Whether you are a court reporter interested in COCRA membership, news, student recruitment, or you're interested in learning more about exciting career opportunities, we hope you find the resources you're looking for. Happy navigating!
Posted on August 24th, 2009 by admin
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.
Posted on August 14th, 2009 by Paige Moser
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.
Posted on August 14th, 2009 by Gordon Aiavao
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
- - $9,285,900 Alameda
- - $52,574,606 Los Angeles
- - $15,833,401 Orange
- - $8,435,468 San Bernardino
- - $16,265,388 San Diego
- - $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.
Posted on August 12th, 2009 by Gordon Aiavao
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.
Posted on August 8th, 2009 by Gordon Aiavao
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.
Posted on August 4th, 2009 by admin
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.
Posted on July 30th, 2009 by admin
For the first time in California history, the courts will close across the state one day each month because there simply isn’t enough money to keep them open.
The California Judicial Council, the policymaking arm of the state courts, voted Wednesday to shutter every court in the state the third Wednesday of every month, an unprecedented response to the state’s staggering budget deficits. With a $414 million budget gap for the California court system, the 21-member council unanimously backed the courthouse closure option to save an estimated $85 million, despite widespread discomfort with the idea.
“It doesn’t feel good,” said San Francisco Superior Court Judge Mary Wiss, a council member and president of the California Judges Association. “It leaves you with something in the pit of your stomach.”
-Continue Reading Article-
Posted on July 30th, 2009 by Lyn Yard
Okay COCRA members and supporters. If people ask you what COCRA has done in the past year, kindly refer them to this list that we like to call COCRA’s Accomplishments & Legislative Involvement 2009. This has been an incredibly busy year so far and needless to say your COCRA Team has been working its tail off to promote and protect the court reporting profession. We want you all to know that we couldn’t have accomplished it without your support. Thank you!
- COCRA RESERCHES AND DEVELOPS THE PAJ-TF REPORT
- COCRA BEGINS THE PROCESS OF EDUCATING THE LEGISLATURE
- THE “FIGHT E.R.!” CAMPAIGN OFFICIALLY BEGINS ALONG WITH OTHER LEGISLATIVE DEVELOPMENTS
- COCRA DEFENDS THE CRB
- CROSS-DISCIPLINARY LEGISLATIVE EFFORTS– COCRA REPS WEAR UNION HATS TOO
- POSITIVE RESULTS
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted on July 22nd, 2009 by admin
Columnist Jeff Ackerman of The Union, a Nevada County newspaper, revealed in a column posted to the paper’s online edition that believe it or not, the AOC has not been spending its money wisely during these tough economic times for California superior courts. As an example of how he believes the AOC is misspending money, he reveals that the AOC had a meeting at its San Francisco location where attendees were called upon to discuss “The California Judicial Branch Budget Crisis.” And how much did this meeting to discuss the obvious wind up costing taxpayers?
..around 70 people from the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) got together at the Hilton in San Francisco to discuss … get this … “The California Judicial Branch Budget Crisis.” They even spent $40,000 on five facilitators, just to make sure they came away with good notes on where all the taxpayer money went. And … again … I couldn’t make this up if I tried. “Gentlemen … please pass the wine … we are gathered here to discuss urgent business … please pass the cheese … the state is broke and unless we find some money, we may be meeting next year in Marysville at a Motel 6 …,” which resulted in a collective gasp and group wine-spit across the table.
A $10,000 facilitator had to be summoned to coordinate a group-hug.
The Hilton meeting rooms cost $42,000, according to a memo I intercepted in cyberspace. An estimated 25 of the 70 attendees spent two nights each at the Hilton (at a discounted price of $138 per night) and one member (a fellow named Judge Brad R. Hill) spent the night in the “Presidential Suite” because, according to the memo, it was his turn. The memo didn’t say how much the suite cost, but presidents don’t stay in rooms where remote controls are chained to the television sets. Don’t ask how I know this to be true.
It might be a good time to pause here and remember that this party … I mean conference … was happening while Nevada County courthouse employees (and state employees all over California) were being laid off and sent home without pay. So you might start to understand why our local judges might be just a little torked by such extravagance by their Mother Ship. You might also start to understand how groups such as the Tea Party are starting to get serious momentum.
The judicial group eventually got bummed out by all the budget crisis talk, so they boarded a bus and headed to the Academy of Sciences in Golden Gate Park, where taxpayers paid $6,000 for a cocktail party, according to the memo from the judicial council’s mouthpiece.
Also drawing Mr. Ackerman’s ire is the AOC’s computer system which will purportedly cost $1.1 billion.
Close to home, our Nevada County courts have trimmed payroll and may be forced by the Mother Ship to close one day per month despite a growing caseload. Local judges wondered why their own Mother Ship (the AOC) was growing while they were being asked to sacrifice.They also question the need for a $1.1 BILLION computer system being shoved its way by the AOC. The math, by the way, works out to roughly $20 million per county … for a freaking computer system. At a time when we are cutting teachers, cops and firefighters to save money.
Mr. Ackerman’s column begs a few questions. When Californians voted to approve the consolidation of municipal and superior courts, do you think they had any idea that they would wind up creating a new bureaucratic octopus with its tentacles in the financial pot of every county? And would Californians have voted to approve the consolidation if they knew just how much money it would take to feed this octopus in its current state? And is this column just the beginning of a more focused look by the press on the inner workings and spending habits of the AOC? Stay tuned.
Posted on July 21st, 2009 by admin
E.R. is NOT in the State Budget. Court Reporters Board is Safe
It’s confirmed! On an issue as important as this, we didn’t want to send out unconfirmed information with a caveat. Our COCRA and labor lobbyists have now confirmed that the budget proposal reached last night by the Legislative Leadership does NOT contain Electronic or Digital Recording.
The Court Reporters Board was untouched as well and will continue to serve the public, as well as license and oversee Certified Shorthand Reporting professionals and administer the Transcript Reimbursement Fund.
The court reporters of California waged a tough battle and we can all be proud of the part we played in keeping ER at bay once again and out of California courtrooms. We are proud of our members for rallying to the call for support from COCRA’s Preserving Access to Justice Task Force. It is only with your help this result was achieved.
But the true heroes in this defeat are our Legislative Leadership, Assembly Speaker Karen Bass and Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, who worked tirelessly, standing fast against the Governor’s demands to implement ER. The Leaders’ offices and staff members have always been receptive and repeatedly facilitated the efforts of the COCRA Team and union leaders while continuing to support other court employee interests. We hope you will show them your gratitude.
COCRA’s lobbyists, Barry Broad and Shane Gusman, along with our labor leaders, Willie Pelote and Michael Bolden from AFSCME and Michelle Castro from SEIU, as always, were instrumental in protecting our interests and continuing to monitor and influence the negotiations, and we offer them a huge round of applause! They are truly our eyes and ears in Sacramento, literally watching our backs every day, not just during these times of crisis.
It is anticipated that the state budget will be ready for a final vote in the Legislature later this week. Our COCRA Team will continue to keep you informed. Check our website for up-to-the-minute reports.
California is still in a grave fiscal situation, and the Governor is sure to resurrect his perceived ER “solution” again the next time he’s looking for an answer to the state’s budgetary problems. But, for now, breathe easy and enjoy the victory…..and thank your lucky stars and those who supported you!
Posted in: Uncategorized
3 Comments »