COCRA’s 2013 Spring Summit for Officials

COCRA is happy to announce our 2013 Spring Summit for Officials Seminar
which will be held Saturday, June 1st, 2013, in San Francisco
at the San Francisco State University Downtown Campus.

Click here to register online.

Click here to download COCRA’s 2013 Spring Summit for Officials Seminar Brochure.

Saturday, June 1, 2013 – 8:00 am – 4:30 pm
San Francisco State University Downtown Campus
835 Market Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94103

Register by May 10th and be eligible to win
an Apple 16GB iPad Mini + Cellular!

The winning name will be drawn June 1st, 2013, at COCRA’s 2013 Summit for Officials Seminar.

Posted in 2013 Summit for Officials Seminar, Campaign for Officials | Comments Off

COCRA Releases 2013 PAJTF Report

COCRA is pleased to announce that it has updated its Preserving Access to Justice Task Force Report (PAJTF).

In addition to providing a brief overview about the importance of court reporters in the courts, the PAJTF Report also lists the “true costs” to litigants and the judicial system where ER is involved.

This report has been proven to be a valuable tool and reference paper for reporters in California and throughout the nation. COCRA urges all court reporters to utilize the PAJTF Report when promoting the profession of court reporting in California’s courts.

Click here to download the 2013 edition of the PAJTF Report.

Posted in Campaign for Officials, Court Budgets, Court Reporter News, Electronic Recording, Legislation | Comments Off

SEIU Urges Lawmakers to Oppose ER In Family Law

Michelle Castro, SEIU Director of Government Relations, has sent a letter to members of the Assembly Judiciary Committee respectfully requesting that they oppose the latest ER bill by Donald Wagner (R). AB 251 would see the expansion of electronic recording (ER) into family law courts.

In the letter, Ms. Castro lays out in stark detail some of the shortcomings found with ER. Quoting from the letter:

“There are many instances where the use of audio recordings have jeopardized the accuracy of the verbatim record. Further, these electronic recordings have real and serious problems with inaudibles and inaccuracies, a sound such as ruffling of papers or a cough could muffle several words.”

The letter also goes on to promote the advantages of having a court reporter which includes the ability of court reporters to provide live realtime translation of court proceedings.

You can read the letter in its entirety by clicking here.

Posted in Campaign for Officials, Court Budgets, Court Reporter News, Electronic Recording, Legislation | Comments Off

COCRA Sends Letter Urging Legislators to Oppose ER Bill

The following letter was sent by COCRA Legislative Advocate Shane Gusman on behalf of COCRA and Professional and Technical Engineers, IFPTE Local 21. The letter urges members of the Assembly Judiciary Committee to vote against the ER bill introduced by Donald Wagner (R).

——————————————————————————————————

To: All Members of the Assembly Judiciary Committee

From: Barry Broad, Shane Gusman

Date: March 18, 2013

Subject: AB 251 (Wagner)—OPPOSE

Clients: California Official Court Reporters Association/Professional and Technical Engineers, IFPTE Local 21

The above organizations oppose AB 251 by Assembly Member Donald Wagner.

AB 251 would allow a court to use electronic recording equipment in a family law case if an official reporter or an official reporter pro tempore is unavailable.

We are very sensitive to the fact that courts are failing to provide the services of official court reporters in family law proceedings. Failing to do so ensures that there is no accurate record of the proceedings and virtually no appellate rights for these litigants. Given what’s at stake in family law proceedings, we should be requiring that an official court reporter be available for every proceeding like we do in criminal court. Unfortunately, this bill takes the opposite approach and creates a lesser standard for reporting family law proceedings.

Continue reading →

Posted in Campaign for Officials, Court Budgets, Court Reporter News, Electronic Recording, Legislation | Comments Off

Amendment to GC 68086 Would Restore “Court Reporter Fee” Back to Courts

Assemblymember Reggie Sawyer-Jones (D) has introduced AB 648 which would amend GC 68086 to clarify the collecting of a fee for court reporters services in California’s superior courts. Among other things, AB 648 specifically calls for the reporter fees collected in each county to be restored back to the courts that collected the fees.

Language from the Legislative Analyst’s digest on AB 648:

AB 648, as introduced, Jones-Sawyer. Court reporters.

Existing law requires the charge of an official court reporter fee, in addition to any other fee required in civil actions or cases. For each proceeding lasting less than one hour, a fee of $30 is required to be charged for the reasonable cost of the services of an official court reporter. Fees collected pursuant to this provision may be used only to pay for services of an official court reporter in civil proceedings.

This bill would require the charge of a fee of $30 for each proceeding lasting one hour or less in a civil action or case to offset the costs of the services of official court reporters in civil proceedings. The bill would require each party that files papers that require the scheduling of a proceeding lasting less than one hour to pay the fee, regardless of whether the party requests the presence of a court reporter. The bill would require the fee to be paid for each separate proceeding, regardless of whether the proceedings are scheduled at the same time on the same calendar. The bill would provide for the deposit of the fees collected into the Trial Court Trust Fund and would provide for the distribution of those fees, upon appropriation by the Legislature, back to the courts in which the fees were collected.

You can read the bill in its entirety here.

Posted in Campaign for Officials, Court Reporter News, Legislation | Comments Off

AB 365 Seeks to have ER Transcripts Prepared by “Certified Shorthand Reporters”

On February 14th, Assembly Member Kevin Mullin (D) introduced AB 365 on behalf of the Deposition Reporters Association of California. (DRA)

According to an analysis by the Legislative Counsel, AB 365 seeks to “clarify” three points.

First, in order for a transcript of a court proceedings to be considered “prima facie evidence of that testimony and proceeding,” the transcript would have to be prepared by a certified shorthand reporter.

Secondly, currently in a deposition setting if a proceeding is being reported by a court reporter and videotaped at the same time, it is the transcript from the court reporter that is the official record of the deposition. AB 365 would “clarify that the testimony recorded stenographically at the deposition is recorded by a certified shorthand reporter, as defined.”

However, COCRA has questions about the third point this bill seeks to clarify which we believe may conflict with how official court reporters view electronic recording.

Again, language taken from AB 365:

Existing law authorizes a court to order the use of electronic recording of an action or proceeding where an official reporter or an official reporter pro tempore is unavailable to report an action or proceeding in a court in a limited civil case, a misdemeanor case, or an infraction case, as prescribed. A transcript derived from an electronic recording is authorized to be utilized whenever a transcript of court proceedings is required.

This bill would require that the electronic recording be transcribed by a certified shorthand reporter, as defined, in order to be utilized whenever a transcript of court proceedings is required.

COCRA has serious concerns about AB 365 especially as, at first glance, the bill seems to advocate for the use of ER as long as the recordings are transcribed by a “certified shorthand reporter.”

The concern COCRA has with this language is that it is completely contrary to what we have been working for: opposing and preventing the privatization of court reporter services in superior courts and the spreading usage of ER.

COCRA and its Legislative Advocate Shane Gusman will be contacting the parties involved with AB 365 in order to address our concerns with them. We will keep you apprised of any and all developments regarding AB 365.

You can read the language of the bill in its entirety here.

Posted in Campaign for Officials, Court Reporter News, Legislation | Comments Off

New Bill Introduced to Address Privatization of Court Services

Assembly Member Bob Wiecskowski has introduced AB 566, a new bill that appears to address the privatization of court services. This has become a very important issue for court employees, especially official court reporters, in light of the actions taken by Placer County Superior Court to replace the court’s staff of official reporters with services provided by an outside court reporting firm.

The bill seeks to add a new section to the Government Code labeled GC 71621.

Of particular interest to court reporters is the new language found in Section 71621 (a)(3) which reads:

“The contract shall not cause an existing trial court employee to incur a loss of his or her employment or employment seniority, a reduction in wages, benefits, or hours, or an involuntary transfer to a new location requiring a change in residence.”

Shane Gusman, COCRA’s Sacramento Legislative Advocate, will be monitoring the progress of this bill and offering support as needed. Your COCRA Legislative Committee will also be offering assistance as well.

You can read the bill in it’s entirety by clicking on this link.

Posted in Campaign for Officials, Court Budgets, Legislation | Comments Off

Assembly Member Wagner Pushes (Again) for ER in Superior Courts

Having failed in the spring of 2011 to get his bill to pass that would have phased in ER in California’s Superior Courts, Assembly Member Donald P. Wagner (R) returns two years later with the exact same bill.

Wagner’s bill seeks to “implement electronic recording in 20% of all superior court courtrooms” at a minimum and provides for an additional 20% phase-in annually thereafter.

The following text regarding the bill was taken from the legislative counsel’s digest.

AB 251, as introduced, Wagner. Electronic court reporting. Existing law authorizes a court to use electronic recording equipment in a limited civil case, a misdemeanor or infraction case, or for the internal purpose of monitoring judicial officer performance. Existing law requires a court to obtain advance approval from the Judicial Council prior to purchasing equipment. Existing law also requires each superior court to report semiannually to the Judicial Council, and the Judicial Council to report semiannually to the Legislature, regarding all purchases and leases of electronic recording equipment that will be
used to record superior court proceedings.

This bill would instead require the Judicial Council, by July 1, 2014, to implement electronic court reporting in 20% of all superior court courtrooms, and to implement electronic reporting in at least an additional 20% of all superior court courtrooms annually thereafter. This bill would also require the Judicial Council to report to the Governor and the Legislature on the efforts undertaken to implement electronic court reporting, as provided, by January 1, 2016. The provisions of the bill would not apply to felony cases.

COCRA’s legislative advocate, Shane Gusman of Broad & Gusman, Sacramento, is currently monitoring the situation and will be filing an official opposition to both bills.

COCRA representatives will be providing the latest Preserving Access to Justice Task Force report to the legislators and will also continue to work with all parties involved in the fight to protect the court reporting profession, and more importantly, protect the public’s access to justice.

Posted in Campaign for Officials, Electronic Recording | Comments Off

COCRA Replies to Sacramento Bee Editorial Advocating ER

The following letter was sent to the Sacramento Bee in response to an editorial titled “State Courts Must Enter Electronic Age,” in which the editors for the Sac Bee strongly advocate for replacing Court Reporters with electronic recording in California’s Superior Courts.

Dear Editors of the Sacramento Bee,

The recent editorial in the Sacramento Bee seems like an easy fix to the California court system’s budget crisis. But when you dig deeper into the issue, you realize how myopic and misguided the proposal is.

Issues with Electronic Recording have arisen all over the country including the 9th Judicial Circuit Court in Florida, which cited delays in turn-around time in preparation of transcripts. In the 272nd District Court in Brazos County, Texas, the transcripts from Electronic Recording had an unusually high number of “inaudibles.” Many instances of equipment failure have also been reported in which parts of testimony or entire trials have been lost due to faulty equipment. And California is not immune to these problems as well. In San Francisco just this year a situation arose in a trial being recorded where the court discovered that a large portion of the trial had not been recorded due to a malfunction with the equipment. This is less of a problem for court reporters who have more than one process to ensure that the record is not lost.

Having a live Court Reporter in the courtroom ensures that the record is protected. A live Court Reporter can get clarification of words that would be “inaudible” on a recording. Court Reporters also use the latest technology that provides for realtime translation of court proceedings giving the court and litigants instantaneous access to the record of the proceedings. This technology also ensures that hearing-impaired litigants have equal access to the judicial system.

Continue reading →

Posted in Campaign for Officials, Electronic Recording | Comments Off

Iowa Officals “Key Part” of Judicial Process

Courtrooms around the country have at least partially replaced their court reporters with digital recorders over the years, but in Dubuque District Court, court reporters appear to be as important as ever.

In the midst of budget cuts to the Iowa Judicial Branch in 2009, the state looked at switching from court reporters to a digital audio recording system. The state decided to maintain the use of court reporters in everything but small-claims and magistrate cases, since stenographers are more valuable and accurate than recording devices.

Click here to read more.

Posted in Campaign for Officials, Court Reporter News | Comments Off