ER Update as of June 18th, 2008, and The Judicial Council’s “Job Protection” Language
Posted on June 18th, 2008 at 10:40 pm, by JaniceCOCRA Members and Friends:
Here’s another update on what is happening with your future.
Judicial Council [JC] produced “job protection” language designed to put official court reporters’ minds at ease over the issue of expanding electronic recording [ER] in California courts. It is copied below and states the following:
69957. (a) Whenever an official reporter or an official reporter pro tempore is unavailable to report an action or proceeding in a court, subject to the availability of approved equipment and equipment monitors, the court may order that, in a limited civil case, or a misdemeanor or infraction case, the action or proceeding be electronically recorded, including all the testimony, the objections made, the ruling of the court, the exceptions taken, all arraignments, pleas, and sentences of defendants in criminal cases, the arguments of the attorneys to the jury, and all statements and remarks made and oral instructions given by the judge.
(b) Subject to the availability of approved equipment, the court may also order that actions or proceedings in family law, probate, mental health, and civil law and motion be electronically recorded.
(c) A transcript derived from an electronic recording made pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b) may be utilized whenever a transcript of court proceedings is required.
(d) The court may also use electronic recording equipment in all case types for internal court purposes.
(e) The electronic recording device and appurtenant equipment shall be of a type approved by the Judicial Council for courtroom use and shall only be purchased for use as provided by this section. A court shall not expend funds for electronic recording technology or equipment to make an unofficial record of an action or proceeding or to use that technology or equipment to make the official record of an action or proceeding in circumstances not authorized by this section.
(f) The adoption of subdivision (b) shall not result in the loss of employment for any court employee performing court reporting services.
Hmmmm, what’s wrong with this language? Sounds too much like the so-called Court Reporter Protection Act promulgated after the ER battle in 2003, which compromised reporter jobs.
They want to take away our jobs through attrition, which wouldn’t save California any money or help with the budget deficit in any way.
Yes, folks, that’s what it looks like to your state association leaders, union representatives, and anyone else reading this proposal. There isn’t ANY language about hiring certified shorthand reporters to fill any vacancies.
We have every confidence that the Senate leadership will adopt the Assembly leadership’s recommendation to keep current law and not expand ER in California courtrooms; it won’t help the budget, so it doesn’t make sense to adopt this language.
By the way, this language introduced by the JC has NOTHING to do with the budget crisis, and parts of it were introduced in the past. Your state associations and unions are ever vigilant in watching for issues exactly like this one.
Thanks again to our SEIU, AFSCME and IFPTE reps for all your hard work in Sacramento and for keeping us up to date.
Union leadership will be at the conference today. We, official court reporters, and our friends are ready to make calls and send letters or faxes at your direction.
Stay tuned, stay watchful, and stand ready for action!
The COCRA Team
June 20th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
The union and association lobbyists have been working non-stop on this issue — every day. The Conference Committee met last Saturday, probably tomorrow too.
Union and Association Leadership have been educating the legislators, answering questions and being available for feedback.
COCRA members supplied sample ER transcripts that made a BIG impact with conferees. Other members made phone calls and wrote letters.
We have been writing letters, supplying facts and statistics, identifying legislative concerns and responding to them. What a TEAM!
The fact that the Conference Committee today left the issue open AGAIN means that they ARE LISTENING to us!
It’s been a long week here . . . and 102 degrees! It’s all heating up — in more ways than the weather!
June 20th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Thank you, COCRA, for all the hard work you do!!!
We are so lucky to have such a hard group of reporters working to help protect our jobs.
Keep up the good work.
June 23rd, 2008 at 11:56 am
Thank you, COCRA, for all the hard work!!
I am, of course, very concerned about this so- called “job protection” language.
I am also concerned about the Judcial Council/AOC’s lack of understanding of their responsibility to the people of the State of California and to litigants who deserve and undoubtedly have the right to a reliable record. We, as court reporters, take our jobs so seriously sometimes that we risk our health and families even just to get the our transcripts done in an accurate and timely manner. We are the guardians of the record, and we are the people in the court system that truly care about the spoken word. At the end of the day, that’s all some of these people have to preserve their rights.