The much-maligned Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) is no more. Well, sort of. The Daily Journal[subscription required] reported recently that the Judicial Council voted to stop using the title “Administrative Office of the Courts” when referring to the Council’s administrative arm. According to leaders of the judicial branch, the name had become an obstacle and a source of confusion during budget negotiations. The Daily Journal quotes recently retired AOC director Steven Jahr as saying the name gave the misimpression that the AOC functions separately from the Judicial Council and caused lawmakers to conclude incorrectly that the AOC had “direct authority over trial court operations.”
All that may be true. But, as we have often noted, for several years the AOC has been a lightning rod for critics of centralized court administration in California. It is therefore not too surprising that those critics have been underwhelmed by what they perceive to be the current effort at “‘[r]ebranding.’” The Daily Journal quotes Judge Maryanne Gilliard, a leader of the Alliance of California Judges, the AOC’s longtime critic, as saying: “‘The fact that they are dumping their name should be a wakeup call that instead of just a name change we need a regime change.’”
The Daily Journal piece notes that valid criticisms concerning inefficiency and unaccountability have been leveled at the AOC in recent years. But it also notes that, “[u]nder [Chief Justice Tani] Cantil-Sakauye, the branch has sought to implement reforms, reorganizing the leadership structure, withdrawing autonomy formerly granted to its director positions and redefining the role of its various offices. It’s currently using outside contractors to audit and review the AOC’s staffing as well.”
Only time will tell if the name change brings about “‘a perceptual change, perhaps even a cultural change,’” as Jahr predicts. But in the meantime, we assume the owners of a certain Los Angeles dining establishment are pleased.
