The CA State Audit for the AOC is supposed to encompass a few objectives including the following:
1. Review and evaluate the laws, rules, and regulations significant to the audit objectives.
2. Determine whether the Judicial Council and the AOC have complied with the key reforms contained in Senate Bill 1021 (Chapter 41, Statutes of 2012).
3. Determine whether the AOC’s methodology for determining its budget for administration and staffing is consistent with the best practices of one or more comparable-sized organizations.
4. Determine the size and composition of the AOC’s staff. Analyze whether staffing is appropriate for the AOC’s mission. Determine whether reductions in trial court funding over the last three years have made any of the AOC’s functions unnecessary. If so, assess
whether the Judicial Branch of California (Judicial Branch) can re-direct funds for these AOC
functions to trial court operations.
5. Determine whether the Judicial Branch has any reserves, contingency funds, or any other
set-asides that could be made available immediately for trial court operations.
6. Review and assess any other issues that are significant to the audit.
As succinctly pointed out by the ACJ the AOC and the Judicial Council are literally scurrying to erase the name AOC from judicial branch functioning. https://viewsandnewsriversidesuperiourcourt.wordpress.com/2014/07/29/are-the-aoc-and-jc-really-the-same/
Could it be, (gasp, shock, horror), that the judicial council is attempting to preempt the results of the audit?
Litigants experiencing the incompetence of our state judicial system across all fronts have a few suggestions for an audit.
1. Address the conflict of interest of our current Supreme Court and the Judicial Council.
2. Address the forms that the judicial council produces which do not adhere to prevailing law or current Supreme Court rulings.
3. Address the fact that there is no accountability in our judicial system as litigants cannot obtain the 1st amendment right to governmental redress and substantive and procedural due process is viewed as a foreign language in our court system.
4. Address the fact that our Supreme Court refuses to touch family law cases.
5. Address the fact that our CA Appeal court system drags out family law cases for years and years and years and years, although their decisions have to be issued in 90 days once the case has been briefed.
6. Address the fact that a Court of Appeal refuses to adhere to title eight rules, creating their own capricious procedures on a whim, violating all equal protection standards under the law.
Forensic analysis is not a complicated process, and litigants deserve and have the constitutional right to a judicial system that does not anoint themselves as the Tin God of their local district.