Save the Date!!
COCRA’s 2016 Spring Seminar
Details to be announced soon.
Posted in 2016 Spring Seminar | Comments Off
Save the Date!!
COCRA’s 2016 Spring Seminar
Details to be announced soon.
Posted in 2016 Spring Seminar | Comments Off
COCRA has uploaded its newsletter, “The Official Record”, Winter Issue edition for 2015.
Click here to view our newsletter online or to download in PDF format.
In this issue you’ll find:
The following letter voicing COCRA’s opposition to ER in Family Law has been filed with the Commission on the Future of California’s Court System.
This letter affirms COCRA’s belief that ER has no place in Family Law proceedings and that its implementation in those courts may have severe negative economic effects on litigants in Family Law matters.
February 2, 2016
Honorable Carol A. Corrigan
Commission on the Future of California’s Court System
455 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102
Dear Justice Corrigan:
The members of California Official Court Reporters’ Association, (COCRA), are in opposition to Concept 5’s proposal to allow for expanded use of electronic recording in our court system. We strongly urge the Commission on the Future of California’s Court System to remove that particular recommendation from their report.
We have attached COCRA’s most recent Preserving Access to Justice Task Force Report. As you can see from the report there are numerous cases cited of digital recording malfunctions across the nation.
In addition to malfunctions and incomplete transcripts, electronic recording is not a cost savings. The technology is expensive to purchase, to maintain and to operate. The transcripts that are produced often have “inaudible” portions throughout. The cost of the transcripts created from electronic recordings are more expensive that the ones produced by the official reporters. The transcriptionist needs to listen to the tape numerous times to decipher what is being said, thus taking more time to create a transcript and driving up the cost.
With an official reporter, if the reporter doesn’t hear what is said, the reporter can ask the speaker to repeat.
Having electronic recording in Family Law denies equal access to the litigants. Appealing a decision with an electronic recording that has been transcribed makes for an incomplete record. Every time an “inaudible” appears in the transcript some of the meaning of the testimony is lost.
Please review the attached PAJTF report. We believe you will agree that having a court reporter in court is the most efficient and cost-effective way to maintain the record.
Anne M. Hall
President, California Official Court Reporters’ Association
Honorable Jerry Brown, Governor
Honorable Kevin DeLeon, President Pro Tem of the Senate
Honorable Toni Atkins, Speaker
Honorable Anthony Rendon, Speaker-elect
Honorable Hannah Beth Jackson, Chair, Senate Judiciary Committee
Honorable Mark Stone, Chair, Assembly Judiciary Committee
Honorable Mark Leno, Chair, Senate Budget
Honorable Shirley Weber, Chair, Assembly Budget
Honorable Loni Hancock, Senate Budget Sub #5
Honorable Reggie Jones Sawyer, Assembly Budget Sub #5
The following letter was sent out by the Alliance of California Judges voicing opposition to some of the concepts, such as ER in Family Law, put out by the Commission on the Future of California’s Court System.
Futures Commission Cloudy: Try Again Later
“Dear California Media (FYI, the following has been sent to our Alliance members),
In advance of a public comment session to be held next month, the Commission on the Future of California’s Court System just released its first batch of ideas. These proposed areas of study, a year and a half in the making, are grouped into 15 “concepts.” You can read them at this link.
We have a bad feeling about this. Many of these concepts—hatched in closed-door meetings with AOC support staff—look like the same tired old proposals that the AOC has been advancing for more than 15 years. The proposals include a “consolidated system” for juvenile courts; “systems to be implemented statewide,” including a “uniform statewide system of child custody mediation”; and a “transferable case management methodology to support all courts throughout the state.
Apparently the Commission sees the big problems confronting the branch as stemming from a lack of uniformity. The bulk of their proposed solutions involve an increase in central control—and in the power of the AOC. The Commission seems to have overlooked the spectacular failure of CCMS or the withering criticisms of our central bureaucracy by the Strategic Evaluation Committee in 2012 and the State Auditor just last year. If recent history teaches us anything, it’s that the AOC has the Midas touch in reverse when it comes to local court administration.[Emphasis added.]
Concept 4 involves “trial court employment and labor relations.” The authors point to the “great variation in trial court terms and conditions of employment” and urge the Commission to rethink “existing labor practices” in order to flatten out “court-to-court variations in employment terms and conditions.” The Commission will explore “the costs and benefits of different models of bargaining”—specifically including statewide bargaining.
When we recently suggested that the Commission was contemplating an expansion of the AOC’s role in local labor relations, including hiring and firing, our branch leaders went ballistic and quickly denied it. But the fact remains that the AOC can’t engage in statewide bargaining unless it has statewide authority over labor issues. It can’t bargain unless it has control.
Concept 5—a call for “a cost-effective official record in all case types”—also gives us grave concern. We sense it is a drive for more electronic recording in our courtrooms, fewer court reporters, and an attempt to deny reporters compensation for the transcripts they produce. This is dangerous. We firmly believe that a certified shorthand reporter provides the most accurate record for the parties and the strongest bulwark against bogus complaints of judicial misconduct. Anyone who has listened to an electronic recording of a court proceeding knows that it is no substitute for a reporter’s transcript. Moreover, further steps to reduce compensation to reporters will leave California struggling to find certified reporters, already a huge problem in states like Illinois and Pennsylvania, leaving courts with no option but to compromise due process by using unreliable and undecipherable electronic recordings.
There’s more. One statement in support of Concept 6, “Technology-Enhanced Court Proceedings and Online Transactions,” gives us chills: “Courts are unable to share information across jurisdictions and some are even unable to share information within the same jurisdiction, due to incompatible case management systems. . . .” [Emphasis added.]
In these words, the ghost of CCMS stirs. We are deeply concerned that the Commission will propose a statewide case management system along the lines of the one that cost us half a billion dollars and brought us to the brink of financial ruin. We are dismayed that the Commission contemplates an even greater role for our central administrators in technology management when past experience tells us they should be looking to vacate the field entirely.
The issues the Commission left unaddressed are just as disturbing as the proposals buried in these “concepts.” Nothing suggests that the Commission has considered an audit of the billions in court construction funds, scaling back the AOC’s staffing levels, moving toward a fee-for-service model for the AOC, or democratizing the Judicial Council. To the contrary, this set of “concepts” reads like an AOC wish list. The vast majority would entail an expansion of the AOC’s already excessive reach into local trial court affairs.
In his recent budget proposal, the Governor specifically mentioned that he was hopeful that the Futures Commission would come up with ideas that would “effectively and efficiently enhance access to justice.” With every proposal that expands the reach of the AOC, hope fades. We will do our best to prevent this Commission from “transforming” the judiciary into an inefficient statewide court system with centralized control and reduced flexibility and efficiency. Our trial courts and the public they serve deserve better.”
Directors, Alliance of California Judges
Alliance of California Judges
1817 Capitol Ave., Sacramento, CA 95811
The San Diego Court Reporters Association is hosting a software training program Saturday, March 19th, 2016 in San Diego.
Below is information about the program as well as links for registration.
Saturday, March 19, 2016
400 West Broadway
San Diego, California
9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. (.6 CEUs)
$175 NonMember Registration Fee
*$150 SDSCRA Member Registration Fee
Check-in and breakfast beginning at 8:00 a.m.
San Diego Court Reporters Association welcomes all officials, CART, and freelance reporters to a major league triple-header! Trainers from the three major CAT vendors will be here ready to train you on your software. Our theme is “Where Great Minds Unite.” The newest features in technology, the brightest court reporters from all fields, and the most cutting-edge software companies’ trainers will unite here.
Bring your laptops and writers for a 6-HOUR (.6 CEU) mind-blowing day where you can learn, network with reporters, and pick up great tips and information from the software trainers themselves.
Register early. There will be a maximum number of 30 spaces available for each class so the trainers can devote better quality time for all of you. There is no better deal than this for an all-day event.
Raffle prizes! Free parking at the Westin Hotel! Click here for room rate code info. Make sure you pick up your raffle tickets and parking sticker validation when you check in.
We hope you have a great learning experience with us in San Diego!
A suggested proposal from a commission to replace court reporters with electronic recording raises concerns about Governor’s proposed budget.
Governor Brown released his proposed budget for 2016 today and what will be of most concern to court reporters is that Governor Brown is proposing an “innovation” of using digital recording machines in place of court reporters in Family Law courts.
We are still in the early stages of the budgetary process, but rest assured your COCRA team will be monitoring the budget process as it progresses.
The following is an early analysis from Michele Castro, Director of Government Relations at SEIU California. SEIU represents the majority of court employees in California including official court reporters.
Earlier today the Governor released his proposed 2016 budget. It’s not as good as previous years in terms of reinvesting in the courts and it does have a few issues that could be particularly concerning to SEIU members.
In his last two budgets, Governor included a 5% increase each year for the courts. This year, he took a different direction. This year, the Governor cites the need to improve the trial courts by doing business differently. He makes reference to the Commission on the Future of the California Court System to recommend efficiencies and innovations.
From early information coming out of the Commission, we know that some of these proposals will not be good for workers, such as moving HR functions from courts and to the AOC and changing court employee status. The upshot is that any of these proposals would have to go through the legislative process where SEIU members have a strong chance of beating back bad ideas coming out the AOC.
Additionally, the Governor proposes to reform the current trial court budget reserve policy, which was recently instituted because courts were hoarding money while laying-off workers. Depending how this reform would occur it could be good for us or it could be bad. We’ll need to watch the details of the proposal closely.
The Governor proposes to increase funding to the trial courts by $95.8 million as follows:
- $20 million to the courts for discretionary spending.
- $15.6 million for the employer share of employee pensions and health benefit increases. The Governor also stated that he is committed to continue to cover the costs of employee pensions and health benefits in the future.
- $8.8 million to cover the loss of funds due to lower fee and fine revenues. Several fees and fines that are currently funding the courts are set to expire; however, the Governor is committed to extending those revenue measures.
- $21.4 million to cover increased Prop 47 workload demands in the trial courts.
- $7 million for language access for non-english speakers.
- $30 million in one-time funds in competitive grants to courts that implement innovations.
The Governor lists possible innovations such as implementing the use of kiosks rather than clerks in traffic proceedings and using electronic recording devices in family law proceedings rather than court reporters.
The Governor does not necessarily say this is what courts should do, only lists them as ideas that very likely came from the AOC.
COCRA congratulates the three winners of our 2016 Early Membership Renewal Drawing.
The three winners of a $100 Target gift card are:
Rhonda Guess, San Mateo
Jenell Mullane, San Mateo
Loretta Najera, San Francisco
COCRA also extends a very special thank you to the following members who, in addition to their early membership renewal, made very generous donations to COCRA this year.
Linda Harris, $100
Kristi Johnson, $100
Holly Moose, $100
Florence Ortiz, $100
Anne Hall, $200
We thank all of you who renewed your membership early this year.
Your COCRA Dues Help Us to Promote, Protect, and Preserve Our Profession!
Your membership dues are an investment in COCRA and is a clear sign that you believe in our mission, leadership, and presence in the California official court reporting community. By renewing with us, you show your commitment to the future of official court reporting and demonstrate your concern for our profession.
COCRA does important work on behalf of official court reporters. We know we can’t achieve anything without your financial support. We here at COCRA recognize the difficult times that we live in and that every dollar counts. So we truly appreciate your support and belief in us.
We appreciate your support of the California Official Court Reporters Association.
Posted in Campaign for Officials | Comments Off
It is with deep sadness and heavy hearts that COCRA must announce the untimely passing of one of our founding members, Pamela Fisk.
Pam started her career as a court reporter in 1968. Shortly thereafter, she decided working in court was her passion and began employment for the San Mateo County Municipal Court where she worked for several years. Pam, being the consummate traveler, decided it was time for her and her husband Roger and their beautiful daughter Erin to take their life on the road where they ultimately landed in Washington State.
After a couple years, Pam decided to come back to her roots in Redwood City and rejoined the courts in San Mateo County, this time in Superior Court, where she would embark on what would be an illustrious 30 years of service as an Official Court Reporter working with primarily the Honorable Judith Whitmer Kozloski.
Pam reported many high profile cases, including taking the lead on many death penalty cases. But what made Pam special to her colleagues and court reporters statewide was her unending dedication and advocacy to the profession and specifically to preserving official court reporters.
In 1999, Pam and a small group of official court reporters gathered in her living room to form a new statewide association for official reporters called the California Official Court Reporters Association (COCRA). Even after her retirement in 2005, Pam stayed involved with the association, always there to protect its mission, which is to protect and advance the profession of official court reporters through education and legislative advocacy.
Pam was also a leader among her peers where she held the position of president of the San Mateo County Court Reporters Association for many years as well as taking on the role of union steward and helped to negotiate many successful contracts.
Throughout all the years, perhaps Pam’s greatest accomplishment and what made her the most proud was being surrounded by her beautiful family, whom she loved so much.
We will miss you terribly, Pam. You will forever be in our hearts and your spirit will live on in the court reporting community as you have forever made an imprint in the profession you loved so much.
Posted in Campaign for Officials | Comments Off
Governor Brown has released his proposed budget and there appears to be some good news for the courts. COCRA will be monitoring the budget situation to assess whether the proposed budget will benefit court reporters.
Here are the significant adjustments to the judicial budget proposed by the governor.
Trial Court Funding
Consistent with the proposed two‐year strategy, the Budget includes an augmentation of $90.1 million General Fund to support trial court operations.
Trial Court Employee Costs
The Budget includes $42.7 million General Fund for trial court employee benefit costs, of which $10.8 million reflects funding for trial courts that have now made progress towards meeting the Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 standard. The Administration is committed to funding future increases related to existing health benefits and retirement costs for trial court employees and retirees.
Trial Court Trust Fund Revenues
The Budget includes an additional $19.8 million General Fund to reflect a further reduction of fines and penalty revenues in 2015‐16. Coinciding with this adjustment, the Administration proposes permanently extending temporary fines and penalty revenue measures enacted as part of the 2012 Budget Act.
With the passage of Proposition 47 in November 2014, it is anticipated that trial courts will experience increased workload primarily in the early years of implementation due to the requirement that courts reclassify certain drug and theft crimes that involve less than $950 from felonies to misdemeanors.
The Budget includes $26.9 million General Fund to reflect a projected increase in trial court workload.
The Budget proposes the establishment of an 18‐month outstanding delinquent debt amnesty program that would be administered by the courts and counties. Courts and counties would recover their costs to administer the amnesty program utilizing revenues collected through the program.
Dependency Counsel Funding
The Administration recognizes the important role played by counsel who represent abused and neglected children and their parents in dependency cases. The Judicial Council’s current annual budget allocation for court‐appointed dependency counsel is $103.7 million. Over the last several years, the Council has evaluated the workload of dependency lawyers and recommended a basic caseload standard of 188 cases per attorney. An improvement in attorney caseload would reduce hearing delays and potentially shorten time to permanency for families. The current statewide average caseload is 248 cases per attorney. Many counties fall well within the standard but others far exceed it. Judicial Council allocations to courts are based on historical factors rather than on current caseloads. The Administration will work with the Judicial Council to develop a caseload‐based allocation methodology and explore ways to reduce the number of cases.
Critics of the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), the government agency in charge of supervising the running of California’s court system, have long argued that the AOC was completely mismanaged and had grown so unwieldy in terms of size and scope and spending that an audit was needed.
An audit of the AOC indeed was ordered and today the California State Auditor’s office released its findings confirming all of the worst suspicions that the AOC’s critics had of the agency.
Some of the damning highlights of the audit released today revealed: