June 27, 2012
Dear Members and Others:
Today the Legislature enacted major reforms to the trial court funding statutes long advocated by the Alliance of California Judges. We are gratified that the Legislature has heard our voice and thank legislative leaders and all who assisted in bringing about this result for recognizing the need for change and making it a reality.
The Legislature has agreed with the Alliance that all Trial Court Trust Funds not legislatively authorized for use by the AOC should be allocated to the trial courts, and not held in reserve, or disposed of at the discretion of the Judicial Council without trial court authorization.
Based upon new provisions of Government Code section 68085, the AOC may no longer spend money from the TCTF based upon the implied “consent” of the participating courts, as they did to fund the CCMS project, but must now have the “authorization” of the courts. This new provision is effective immediately. This means that the AOC must now seek the express authority of affected courts before spending any money from the Trial Court Trust Fund if the AOC proposes not to allocate it directly to the trial courts unless that money has been specifically appropriated by the Legislature. The Judicial Council and the AOC are prohibited from taking any money from the TCTF for any statewide or general expenditure, if it would otherwise reduce the allocation of funds to any courts, without the express authorization of the courts or Legislature.
Expenditures for CCMS V4 and for new deployments of any version of CCMS are expressly and immediately prohibited.
Additional beneficial changes will also soon take effect.
Beginning on January 1, 2013, a new provision of section 68085 will read as follows:
(p) Nothing in this section or any other provision of law shall be construed to authorize the Judicial Council to redirect funds from the Trial Court Trust Fund for any purpose other than for allocation to trial courts or as otherwise specifically appropriated by statute.
This repeals the AOC’s authority under Government Code section 68085 to reimburse itself from general trial court operating funds without authorization of all affected courts, and requires that 100% of TCTF money not expressly and legislatively authorized for other purposes be allocated to the trial courts. Any direct services by the AOC to the trial courts now requires a specific appropriation by the Legislature and the AOC must report these expenditures quarterly. The January 1, 2013 version of the statute will also retain the total ban on CCMS V4 and deployment spending.
The Legislature has also decided to severely cut the AOC budget. As a result of the AOC’s share of branch ongoing reductions, and an additional cut imposed by the Legislature, it appears that the AOC budget is being reduced over one-third. This assumes that $4.0 million in additional reductions imposed by the Legislature will likely be funded from AOC operations. Furthermore, fifteen million is being cut from the AOC budget to mitigate reductions to the trial courts.
As expected, the budget provides for an ongoing reduction from prior years of $350 million. However, rather than leave this amount unallocated and left to Judicial Council discretion, the Legislature has adopted the Alliance position that the reduction be allocated directly in the budget.
The Governor’s proposal to eliminate trial court fund balances, so called “reserves,” has been mitigated somewhat. The Legislature has taken away the Judicial Council’s discretion over trial court reserves and has now expressly granted the right of the trial courts to maintain reserves for two years. After June 30, 2014, that authority is repealed, and trial courts will only be allowed to maintain a reserve up to 1% of their total budget. A 2% reserve will be retained at the state level with 1.5% to be distributed for hardships by August 31, and .5% to be held back for emergencies until March 15. After that, any remaining amounts will be allocated to trial courts based on past allocation methodology.
The budget document is a difficult read. Our view of the final budget numbers follows.
The budget provides for past and future ongoing cuts to the Judicial Branch, as well as very significant one time cuts.
The previous reductions total approximately $650 million. Of this amount, the stated plan is to provide for ongoing mitigation of $300 million, and for $350 million to be permanently “operationalized” by the branch.
The $300 million will be mitigated as follows:
| SB 1732 Construction Funds | -$59.5 |
| Terminate CCMS | -46.0 |
| Redirection from Modernization Fund | -27.2 |
| Deloitte Cash Credit | -16.0 |
| New Civil Fees (3 year sunset) | -50.0 |
| Misc. | -1.3 |
| Total | -200.0 |
This leaves $100 million as an impact to the trial courts both for this year and ongoing.
An additional $350 million will be operationalized as reflected in the following figures, which means the trial courts will absorb an additional permanent $214 million reduction.
| State Judiciary | -47.1 |
| 2009 Fee Changes | -6.4 |
| 2010 Fee Changes | -64.0 |
| Security Savings | -17.0 |
| Other State Trial Court Funding Programs* | -1.4 |
| Trial Court Reductions | -214.1 |
| Total | -350.0 |
*This amount increases to $12.6 million beginning 2012- 2013 providing additional relief to trial court reductions.
As expected from the May Revise, the budget also provides for an additional $544 million of cuts to the trial courts. $240 million will be redirected from SB 1407 construction funds to mitigate this cut. The AOC will be expected to absorb or find an additional $4.0 million from sources within state operations other than trial court funding, such as their own budget, or the Supreme Court, Courts of Appeal, Judicial Branch Facility Program, or the Habeas Corpus Resource Center. In addition, fifteen million is being redirected from the AOC budget to offset local court cuts, leaving $285 million in cuts to be absorbed this year by the trial courts, rather than the $300 million originally proposed in the May Revise.
After this fiscal year, there will be an ongoing $121 million cut to the trial courts, which will be mitigated by a permanent transfer of $50.0 million from the Immediate and Critical Needs Account (the “1407” construction funds).
With some adjustments not detailed here, the bottom line is that the trial courts will suffer a $285 million one time reduction and a $331 million ongoing reduction for FY 2012- 2013, to be followed by a permanent ongoing reduction of $496 million for FY 2013- 2014 and thereafter.
Finally, the following provisions are enacted:
- The Trial Court Improvement Fund and the Judicial Administration Efficiency and Modernization Fund are consolidated into a single statewide fund to support trial court projects. This will make the accounting of this money much more transparent.
- $7 million in CCMS system evaluation funding is eliminated. This is a strong policy statement by those that control the purse strings that no more money be spent on CCMS period.
- Excess funding for assigned judges, if available, is directed to trial court operations and courts are encouraged to use sitting judges when available rather than assigned judges.
- Creates a $30 fee for court reporter services under an hour.
- Adopts a 20% increase to appellate first filing fees to offset cuts to the Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal.
This budget requires the judges of this state to face a new reality. Every judge must recognize that we are all called upon to exercise our independent constitutional responsibility to decide the funding priorities of the local courts and to recognize that we are independent constitutional trial courts. A new model of trial court cooperation and communication is now necessary. We cannot act as if we are dependent upon only a chosen few. The Alliance will continue to strive toward democratic governance of the judicial branch, and continue to work for additional funding changes reflecting our philosophy that judges, not bureaucrats, should determine the future direction of the judiciary.
Directors, Alliance of California Judges
________________________________________________________________________
Congratulations to the Judges and Justices of the Alliance of California Judges – and Yen Interactive Media on a bitterly fought victory.
Our work is not yet finished….
Related articles
- You’re suggesting that the budgeting authority should go to the self-dealers? (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- Legislative action now needed – Contact your legislators (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- And this is why we call them Pravda & The Ministry of Truth (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- ACJ Article: SFCHRON:-AOC Needs a Trim. AOC e-news: Fair and transparent? (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- Tuesday afternoon – ACJ message to members : SEC report urges total overhaul of the AOC (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/27/47873.htm
wearyant
June 28, 2012
Thank you so much Judges and Justices of the Alliance of California Judges – and Yen Interactive Media — for all you have done to see this day come to fruition! Thank you, JCW! Thank you, bloggers in jammies! I’ll sleep sweetly tonight …
But the JC/AOC/CJ should still remain under public scrutiny.
Long live the ACJ!
Wendy Darling
June 28, 2012
Proud to be a member of the JCW “bloggers in jammies.” (And blue jeans, khakis, three piece suits, ties, blazers, sweaters, skirts, . . . )
Long live the ACJ.
Judicial Council Watcher
June 28, 2012
A special thanks goes out to the bloggers in jammies (both at AOC Watcher and here) that provided a shocking amount of information in exposing the inner workings of the borg collective for what it is – and presenting that information on a silver platter to our legislative leaders and readers.
We should also thank the visionaries on the judicial council that only managed to muster one vote between them to oversee the AOC. In your leadership vacuum, the legislature has stepped in and set their legislative priorities.
Keeping the courts open is their legislative priority.
JusticeCalifornia
June 28, 2012
JCW said:
“We should also thank the visionaries on the judicial council that only managed to muster one vote between them to oversee the AOC. In your leadership vacuum, the legislature has stepped in and set their legislative priorities.”
JCW, you hit the nail on the head. The downward spiral in the branch, leading to the current financial devastation and complete destruction of branch credibility is DIRECTLY due to almost two decades of FAILED LEADERSHIP. As far as I can tell, this is traceable to the George/Vickrey plan for an administrative takeover that appears to have commenced in the early 90’s.
Under these two men, the duty to provide basic services to the public (open courts, good judges, court reporters and court clerks) morphed into a battle plan for CONTROL of the branch at all costs, and by whatever means necessary, including brutal retaliation at all levels of the branch against those who did not tow George’s party line; coverups, perks, protection and promotion for unqualified, unethical Team George loyalists who did tow that line; and heavy reliance upon public relations people to provide damage control to cover up the growing internal and external dissatisfaction with branch leadership, policies and practices.
As a result, the cream has NOT risen to the top of branch leadership, and the next thing that must happen is a CHANGE OF LEADERSHIP. The insular, handpicked, self-important members of the judicial council have made it clear at virtually every JC meeting that has taken place in the last 18 months that branch leadership, as Krinsky so artfully stated it, “starts and ends with the Judicial Council”. They have made it clear that notwithstanding a wealth of information from diverse sources (including but not limited to the BSA, the legislature, the ACJ, the CJA, the unions, the public and now the SEC) reflecting harsh, consistent internal and external disapproval of the wasteful practices and policies of top leadership, the JC and the AOC will continue to do what they want to do. They will play their same games, but simply change the names.
Top leadership is not representing the judiciary. Top leadership is ripping apart the judiciary. The obvious remedy is to democratize top leadership so the judiciary selects its leadership. If Cantil-Sakauye cannot get on board and support this simple democratic concept, she needs to be asked to step down by a coalition of respected branch members.
Commercial IT
June 28, 2012
What about the up to $3.3 Million to San Luis Obispo County?
Michael Paul
June 28, 2012
Isn’t that 3.3 million for San Luis Obispo buried in the 46 million terminate CCMS line item? It seems to me that’s one of the two CCMS pots. The other pot is getting Deloitte to write the AOC a 16 million dollar check. Don’t hold your breath.
Commercial IT
June 28, 2012
I’m not sure. They’re not calling it CCMS. But the RFP done by the ISD at the AOC looks like CCMS, with a local hosting twist.
Michael Paul
June 28, 2012
“CCMS lite” “Based on CCMS Technology” is a disassociation ploy. You can trust that after we and everyone else beat up the proposed systems architecture, if it was going to be deployed at all, it needed to be deployed locally. “CCMS lite” is actually full-blown CCMS but they were going to wait to tell everyone that they can’t afford to remove, recode and recompile pieces. It was just another angle to keep dumping development funding into CCMS.
Commercial IT
June 28, 2012
Supposedly, SLO will start a new project. They’re not supposed to be bound by the AOC’s new RFP which is supposed to be a “template” for the counties for the future. Not really sure where this is all going. The cost, under the $3.3 M plan, would be about $220K per judicial officer. That’s around 10-11 times what it should be legitimately for a court of this size.
JAD
June 28, 2012
Thank you to everyone who put themselves out there to expose the wrongdoing in our branch. It has been a long haul from the start of the AOC Watcher and all the insulting comments made about the information revealed there which has finally been exposed as the truth. There are many of us trial court workers that appreciate everything that has been done. Though I still wonder how on earth HRH2 and the rest of the higher-ups in the Crystal Palace are going to spin this i.e., the Legislature didn’t really mean for us to lose control . . . . Thank you.
Don Shelton
June 28, 2012
Maybe some of the retired Judges will lose part of their gravy-train?
courtflea
June 28, 2012
I can’t help it, this feels like April Fools day. I just can’t believe it, I am so totally blown away that someone finally listened?! But OMG!! if this works out the way the Alliance states that it will, I will be forever grateful to those brave souls in the Alliance, workers at the AOC, and others that brought the truth at their own risk to the light of day. makes me think of patriots like Nathan Hale. This is so frickin huge!!!But I too cannot wait to hear the spin from the AOC on this and wheather or not they will comply with these changes. That is using creative accounting as a go-around these changes. I don’t mean to be negative but I have become very jaded over the last 1/4 century or so.
PS the AOC ALWAYS says the assigned judges budget is never enough.
PSS sometimes I blog in my muddy wellies, stained wife beater t, holey pants e.g. when totally unpresentable from my back porch, sippin a beer. Makes PJs look formal🙂
Wendy Darling
June 28, 2012
“But I too cannot wait to hear the spin from the AOC on this and wheather or not they will comply with these changes. That is using creative accounting as a go-around these changes.”
That’s what Writs of Mandate are for Flea, and declartory and injunctive relief.
Long live the ACJ.
Nathaniel Woodhull
June 28, 2012
It is hilarious to listen to current and former members of the Judicial Council who are now blaming the Board members of the ACJ and others for the “wholesale destruction of the Judicial Branch”. Talk about a group that cannot and will not accept any personal responsibility for their actions over the years!!!!
The actions by the Legislature are the culmination of over a dozen years of blatant arrogance and mismanagement by those at the helm of the good ship JC/AOC. The only reason the Legislature finally took action was due to the content of the SEC report. The majority of the members of the Legislature had other things to worry about than the internal administration of the trial courts. When they received copies of and read the toned-down version (SEC Report “Lite”) the vast majority of the legislators could instantly identify the problems that many of us had been pointing out for over a decade and realized that they had to take action.
If there has been one good thing the new Chief Justice has done, it was to commission the SEC Report. Despite all the other evidence then available, the SEC report served as “Exhibit 1” in what will be the ongoing demise of the AOC. You can expect that the AOC will not look anything like it does now, a year from now.
All “telecommuting” employees should be gone. Hopefully, the AOC will be moved from San Francisco. While I personally proposed Bakersfield, I will settle for Sacramento. Maybe, just maybe, the AOC will revert to the “support” organization for the trial courts that it was originally envisioned to be…we can only hope. When we see the AOC budget slashed to the point at which the staffing is about 1/3 what it is now, we will know that we have accomplished something.
Those working on the Judicial Council and AOC management need to re-define their outlook on public service. Each and every dollar allocated toward the trial courts should be carefully spent whenever it is necessary. Telling committee members and other volunteers not to make decisions as if they were spending their own money cannot remain the para-dime. Mr. Vickrey and Overholt would actually tell judges and staff that they should not view expenditures like they were spending their own money…maybe that’s part of the reason that we are facing the current financial mess that we are in.
Wendy Darling
June 28, 2012
“It is hilarious to listen to current and former members of the Judicial Council who are now blaming the Board members of the ACJ and others for the “wholesale destruction of the Judicial Branch”. Talk about a group that cannot and will not accept any personal responsibility for their actions over the years!!!!”
At least we finally have something to chuckle about, General Woodhull, however brief the moment of giddiness might be.
Long live the ACJ.
Commercial IT
June 28, 2012
And now it’s time to bury the blame game, finger-pointing, etc. and come together to save the court system before it collapses financially. This society can’t afford to have courtrooms close and people be unable to litigate and resolve their civil law problems.
Wendy Darling
June 28, 2012
Published today, Thursday, June 28, from The Recorder, the on-line publication of CalLaw, by Cheryl Miller:
Court Budget Now Signed, But Math Remains Fuzzy
By Cheryl Miller
SACRAMENTO — Governor Jerry Brown signed a flurry of legislation Wednesday and Thursday that chops $544 million from California’s judiciary and enacts sweeping new court financing policies.
Full article is subscription access only: http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202561263876&Court_Budget_Now_Signed_But_Math_Remains_Fuzzy&slreturn=1
Long live the ACJ.
Commercial IT
June 28, 2012
So, folks. What would you rather do now? Revel in having brought people to task or fix the problems? It’s not an idle question. The technology situation is capable of resolution in a matter of weeks. Or would it be more fun to just take jabs at all the people who caused the problems? Do you know of a single court anywhere in the state that is willing to just put the past aside and use modern technology to save immense amounts of money?
Wendy Darling
June 28, 2012
That sounds like an excellent question to pose at the next Judicial Council meeting – you know, to current branch “leadership” who are supposed to be in charge of making those decisions, and accepting responsibility, instead of flushing millions and millions of dollars down the sewer on vaporware, with nothing that actually works to show for it.
Long live the ACJ.
One Who Knows
June 28, 2012
Some important people to thank would especially be Speaker John Perez and his staff Fredericka McGee and Marve Deon, as well as Senate pro tem Darrell Steinberg (many of you doubted him, called him names, but he has far more integrity than some gave him credit for) and his staff Anthony Williams and Joe Stephenshaw. These are the people who really saw this through in the budget process. Several other legislators were really vigilant in ensuring the right things would happen. The AOC incompetence and lying is common knowledge in the Capitol. Eventually, this stuff catches up and reform happens. More is coming….Stay tuned….I know you’ll like it. But please be patient it will take a little time to tee up the next episode.
Wendy Darling
June 28, 2012
To One Who Knows:
If Senator Darrell Steinberg was instrumental in putting this very important legislative correction into the budget trailer bill, then here and now I personally thank him for having the integrity and committment to his public duty in doing so, and for setting aside his personal association with the current Chief Justice and doing the right thing on behalf of the California Judicial Branch, and especially on behalf of the people of the State of California.
Waiting anxiously for “the next episode.”
Long live the ACJ.
One Who Knows
June 28, 2012
Wendy –
Senator Steinberg really was helpful. And when someone critical wanted to falter Steinberg didn’t let it happen. He really does want to clean up the judicial branch mess. He also knew that 1208 wasn’t the only vehicle for change. Having said this, I in no way want to diminish the role of the Assembly leadership or the other rank and file legislators who stood for the right things.
Wendy Darling
June 28, 2012
One Who Knows,
Thank you for sharing this info on the role of Assembly leadership, rank and file legislators, and especially Senator Steinberg’s role, and his staff, in making this legislative correction happen.
You cannot know the gratitude and heartfelt thanks that is felt by myself, and surely many others here, that the State Legislature honored their public duty. held the AOC and judicial branch administration accountable, and did the right thing. You just cannot know.
And it is a mess, One Who Knows. And it does still need cleaning up.
Long live the ACJ.
Res Ipsa Loquitor
June 28, 2012
One Who Knows: Is Darrel Steinberg staffer Anthony Williams the gentlemen of the same name who was a long time AOC staffer and then OGA Analyst? Thanks!
unionman575
June 28, 2012
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/min072909.pdf
Yes Willians was a long time AOC staffer.
Res Ipsa Loquitor
June 28, 2012
Thanks, Unionman. It has to help to have a former AOC/OGA person on the Senator’s staff — he is certainly Another One Who Knows!🙂
unionman575
June 28, 2012
We have a former OGA staffer at the Union in SAC now too.
🙂
Been There
June 29, 2012
It is good to know that former coworkers are doing well.
Curious
June 29, 2012
I’m with One Who Knows on this one, 100%.
One Who Knows
June 28, 2012
Wendy – I have a pretty informed guess about how bad it is and how much more change needs to be made. I too feel tremendous gratitude and appreciation for the changes that are happening. Much more needs to be done and there is legislative appetite for more change. But tonight we should all be having a celebratory drink!
unionman575
June 28, 2012
I just polished off a very nice Vodka Tonic. Very refreshing!
courtflea
June 28, 2012
Geez Wendy, the AOC won’t be clean until the hazmat team/forensic cleaners do the them. And on the subject of the use of writs, etc., I hope who ever needs to (the legislature? the ACJ? individuals?) will take that course. I am pretty sure that recourse will be required. However, I am uplifted by the comments that ONe Who Knows has posted here. It sounds like maybe, just maybe, for once the JC and the AOC will be held accountable. I would be more encouraged if Bill V and Ron O, along with Elvis had left the building.
I liked the comment from NW that JC members and others are coming down on those they perceive to be working on taking down the branch. My response to those folks is that if you become transparent, put your house in order, democracize the JC, adopt the SEC recommendations, then maybe the legislature will take their nose out of branch business…but hey JC/CJ and the AOC, you invited the camel’s nose under the tent yourselves by your arrogance, deceit, bullshit, etc. Hot damn, ACJ, you did it!! and let us not forget the SEC committee and Justice Scotland.
Wendy Darling
June 28, 2012
Speaking of Vickrey and Overholt, both have been at 455 Golden Gate Avenue this week – again.
Res Ipsa Loquitor
June 28, 2012
Why am I not surprised?
Reality Check
June 29, 2012
Interesting since the latter moved out of state earlier this month.
Michael Paul
June 29, 2012
R.C. : Didn’t both Vickrey and Overholt attend Christine Hansen’s retirement party?
Wendy Darling
June 29, 2012
I believe that was Chris Patton’s retirement party, Michael Paul, and yes, both Vickrey and his dog Spot were there.
Long live the ACJ.
Res Ipsa Loquitor
June 28, 2012
I am wondering about upcoming naming of Vickrey II. It is the end of June (almost) and given the budget consequences imposed this week because of choices made by the CJ and the JC the question for me is the CJ going to continue with this losing strategy and name another occupant of a deck chair on the HMS Titanic? Sending the SEC report to Long Term Parking clearly has not worked in her favor with the legislature.
Also, sincere congratulations to the work of the ACJ, the bloggers on this site, and JCW for keeping the flame of truth alive, and shining the light on the misconduct at 455 GG.
unionman575
June 28, 2012
Short list:
Former AOC Finance man Steve Nash (current San Bernardino SC CEO)
The illustrious “Hot Rod” Roddy roaching it in San Diego SC at this time;
Mr. Jones formerly @ SAC SC – looking for a new place to pillage
And just so you know how I “feel”…
Wendy Darling
June 28, 2012
With sincere, deep, and profound thanks to Senator Steinberg, his staff, Speaker Perez, and all the members of the State Legislature, and their staffs for standing up and doing the right thing (and with apologies to the munchkins of the Wizard of Oz, but it was the best thing I could think of:):
We thank you very sweetly, for doing it so neatly.
You did it so completely, that we thank you very sweetly.
You verified it legally,
Morally, ethically,
Spiritually, physically,
Positively, absolutely,
Undeniably and reliably,
Not only merely,
But really and most sincerely did.
And we thank you, very, very deeply.
unionman575
June 28, 2012
Beginning on January 1, 2013, a new provision of section 68085 will read as follows:
(p) Nothing in this section or any other provision of law shall be construed to authorize the Judicial Council to redirect funds from the Trial Court Trust Fund for any purpose other than for allocation to trial courts or as otherwise specifically appropriated by statute. ”
Given the above, how do we now prevent a JC/AOC Death Star spending spree from now until 1-1-13?
The Death Star has 6 months (now until 1-1-13) to fuck us around, siphon our trial court cash, and spend trial court on BULLSHIT.
We must focus folks. Watch the money allocations and spending extra close and call THEM ON THEIR SHIT AT THE DEATH STAR.
Let’s pack the 7-27-12 JC Meeting (everyone that can attend should attend).
I am aware Death Star line workers cannot attend as they will be dealt with by the Death Star in a most unpleasant way (fired).
We msut keep the pressure going and keep up the full court press.
Curious
June 29, 2012
Not exactly. Check the immediate changes to 68085. Those are quite significant as well.
It would be helpful to post those so that folks get a chance to see both version–the one going into effect now, and the one that you mention above, effective 1/1/13.
unionman575
June 29, 2012
The fund shifts will occur from now till 1-1-13.
unionman575
June 28, 2012
http://www.courts.ca.gov/18519.htm
Chief Justice Issues Statement Regarding the 2012-13 Budget ActPrint for release Contact: Leanne Kozak, 916-263-2838
PDF Version June 28, 2012 Chief Justice Issues Statement in Response to the 2012-2013 Budget Act
SAN FRANCISCO—California Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye issued the following statement in response to the finalization of the 2012–2013 Budget Act:
“Yet another austere state budget, affecting all Californians and all public sectors of our state, forces the judicial branch to absorb another $544 million cut in the coming fiscal year—representing four straight years of cuts. I opposed these cuts because—when added to the judiciary’s cuts of prior years—I fear they will have a deleterious impact on the ability of the courts to provide timely due process to the people of California. However, the impact of these additional cuts may be mitigated somewhat by a number of changes now reflected in the final budget. The Governor and the Legislature faced hard choices in balancing the state budget, and I appreciate their working with us in these very difficult circumstances. I thank the judicial branch leaders and the lawyer groups who advocated tirelessly and collaboratively for judicial branch resources.
“Critical to our ability to operate efficiently and with some predictability, trial courts will have two years to spend down fund balances instead of one year. This will greatly assist in judicial branch planning for the next two years. Beginning in fiscal year 2014–2015, trial courts may reserve up to one percent of their total allocation. The Legislature and Governor also largely adopted the trial court funding approach proposed by the Judicial Council.
“In an era of reduced appropriations to the judicial branch, the final budget supports our commitment to transparency and accountability as well as our effort to clarify judicial branch funding streams. The Trial Court Trust Fund will continue to be used for court operations, while a newly merged State Trial Court Improvement and Modernization Fund enables the Judicial Council to implement statewide initiatives and projects that improve efficiencies in court administration statewide.
“Now the judicial branch must continue the challenging task of making this budget work for all users of our court system. Branch leadership will meet now and in the weeks to come to continue to discuss and plan for these financial impacts. July 27 is the next scheduled meeting date for the Judicial Council to discuss the branch’s concerns. The judicial branch is comprised of many incredibly talented, innovative, and thoughtful leaders dedicated to the rule of law and justice for all. I am confident that we will make it through these difficult times and emerge, in the end, a stronger branch.”
courtflea
June 28, 2012
ho hum Tani, get over it K?
Wendy Darling
June 28, 2012
Get over it, or resign.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
June 28, 2012
https://recalltani.wordpress.com/
The OBT
June 29, 2012
The Chief Justice’s statement is remarkable. ” The Legislature and Governor also largely adopted the trial court funding approach proposed by the Judicial Council”. If thats the case why did the Judicial Council and AOC engage in a last minute lobbying effort to derail the trailer bill that has for the first time put appropriate restrictions on the Judicial Council and AOC’s power ? This is just further proof of what General Woodhull describes about the denial the Chief and her hand picked insular supporters display. In the light of the SEC’s devastating conclusions about the AOC’s lack of credibility one would think the insiders at 455 Golden Gate would finally accept responsibility and change direction. The SEC report recommendations don’t need to be buried,delayed and ignored. They need to be acted on. To draw on Wendy’s Wizard of Oz analogy, ” Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain ” We need transparency and change and some light shined into the dark hallways of the crystal palace. The SEC recommendations need to be implemented, the Judicial Council democratized and the Chief Justice recalled.
Curious
June 29, 2012
Yes, this was “the Chief’s hill..”, remember? They fought like crazy up until the last minute of the last day, frantically trying to derail these reforms using every trick and maneuver imaginable. That is a fact. They are now hoping no one notices what happened. Everyone knows the truth, however. Sadly, they also know that the dishonesty doesn’t stop with the AOC.
Frankly, the enactment of the bill was the best thing that could have happened to the Chief, but she doesn’t get it. It was like taking a sharp object from the hands of a child. Now she and the council have a greatly reduced ability to hurt themselves, and everyone else, with their spending on flights of fancy. Not eliminated, but GREATLY reduced. For that many many people deserve thanks.
Wendy Darling
June 29, 2012
” Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain ”
At which point, Dorothy correctly identified the man behind the curtain as a fake and a fraud.
Or the woman behind the curtain, as the case may be.
Long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
June 29, 2012
Wendy, love the Wizard of Oz references. As usual you are on a roll. . .
At least in the end, once he was found out, the Wizard had the ability to inspire. . . .
I do not have that confidence about our current cj.
I personally believe that — man or woman– the Chief Justice of the largest judiciary in the Western World should be the best, the brightest, the best educated, most ethical, experienced, diplomatic, respected judge that the branch can offer.
Sakauye has not made that cut.
I, for one, started out giving Sakauye the benefit of the doubt notwithstanding warnings that she would be RG II. I, for one, have now seen far too many harmful, deceptive, arrogant, tricks, tactics, outbursts and pronouncements from “Tantrum Tani” (no I did not make that up, someone else said that to me in the last week or so) and her sycophants to have any trust in her at all at this point. Yes, she asked for the SEC—but you have to admit, that appears to have been a fluke, given her track record with criticism (lalalala, I can’t hear you), the enthusiastic love-fest reception the Judicial Council gives Team George architects and gave the AOC at the last meeting, and the studied effort of Sakauye’s entourage to place the SEC recommendations in “long term parking” (love that RIL!).
We are witnessing the legislature do an amazing, marvelous job of executing its checks-and-balances function – One Who Knows, indeed, every single legislative member and staff member who has made and is making this happen over the last three or more years absolutely ROCK. We are all watching and participating in history in the making.
But IMHO the branch cannot afford another 10.5 years of battle between the gambling barmaid, her handpicked sycophants, and those 2,000 branch members Sakauye and/or her handpicked entourage believes they “lead”.
The branch needs to be democratized, and the branch needs new respected, trusted leadership, starting at the tippy top.
If anyone disagrees and wants to defend Sakauye and her track record, speak up. Let’s have a dialogue.
Wendy Darling
June 29, 2012
Just follow the Yellow Brick Road, Justice California.
Just follow the Yellow Brick Road.
Long live the ACJ.
Dan Dydzak
June 29, 2012
The Alliance Judges stood up and did their job. Assemblyman Calderon stood up and did his job. The commentators on this site pointing out corruption did their job. Kudos to the Legislature for doing their job. Judicial Council Watcher did objective fair analysis, and other publications like Courtroom News just reported it “the way it is”.
In Orange County Superior Court, I will be filing shortly for hearing a Motion to Appoint Receiver and Independent Auditor/Accounting Firm. It will be served on all interested parties and their counsel, including the CA Supreme Court. The hearing is being set for August 9, 2012. The point of the already drafted motion is to account for all ill-gotten gains from government coffers, and have a receiver review all of same, including making a visit to the AOC offices and CA Supreme Court. Also to inquire into the manouevres and machinations of the AOC Geneva-based attorney who they won’t let go despite demand therefor.
Kudos again for all those who did their job and advanced truth, integrity, candor and who did not betray the public trust. I will be saluting all of you on July 4, 2012–the truth seekers…
courtflea
June 29, 2012
Of course the CJ is going to act like everything is fine and dandy and just as it should be. Sociopaths don’t acknowledge the ones who confront them with their issues and try to change them That is why I think the JC/AOC are going to ignore these new edicts and continue to play the shell game with trial court funding. I am assuming the next JC meeting will carry the same tone, like nothing has happened. I hope our friends inside the legislature keep on top of this.
Although I must admit, I don’t know how the AOC is going to put a brave face on in light of the cuts to their organization. Very interesting to quote Maxwell Smart.
courtflea
June 29, 2012
you know it just dawned on me. think about it.HRH 1’s agenda is still being followed. Bill V and Ron O aka Chuckie roam the halls, J. Huffman darkens the doors of the JC as chair of another committee. Could it be? Could it be that Tani is the STEPFORD CJ???!!!!! and Jody is the STEPFORD INTERIM DIREKTOR??!! Look closely at their eyes, you will note that neither have irises they just have DOLL’S EYES!!!!! broooooooohaaahhhaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!
wearyant
June 29, 2012
Aaaaaahhhhhhhh!!!
disgusted
June 29, 2012
The AOC actually implemented/demanded to reduce court reporters’ rates by 30% without going through the proper channels. Just notified CRs(court reporters) they HAD to start billing with their “per word” method. It was a hard fight, but AOC’s actions were exposed and reversed. Another good day.
TODAY THE NEWS IS GOOD FOR OFFICIAL REPORTERS!
CCRA and COCRA are pleased to announce that we have been successful in securing language in the California budget trailer bill that protects official reporter transcript income and ends the unfair and cumbersome Word Count practice recently implemented in multiple jurisdictions.
SEIU Lobbyist Michelle Castro has confirmed that the language was approved by Legislative Leadership and inserted into the trailer bill which allows previous page-folio conversion agreements in effect as of January 1, 2012, to remain unchanged.
Newly amended Government Code 69950.
(a) The fee for transcription for original ribbon or printed copy is eighty-five cents ($0.85) for each 100 words, and for each copy purchased at the same time by the court, party, or other person purchasing the original, fifteen cents ($0.15) for each 100 words.
(b) The fee for a first copy to any court, party, or other person who does not simultaneously purchase the original shall be twenty cents ($0.20) for each 100 words, and for each additional copy, purchased at the same time, fifteen cents ($0.15) for each 100 words.
(c) Notwithstanding subdivisions (a) and (b), if a trial court had established transcription fees that were in effect on January 1, 2012 based on an estimate or assumption as to the number of words or folios on a typical transcript page, those transcription fees shall be the transcription fees for proceedings in those trial courts, and the policy or practice for determining transcription fees in those trial courts shall not be unilaterally changed.
Literally every jurisdiction in California has had a long-standing agreement between court administration and reporters for transcript payment based on the presumed number of folios (100 words) on a page based on each individual court’s transcript format. Reporters were previously paid for transcripts accordingly. After AOC auditors determined this was contrary to the intent of the statute (GC 69950), many administrators launched a unilateral and widespread effort to implement Word Count as their cost-saving solution in the budget-weary court system.
The AOC Court Assistance Review Team (CART) team has actively promoted this practice to courts as a cost-cutting tool. Unfortunately, they chose to ignore the definitions of both a folio and a word set forth in the Government Code, which sparked heated debates about what constituted a word and the time-consuming export/import process involved, which resulted in a reported 30% loss of reporter income. The amendment to 69950 maintains the status quo with regard to billing practices.
Commercial IT
June 29, 2012
This may seem good at the moment but progress is inevitable. Willie Loman could tell you that. Electronic recording + transcription is the cost-saving method. The technology exists now and is being used in other states where it was not barred by lobbying. Science eventually wins.
unionman575
June 29, 2012
😦
Curious
June 29, 2012
If you think ER is really good, take a look at the transcripts generated by the AOC at the Council. They might as well be in sanscrit. I mean HORRIFIC errors. If ER were imposed on the courts, guess who would run it? Yup, the same agency who brought you CCMS.
We would have to hire teams just to correct the errors.
It is a fact that ER can work, but the circumstances must be ideal, the judge must be firmly in control of the proceedings. Further, a machine has great trouble picking up two or three people talking at once. A reporter’s human brain can do that, and can much more easily distinguish between different voices. I’m not saying it can’t work, but I do not believe it’s all it’s cracked up to be.
Things must and will change, but the technology must lead, not the desire for cost savings. I actually am old enough to remember one of the last stenographers in the court system where I worked. This guy would use a stack of legal pads, and he wore an eye shade, and man, could that guy take shorthand! He would fill up book after book during a trial. Court reporting machines took over, and obviously were a better way to go.
I don’t doubt that someday there will be recorders that can do the job, but even the machine needs an operator, and techs when they break, and somebody to check for errors, etc. The other point is, reporters do much more than write. They assist the court in a number of ways other than simply by taking down the record, and are a second memory for the judge. “Hey, remember a month ago when that lawyer was in here, didn’t he say his mom died and that’s why he was late to court? Hmmm, he must have two moms, cause he’s using the excuse again.” Reporters and clerks become part of a team with a trials judge, and they often stay a team for a decade or more. A good reporter learns LOTS of law and can remind a judge (they are human) he/she needs to do x, y, or z. “Judge, did you really mean to leave out the reasonable doubt instruction?” In other words, the GOOD ones go above and beyond the call of duty, and gladly, and their help is invaluable. And no, I am not a court reporter and have no affiliation with them.
Here’s a true court reporter story for you:
Defendant is on the witness stand in a DUI case, gamely but lamely (and not much above a whisper) trying to convince the jury that notwithstanding his high blood alcohol reading, he only had two beers. The reporter, not hearing his answer, says “How many?” and he says, “OK, maybe three or four, but no more than that!”
Now, has a machine ever done anything funny?
disgusted
June 29, 2012
State Responses to the “Courts Bring Back Court Reporters After Electronic Recording Use” Document
1
Data complied: January 2010
State Reported Findings Research Findings
Texas 2001- Brought back stenographic reporters after trying both audio and
video taping methods,citing realtime court reporting and the ability to
have an immediate transcript; saving money during expert witness
testimony by having the experts review the transcript from the day
before instead of sitting through previous days of court; time and
equipment involved in reviewing video testimony – taking at least five
hours to review five hours of testimony, compared to 30 minutes to
review the same transcript; inherent problems and inaccuracies in
transcription of recorded proceedings; unanticipated costs and
additional personnel to perform all the functions that a stenographic
reporter provides.
Note: Texas is a locally funded, decentralized system
Texas is presumptively a steno reporting state which has only permitted
very limited exceptions apparently by supreme court order
The statute is Government Code Section 52.021(c)(4):
Sec. 52.021.
CERTIFICATION OF REPORTERS. (a) A person may not be appointed
an official court reporter or a deputy court reporter unless the person is
certified as a shorthand reporter by the supreme court.
(b) A person may not engage in shorthand reporting in this state
unless the person is certified as a shorthand reporter by the supreme
court.
(c) A certification issued under this chapter must be for one or
more of the following methods of shorthand reporting:
(1) written shorthand;
(2) machine shorthand;
(3) oral stenography; or
(4) any other method of shorthand reporting authorized by the supreme
court.
The report intimates that Texas systemically switched to recording and
then switched back; assumption is the commentary reflects one or a few
individual judges experimenting with recording and switching or finding
those drawbacks.
The (supreme) Court has approved a handful of single courts wanting to
use recording. Assumption is that one or a few courts that tried recording
and switched back (possibly because a new judge reversed course).
Information provide by: Carl Reynolds, Administrative Director
Texas court reporters who have been in the profession for many years
advise staff that the topic of electronic court reporting continues to come
up frequently especially with the advancement of technology, however no
trend in that direction has been established yet in Texas. Some years
back I heard of one instance where a tape recorder was used for court
proceedings, and when a new Judge came on board with new staff, they
found the tapes thrown in a closet, some were not labeled, and some
State Responses to the “Courts Bring Back Court Reporters After Electronic Recording Use” Document
2
Data complied: January 2010
were not audible so that court switched back to using a court reporter. It
is my understanding that in Texas, courts such as probate courts may be
more likely to use recording equipment and there are a few courts who
were approved to use that method to take down civil proceedings.
Information provided by:
Michele L. Henricks
Director
Court Reporters Certification Board
New Mexico Started using recording systems in 1982. By 1986 brought back
stenographic reporters, citing unexpected costs, frustrations, backlog
of cases at the appellate level, and great increases of time and
additional personnel costs with the tape systems. The state
abandoned the systems and returned to faster and more costeffective
court reporters.
New Mexico Rule 12-211 identifies the “transcript of proceedings” as
“audio recordings of the proceedings and stenographic transcripts of the
proceedings.” This definition of the official record of proceedings has only
had one change in the last 15 years; replacing in 2005 the words “tapes”
and “tape recordings” with “audio” and “audio recordings.”
On October 30, 2001, the Supreme Court issued Order No. 01-8500,
which both reiterated the Court’s “policy of encouraging the use of
certified court reporters in all district court trials to facilitate the preparation
of written transcripts and expedite the processing of appeals” and
implemented a program to “convert” audio recorded proceedings by hiring
typists to produce a written appellate transcript from the audio
recordings. In 2005, the AOC raised the rate paid per page for court
reporter transcripts from $1.00 to $2.50 to attempt to address the
continuing difficulties of attracting court reporters to court cases.
In practice, the Court’s hope for court reporters in every district court case
never came close to being realized. We could never get court reporters
on staff in most district courts outside of Albuquerque. We ended up
sending court reporters all over the state to stenographically record firstdegree,
capital criminal cases (death penalty cases and those with
possibility of a life sentence), and otherwise continued to see most
appeals (about 90%) reviewed based on the audio recording. The
“conversion” process from audio recordings to paper worked adequately
until fiscal year 2008, allowing the production of a written transcript from
the audio recording in most of the cases with a longer record. Funding
peaked that year at about $125,000, but then began to shrink. Now few
of the cases the appellate courts would like to “convert” can be converted,
and most appeals are heard from digital audio recordings.
In sum, New Mexico continues to officially record most cases by digital
audio recording, and this audio recording often serves as the official
State Responses to the “Courts Bring Back Court Reporters After Electronic Recording Use” Document
3
Data complied: January 2010
transcript on appeal. Some funds are available to convert a select
number of these cases to a written transcript through a contract typing
service. A small number of cases, including all those that may result in a
capital sentence, are recorded stenographically. A few courts have a
court reporter on staff, but most do not. For reasons of practicality and
budget constraints, the Supreme Court may in 2010 consider rescinding
the policy favoring use of stenographic recording in every district court
case. – Artie
Information provided by:
Arthur W. Pepin
Director, Administrative Office of the Courts
Florida Florida’s supreme court is currently reviewing an appellate court
decision to determine what the official record is – the recording or the
transcript from the recording. Digital recording systems record
everything, including whispered conversations between clients and
attorneys or onlookers. Keeping the recording from the public
preserves the attorney-client privilege. The appellate court ruled the
recordings are not an official record but are used to create the official
record. If this decision is upheld, the court will be required to provide
written transcripts, resulting in no cost savings to the court.
The information provided about Florida is only partially accurate. It is true
that the Florida Supreme Court has affirmed that the written transcript of a
proceeding is the official record for purposes of appeal. However, the
Supreme Court also considered the question of whether the release of
digital/audio/video recordings of court proceedings should be restricted
(see attached opinion). The Supreme Court stated that:
“…digital recordings of court proceedings are now widely used throughout
the state by those involved in the court system, as well as the media, and
have proven useful, reliable, efficient, and cost effective. We agree that
access to these recordings should not be denied or left to the unfettered
discretion of the trial court or the chief judge.”
sc08-1658 Opinion
July 2009.pdf
I’ve also attached another document that you might find helpful- trial court
profiles for court reporting services. You can see from these profiles, just
how widespread the use of digital reporting is in our state- all twenty
judicial circuits use digital technology. I can state with confidence that the
use of this technology is now firmly ingrained into the culture of our trial
courts.
Court Reporting
Circuit Profiles Statew
Further, here’s a link to a report from our Commission on Trial Court
Performance and Accountability that contains recommended standards
State Responses to the “Courts Bring Back Court Reporters After Electronic Recording Use” Document
4
Data complied: January 2010
and best practices for court reporting services.
http://www.flcourts.org/gen_public/TCPACtReportingFinalReport.pdf
The report provides quite a bit of discussion on the efficiency and
effectiveness of digital technology. It was the position of the Commission
that digital court reporting should be used for the majority of proceedings,
however stenography should be used for proceedings with a high
probability of a transcript being requested. These standard and best
practice recommendations are still pending before the Supreme Court,
but we expect a decision soon.
As to cost savings, I would point out that there is a cost savings with the
release of audio/video recordings because it is less time consuming (uses
less court resources) than producing a transcript. It is also less expensive
to the requestor ($15-$25 per CD or DVD vs. $4-$7 per transcript page).
This increases access to the court system, a main goal of the Florida
Judicial Branch. With less than 2% of cases appealed in Florida, the
need for transcription for the purposes of appeal is very low in comparison
to the millions of proceedings that are recorded. Further, I would point out
that cost savings in also achieved during the recording of a proceeding.
With stenography, you have to have one court reporter for each
courtroom. With digital, you can have one court reporter monitor multiple
courtrooms. So you save money not just with reducing transcripts, but
also with reducing court monitoring costs.
The Florida Supreme Court issued its order promulgating court reporting
standards and best practices which can be found at
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/adminorders/2010/AOSC10-
1.pdf
Information provided by:
Sharon Buckingham
Senior Court Operations Consultant
Office of the State Courts Administrator
Federal Courts Appellate and trial court judges taking part in a two-year study said
videotapes of trials were too cumbersome and took too long to find
specific portions. As a result, the Judicial Conference of the United
States voted to end the experiment in 1986
N/A as the comment related to video court reporting which is not the
subject of any ASD-2 option.
New York 2008 – Legislation carried by the chairman of the Senate Judiciary 1. The bill introduced in the New York Legislature in 2008 was not
State Responses to the “Courts Bring Back Court Reporters After Electronic Recording Use” Document
5
Data complied: January 2010
Committee would prohibit the use of recording devices — rather than a
stenographic record taken by a court reporter — in Supreme Court,
ounty court, district court and family court when delinquency cases
are being heard and during jury trials in New York City Civil Court.
The rationale behind the bill is based on complaints about the quality
of the transcripts generated by electronic recordings, mostly in family
and surrogate’s courts, but also in some criminal courts
enacted.
2. After the bill was introduced, the Office of Court Administration clarified
its policy regarding electronic recording to provide that electronic
recording will continue in those courts and court proceedings where it is
currently in use, but it will not be expanded to additional courts and court
proceedings where it is not currently used unless court reporters are
unavailable and efforts to hire a reporter on a permanent, provisional or
per diem basis have failed.
3. The practical effect of this policy is that in New York City electronic
recording will continue in the Family Court and the Surrogate’s Court, but
it is unlikely that it will be expanded for the time being to other courts and
court proceedings. In upstate New York, where electronic recording has
been used in a wider range of courts and court proceedings and
where court reporter shortages have been more acute in some places,
limited expansion to additional courts and types of court proceedings may
continue.
Information provided by:
Judge Larry Marks
Office of Court Administration
Kentucky 1988 – Use of videotape recorders has resulted in malfunctions,
retrials at cost to the state, and too much time spent by attorneys
reviewing the tapes.
N/A as the comment related to video court reporting which is not the
subject of any ASD-2 option.
Illinois 1990 – Installed videotape systems tried as an experiment sit idle.
Chief Justice Richard C. Ripple said use of video is very limited.
Other judges refuse to use it, stating they don’t want to watch
television.
N/A as the comment related to video court reporting which is not the
subject of any ASD-2 option.
Oregon 2004 – Officials are calling for the return of court reporters instead of
digital recording due to a series of missing or inaudible recordings.
These instances include one hour of missing key witness testimony in a
2003 murder case; a retrial of a 2002 complex civil environmental case
because the DR failed to record proceedings onto a CD; attorneys
handling criminal appeals saying their clients’ rights are compromised
by inaudible portions of recordings; and attorneys hiring their own court
reporters for fear of an inaccurate record.
We currently have 173 judicial positions in our state trial courts (across 36
counties). Every Oregon state trial court relies primarily on digital
recording, but we do have a total of seven stenographic court reporters (in
three counties). One of the reporters is assigned to a hearing-impaired
judge in our largest county; she is the only court reporter in a trial court
that has 38 judicial positions.
We have submitted funding requests to the legislature for a project to
experiment with bringing in stenographic court reporters, on a contract
basis, to report in aggravated murder cases so that parties can have
State Responses to the “Courts Bring Back Court Reporters After Electronic Recording Use” Document
6
Data complied: January 2010
access to same-day rough drafts of the day’s proceedings. We have not
received the requested funding.
Oregon law allows parties to bring a stenographic court reporter into the
courtroom for their own purposes, and also allows for the stenographic
court reporter’s record to be the official record of the proceedings if all
parties agree. We do not have data on how often parties bring in a court
reporter, but anecdotally we know it is not common practice.
Our transition to digital recording has been largely an unplanned
evolution, responding to current needs and budget situations. The
transition really began a long time ago, with analog tape recording being
used in some of our rural counties that had difficulty recruiting qualified
stenographic reporters. We moved to analog recording throughout the
state for our more routine types of cases that are less likely to be
appealed, such as traffic violations and landlord/tenant disputes.
Eventually, some courts began to experiment with digital recording as
both an improvement over analog recording and to see if it was a viable
alternative to stenographic reporting. In more recent times, the transition
has been driven by severe budget reductions.
As with transitioning to any new process or new technology, there have
been new challenges. There have been issues with poor quality
recordings and, in rare instances, with portions of the record missing
entirely. The problems are not insurmountable but have pointed out the
value of good planning and adequate training and monitoring.
Unfortunately, budget constraints have forced changes that were not
always well planned or executed.
Monica Melhorn
Oregon Judicial Department
Office of the State Court Administrator
Hawaii The disastrous loss of nearly 100 grand jury indictments caused by a
tape recorder system malfunction has resulted in the state’s trial courts
relying exclusively on court reporters, leaving tapes for minor
proceedings such as motions.
The narrative about Hawaii is not correct. We do not rely exclusively on
court reporters. We only have 30 court reporters employed by the
Judiciary. In our 5th circuit (Kauai) no court reporters have been
employed since around 1992 because they are not available.
The report about the 100 grand jury indictments being lost is a
fabrication. Apparently, a disgruntled former court reporter wanted to
discredit the use of electronic recording and provided this inaccurate
State Responses to the “Courts Bring Back Court Reporters After Electronic Recording Use” Document
7
Data complied: January 2010
information.
Hawaii’s court reporter situation is in transition. Through attrition and the
unavailability of court reporters, I predict that we will eventually rely
almost exclusively on digital recordings. When needed, transcription
service contracts will be pursued.
Information provided by:
Thomas R. Keller
Administrative Director
Nevada Nevada Federal Courts and Commissions brought back stenographic
reporters in 1995 after using tape systems for three years, citing higher
costs and inferior service compared to real time stenographic reporters.
There was no report concerning the use of stenographic reporters in
1995. There was an effort to get judges to use recording operators that
was somewhat successful, but as new judges joined the federal bench
they preferred reporters and not recordings. The use of recordings or
reporters is up to the judge. There is no court policy concerning the use
of either. Most of the Federal judges do use court reporters, it is
estimated for Nevada it about 70% court reporters and 30% recordings
Information provided by:
Ronald R. Titus
State Court Administrator
disgusted
June 29, 2012
http://myemail.constantcontact.com/Good-News–Word-Count-Update–.html?soid=1098465485203&aid=0IKKVS80L7g
disgusted
June 29, 2012
Commercial IT
June 30, 2012
Wow! It appears some people really have a lot of time on their hands. And I have been aware for some time that several current and/or former court reporters blog here. Nevertheless, modern technology will eventually be implemented because our courts are dead flat broke and legislators representing constituents who pay taxes and are dumbfounded at the lack of use of modern technology in the courts while courtrooms are being closed will eventually force the matter.
I never suggested video technology and would certainly not suggest overnight review of videos if one desired to do a quick review of a daily. Setting up and knocking down strawmen has been rife in discussions of modern electronic reporting. Dailies are rarely employed and, if they were to be used in a particular case for some reason, they could be in transcribed form. What is killing the courts cost-wise is having live bodies in courtrooms when there is no clear necessity for doing so.
Trial records are necessary for all criminal trials. Those records could be entirely electronic, saving vast amounts of money. Both CT and RT. The RT would be replaced by an OPT – Oral Proceedings Transcript. All documents would be electronic. A complete copy of a modern trial record for a trial lasting a month could be created in a minute for less than a dollar. The technology to do this exists right now. It’s now down to a political tussle over whether or not to implement it.
Commercial IT
June 30, 2012
Some further observations. Tape recorders are ancient. Modern technology uses digital multi-track technology. States that have implemented this are not having troubles. As some of what Disgusted related above describes, the tape problems come from very old matters. 1990’s and before. Also, there should be no printing out on paper. Just use the electronic files. The technology for that is sitting right on this computer, right now. Costs could be reduced dramatically, preventing many courtroom closures. E-filing could be implemented now at virtually no cost. Lawyers could save on staff time and costs.
It’s going to come down to a choice between hanging on to old ways versus keeping courtrooms open. The Legislature has heard plenty about all this in their investigations. If the court system refuses to save costs, the Legislature and taxpayers will have zero sympathy. If courtrooms are closed in a fit of spite, society will be the loser.
courtflea
June 30, 2012
We need a seperate court reporter issue blog.🙂 This is a civil war that will go on for ages