The Unofficial Record: Committee Approves ER To Monitor Judges

Posted in: Electronic Recording

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.

1. Savana
   June 17th, 2009 at 8:25 pm

   What is the definition of a subordinate judicial officer? How are they going to get a subordinate judicial officer to change his/her courtroom to the one with ER for monitoring their subordination? Surely then they’ll be on their best behavior. This is silly and obviously just a backdoor way of getting ER in the courthouse.

2. vicki
   June 18th, 2009 at 12:00 pm

   Yikes, so does this mean that the juvenile, family and dependency courts presided over by commissioners will be facing implementation of ER? I guess kids are the first to lose their rights.

3. admin
   June 20th, 2009 at 12:20 pm

   Hi Vicki and Savana, in answer to your questions, be sure to read the two updates to this post by both Maura and Lyn. Thanks!