(Special thanks to the Deposition Reporters Association. They will post the following article in their January 2009 Newsletter.)

“You will find what you look for: good or evil, problems or solutions.” ~ John Marks Templeton

We are sure you recall that in February of 2008, the State of California was confronted with the worst budget crisis in the last 30 years.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office [LAO] suggested legislation to implement digital recording [DR] in California’s courtrooms.

The LAO used a 17-year-old pilot project conducted in limited jurisdictions as evidence that DR would save Californians money.  Using current, fact-based, and sourced information, we fought that suggestion and won the battle by one vote.

It would be nice if our three California associations could relax and enjoy the smell of victory for a time, but it appears Californians are confronted with a worse budget than before.  This means CSRs are confronted with yet another misguided suggestion from the LAO to implement digital recording.

What is the problem?  People with decision-making power are deciding our future and the future of our legal system based on out-dated misinformation.

What is the solution?  Educate yourself about today’s technology and know how to respond when confronted with questions/statements from interested parties. Share your knowledge with anyone who will listen.

The following questions/statements may sound familiar to you:

1. You still use those old machines?  With today’s technology, you would think they would record or computerize what you do.
2. Why don’t they just use tape recorders?  Wouldn’t that be cheaper?
3. They’re going to get rid of all of you with voice recognition, you know.
4. You should do something more challenging.  All you do is sit there and type?

If those questions/statements sound familiar, did you have difficulty responding appropriately?  I have to admit, I often had difficulty helping people understand why we are such an integral part of the legal system or the many challenging aspects of our intense profession.

After speaking with colleagues, it seems many of us have had the same difficulty, so COCRA has developed a 21-page report entitled, “The Certified Shorthand Reporter [CSR]-Preserving Access to Justice.”

This report gives you everything you need to know to respond appropriately when approached with difficult questions/statements.  Some other examples of what is covered in the report include the following:

1. The top ten reasons why we are the best at making an accurate record
2. What other technology is out there
   1. Speech recognition
   2. Digital recording equipment
   3. Analog audio recording equipment
   4. Video recording equipment
3. A professional and financial cost analysis
4. Data from other states comparing digital recording to certified shorthand reporting
5. Digital recording mishaps
   1. Picking up “private” conversations
   2. Mistrials caused by recording failures
   3. Verdicts overturned due to recording failures
6. “Inaudibles,” “untranslates,” and “unintelligibles” within digitally recorded transcripts from recent court cases
7. Current transcript rates among digital recording firms and our standard, official reporting rate, as mandated by law

The budget crisis will hurt many Californians.  If involved in the legal system, let’s make sure they at least have access to a cost effective, accurate, and verbatim record produced by a certified shorthand reporter.

Please contact Janice Scott at NoaScott@gmail.com for a copy of this report.  Your knowledge may help friends and relatives better understand your profession. Your knowledge may reach a key decision maker, helping him/her understand that CSRs, particularly realtime CSRs, are the leaders in global technology. Your knowledge is our power.

Thanks for your time.

THE COCRA TEAM

Hello to our COCRA Members and Friends.

This is an informal post to let everyone know that the Conference Committee (whose members still remain unnamed) is going to meet for the first time this Thursday, June 12, 2008.

Why is that important to us, official court reporters? Well, as you can see from the previous post Gordon posted on our website, the Senate Subcommittee Number 4 recommended the expansion of ER.

Because the Assembly Subcommittee Number 4 did not recommend the same, the unnamed Conference Committee members are going to have to weigh the issue and decide whether it now wants to move forward with expanding ER to “save costs.”

While we are very happy ER didn’t make it into the May revise, we are concerned the ER issue is not over yet. We will continue to have to prove there is NO cost savings.

Your membership dollars and legislative contributions are the ONLY reason our volunteers are able to continue to work hard educating the masses.

PLEASE renew your membership if you haven’t done so already! It is VITAL that all officials support their association at this critical time.

I know, I know…you are thinking, “Critical? Isn’t it always critical and isn’t ER always defeated? I’m just gonna sit back and let my fellow court reporters deal with it.”

Well, you would be right. ER is always defeated. The reason it is always defeated is because you have very strong associations in California who continue to monitor and defeat ER when it rears its ugly head.

If you are a member, THANK YOU for your support. And be sure to pat yourself on the back for taking responsibility for your profession.

If you aren’t a member or have not renewed, now is the time to do so. We are in the worst budget crisis in over 30 years in California. There is a large portion of the population who believe ER is the better way to go.

Help us help you! Submit an application or renew today!

Thanks for your time.

The COCRA Team

Looks like California Officials aren’t out of the woods yet when it comes to the issue of expanding ER into more California courts. In the May 29th, 2008, edition of the Daily Journal, in an article by Linda Rapattoni that detailed how the current budget deficit was putting a hold on new judges, there was this piece of news towards the end of the article that caught COCRA’s attention.

“In a more controversial move, it [Senate Budget Subcommittee] also approved giving courts the authority to expand electronic reporting to all proceedings in family, probate and mental health courts as well as in law and motion proceedings. It is now used only in limited civil matters.

“Lobbyists for the roughly 8,000 court reporters in the state have fought off such moves since electronic reporting was introduced as an experiment in the mid-1980s. They say occasional equipment failures make electronic reporting unreliable and it actually requires more personnel, offsetting any potential savings.

“Legislative staff concluded that while it wouldn’t produce significant savings for the state, it would save litigants money because a recording costs between $10 and $20, while a written transcript often costs $300 or more.

“Michelle Castro, a lobbyist for the California State Council of Service Employees, which represents court reporters, said she did not think the proposal has much of a chance. “‘There’s not big momentum for it, at least I’m hoping there isn’t,’ Castro said.”

The Senate Subcommittee #4 has recommended budget trailer bill language to implement these changes.

The interesting thing here is the new tactic that ER proponents taking to push ER into more courts. Instead of emphasizing cost savings for the courts in terms of cuts to court reporter positions and replacing them with “cheaper” equipment, now they’re claiming that these moves would lead to cost savings for litigants as reflected in this bit from the article.

“Legislative staff concluded that while it wouldn’t produce significant savings for the state, it would save litigants money because a recording costs between $10 and $20, while a written transcript often costs $300 or more.

But what the legislative staff still doesn’t understand is that the cost to litigants do not end with this supposed “$10 and $20″ cost. Those litigants are still going to have to get those recordings transcribed and it’s going to cost them transcription fees. And if those transcripts turn out as bad as some of the ones I’ve seen, it will cost them even more in the long run in terms of more transcription fees in order to correct “the record.”

So, how is this a savings to California litigants?

A New York State Senator is taking on the cause of court reporters as he tries to move a bill that would limit electronic recording in New York courts according to an article by The Law Journal.

“New York legislation being carried by the chairman of the Senate’s Judiciary Committee would set limits on the Office of Court Administration’s now unfettered authority to allow the mechanical recording of proceedings in any state courts in New York.

The measure, S7995, would prohibit the use of recording devices — rather than a stenographic record taken by a court reporter — in Supreme Court, county court, district court and family court when delinquency cases are being heard and during jury trials in New York City Civil Court.

If no OCA-employed court reporter is available, courts are directed to hire stenographers on a provisional or per-diem basis to take down proceedings in the specified courts. It is only in the event that no such reporters can be found that mechanical recording would be allowed under the new legislation.“

There’s good news and bad news from Sacramento. I’ve received early word, which has been confirmed by COCRA’s lobbying firm, that the new state budget will not include ER or digital recording. This is great news for officials and it’s a sign that legislators were paying close attention to what the court reporter associations and unions had to say about the issue of electronic recording when they testified before the Assembly Subcommittee Hearing last month. Janice Scott, COCRA’s current president, spoke about the hearing in a video blog she posted to our YouTube site.

The bad news here is that California courts are looking at a $245 million reduction in this year’s budget. Of course the “good folks” over at the Administrative Office of the Courts and the Judicial Council have a solution that would see cuts across the board that would affect all court personnel including official reporters. The funny thing here is that nowhere is there any mention of the millions of dollars in reserves that the AOC/JC have under their thumbs. I’ve seen one assessment that says the AOC may have unencumbered reserves of at least $355 million. Now, I may not be a budget whiz and I may not know the difference between encumbered and unecumbered reserves, but I know one thing for sure, the AOC/JC has money. And if they expect court employees to make up for the budget reduction by taking a hit, then it’s only fair to expect the AOC/JC to unclench their tight fists and let go of some of the money they have.