New Blow to Clerk: Judges Seek to Take Away Court Duties

In a blow to embattled Orange County Clerk-Recorder Lee A. Branch, the county’s Superior Court judges have proposed taking control of nearly half of Branch’s staff and all of his court scheduling functions, The Times learned Monday.

The proposal goes beyond the sweeping recommendations of the county administrative office to reorganize the courtroom clerk’s operation--the largest of Branch’s nine clerk divisions. In its March 19 clerk-recorder audit, the CAO criticized Branch and his top aides for poor management and poor communications with employees.

Branch also came under fire in the last year for failing to forward criminal files to the appellate court on time and falling behind in recording property deeds.

The Superior Court’s proposal is similar to one made seven years ago by the judges. That plan was blocked by an appellate court.

In a letter sent to acting County Administrative Officer Larry R. Holms last week, Presiding Judge Everett W. Dickey said the judges at an April 10 meeting unanimously endorsed a CAO recommendation to overhaul the courtroom clerk division.

“However, the judges also determined that this reorganization should include a transfer of the courtroom clerk functions from the clerk-recorder to a position directly under the court’s administrative structure,” he said in the letter.

Other Functions Sought

The judges, who already have control over the master calendar to set trials and settlement conferences, also agreed that all other scheduling functions and some computer functions be placed under court control as well.

Dickey recommended in the letter that a task force be formed to review the proposal but did not suggest who should serve on the task force.

The proposal would mean that about 100 of Branch’s 230 deputy clerks would report to the court’s executive officer, Alan Slater, although they would still be county employees whose salary and benefits would be handled by Branch.

Dickey maintained that the court could simply order the transfer, but Judge Richard J. Beacom, who was acting as presiding judge Monday while Dickey was out of town, said the judges wanted to make the move “peacefully.”

Branch said he would consider the proposal to relinquish his control of the courtroom clerks--the largest of nine divisions in the clerk’s office. “I’m willing to cooperate,” he said.

Branch said the feasibility of such a move should be determined by the task force.

Beacom said, “For years, the court has felt the courtroom employees should be under the control of the court. They work in the court; they handle the public on behalf of the court, and their relationship with the court is so close that it doesn’t make sense to have them answer to a different elected official.”

“Since the clerk is in the process of considering a reorganization, we thought it was an appropriate time for the proposal,” he said.

Besides being timely and practical, Beacom said, “it’s legal.”

A Nov. 19 decision by the state Court of Appeal in San Jose approved the authority in a Santa Clara Superior Court to transfer functions such as courtroom clerks to the court’s administrative structure simply by court order, Dickey pointed out in his memo.

That was not the case seven years ago when the Superior Court tried to annex most of then-Clerk William St. John’s operations. Judges had tried to take nearly 150 of his 170 employees, and St. John sued. A state appellate court blocked the move.

In his memo, Dickey said the appellate court in the San Jose case found that its decision did not conflict with the St. John case. The memo did not explain how the cases differed.