Thanks to our state leaders’ hard work, ER expansion is rejected.

You, our members, truly cannot understand how close all official reporters in California came to losing our ability to continue to provide access to justice in the above-mentioned courtrooms.

A person’s life can change based on what is said in court or in a deposition. Because we are certified by the State of California -Department of Consumer Affairs, and we continue to educate ourselves, parties to a case are confident they are getting the best, most cost-effective method of the record.

Our association has and continues to compile data proving ER costs millions of dollars to parties and the states in which ER is utilized; retrials, dismissals, civil penalties, and other mishaps all cost citizens both emotionally, financially, and physically.

Thanks to all of the great support from the assembly members and senators who listened, learned, and made a decision based on fact; ER is simply not a cost-effective method to producing an accurate record.

COCRA is sending thank-you letters to members of both committees who voted to reject the ER proposal. We urge you, our members, to do the same. Their names and addresses are listed below.

And remember their efforts in future elections. They supported us based on facts. We want them to remember those facts and be in their positions in the legislature when this issue is raised in the future.

COCRA sends a huge “official” thank you to SEIU, AFSCME, IFPTE, DRA, and CCRA! Our unions and fellow associations were there alongside COCRA every step of the incredibly grueling stairway to succeeding in defeating ER…once again.

Thank you,
THE COCRA TEAM

(more…)

BREAKING NEWS: Late Wednesday afternoon a majority of the Budget Committee voted to reject the LAO’s proposal to replace official reporters with electronic recording.   The Budget Committee also did not adopt the trailer bill language mentioned by Assemblymember Noreen Evans during today’s proceedings.  It may, however, be addressed in Monday’s proceedings.

Assemblymember Noreen Evans (Santa Rosa), Chair of the Committee, stated that ER is “highly inappropriate” in complex civil cases and even more so in criminal. She stated that she had worked in the courts as a lawyer for 25 years.  She questioned how it could be worth it to implement an entirely new statewide system of keeping the record for a savings of 13 million.

Drew Soderborg, the LAO representative speaking on the issue, cited the 1990 Demonstration Project’s findings, but that they did an inflation adjustment.  Assemblymember Evans asked Mr. Soderborg whether he had seen the data about ER having been used briefly in other states and then discontinued.  Mr. Soderborg stated they have different data showing ER has been used successfully in other states and the Federal Judiciary.  The LAO also stated that the National Center for State Courts cites where ER is used.   Senator Denise Ducheny (San Diego) stated that all the savings achieved would be in the areas most dangerous to implement i.e. criminal cases and complex litigation.

The committee voted 3-2 on the Assembly side and 3-1 on the Senate side to reject the LAO proposal.

Please check back for more updates on this breaking news.

The Conference Committee on the Budget has taken no action on the Governor’s proposal regarding the Electronic Recording issue at this time. Testimony was taken last Tuesday during the Public Safety portion of the hearings which also related to the Court Budget and Electronic Recording where parties were allowed 60 seconds to present testimony. Testimony was also submitted in writing along with documentation, including sample ER transcripts and well-sourced reports on the issue of ER vs. Court Reporters.

Now that the public hearings have been closed, the Committee meets in open session to discuss and make decisions on every issue or cut within the proposed budget, without public comment or participation. Though many items for discussion have been scheduled, there is no firm date at this point for the hearings regarding the cuts to the courts or the pending ER issue. Our COCRA team continues to monitor this and will send you notification as soon as it is scheduled.

The next step: Once a hearing is held and decision made by the Conference Committee, legislative staff will include language within a budget trailer bill, which will include all of the budget revisions. That bill is then heard and voted on by the general membership of the Legislature. This is why it is important that court reporters make sure your Senators and Assembly Members from your local area know about these issues and that you expect their support!

COCRA’s lobbyist Shane Gusman continues to meet with legislative staff and answer questions and provide information in favor of court reporters. Shane reports that Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg’s office has taken the position that, because this is a budget revision related to budget cuts and not an entirely new budget, that only a majority vote will be required to pass, rather than the two-thirds vote necessary to pass the original budget. This could significantly alter the time frame.

The Budget Conference Committee hopes to have a revised budget to submit to the Legislature by next Monday, June 15th.

Get those letters out today! Find contact information for your local legislative representatives here.

Negotiations continue on the issue of mandatory statewide court closures. After several meetings on this subject regarding the impact on court employees and the public, the Administrative Office of the Court has presented to the employee groups potential language intended to be used as a starting point and the first step toward authorizing the closures. Authority to allow such closures would require an immediate statutory change.

Ultimately language will be included in the same budget trailer bill which would allow the courts to close to the public one day per month over the next year beginning July 1, 2009. The court closures are projected to result in possible furloughs which the AOC claims could amount to a $100 million savings over the one-year period.

Labor organizations and all stakeholders continue to meet with AOC representatives to assure that all court employees’ rights and benefits are not adversely affected and are focusing on employee compensation, retirement and other benefits.

Okay California officials.  In case you thought the Governator wasn’t serious about getting rid of court reporters, you can hear him say it himself.  In an interview he gave with a public radio station, he discussed the difficulties of making cuts to programs but also shared how the legislature could get “creative” with cutting certain programs to fund others.

Governor Schwarzenegger says “hasta la vista” to court reporters.

As an example of how the legislature could get creative, he cited the elimination of court reporters.  Here’s part of an answer he gave in which he cited court reporters.

…What we have to do is make this necessary cuts but at the same time inspire the legislature to go and look at it in a creative way the way we deliver the various different programs because there’s things where we can save money and that can then be put in those programs. Like for instance, we don’t need court reporters. I mean, we can do this digitally. Why are we still holding on to court reporters? Just because the unions want to hold on and keep their jobs.

— Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger

Yes Californians.  That gigantic hole in the state budget can be cured by eliminating court reporters.  Funny how that was the first and only solution he gave during the interview.  Talk about your red herrings!

You can hear the Governator say it himself by clicking here.

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.