CPDA sends letter calling latest ER proposal “deeply-flawed and misguided”

Since word of the LAO’s proposal to replace officials with ER broke, COCRA has been working hard to elicit support from officials and court reporters throughout California.  But we’ve also been getting questions about what support, if any, we’ve received from people who most benefit from the services that officials provide daily in Californa courts.

The California Public Defenders Association (CPDA) has sent out a letter supporting the use of officials in California courts and comes down strongly against ER.  The letter by Michael P. Judge, chairperson of the CPDA Legislative Committee, calls the proposal “deeply-flawed and misguided.”

You can read the entire letter included below with this post.

From: Michael P. Judge, Chairperson, Legislative Committee, CPDA

To: Legislative Committee, Barry Broad, Shane Gusman, Board/Officers

Re: Governor’s Proposal to Replace Human Court Reporters with Electronic Recording (ER)

CPDA opposes this deeply-flawed and misguided proposal. Live court reporters are far superior to ER in providing quality control and accurate records of court proceedings in criminal court proceedings. Such court reporters can discern when a person’s voice level drops to the limits of audibility either due to a reduction in volume or due to the positioning of their body or direction of their projection and immediately intervene to correct the situation. Otherwise, there may be gaps in the official record that can undermine the fundamental integrity of the proceedings.

(more…)

To paraphrase NBC’s former catchphrase, if you’ve never seen it, it’s new to you.  If you missed watching the Budge Committee discuss the elimination of officials on Tuesday, June 6th, 2009, you have another chance to view it.

A couple of highlights to watch out for.

Senator Blumenfield questioning the AOC about ER and how the AOC holds up Florida as an example of where ER has “succeeded.”

Bill Vickery of the AOC testifying about how they don’t support the LAO’s ER proposal but that they wouldn’t be opposed to ER in non-criminal courts.

CCRA’s past president Lesia Mervin, COCRA president Tami Brown and past president Lyn Yard appear before committee speaking in favor of officials and against ER.  Watch as Ms. Mervin and Ms. Brown let the air out of the LAO’s “ER is great and it works in Florida” balloon.  Priceless!

First, you should know that negotiations are still ongoing at the state level with regard to furlough of court employees. A statewide closure plan has been proposed which may result in furloughs.

Because of the dire situation with the state budget which directly funds our local courts, the local courts are not entirely sure what their 09/10 budget is, but some are asking employee groups to enter into agreements or changes to their MOU with regard to furloughs.

We have heard that some courts are asking employees to furlough and ratify MOU changes which result in pay cuts to employees. It should be noted that any action by the AOC could result in further furloughs and pay cuts in addition to those being negotiated by the individual courts.

So here’s what you should know about court closures and furloughs . . .
The plan as proposed by the Administrative Office of the Courts is to require MANDATORY court closures statewide one day per month beginning July 1 for one year. The claimed projected savings is $100 million to the AOC’s statewide budget.

• The court closure day has been identified as the third Wednesday of every month. Wednesday was selected so that it would have the least detriment to the public, including minimal intrusion on defendant’s rights, minimal additional costs for housing of inmates as well as minimal inconvenience to the court customers or the public which results when courts are closed for three days in a row which ultimately results in minimal additional burden to court employees. The closure day is within the province of the Judicial Council and not negotiable.
• On the third Wednesday of each month for one year ALL courts and court offices would be closed and not open to the public. This would be treated as a court holiday for all intents and purposes in calculating days relating to all statutes, filings and criminal defendants’ rights.
• Court closures do not necessarily equate to employee furloughs. Each local court would negotiate with court employees whether to furlough their employees or have them work behind closed doors to process work or attend training sessions. But court would not be in session and the court offices would remain closed to the public.
• Negotiations at each trial court would determine which court employees were furloughed, but the concept includes furlough of all employees, including administration, management staff, and subordinate judicial officers, but not judges, because, as elected officials, judges are exempt from having their salary reduced while in office. However, the California Judges Association executive board has endorsed a Voluntary furlough program for the judges. An estimated 75% of the judges are expected to participate.

One furlough day per month equals approximately a 5% pay cut to the furloughed employee.

FURLOUGH FACTS

Any furlough agreements/working hours are negotiated specifically between the local court and its employees.

Agreements to furlough do not necessarily mean that layoffs or reductions in force will not occur in the future.

Furloughs do not necessarily affect employees’ benefits in most circumstances, but it may be an item to put on your checklist.

Furloughs may affect your retirement. There are several different retirement systems for California courts. Most courts have PERS and many others have retained their original County retirement plan, which is likely a 1937 Retirement Act plan. If you have any questions regarding how furloughs affect your court employees’ retirement, please contact your union or retirement representative.

In addition to furloughs, employees reportedly are being asked to renegotiate upcoming NSIs (Negotiated Salary Increases) currently in MOUs. Since furloughs also affect an employee’s salary, this may be an additional reduction.

The Budgetary Committee met yesterday and I wanted to give a quick recap of the day’s proceedings based on my observations.

1. The LAO is still pushing for the elimination of officials to be replaced by ER. During the question period by committee members Rep. Bob Blumenfield (D) of the San Fernando Valley questioned the LAO about the alleged savings from eliminating ER as well as problems that other states have had with the implementation of ER. Specifically Rep. Blumenfield referred to New Mexico . A representative for the LAO’s office said the problem with ER in New Mexico is that they were using tapes instead of digital recording. The LAO’s representative spoke about how ER has worked in Florida courts. Senator Denise Moreno Ducheny (D) also voiced her concerns about using ER in courts where matters could be appealed.
2. Bill Vickery of the AOC then spoke about the cuts to the judicial budget and in addition to discussing court closure and furloughs. He also voiced the AOC’s opposition to electronic recording in criminal courts. He felt that if the Committee felt it had no choice but to implement ER, he suggested that ER be placed in courts such as Family Law or Dependency. (There have also been rumors that ER would be moved into limited jurisdiction and misdemeanor courts.) Mr. Vickery did not support laying off court reporters stating that reporters have a specialized skill and that if there would be an replacing of officials it should be done so through attrition. He supported a gradual change and urged great caution in moving forward with any plan on ER.
3. During the public comment portion of the proceedings the Budgetary Committee heard from supporters of officials including COCRA president Tami Brown, COCRA past president Lyn Yard, and CCRA past president Lesia Mervin. There were also over 15 reporters in attendance in support of officials. All spoke passionately on behalf of officials and challenged the quality of ER especially in Florida . They also pointed out that the state would lose court fees with ER and they challenged the LAO’s contention that there would be any savings to the state through the implementation of ER. However, Senator Ducheny asked Ms. Mervin about counties that already have ER. Ms. Mervin stated it was true that some counties had ER but that a full spread of ER in the courts would mean a continued loss of fees to the state. Senator Ducheney’s comments were of concern because they seem to be taking the direction of attempting to identify where ER could be used.
4. Copies of COCRA’s PAJTF report were distributed to members of the Budget Committee.  The report explains in detail the problems of implementing ER in courts as well as pokes holes in the arguments of pro-ER supporters who say that ER brings savings to the courts.

My overall impression is that we’re not out of the woods yet. Although it would appear that the AOC is against replacing officials with ER, that opposition extends only to criminal courts. Again, Bill Vickery suggested that ER could be used in Family Law or Dependency courts. San Francisco , San Mateo , and LA are some of the counties without ER in their courts. If ER does cross the threshold in these counties into the courts mentioned above, what other courts would they deem “unnecessary” to have a reporter so they could install ER? You need only look to the comments by Senator Ducheny to see why I am concerned.

That being said, lobbyists for our profession will continue to meet with the Committee staff and to advocate on our behalf. You may still send your letters to the Board Committee members.

The Budget Committee is still meeting today and they will be tackling the issue of eliminating boards like the CSR Board. I will, of course, give you more information and updates as we wait for the committee’s final recommendation on the budget.

As you may have already heard, the governor’s office has proposed a severe cut to the budget that will have a huge impact on court reporters in California Superior Courts. The Governor is proposing to eliminate ALL official court reporting positions and to replace them with electronic recording. This proposal is not a replacement of some court reporting positions as has been proposed in the past. This is to eliminate all official court reporters. That would mean the elimination of 1,800 official court reporting positions throughout California.

The governor’s proposal to replace all official court reporters with ER would begin with a 20% reduction in official court reporting positions each year for five years. By the end of the fifth year electronic reporting would be in place in all courts.

Rest assured, COCRA is working hard to ensure that the governor’s draconian proposal is not enacted by coordinating efforts with state unions and local and state court reporting associations.

HELP US FIGHT THE ELIMINATION OF OFFICIALS BY DONATING TODAY!!

COCRA needs you to make a legislative donation to help us fight this latest ER proposal. Make an online legislative donation today by clicking this link and following the directions below. Please contribute in the amount of $60, $100, $150, $200 or more. If you cannot contribute in any of those amounts, please contribute what you can. Every little bit helps.

COCRA understands that these are tough economic times. But we cannot do this alone. We need your help!!

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ONLINE LEGISLATIVE DONATIONS

You may make a legislative donation online by clicking on this link.

1. Fill out the Mailing Address information at the top of the page.
2. Scroll down to the middle section where it says LEGISLATIVE CONTRIBUTION and fill out that portion.
3. Then fill in the billing address information and submit.