Help is needed to ensure funding for captioning program!
Cerritos College in Norwalk, California needs our support in obtaining Congressional funding to create a captioning program. A huge portion of the captioning grants involve recruitment and advertising for the court reporting and captioning professions. The rest relates to equipment, software, resource material, training and curriculum.
Cerritos College is the only California school applying for earmarks this year. No California school has yet received Federal funding for this purpose, though several schools across the nation already have.
Part of the NCRA grassroots process is to get court reporters, captioners and consumers to write letters of support to our state senators and our local representatives. Please go to Cerrritos College’s websiteto help in this important process.
It was another big day in Sacramento. Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata of District 9 agreed to have staff meet with our best and brightest about ER Expansion and other concerns having to do with our court reporting profession.
Our union representatives - Michelle Castro with SEIU; Willie Pelote and Michael Bolden with AFSCME; and Libby Sanchez with IFPTE - all had an opportunity to speak on our behalf. Perata’s staff was very open to all of the facts pointed out about the problems with electronic recording [ER].
After discussing the implications of ER expansion and the accessibility of transcripts when ER is being used in court, Senator Perata’s staff became very interested in knowing how that would affect citizens trying to obtain an ER recording.
This can do nothing but help our cause. When purchasing a cd or recording, the entire day’s worth of proceedings is on each recording purchased. Imagine the privacy issues! Social security numbers, names, phone numbes, addresses, and other personal information for anyone wishing to purchase a cd? Yes, that happens when ER is being used.
We also provided examples of transcripts from typists in ER transcribing firms to further prove that these inferior records of proceedings are not worth the paper they are typed on.
It doesn’t matter that the recording equipment is modern, as some proponents of ER claim, because the machine cannot tell a person to speak up, repeat what was said, slow down, not talk over another, or to stop mumbling.
As we have shown, these few problems create disasters when a typist tries to make a record…that is, if there is a record. We also have many examples of machine malfunction where the words never make it into any kind of record. Talk about costly!
It’s not over, by any means. But the fact that the Conference Committee and Senator Perata’s staff and many others are actively seeking out information about our profession and are open to hearing the truth about the costs of ER, means the legislature is not going to make a decision based on emotion. For that, we have to be truly grateful.
It is a very emotional time in Sacramento. Cuts are occurring everywhere. It is important we realize how lucky and smart we are to be the best and most cost-effective way to provide transcripts while continuing to educate ourselves and expand our skill level.
We will continue to update you regularly…bookmark COCRA to keep informed.
Here’s another update on what is happening with your future.
Judicial Council [JC] produced “job protection” language designed to put official court reporters’ minds at ease over the issue of expanding electronic recording [ER] in California courts. It is copied below and states the following:
(The areas in bold and italicized - (b) (d) and (f) - are the proposed amendments to 69957)
69957. (a) Whenever an official reporter or an official reporter pro tempore is unavailable to report an action or proceeding in a court, subject to the availability of approved equipment and equipment monitors, the court may order that, in a limited civil case, or a misdemeanor or infraction case, the action or proceeding be electronically recorded, including all the testimony, the objections made, the ruling of the court, the exceptions taken, all arraignments, pleas, and sentences of defendants in criminal cases, the arguments of the attorneys to the jury, and all statements and remarks made and oral instructions given by the judge. (b) Subject to the availability of approved equipment, the court may also order that actions or proceedings in family law, probate, mental health, and civil law and motion be electronically recorded.
(c) A transcript derived from an electronic recording made pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b) may be utilized whenever a transcript of court proceedings is required. (d) The court may also use electronic recording equipment in all case types for internal court purposes.
(e) The electronic recording device and appurtenant equipment shall be of a type approved by the Judicial Council for courtroom use and shall only be purchased for use as provided by this section. A court shall not expend funds for electronic recording technology or equipment to make an unofficial record of an action or proceeding or to use that technology or equipment to make the official record of an action or proceeding in circumstances not authorized by this section. (f) The adoption of subdivision (b) shall not result in the loss of employment for any court employee performing court reporting services.
Hmmmm, what’s wrong with this language? Sounds too much like the so-called Court Reporter Protection Act promulgated after the ER battle in 2003, which compromised reporter jobs.
They want to take away our jobs through attrition, which wouldn’t save California any money or help with the budget deficit in any way.
Yes, folks, that’s what it looks like to your state association leaders, union representatives, and anyone else reading this proposal. There isn’t ANY language about hiring certified shorthand reporters to fill any vacancies.
We have every confidence that the Senate leadership will adopt the Assembly leadership’s recommendation to keep current law and not expand ER in California courtrooms; it won’t help the budget, so it doesn’t make sense to adopt this language.
By the way, this language introduced by the JC has NOTHING to do with the budget crisis, and parts of it were introduced in the past. Your state associations and unions are ever vigilant in watching for issues exactly like this one.
Thanks again to our SEIU, AFSCME and IFPTE reps for all your hard work in Sacramento and for keeping us up to date.
Union leadership will be at the conference today. We, official court reporters, and our friends are ready to make calls and send letters or faxes at your direction.
Stay tuned, stay watchful, and stand ready for action!
Yesterday, June 12th, 2008, our COCRA lobbyists gave the Conference Committee in Sacramento the letter copied below. Please take a moment to look it over. We know this letter, all the phone calls made to Senators Ducheny and Perata by deposition and official reporters, along with the visits COCRA board members are making today in Sacramento are helping us defeat this proposal to expand ER.
The troops have rallied, and it makes us proud…yeah, I know, we’ve already said that. But it’s true!
Being a court reporter is a profession to be very proud of. Remember all your days in school (up to four years) working on your speed and accuracy. Think of all the money you have spent on equipment, software, and supplies. Think about all the seminars you attend to learn more and improve your skills. Think of all the hours spent on nights and weekends working to produce an accurate and timely record that is cheaper to produce than using an uncertified, untrained typist who is going to charge more than we charge.
Enjoy the letter. And thank you, Libby, Barry, and Shane, for the time you have spent for our cause and for this fabulous letter!
……………………………………………………
To:All Members of the Legislative Budget Conference Committee
The above labor unions representing court employees in San Francisco, Riverside and San Diego and the California Official Court Reporters Association, representing court reporters throughout the state urge the conference committee to reject the senate actions taken by Senate Budget Sub Committee # 4 related to the Judicial Branch (0250) and urge the conference committee instead to adopt the actions taken by Assembly Budget Sub Committee # 4.
Court reporters provide an invaluable service, a service which can not be duplicated by electronic recording. We are very concerned about Senate Subcommittee # 4 recommendation to expand Electronic Recording into the areas of family court, probate court, mental health court and in laws and motions proceedings. Not only will adoption of this recommendation not save money, instead it will result in substantial revenue losses due to the fact that court reporter user fees which are currently required to be collected will be lost.
We are equally concerned about the Senate proposals to cut the Judiciary budget which seem to hit the trial courts the hardest.Such cuts will dramatically impact the delivery services to consumers, bog down the judicial system and delay justice to Californians.
For the above reasons, we urge the Conference Committee to reject the Senate actions and adopt the Assembly actions related to the Judicial Branch (0250).
Kathy Nielsen is an official reporter working in Kane County, IL who gave an interview to her local paper, The Beacon News. In the interview the reporter asks her questions that reporters everywhere often get about their profession.
But one question in particular stuck out when she was asked why court reporters were better than electronic recording. Ms. Nielson’s answer couldn’t be more on the point.
Why is this preferred rather than just making an audio recording of a trial?
“First of all, you don’t know who’s talking. I can indicate when there’s two attorneys and a judge talking, I have a symbol that I indicate in my notes who’s talking. And the more speakers you get, I of course can indicate who’s speaking. But on an audio tape you don’t know who’s talking. If you have six male voices you would not be able to discern who’s talking. Plus, on an audio recording, it wouldn’t always pick everything up. If two people talk at once, I can stop them. Tape would not be able to do that. If I can’t hear somebody, I can ask them to repeat. An audio tape would never do that. An audio tape would be very inferior.”
You can read the entire interview by clicking here.
Yesterday, May 29th, 2008, Linda Rapattoni of the Daily Journal reports the following:
“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.
What is a court reporter to do? Stay strong, stay informed, and, above all, continue to provide access to justice for everyone in the cost-effective and accurate way you always do.
Remember the days when you had to attend an NCRA business meeting in order to have your vote count? Those days are gone, my friends! NCRA listened and responded by granting all NCRA members the ability to vote on national issues.
Why, you say, is COCRA so excited about direct member voting? Because it gives all NCRA members a voice without having to fly, drive, train, bike, walk, or crawl to the next business meeting to be heard.
The next NCRA business meeting will take place in Anaheim on July 24, 2008. If you can’t make it to the NCRA annual conference, make you voice heard by direct vote.
The following links will give you information about direct member voting and about our friends at DRA and their proposal to amend the NCRA bylaws to include associations based on population, not state.
If you are going to be in Anaheim, stop by the COCRA booth and say hello!
Link to NCRA’s FAQs about Direct Member Voting: (Copy and paste the link below)
http://ncraonline.org/NewsInfo/KeyIssues/DMV/
Link to DRA’s Proposed Amendment to the NCRA Bylaws: (Copy and paste the link below)
The CR Board is proposing to change fees for the CSR exam. Title 16, California Code of Regulations, Section 2450, currently sets the fee for an examination at $75 for each separate part for each administration. They propose to change it to set the fee for filing an application to $40 for each administration.
They are also proposing to amend the section to incorporate for the current fees that they are already charging for initial certificate, $100; renewal remains at $100; delinquency fee for renewal, $50; duplicate certificate, $5; and reduces the penalty fee for failure to notify Board of a change of name or address from $50 to $20.
CCR Section 2451 pertains to due dates of fees. They propose to add a new subsection to establish the due date of the delinquency fee for certificate renewal if the certificate is not renewed within 30 days after the date that it expired.
The hearing date is June 3, 2008, at 1:00 p.m. If you would like to comment, you can do so orally at the hearing or submit your written statement to the Board before June 3, 2008. For further information regarding these changes, please go to the CR Board website at www.courtreportersboard.ca.gov.
With fuel prices at $4 and above, and just the general cost of living skyrocketing, it’s nice that the CR Board’s rates are not rising and that applicant’s for the CSR exam are actually going to be paying less! Now if we could only get an increase in transcript rates!
read this! And thanks for taking the time out of your day to check out our site! We have up-to-date information on so many topics of interest to court reporters. It is exciting to see so much enthusiasm…yes, I dare to say it … enthusiasm … for our profession at a time when those, shall we say, less-informed members of our community are trying to make electronic recording today’s way of preserving access to justice!
The Legislative Analyst’s Office’s suggestion of reducing California’s official court reporting workforce by 20 percent per year did not make it into the May revise of the Governor’s proposed budget. Kudos to all reporters throughout the State of California whose efforts show that together we are a strong and intelligent group of professionals committed to providing the best service to the roughly 34 million people served in our courtrooms every year.
We will not sit back and feel sorry for ourselves because others don’t understand the skill level involved in maintaining the certified shorthand reporter license in California. (more…)
Well, on top of the already stressful job of maintaining the record, you can now add crime fighting duties to the job description at least for one court reporter in federal court in the state of New York. Ron Tolkin was preparing to report the sentencing of one Victor Wright, a drug dealer who was about to be sentenced to two life sentences for drug trafficking, when the defendant lunged for the prosecutor in the case.
Here’s how the events went down according to the New York Post.
He was going to slash her throat,” said defense lawyer Harry Batchelder, who, along with a court reporter and two marshals, slammed Victor Wright, 27, to the ground and grabbed an inch-long razor blade from him.
Wright was being led into the courtroom to be hit with two life sentences for his role in a ruthless drug-trafficking crew when he lunged at prosecutor Carolyn Pokorny, 38, grabbing her by the throat and pulling her to the ground as she screamed in terror.
“He came into the courtroom to attack her,” said Eugene Corcoran, head of the Marshals Service in Brooklyn.
As if that weren’t dramatic enough, the New York Post has a quote of Mr. Tolkin issuing a challenge to the defendant.
“Why don’t you try me instead of her?” stenographer Ron Tolkin shouted at the cowardly criminal as he leaped on Wright, before the group fell to the ground in a heap.
As for the defendant, he will probably face new charges for his cowardly act and will now be known for getting his ass kicked by his own defense attorney and the court reporter who not only happen to be Vietnam veterans but who are also considerably older than the defendant. Harry Batchelder, the defense attorney, is 72 and Ron Tolkin, the court reporter, is 60.
“Thank God Harry and Ron were there,” said Judge Frederic Block’s courtroom deputy, Mike Innelli
Kathy Nielsen is an official reporter working in Kane County, IL who gave an interview to her local paper, The Beacon News. In the interview the reporter asks her questions that reporters everywhere often get about their profession.