vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Court Operations and Administration | Superior Court of California | County of Tulare
The request will immediately be delivered to the assigned judge who will rule on the request. If no judge has been assigned, the request will be submitted to the presiding judge. 
Photographing and Media Coverage in Other Areas of Courthouse
Unless approved by written order, filming, videotaping, photographing and electronic recording of any kind is not permitted in any other part of the courthouse, including but not limited to entrances, exits, halls, stairways, and elevators. Application for permission for photographing or media coverage in these areas of the courthouse shall be directed to the presiding judge by submitting Judicial Council forms MC-500 and MC-510 to administration@tulare.courts.ca.gov
Cameras and recording devices shall be turned off while being transported in any area of the court unless expressly permitted by court order. Filming, videotaping and photographing of the interior of any courtroom through the glass door windows or through the double doors, or otherwise is prohibited. No microphones or cameras shall be permitted in any courtroom unless the judge hearing a matter within the courtroom has expressly authorized such use in a written order pursuant to California Rule of Court, Rule 1.150.
Notice to Media Agencies
Each media agency shall be responsible for ensuring that all its media personnel who cover the court proceeding know and follow the provisions of the court order and California Rule of Court, Rule 1.150, et seq. 
If the request is approved, the judge may specify the placement of media personnel and equipment to permit reasonable photographing or media coverage without disruption of the proceedings.

 

 Was this helpful?
 

Yes

No

Yes

No

Any additional feedback?

Email (optional)

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Leave this field blank

Was this helpful?
 

Public Resources

Holiday Calendar

Attorney Resources

Case Search

Forms & Local Rules

Administrative

ADA Information

Contact

Jobs

Quick Links

Judicial Mentorship Program

Superior Court of California
County of Tulare

 

 

 

Judicial Branch of California

Privacy

Terms of Use

© 2024
CJP | Commission on Judicial Performance
In addition to its disciplinary function, the commission is responsible for handling judges’ applications for disability retirement.
The commission’s authority is limited to investigating allegations of judicial misconduct and, if warranted, imposing discipline. Judicial misconduct usually involves conduct in conflict with the standards set forth in the Code of Judicial Ethics. The commission cannot change a decision made by any judicial officer; this is a function of the state’s appellate courts. After investigation, and in some cases a public hearing, the commission may impose sanctions ranging from confidential discipline to removal from office.
Anyone may submit a complaint to the commission. See Filing a Complaint and Overview of Commission Proceedings.
LAST UPDATED: 05/23/24.

FILING A COMPLAINT

Featured Links
Pending Cases - Press Releases & Documents
Case Statistics
Public Discipline & Decisions
Private Discipline
Overview of Commission Proceedings
Filing a Complaint
FAQ's
Mandate & Legislative History
Legal Authority
Gift Limit - CCP § 170.9
Videos
Committee to Review

 Announcements
Daniel J. Healy – Public Admonishment
Invitation for Proposed Rules Changes
Tony R. Mallery – Decision and Order
Gregory J. Kreis – Answer to First Amended Notice of Formal Proceedings
Gregory J. Kreis – First Amended Notice of Formal Proceedings
Commission releases 2023 Annual Report
Gregory J. Kreis – Answer to Notice of Formal Proceedings
Commission adopts interim rule 121(f) (Remote testimony during hearing)
Gregory J. Kreis – Notice of Formal Proceedings
Tony R. Mallery – Oral Argument
Howard H. Shore – Severe Censure
Emily T. Spear – Public Admonishment
Derek W. Hunt – Public Admonishment
Wendy M. Harris – Public Admonishment
Lillian Vega Jacobs – Public Admonishment
New gift limit for judges
 Current Annual Report
2023 Annual Report
 

 

 
 
 
 

Back to Top

Conditions of Use

Privacy Policy

Contact Us

Copyright © State of California
Powered by: CAWeb Publishing Service
Voluntary Contributions

Elimination of Bias Fund
Donate

The Elimination of Bias Fund maintains programs that address concerns of bias in the legal profession. In addition to funding various outreach and education activities, the Elimination of Bias Fund supports the work of the Council on Access & Fairness, which advises the Board of Trustees on enhancing diversity and advancement in the legal profession. Initiatives to educate students about the law and legal career opportunities are also a focus of the council.

Legislative Activities Fund
Donate

The State Bar's Governmental Affairs activities include advocating and advancing agency policies, budgetary items, and legislative priorities; while ensuring positive and effective relations between the State Bar, the Legislature, and the executive branch of government.

California ChangeLawyers (formerly California Bar Foundation)
www.changelawyers.org

Donate

California ChangeLawyers (formerly California Bar Foundation) is a statewide foundation that empowers the next generation of lawyers, judges, and activists to create a more diverse legal profession, a fair justice system, and a better California. We believe that a state as diverse as California needs a justice system led by advocates of all ethnicities and races. So every day we invest in bright, diverse scholars to ensure that they have the opportunity to become tomorrow's legal change makers. Now is the time to harness the power of lawyers for social justice: donate today.

California Supreme Court Historical Society
www.cschs.org

Donate

The mission of the California Supreme Court Historical Society is twofold: preserving the rich legal history of our state and broadening public understanding of and appreciation for the contributions of courts and attorneys to California's history.

Protecting the public & enhancing the administration of justice.

Public

About Us

Attorneys

Admissions

Access to Justice

Forms

Careers

Retirees

Staff Log in

San Francisco
(Main Office)

180 Howard St.
San Francisco,
	 CA
94105

415-538-2000

Los Angeles

845 S. Figueroa St.
Los Angeles,
	 CA
90017

213-765-1000

Copyright © 2024 The State Bar of California

FAQ

User Policies

Contact
2001 Budget Analysis: Dept Consumer Affairs (1110-1600)
2001 Budget Analysis: Dept Consumer Affairs (1110-1600)

Legislative Analyst's Office
Analysis of the 2001-02 Budget Bill

Department of Consumer Affairs (1110-1600) 
The Department of Consumer Affairs is responsible for promoting consumer protection while supporting a fair and competitive
marketplace. The department includes 28 semi-autonomous regulatory boards, commissions, and committees that regulate various
professions. These boards are comprised of appointed consumer and industry representatives. In addition, the department has ten
bureaus and programs that regulate additional professions which are statutorily under its direct control. 
Expenditures for the support of the department and its constituent boards are proposed to total $375 million in 2001-02, an
$18 million increase from the current year. Several incremental increases across the boards contribute to this increase, the largest
being the $2 million imaging and workflow automation systems project at the Contractors State Licensing Board. Included in the
budget-year total are $2 million in expenditures from the General Fund for support of the Athletic Commission and various public
outreach programs.
Smog Check Update 
We withhold recommendation on the Bureau of Automotive Repair's budget (Items 1111-002-1421 $91.6 million and
1111-002-0582 $47.5 million) pending receipt and review of information concerning (1) progress toward meeting
requirements in the State Implementation Plan`s proposed changes in the smog check program and (2) the expenditure
of current-year funds and the results from spending these funds.
Background. The original framework for a statewide biennial Smog Check program was implemented in 1984 by the Bureau of
Automotive Repair (BAR). Under this program, both smog (emission) testing and needed vehicle repairs were permitted at any
privately owned smog test-and-repair station. The 1990 federal Clean Air Act amendments required a somewhat different smog
program in states with the worst air quality, including California. Federal regulations define a region's air quality in one of two ways:

A geographic area that meets or exceeds a national ambient air quality standard is referred to as an attainment area.
The 2024-25 Budget: California State University
In addition, the Governor’s budget includes $64 million to cover the higher cost for CSU’s retirees.
CSU Has Identified Various Other Operating Cost Increases. Beyond employee compensation, CSU has ongoing costs related to various other operating expenses, including facilities, technology, equipment, and supplies. CSU has identified the following associated cost increases in 2024‑25: 

$29 million to cover increased prices due to continued inflation. 
$25 million to debt finance additional capital outlay projects, primarily to address capital renewal needs associated with aging academic facilities and infrastructure. 
$23 million to cover increases in insurance premiums due to several factors, including the increased incidence of liability claims and natural disasters. 
$13 million to cover additional costs of routine maintenance and operations (such as utilities and custodial services) as campuses open new facilities. 

Funding
Share of CSU Costs Covered by General Fund Has Increased Over the Past Decade. Since 2013‑14, CSU has primarily relied on state General Fund augmentations to cover increases in its operating costs. From 2013‑14 to 2023‑24, the state provided CSU with General Fund base increases in every year except 2020‑21. During the same period, CSU increased tuition only once (in 2017‑18). As a result, the General Fund has been comprising a growing share of CSU’s core funds. Whereas we estimate the General Fund comprised 50 percent of CSU’s ongoing core funds in 2013‑14, it comprises 62 percent in 2023‑24. 
CSU Is Implementing Tuition Increases Beginning in 2024‑25. In 2022‑23, CSU established a work group focused on fiscal sustainability that identified a significant gap between the system’s costs and its revenues. Among the work group’s recommendations was to adopt a tuition policy that provides for gradual and predictable increases. In response, the CSU Board of Trustees adopted a new tuition plan in September 2023. Under the plan, tuition will increase by 6 percent annually for all students beginning in 2024‑25 and extending through 2028‑29. Tuition charges are set at $6,084 for resident undergraduate students in 2024‑25, reflecting a $342 increase from the current year.
About - California Health and Human Services
The office provides policy guidance, instruction, and direction to CalHHS departments, and coordinates with the Governor’s Office on legislative positions.Office of External AffairsThe office manages the ongoing public information and public affairs functions and provides guidance and direction to public information officers in CalHHS departments. In addition, the office serves as the official Agency spokesperson to respond to media inquiries, and coordinates with the Governor’s Office communication staff on significant and sensitive media issues.Office of the Agency General CounselThe Agency General Counsel provides legal counsel to the Office of the Secretary, Agency Secretary, and senior Agency staff. The Agency General Counsel also works closely with the Governor’s Office of Legal Affairs and coordinates the workload of the department Chief Counsels.Office of Program and Fiscal AffairsThe office is responsible for formulating, analyzing, revising, and evaluating the program and fiscal impacts of major health and human services policies of the Administration. This includes assessment of all policy, legislative, fiscal, and other issues that have implications, not only among CalHHS departments, but beyond CalHHS to other state agencies within the Executive Branch.Administration UnitThe CalHHS Office of the Secretary serves a critical coordination role on all assignments and projects as directed by the Governor’s Office and control agencies. This unit handles all personnel, HR, training, and internal budget issues.Office of the Agency Information OfficerThe Office of the Agency Information Officer (OAIO) supports our departments’ efforts to enhance their programs through their successful delivery of data and technology solutions. Through Portfolio Support, Enterprise Architecture, Information Security, Agency Governance and Horizontal Integration activities, the OAIO provides both operational and strategic services to increase the probability of successful projects while promoting a person-centered culture and a corresponding portfolio of interoperable systems that can share and use data effectively to provide wholistic services to Californians in need.Office of Policy and Strategic PlanningThe Office of Policy and Strategic Planning is responsible for driving measurable outcomes on CalHHS’s guiding principles and strategic priorities through system alignment and program integration across the agency’s departments and offices to build a Healthy California for All. The Office works on a set of initiatives to advance equity, address the social determinants of health, and ensure a whole person approach.
View the California Health & Human Services Agency Organizational Chart.
Bill Text - AB-132 Postsecondary education trailer bill.
(B) Aligning the request with available data and tools and advising the requestor of other similar analyses that have been conducted using the data system.(C) Advising the requestor on how best to access the information.(D) Determining and advising the requestor as to whether there are any legal impediments to the request, and supporting the requestor to identify legally appropriate options.(E) Coordinating the execution of legal agreements with data providers.(F) Contracting with the Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects for the California Health and Human Services Agency to serve as the institutional review board regarding the use of personally
	 identifiable information.(G) Facilitating the timely resolution of concerns and the provision of data.(H) Ensuring that the data request process is accessible and transparent. This includes making the criteria for requests, the status for requests, and written responses to any requests that have been denied, publicly available and posted in a prominent location on the data system’s internet website.(8) Improving data quality by, among other activities, including, but not limited to, doing all of the following:(A) Coordinating issues related to data points and definitions to ensure the quality and reliability of source data provided by the data providers.(B) Consulting with the Chief
	 Data Officer and data providers to identify standards that would improve the ability to share data across systems.(C) Regularly reviewing the efficacy and usability of tools, reports, and the user interface.(D) Working with the advisory boards established pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 10865 to identify data points with data quality questions.(9) Ensuring routine and ongoing compliance with all applicable federal, state, and data provider specific laws and regulations.(10) Seeking opportunities to increase government efficiency that may include identifying duplications of effort across state agencies and public education systems, and identifying opportunities for clearer or more consistent messaging to students and families related to
	 education pathways and transitions.10868.
2001 Budget Analysis Department of Motor Vehicles (2740)
2001 Budget Analysis Department of Motor Vehicles (2740)

Legislative Analyst's Office
Analysis of the 2001-02 Budget Bill


Department of Motor Vehicles (2740) 
The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) is responsible for protecting the public interest in vehicle ownership by registering
vehicles, and for promoting public safety on California's roads and highways by issuing driver licenses. Additionally, the department
licenses and regulates vehicle-related businesses such as automobile dealers and driver training schools, and also collects certain fee
and tax revenues for state and local agencies.
The budget proposes total expenditures of $680.6 million for support of DMV in 2001-02. This represents an increase of
$18.5 million, or 2.8 percent, above estimated current-year expenditures.
About $344 million (51 percent) of the department's total support will come from the Motor Vehicle Account and $269 million
(40 percent) from the Motor Vehicle License Fee Account. The remaining support will be funded primarily from the State Highway
Account and reimbursements.
Fraud Persists in Driver License Program 
Over the past several years, evidence of potentially widespread fraud in the Department of Motor Vehicles' (DMV's)
issuance of driver licenses has come to the attention of the Legislature. Despite attempts to curb this fraud through
legislation and administrative measures, recent reports indicate that the problem persists. The department now
requests an additional $13.3 million for driver license fraud prevention and investigation. While we believe that new
efforts are needed, we find that the department's proposal fails to justify the particular solutions identified over various
alternatives. Accordingly, we recommend that the Legislature delete the proposed augmentation at this time, and
direct the department to develop and present at the May Revision a fuller and more cohesive solution that takes into
account additional information expected to become available this spring. (Reduce various items by $13.3 million.) 
The California Driver License (CDL) is statutorily recognized as the primary form of identification used in the state. Besides
The 2024-25 Budget: Child Support
$13.6 

—

Collections

$2,549.9 

$62.3 

$78.0 

$9.5 

$2,400.1 

2023‑24 Revised Estimates

Child Support Program Costs

$1,217.6 

$823.8 

$380.0 

$13.6 

$0.1 

State operations

$217.1 

$150.0 

$66.9 

—

$0.1 

Local assistance

 1,000.5 

 673.8 

 313.1 

$13.6 

— 

Collections

$2,528.6 

$129.8 

$154.6 

$13.4 

$2,230.8 

Change from 2023‑24 to 2024‑25

Child Support Program Costs

‑$3.0

‑$2.9

‑$0.1

—

—

State operations

‑$1.3

‑1.6

$0.2 

—

—

Local assistance

‑1.6

‑1.3

‑0.3

—

—

Collectionsb

$21.3 

‑$67.5

‑$76.6

‑$3.9

$169.3 

a“Other” reflects collections that are paid to families and collections received in California on behalf of other states. 
bChanges in collections distribution reflect implementation of full passthrough to formerly assisted California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids families, effective May 1, 2024.

Passthrough of Collections to CalWORKs Families
Background
Majority of Child Support Cases Are Required to Enter Program as a Result of CalWORKs Participation. Around 75 percent of child support cases are comprised of families who receive or formerly received cash aid from the CalWORKs program. We refer to child support collected for these families as “assistance collections.”
2001 Budget Analysis:Department of Child Support Services
The ACF Denies or Defers Decision on Funds for Systems Enhancements. In July 2000, ACF either denied federal funds or deferred its decisions (pending
receipt of additional cost information) relating to a number of the enhancement requests. In response, DCSS reorganized its priorities, redirected funds to
continue some enhancements, and asked ACF (in August 2000) to reconsider its decision to defer funding on the remaining requests.
In October 2000, the Department of Finance (DOF) notified the Legislature that ACF had denied a portion of DCSS' request, but that DCSS intended to redirect
existing resources to fund activities in the current year. The DOF letter, however, indicated that it might request additional funds for the budget year.
Federal Government Denies Funding, but DCSS Allows County Enhancements to Proceed. Because of the urgency of the time lines and momentum of the
projects involved, DCSS subsequently allowed counties to spend $3.1 million in the current year for various deferred system enhancements. In November 2000,
ACF ultimately notified DCSS of its denial of $8.9 million in federal funds requested for various adjustments to PRISM in the current year, of which
$4.1 million was for the deferred enhancements.
Budget Request. The budget reflects an ongoing General Fund increase of $3.8 million in the current year and proposes an additional ongoing augmentation of
$1.6 million in the budget year.
Concerns. The sequence of events which occurred with PRISM are similar to those that have occurred with other child support automation activities (see our
analysis of the Franchise Tax Board's California Arrearage Management Project [CAMP] under Item 1730 of the "General Government" section of this
Analysis). In each of these situations, the administration initially sought legislative approval for short-term or interim automation systems pending development
of a statewide system. Concurrent with seeking legislative approval, the administration also sought federal funding approval. Generally, federal funding
decisions are made months after enactment of the budget act. In the case of both CAMP and PRISM, the federal government took a more restrictive view of the
The 2024-25 Budget: Child Support
This post provides a general overview of the Governor’s budget for DCSS, then turns to focus on a few key DCSS budget areas, providing background, implementation updates, and some comments for the Legislature to consider. Specifically, the budget areas we focus on in this post are: (1) the passthrough of child support collections to former California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) families, (2) foster care referrals and enforcement, (3) LCSA funding methodology, and (4) proposed budget language related to overpayments disbursed from the Child Support Trust Fund.
Overview of Proposed Funding
As shown in Figure 1, the Governor’s budget proposes $379.9 million General Fund ($1.2 billion total funds) in 2024-25 for DCSS program costs, which overall is nearly unchanged compared to revised program cost estimates for 2023-24 of $380 million General Fund ($1.2 billion total funds). Similarly, there is little change projected for total child support collections, which DCSS estimates will increase less than 1 percent in 2024-25 compared to 2023-24.

Figure 1
Summary of Child Support Program Costs and Collections
(In Millions)

Total

Federal

General Fund

County

Reimbursement/ Othera

2024‑25 Governor’s Budget

Child Support Program Costs

$1,214.6 

$821.0 

$379.9 

$13.6 

$0.1 

State operations

$215.8 

$148.5 

$67.2 

—

$0.1 

Local assistance

 998.8 

 672.5 

 312.7 

$13.6 

—

Collections

$2,549.9 

$62.3 

$78.0 

$9.5 

$2,400.1 

2023‑24 Revised Estimates

Child Support Program Costs

$1,217.6 

$823.8 

$380.0 

$13.6 

$0.1 

State operations

$217.1