Whether you are a court reporter interested in COCRA membership, news, student recruitment, or you're interested in learning more about exciting career opportunities, we hope you find the resources you're looking for. Happy navigating!
Posted on July 2nd, 2009 at 11:42 am, by Gordon Aiavao
If you’re a member of COCRA you should have received a postcard in the mail alerting members to changes to our bylaws including a major change that affects representation.
To read the language of the proposed changes that will be voted on September 12th of this year in San Francisco at the COCRA Fall Conference just click on the read more link below.
I’ll be writing a post in the next couple of days explaining how these changes came about and why we believe these will be beneficial for COCRA members.
After a long and arduous process, yesterday COCRA was notified that its application for affiliate status with the National Court Reporters Association has been accepted and we are now recognized as an NCRA state affiliate!
This is the first time in NCRA history that more than one state association has been recognized as an NCRA state affiliate, and it required a bylaws change by NCRA. In her notification to COCRA, Karen Yates, President of NCRA, referred to the NCRA Board of Directors’ decision to recognize both DRA and COCRA as “history in the making.”
This move by NCRA entitles our members’ voices to be heard at the national level through the National Committee of State Associations and allows every reporter in California the ability to choose the affiliate association which best suits their professional needs. We look forward to working with all of California’s affiliate associations and NCRA in representing your interests.
Thanks to DRA, NCRA and our COCRA reps for making this happen!
After months of negotiating the one-day closure of trial courts statewide, final court closure statutory language has been sent to the Legislature for inclusion in the Budget Trailer Bill slated for legislative approval sometime next week.
The closures are expected to take effect in the month of July 2009 and result in employee unpaid furloughs and resultant savings of approximately $69.7 million in court employee salaries, plus an additional $23.2 million savings in court security and $9.3 million in voluntary participation by judges.
HIGHLIGHTS OF THE BILL
NO SET CLOSURE DAY OF THE WEEK
The bill authorizes the Judicial Council, the governing body of the Administrative Office of the Courts, “may provide that the courts be closed for the transaction of judicial business for one day per month.” The AOC is expected to identify the day of the month and provide an implementation plan.
COURT HOLIDAY
The bill provides that the closure day “shall be treated as a holiday for purposes of performing any act requiring the transaction of judicial business,” and includes calculating court days for purposes of filing deadlines and in-custodies.
NO FURLOUGHS MENTIONED — BUT ANTICIPATED
The word “furlough” is not mentioned in this bill. Closure does not automatically equal furlough. The language gives the courts the statutory authority to close and to take steps to achieve savings as a result, which is widely expected to be employee furloughs.
The following is the Court Closure Legislation Language developed to implement court closures statewide.
COURT CLOSURE LEGISLATION
SEC 1. Section 68106 is added to the Government Code to read:
(a) The Legislature finds and declares that the current fiscal crisis, one of the most serious and dire ever to affect the state, threatens the continued operations of the judicial branch. This situation requires a unique response to effectively use judicial branch resources while protecting the public by ensuring that courts remain open and accessible and that the core functions of the judicial branch are maintained to the greatest extent possible.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Judicial Council may provide that the courts be closed for the transaction of judicial business for one day per month and may adopt other appropriate provisions implementing this section, subject to the following conditions:
(1) If the Judicial Council has provided for the closure of courts pursuant to this section, the day so designated shall be treated as a holiday for purposes of performing any act requiring the transaction of judicial business including but not limited to (i) the transaction of judicial business under section 134 of the Code of Civil Procedure, (ii) the sitting or holding of a court under section 136 of the Code of Civil Procedure, (iii) the computation of time under sections 12 and 12a of the Code of Civil Procedure, (iv) the computation of time under all time dependent provisions including but not limited to sections 825, 859b, 1050, 1191, 1382 and 1449 of the Penal Code; (v) the computation of time under all time dependent provisions including but not limited to sections 313, 315, 631, 632, 637, 657, 702, 704 and 777 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
Today the Budget Conference Committee approved the AOC’s request to implement a statewide closure plan of all California courts one day per month for a one-year period beginning July 1.
The Committee did not approve language that had been previously negotiated by union labor representatives (AFSCME, IFPTE, SEIU, UPE, and others) as to the details of the closure plan, including an alternative plan to set the closure date on the third Friday of each month, instead of the third Wednesday as requested by the AOC. Efforts continue and details of closures and will be released soon.
In order to achieve the projected $102 million savings as a result of these closures, trial courts will begin local negotiations with trial court employees regarding whether employees of local courts will be furloughed. This determination will be made based on the individual trial court’s reserves and budgetary considerations.
Labor representatives remain concerned with specific employee rights regarding closures and imminent furloughs, specifically to be negotiated at the local level with their individual court. Of main concern has been how employee reduced compensation may affect benefits and retirement. The language as submitted, though approved by union reps, was not part of the package approved by the Conference Committee:
“Any court closure or reduction in earnings as a result of this section shall not constitute a reduction in service for the purposes of calculation of retirement benefits or other employment-related benefits for court employees otherwise eligible for such benefits.”
The offered statutory court closure legislation also stated that any closure due to the current budget crisis would be “treated as a holiday for purposes of performing any act requiring the transaction of judicial business.”
The Conference Committee adopted the concept of one-day court closures but did not adopt specific trailer bill language. Details will be released as soon as proposed language is finalized.
The alternative trial court funding package approved by the Budget Conference Committee today includes a $5 increase in the court reporter user fee paid under the Uniform Civil Filing Fee. The change from $25 to the new $30 fee is expected to generate over $7 million FY 2009/2010.
This fee is paid by civil parties filing or answering a complaint and covers all reporter services under one hour. This is allowed under Government Code 68086 which also requires courts to charge per diems for utilizing services of official reporters in civil cases.
The money collected for court reporter user fees is used exclusively for court reporter salaries in civil divisions. This fund amounted to $26 million in each of the past two fiscal years and is a significant source of funding and places a value on the reporter services which helps to fill the AOC coffers statewide.
The Unofficial Record - ER Usage Exclusively To Monitor Subordinate Judicial Officers Is Approved.
Today the Conference Committee also voted to approve previously negotiated language to allow limited usage of Electronic Recording equipment for the sole and purpose of monitoring subordinate judicial officers (commissioners or referees) and increasing reporting requirements regarding ER purchases.
Language preventing the purchase and usage of ER equipment to make the record of courtroom proceedings was substantially strengthened. Usage for judges’ notetaking was specifically rejected.
UPDATE I: The language in the message to members was not clear. The change doesn’t “allow” anything. It DISTINGUISHES how tapes of judges are treated from the public taped record in limited/misds. It PROHIBITS tapes of judges from being disseminated to the public and REQUIRES tapes of
judges to be destroyed in two years and it IMPOSES stricter funding mechanism for installing tapes in limited/misd. courts.
This still only applies to limited/misd.using the word “allows” in your message creates the impression that the areas of tape usage have expanded.
-Maura Baldocchi, COCRA Past President
UPDATE II: Maura’s comments are correct. This language does not expand ER usage in any way. ER can still only be used in misdemeanors and limited civil when a court reporter is not available.
This language, however, is supposed to resolve a current problem which has arisen when courts, eg small claims, tape proceedings involving commissioners and referees (called subordinate judicial officers or SJOs) to monitor SJO performance and respond to complaints. This language sets forth strict guidelines and limits the usage of these non-public tapes. It solves the problem which has been occurring when these non-public tapes (which are not subject to the guidelines to which public taped records must adhere) have been released to parties and/or used to resolve a public issue before the court. This language ensures that these special tapes are used and preserved only for the specific purpose for which they are intended.
The language also contains a provision which prohibits local courts from buying and using ER for an unofficial record or for the judge’s notetaking purposes. That was viewed as a backdoor effort by management, as Savana points out, to replace court reporters.
The language additionally provides stricter guidelines for the purchase and/or use of Electronic Recording equipment in those matters for which ER is currently allowed (limited jix and misd) and requires greater oversight of future purchases by local courts, who will now have to receive AOC approval to have funds released to them to purchase ER equipment. This requirement is intended to stop the acquisition and installation of ER in courts for unauthorized purposes.
Today, June 15th, 2009, the Senate Committee on Business, Professions & Economic Development, chaired by Senator Gloria Negrete McLeod, met to discuss the Governor’s proposal to eliminate the Court Reporters Board.
The original recommendation of the Chair was consideration should be given to the proposal stated above.
After compelling arguments made by COCRA, DRA, CCRA, several attorneys who spoke highly of the Transcript Reimbursement Fund, Donna Hershkowitz of Judicial Council, and educators from court reporting schools across the state, Senator Corbett stated she would not support eliminating the Court Reporters Board and made a substitute motion to maintain the Court Reporters Board and the Transcript Reimbursement Fund.
The Committee voted in favor of Senator Corbett’s motion 7-2.
As a result, the Court Reporters Board lives and court reporters across the state have cause to celebrate.
Thanks to our members, friends, and fellow bloggers who followed our live feed here on our website.
Hi everyone. This is Janice Scott and Stacy Gaskill and we’re present in Sacramento right now and we’ll be live blogging from the capitol. We’re keeping an eye on the fate of the Court Reporters Board and we’re also tracking any other legislative moves that might affect court reporters.
5:13 FINAL UPDATE: Final vote 7-2 in favor of keeping the CR Board…congratulations to the CR Board and all CSRs in CA.
And thanks to everyone who followed our blog!
Signing out live from Sacramento.
5:10 UPDATE: A final vote is coming now…stay tuned.
4:30 UPDATE: The committee didn’t have enough for a quorum, which is six votes, but our lobbyist believes that all will vote as recommended; that is, keep the CR Board and the TRF fund.
Of note, Chair Negrete was impressed by the testimony and appreciates the help the TRF provides indigent litigants.
4:12 UPDATE Kay Reindle representing “education” and is speaking of the importance of the work that the CRB does in terms of court reporting education.
4:09 UPDATE: Toni Pulone of DRA is speaking now urging committee to reject the proposal.
4:08 UPDATE: Janice Scott of COCRA is now speaking on behalf of the CRB speaking about the certification process that the CRB oversees.
3:50 UPDATE: Discussion about the Court Reporters Board has begun.
Posted on June 15th, 2009 at 7:55 am, by Gordon Aiavao
Ever since Governor Schwarzenegger laid out his proposal to replace court reporters with ER court reporters all over the state have probably been asking the same question. What does the governor have against court reporters? And it’s a question that keeps getting asked when you hear the Governator pushing his proposal in interviews and speeches.
He did it again last week in a speech in which he laid out his grand vision of how Californians could save themselves from budgetary Armageddon if they’d just implement his ideas. And low and behold, what was one of his brilliant ideas?
Now, in so many areas of government there are opportunities like this for reform and for changing things around without having to stay with the status quo. All we have to do is just go out and seize those opportunities. I am proposing to implement electronic reporting in our courts. This would save tens of millions of dollars.
Considering the Governator’s obsession with getting rid of court reporters you’d think he’d at least take the time to investigate what the heck he’s talking about. But no. In the time honored tradition of many a short-sighted politician before him, the Governator makes vague claims to saving “tens of millions of dollars” with the implementation of ER regardless of the fact that time after time ER comes up short and the alleged savings are as tangible as a mirage in the desert.
Who knows why the Governator is insistent on pushing ER. Maybe he thinks there’s something high-tech about electronic recording. But if that’s the case, he and his minions have completely ignored the fact that court reporting technology has progressed at warp speed in the past years to the point that court reporters are now able to provide an instantaneous and verbatim record that transforms those who use our services into ardent believers. Something that cannot be said about the Governator. Maybe what he needs is a one-on-one session with our best real-time writers to show him what he’s missing. And I can guarantee once he’s given us a try, he won’t want to go back.
After a long and arduous process, yesterday COCRA was notified that its application for affiliate status with the National Court Reporters Association has been accepted and we are now recognized as an NCRA state affiliate!