Posting video here of part of the rally held Tuesday, August 25th, in front of the San Mateo County Superior Court protesting the possible layoff of 60 employees.

A $3.89 million “accounting error” could cost 60 court workers’ positions in San Mateo County Superior Court. On Aug. 25, 2009, more than 200 workers rallied to fight service cuts to the community if one in four court workers is let go.

COCRA received word last Thursday, and confirmed in the media Friday, that court reporters in San Mateo are included in a group of employees that may be laid off due to “internal accounting errors” by the court. An article published by the Mercury News says that although the layoffs are a result of a $3.89 million deficit due to state cutbacks, an internal email sent out to court employees points out that the real cause may be otherwise.

According to a press release issued Thursday, the $3.89 million court budget deficit in the fiscal year that ended June 30 was “due to cutbacks in funding from the state.”

But in reality, top court officials discovered that the deficit was caused by “internal accounting, tracking and analysis deficiencies,” according to an e-mail Court Executive Officer John Fitton sent to employees Thursday morning, just before the news release on the layoffs went out.

Investigators from the state’s Administrative Office of the Courts are now trying to figure out why top court officials did not know about the $3.89 million gap until the finance director reported it to Fitton about a week and a half ago, Fitton said Friday.

That investigation is expected to last another week or two, Fitton said, and will aim to find out whether the error can be traced to the court’s accounting systems or its employees — or both. So far, there is no evidence anyone intentionally covered up the deficit or did anything illegal, he said.

Needless to say court employees are in complete shock as they thought they would be able to make it through the 2009/2010 fiscal year without layoffs.  An email sent in from one of the San Mateo court reporters laid out what the layoffs mean in the starkest terms possible.

60 court employees will be given notice on 9/1/09, and their last day will be around 10/2/09. We will have 25% fewer employees running the SM Courts from 2.5 years ago. Layoffs are based on hours worked/positions held. In other words, if you have seniority and a job that is not slated to go away, you won’t be let go. If you have a job that is slated to go away, you will be let go, regardless of seniority.

According to the Mercury News article the union representing court employees, SEIU Local 521, is holding a rally Tuesday “to protest the potential layoffs.”

COCRA will continue to provide updates on this matter as they progress.

As a result of the state’s economic crisis and reductions to the budget for the courts, a majority of the judges in California have voluntarily elected to have 4.62 percent of their salaries reduced in order to help compensate for the deficit the courts now face. There are two options the courts may choose from to deal with the money garnered from these funds. Neither of these options will affect the judges’ various benefits in any way, including their pensions.

OPTION ONE

The first option is the state option, which is contained in legislation passed by the state. The judges may choose to have the 4.62 percent reduction taken directly out of their paychecks before they receive them. It would adjust their gross income accordingly, and their W-2’s received at the end of the year would so reflect that reduction in income. The money collected would go back into the trial courts budget in order to help offset budget decreases, but it will not necessarily go back to the respective courts where the money came from.

OPTION TWO

The second option is one chosen by the bench officers in Los Angeles Superior Court. They have elected to have their paychecks deducted by the 4.62 percent, and it will be designated as a charitable deduction. Their W-2’s will not reflect a decrease in their gross income. This money is designated specifically for Los Angeles Superior Court’s budget deficit and will not go to the trial courts budget. The stated reason for doing it in this fashion is to ensure that it will directly help Los Angeles Superior Court and help reduce layoffs and furloughs. At this time it appears that LASC is the only court to have selected this option.

Judges’ salaries cannot be reduced by the state per legislation. As stated above, all of these voluntary contributions are a choice of the individual bench officer. Any bench officer may decline to participate in this program. For those bench officers that have chosen to participate, it is a welcome gesture of support.

The Trial Court Budget Working Group (TCBWG) released its report on the allocation of trial court funding for California superior courts.  Included with the report was a spreadsheet detailing how much each county is expected to get from the AOC and whether that amount is an increase or decrease from last year.  And I believe we all know that things are pretty bad so definitely expect a decrease in your court’s funding.

So which counties got hit the hardest?  Definitely the larger counties felt a lot of the pain.  Here’s a partial list of counties and how much their budgets were reduced by:

Allocation of $190.13 Million Reduction in FY 2009-2010

1. - $9,285,900     Alameda
2. - $52,574,606   Los Angeles
3. - $15,833,401    Orange
4. - $8,435,468     San Bernardino
5. - $16,265,388   San Diego
6. - $9,609,962     Santa Clara

To find out how much your county court is allocated for the fiscal year 2009-2010 you can download the entire report, including a spreadsheet showing a breakdown of each county, by clicking here.

Now that the budget has finally passed and legislation giving the courts the authority to close has also passed, California courts that have not already implemented closures are now moving at full speed to close the third Wednesday of the month beginning September.

The Judicial Council and the AOC released a joint report explaining the genesis of the closure solution to the cuts in trial court funding. The report also listed conditions and requirements for the court closures.

The grant of authority to the council to close the courts is permissive rather than mandatory, i.e., the council may or may not choose to close the courts one day a month. If the council designates a court closure day, the closures are subject to the following conditions and requirements:

• The court closure day designated by the council must be treated as a holiday for purposes of performing any act requiring the transaction of judicial business, including, but not limited to, holding court hearings or computing the time to file court documents.
• If a court receives papers for filing on the closure day, the time of filing will be the next court day on which the court is open for the transaction of judicial business.
• The superior courts must meet and confer with recognized employee organizations under the Trial Court Employment Protection and Governance Act.
• A judicial officer must be available at each court for the signing of any necessary documents on an emergency basis on the closure day as is now the case on Saturdays, Sundays, judicial holidays, and any other time a court is closed. concerning the impact of the court closures.
• Court security shall not be required on the court closure day and compensation payable to the sheriff must be negotiated (where there is a court security memorandum of understanding (MOU) in place) and reduced to reflect the reduced amount of security on the closure day.
• The impact of the court closure on the availability of courtrooms and court services must, to the extent practicable, be spread proportionally in a manner that reflects the caseload of the court.

In addition to the court closures the report also lists some of the other “Alternative actions considered” including:

• Close courts one day per month for fewer than the remaining 10 months this fiscal year.
• Do not close courts at all.
• Do not close courts but direct superior courts to provide reduced services.

You can read the entire report by clicking here.

The California Legislature recently passed AB 170 which provides for an amendment to Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 273 regarding the use of rough draft transcripts. The new amendment specifically deals with how the “instant visual display” shall not be used to contradict the official certified transcript.

As the Legislative Counsel explains :

This bill would provide, until January 1, 2017, that the instant visual display of the testimony or proceedings, or both, shall not be certified and cannot be used, cited, distributed, or transcribed as the official certified transcript of the proceedings. The bill also would prohibit the citation or use of the instant visual display of the testimony or proceedings, or both, to rebut or contradict the official certified transcript of the proceedings.

And the new subsection (c) added to CCP Sec. 273 reads as follows:

(c) The instant visual display of the testimony or proceedings, or both, shall not be certified and cannot be used, cited, distributed, or transcribed as the official certified transcript of the proceedings. The instant visual display of the testimony or proceedings, or both, shall not be cited or used in any way or at any time to rebut or contradict the official certified transcript of the proceedings as provided by the official reporter or official reporter pro tempore.

During the most recent ER fight California officials received letters of support from many in the legal profession. But there was one group in particular that court reporters really wanted to hear from. The California Judges Assn. Well, CJA President Judge Mary E. Wiss has sent a letter to COCRA President Tami Brown stating the CJA’s support for officials. COCRA thanks the CJA for its continued support and is pleased to know that we can count on the CJA to support officials in any future battles officials may encounter to eliminate reporters from California courts.

You can read the letter in its entiretiy by clicking here.