the appearance of bias. The work group was appointed by Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye to identify improvements and propose amendments to standard 10.20. The work group was charged with ensuring that the standard, last substantively amended in 1997, reflects current law and current understandings regarding the elimination of bias and provides a framework for courts to work with their local communities to address these important issues. Comments must be submitted by Friday, June 25, 2021, at 5:00 PM (Pacific)

At the Judicial Council’s business meeting on August 26, 2011, the council adopted the Judicial Branch Contracting Manual (JBCM) effective October 1, 2011, the operative date of substantive requirements of the California Judicial Branch Contract Law.1 The council adopted revisions to the JBCM in December 2011, April 2012, August 2012, December 2013, June 2015, June 2016, July 2017, July 2018, September 2019, and September 2020. Additional revisions to the JBCM are proposed below in tracked changes format, and staff invites public comment regarding the proposed revisions.

At the Judicial Council’s business meeting on August 26, 2011, the council adopted the Judicial Branch Contracting Manual (JBCM) effective October 1, 2011, the operative date of substantive requirements of the California Judicial Branch Contract Law. The council adopted revisions to the JBCM in December 2011, April 2012, August 2012, December 2013, June 2015, June 2016, July 2017, July 2018, and September 2019. Additional revisions to the JBCM are proposed in tracked changes format, and staff invites public comment regarding the proposed revisions.

At the Judicial Council’s business meeting on August 26, 2011, the council adopted the Judicial Branch Contracting Manual effective October 1, 2011, the operative date of substantive requirements of the California Judicial Branch Contract Law. The council adopted revisions to the manual in December 2011, April 2012, August 2012, December 2013, June 2015, June 2016, July 2017, and July 2018. Additional revisions to the manual are proposed, and staff invites public comment regarding the proposed revisions.

In accordance with Government Code sections 87303 and 87306, the Judicial Council Conflict of Interest Code must be updated “when change is necessitated by changed circumstances.” (Gov. Code, § 87306.) The council must review proposed amendments to the Code and approve the Code as amended or direct that it be further revised and resubmitted for approval.

On April 10, 2018, Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye asked the Judicial Council to take immediate action to revise court rules on public records to ensure that all levels of the state court system be required to disclose the names of judicial officers who entered into settlement agreements to resolve sexual harassment and discrimination complaints. She created a working group to develop the rule changes required to achieve this goal. The working group recommends that the Judicial Council amend California Rules of Court, rule 10.500, on public access to judicial administrative records, to clarify that settlement agreements must be disclosed in response to public records requests and that the names of judicial officers must not be redacted from settlement agreements produced in response to these requests.

Judicial sabbaticals are addressed in the Government Code and the California Rules of Court. Current law and practices provide for only unpaid sabbaticals on approval of the Judicial Council. The council’s Executive and Planning Committee proposes amending rule 10.502 to make it consistent with current law and practices and to eliminate outdated provisions on paid sabbaticals The amendments would also eliminate the role of the Judicial Sabbatical Review Committee.

The Judicial Council’s Rules and Projects Committee (RUPRO) proposes amending several rules of court relating to memberships on advisory committees. The amendments would amend rule 10.31, the general rule on memberships, to clarify the terms of the chairs, members, and advisory members. It would also amend the rules relating to four specific advisory committees to add new or modify existing categories of membership.