You, like us, are probably reeling from the horrific budget numbers we outlined yesterday. There is simply no sugarcoating the situation we find ourselves in. In fact, the budget numbers are worse, if we stop for a moment and consider that we have in effect given ourselves a self-imposed cut of roughly $540 million over the past several years, that being the amount the Council and AOC wasted on the now defunct CCMS project. That money has bought us nothing, and would have saved hundreds of trial court jobs had it been diverted to trial court operations as we so often asked.
The only bright spot at the moment is the legislative action taken regarding the judicial funding statutes, which constitutes a significant step forward in our effort to bring fiscal discipline, transparency and reform to the branch. This is a watershed moment that empowers local courts to prioritize spending decisions rather than having those priorities dictated by unelected bureaucrats. In that regard we include an article on this action by Courthouse News reporter Maria Dinzeo.
Please know that we will continue to keep you informed on all important issues. Also, expect to hear shortly regarding yet another survey concerning the SEC report. We know that “survey fatigue” has settled in, but we believe it is very important to support our colleagues who devoted untold hours to this worthwhile report.
Directors, Alliance of California Judges
Legislature Puts Limits on Judicial Council
By MARIA DINZEO
SACRAMENTO (CN) – In a major victory for the state’s reform-minded trial judges, the California Legislature has stripped the Judicial Council of its ability to spend money on projects like a recently failed court IT system without legislative approval, and has ensured that money appropriated for the trial courts is spent on keeping the courts running.
The provisions enacted in a budget trailer bill Wednesday is a triumph for sponsors of AB 1208, a fiscal bill intended to keep the judiciary’s central bureaucracy, the Administrative Office of the Courts, from siphoning funds for special projects from the cash-strapped trial courts.
“The plan was to make 1208 law through whatever channels we could. There are many ways around the same bush,” said the bill’s author, Assembly Majority Leader Charles Calderon (D-Industry) in an interview late Wednesday. “This allowed for the policy to be put in place without anybody crowing about it one way or the other. 1208 is done. It’s been enacted without the Calderon name on it.”
He added, “The issue has attracted the attention of the Legislature and it has acted. There’s an interest in the Legislature in making sure that its appropriations are being spent accordingly. I took on this issue because I thought it was the right thing to do. I also understood that it was a big task. But then again, anything worth doing is never easy to do. I also knew I had a fighting chance because the AOC would do most of the work for me,” he said.
The budget trailer bill makes explicit the Legislature’s intention to keep the judiciary’s costly and much-maligned computer project, the Court Case Management System, from being revived.
“The bill would prohibit the Judicial Council from expending funds on the Court Case Management System without consent from the Legislature, except as specified. The bill would prohibit construing any provision of law as authorizing the Judicial Council to redirect funds for any purpose other than allocation to trial courts or as otherwise appropriated,” the bill’s language states.
The budget bill also changes the government statute to prohibit raids on the Trial Court Trust Fund, money that many judges have said is only intended to keep the courts operating, for other statewide projects.
“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,” it says.
“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,” said a statement from the Alliance of California Judges.
“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.”
Judge David Lampe of Kern County, an Alliance Director, said in an interview, “The actual budget numbers and reductions we face are disastrous. In the face of that, the Legislature has essentially built into law that the trial courts have to get the money that the Legislature appropriates for trial court operations.”
He said the reforms proposed by the Alliance-sponsored AB 1208 were enacted in basic principle through the enacted trailer bill language. “Whether it’s 1208 or through a different mechanism, it reaches the same principle. In practical terms they have put those measures into play,” Lampe said.
The budget trailer bill also provides some relief to the trial courts from cuts imposed by this year’s budget, by cutting $15 million from the AOC’s budget and redirecting that money to the courts. This leaves the courts with $285 million in cuts this year, rather than the expected $300 million outlined Governor Jerry Brown’s May revised budget.
Calderon said a recent, highly-critical report from the Strategic Evaluation Committee put together by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye played a major role in convincing lawmakers to change trial court funding statutes to reflect the reforms of AB 1208. The voluminous report took on the much criticized bureaucracy’s spending, hiring and mismanagement.
“It was the pivotal event,” said Calderon. “Up until their report, insiders understood what was going on, but to the greater body it’s always like a black hole out there in terms of trying to disseminate information. But when the Chief Justice’s hand picked committee validated the complaints and criticisms that were being made about the AOC, I think that was pretty much definite and incapable of the spin.”
“That was the final evidence that was needed to put the issue in perspective,” he said. “It’s going to give reformers more leverage to bring about reforms. It may take a while, but the AOC can’t hide anymore. They can’t spin, they can’t ignore and they can’t make up their own facts.”
_______________________________________________________________________
Related articles
- You’re suggesting that the budgeting authority should go to the self-dealers? (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- Two new ACJ articles for discussion: The fallout and the CJ’s response (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- Tuesday afternoon – ACJ message to members : SEC report urges total overhaul of the AOC (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- Legislative action now needed – Contact your legislators (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- Major Changes to trial court funding statutes! Reforms favored by the Alliance of California Judges to become law! (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
Judicial Council Watcher 
Wendy Darling
June 29, 2012
Published late today, Friday, June 29, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
Judicial Council Lobbyists Fought Spending Limits Up to Final Vote
By MARIA DINZEO
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – California Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye said in a teleconference Friday that she welcomes recently-passed legislation sharply restricting the Judicial Council’s ability to spend money on statewide projects such as a failed, half-billion-dollar IT project. However, lobbyists for the council were vigorously fighting against that very same provision, according to legislative sources, right up until the final vote.
The chief justice said she endorsed legislation that requires legislative approval before the Judicial Council can spend money from the trial court trust fund on big projects such as the failed IT system. She also said those restrictions will not in any way affect the AOC’s budget and operations.
“In terms of the language on the trial court trust fund, I’m happy for that clarity,” she said. “The judicial council appreciates that clarity. We’re pleased with this language” she said, adding that the new law “dispels rumors” that trust fund money had been used for statewide initiatives.
However, it appears that lobbyists for the governing council of the courts headed by the chief justice did not welcome the language at all, and in fact fought hard against it.
A highly-placed legislative staff member said lobbyists for the Administrative Office of the Courts, the staff arm of the Judicial Council, strongly opposed language included in a budget trailer bill, that changed the government code to restrict its spending power, right up until the Senate floor vote on Tuesday. The lobbyists for the judiciary leaders asked the Department of Finance to remove that language, according to the legislative staff member.
The trailer bill, which is now part of the budget act signed by Governor Jerry Brown, amends the government code to read, “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.”
“They didn’t like the portion that restricted their ability to redirect funds from the Trial Court Trust Fund,” said the staff member who asked to speak without attribution. “They wanted that gone and then they wanted that delayed. We ended up delaying that enactment for six months.”
The staffer added that the lobbyists also fought against language prohibiting any further spending from any source on the IT project, called the Court Case Management System, without legislative approval. “They didn’t want CCMS funding to end, they asked that that language be removed. They did not want that language restricting it,” the staff member said.
The enacted budget language has been lauded as a victory for judicial reformers, who have been trying through legislative action to ensure full funding for the trial courts, while limiting the amount of funds that can been siphoned from the courts for projects like CCMS. Assembly Majority Leader Charles Calderon (D-Industry) said Tuesday that reforms contained in AB 1208, which was staunchly opposed by the chief justice and Judicial Council, were largely enacted through the budget trailer bill’s language.
Michelle Castro, chief lobbyist for the Service Employees International Union, said the new legislation actually goes further than AB 1208 in a number of areas.
“The changes enacted in the trailer bill were more significant than even some of the provisions of 1208,” said Castro. “They went a little further by having legislative counsel search all of the government codes to make sure they weren’t going to leave anything out. It was an incredible effort.”
During Friday’s teleconference with reporters, Cantil-Sakauye said she did not find similarities between AB 1208 and the new law. “I would disagree with the premise that it contains similarity,” she said.
What she deeply opposed, said Cantil-Sakauye, were the big funding cuts imposed on the judiciary by the current budget. The cumulative effect of the cuts has been enormous, amounting over the last three budgets to $650 million taken out of a roughly $4 billion budget.
The cuts have led to layoffs, actual or scheduled, of hundreds of court workers in trial courts up and down California. At the same time, court operations have been curtailed and some courtrooms are being closed.
In that context, the IT project, that wound up costing some $500 million, is a particularly sore point among trial court judges.
Nevertheless, in the chaotic horse trading that accompanies passage of a massive budget such as California’s, the lobbyists for the Judicial Council continued to seek millions of dollars to spend on the now-terminated project.
“There was actually a request to spend $5.1 million additional money for CCMS,” said the highly placed legislative staffer. “My understanding is for CCMS staff they used to have 51 employees. They’d laid off 48 of them and have three employees left. Those three employees are trying to do a report for the chief justice and probably the Judicial Council, to say we stopped CCMS, here are some ways you can use it. During the budget negotiations, their cost for this salvage effort was $5 million. The Legislature said why would we spend $5 million on figuring out what to do.”
The staffer commended interim AOC Director Jody Patel for later calling to say the AOC could probably retain the employees for one month for $30,000 to finish the report. “Part of the stress between the Legislature and the judicial branch has been these half-truths,” said the staffer. “The devil is in the details. She’s trying to change that culture.”
While no funding has yet been approved, the chief justice said Friday, “We are still trying to figure out how we can go forward with winding it down and parting it out. The budget does say no further funding can be spent on CCMS. We would of course abide by that. We do want to see if we can use limited funds to wind down and use parts of a $550 million system that actually worked. We’d love to see what we can give the courts from a $550 million system.”
She added, “It’s not phoenix rising, it’s trying to use its parts. We’ll be very transparent and open about it as we’ve always tried to be.”
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/29/47963.htm
Long live the ACJ.
wearyant
June 29, 2012
Maria Dinzeo for Courthouse News Service:
“Judicial Council Lobbyists Fought Spending Limits Up to Final Vote”
What dirtbags they are!
Recall Tani!
Long live the ACJ!
wearyant
June 29, 2012
Maria Dinzeo for Courthouse News Service:
“The chief justice said she endorsed legislation that requires legislative approval before the Judicial Council can spend money from the trial court trust fund on big projects such as the failed IT system.”
Umm, gee, do ya think you could have endorsed the SEC report that YOU asked for?
Gawd, what an idiot.
Recall Tani!
Long live the ACJ!
wearyant
June 29, 2012
Maria Dinzeo from Courthouse News Service:
“During Friday’s teleconference with reporters, Cantil-Sakauye said she did not find similarities between AB 1208 and the new law. “I would disagree with the premise that it contains similarity,” she said.”
Wow! What planet have YOU been residing on?! Yowzaah!
Recall Tani!
Long live the ACJ!
JusticeCalifornia
June 29, 2012
Private message to Sakauye: uh huh, yeah right, you are all aboard with these FORCED changes. You have thrown what was left of your ethics and good common sense and support base under the bus multiple times during your support of Team George, and we are supposed to believe you?? LOL.
Newsflash: Patel, Soderlund, Couch and other Team George members are non-starters, or, depending upon how you view it, firestarters. Team George members got the branch into this mess, and have their names all over this mess, and certainly have a conflict of interest in objectively reviewing and advising you about this mess.
You need a clean sweep. Just my opinion.
Wendy Darling
June 29, 2012
Not just your opinion, Justice California.
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
June 29, 2012
California Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye : “We’ll be very transparent and open about it as we’ve always tried to be.”
Or, in other words, a big middle finger to the State Legislature from the Office of the Chief Justice and the current “leadership” of the Judicial Branch, and it will be business as usual, thank you very much.
Recall the Chief Justice.
Long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
June 29, 2012
And as for what the branch will absolutely need to provide to the public it serves, IMHO:
Ethical, experienced, diplomatic top leadership.
Open Courts.
Good Judges.
Court reporters– and I say that as a litigator, who appreciates professionalism and neutrality, because so many things can go wrong with technology, and so many things can be stalled (like the release of court recordings). Litigators and litigants at risk need instant, accurate records. Those who disagree, provide details.
Good court clerks.
A terrific, absolutely neutral CA Courts self-help website.
Terrific, absolutely neutral self-help centers, competently staffed, in all courts, in all areas of the law.
Judicial legal education about all issues (akin to the judicial bench guides) available for free, online. Everyone should know what judges are being taught.
I think ever so many of you reading this blog would agree that this would serve the public ever so well.
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.
Click to access 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
Click to access 4_-_Response_to_NCRA_Repor_Courts_Bring_Back_Stenot.pdf
disgusted
June 29, 2012
Peppermint Pattie
June 29, 2012
It really damages the credibility of the Judicial Branch when the Chief Justice can’t even tell the truth.
And it doesn’t set a very good example for AOC employees, either. Or trial court employees, or State employees anywhere, for that matter.
JusticeCalifornia
June 29, 2012
Would I trust that important court proceedings would be accurately electronically recorded and preserved? Sorry, but where I have come from (Marin), the answer is NO. Do I think it is cost effective for a judge or lawyer or litigant to sift through hours of electronically (and only electronically) recorded proceedings? NO.
Lando
June 30, 2012
The Chief Justice and her insular supporters are creating a revisionist history in light of the bold unprecedented legislative action to curb their spending. Her comments are however contradicted by her actions, including leading a massive effort to kill the reformist trailer bill that brings the first ever meaningful control over the JC/AOC. The bottom line is that all these people have run out of road. They said when they forced court closures and furloughs that they would do the same. Instead we found out that created floating holidays for AOC management. When the JC/AOC tried to slip in a trailer bill to allow them to pick trial court Presiding Judges and CEO’s they tried to blame the Department of Finance. No one believed that and of course that turned out to be untrue. When they said they had a hiring freeze , they kept hiring OGC lawyers, consultants and whoever they thought was essential to their mission while every trial court across the state was laying off valued employees. The worst symbol of their abuse was to allow OGC attorneys to telecommute from Europe and the Midwest in contravention of California state policy. So now when the Chief Justice claims she all along supported the most recent legislative changes or that the Governor and legislature largely adopted the Judicial Council/ AOC budget proposals no one informed on any of those issues can believe that. The latest pronouncements out of the Office of the Chief Justice leave many in amazement and others to continue to doubt the credibility of branch leadership. One of my coworkers said today the incredible thing is that these people never learn from their mistakes,and never admit when they are wrong. My theory is that the Chief and her insular supporters have lived in the Tower ( places like the crystal palace ) removed from the people on the front lines in the trial courts for so long, that they only hear each other and not what the outside everyday trial courts live through and experience. I think that is what the SEC report captured, the Tower mentality of arrogance and insular thinking . As we are about the celebrate the greatest American holiday, the 4th of July all here should be proud that our First Amendment rights to speak have allowed us to finally help and enable the changes that are reforming our judicial branch to hopefully better serve the taxpayers of California. Thanks to everyone here for their great contributions in shining light on the dark hallways of 455 Golden Gate so that meaningful change can now occur.If I don’t post again before the 4th , have a great 4th of July everyone .
Nathaniel Woodhull
June 30, 2012
Ditto Lando! Well said.
Have a Happy 4th of July everyone. Remember, freedom isn’t free, it takes sacrifice by all of us.
Gen. N. Woodhull
Wendy Darling
June 30, 2012
Have you ever wondered what happened to the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence?
Five signers were captured by the British as traitors, and tortured before they died.
Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned.
Two lost their sons serving in the Revolutionary Army; another had two sons captured.
Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or hardships of the Revolutionary War.
They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.
What kind of men were they?
Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists. Eleven were merchants, nine were farmers and large plantation owners: men of means, well educated. But they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty would be death if they were captured.
Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader saw his ships swept from the seas by the British Navy. He sold his home and properties to pay his debts and died in rags.
Thomas McKeam was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move his family almost constantly. He served in the Congress without pay, and his family was kept in hiding. His possessions were taken from him, and poverty was his reward.
Vandals or soldiers looted the properties of Dillery Hall, Clymer, Walton, Gwinett, Heyward, Ruttledge, and Middleton. At the battle of Yorktown, Thomas Nelson, Jr. noted that the British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson home for his headquarters. He quietly urged General George Washington to open fire. The home was destroyed, and Nelson died bankrupt.
Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed. The enemy jailed his wife, and she died within a few months. John Hart was driven from his wife’s bedside as she was dying. Their 13 children fled for their lives. His fields and his gristmill were laid to waste. For more than a year he lived in forests and caves, returning to find his wife dead and his children vanished. A few weeks later he died from exhaustion and a broken heart. Norris and Livingston suffered similar fates.
Such were the stories and sacrifices of the American Revolution. These were not wild-eyed, rabble-rousing ruffians. They were soft-spoken men of means and education. They had security, but they valued liberty more. Standing tall and straight, and unwavering, they pledged: “For the support of the declaration, with firm reliance on the protection of the divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other, our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.”
***************************************************************************************************
Much like the patriots of the Alliance of California Judges today.
As well as the “bloggers in jammies” here, all fighting for the honor and integrity of the California Judicial Branch.
And General Woodhull is ever so right: freedom isn’t free, it takes sacrifice by all of us.
And vigilance.
Long live bloggers in jammies. And long live the ACJ.
wearyant
June 30, 2012
Thanks much for posting this, Wendy Darling. Very timely and apropos.
Have a good, safe July 4th, everyone!
Long live the ACJ!
JusticeCalifornia
June 30, 2012
Wendy, I read this, got chills, and wept.
It is ever so easy to take the low road. . . .and ever so hard to use sweat, blood, tears and the machetes to carve a new and better path. That is the way it has always been, and that is the way it will always be.
Jimmy
June 30, 2012
The fact that the AOC/Judicial Council couldn’t even muster up enough gumption to implement the suggestions of the SEC that were “low hanging fruit”, such as eliminating the positions of the attorneys who work out of the state or country speaks volumes. I am afraid that most of the committe’s recommendations will wither and die on the vine. So much for efficiency, transparency & accountability.
Jimmy
June 30, 2012
Oops – misspelled committee!
wearyant
June 30, 2012
Jimmy, have faith! It’s always darkest before dawn.
And don’t worry about spelling errors, what with these weird tiny keyboards on these new-fangled gadgets we all enjoy.
Dan Dydzak
June 30, 2012
Well reported article in Courthouse News.
With regard to the issue of reporters v. electronic recording, from experience, things can go wrong with electronically recording. For example, had an incident years ago where the trial judge inadvertently failed to put the recording machine on in Orange County Superior Court with a jury trial and did not record the closing argumment of one of the attorneys. Offered to let that counsel repeat his closing argument which he opted not to do. Case eventually decided by Court of Appeal without that part of the closing argument in record. Court reporting should stay. Things can go go terribly wrong with a recording device such as the machine malfunctions or the audio is no good, etc. Getting rid of court reporters is just as bad an idea as no jury trials for serious criminal matters. Just because a matter is not a felony does not mean that it is not serious as a misdemeanor.
The Motion to Appoint Receiver and Independent Auditor has been FILED, is set for hearing in Orange County Superior Court on August 9, 2012. I.e., requesting receiver and accounting of AOC funds and CA Supreme Court funds re George and Tani Cantil-Sakauye Courts over the last ten years or so. The case is DYDZAK V. DUNN et al (30-2012-00558031) and is in Dept. C13 at 2:00 p.m. in front of Judge Gregory Munoz. Courthouse News might wish to cover this important Motion/hearing as it affects not only my case but the public interest, such as unionman’s people.
unionman575
June 30, 2012
http://legalpad.typepad.com/my_weblog/2012/06/cantil-sakauye-these-handcuffs-are-great.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+legalpad_feed+%28Legal+Pad%29
June 29, 2012
Cantil-Sakauye: These Handcuffs Are Great!
[Cheryl Miller]
The Legislature and governor may have just slapped harsh spending restrictions on her judicial branch, but Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye insists that she’s “pleased” with new policies contained in the state budget enacted this week.
That’s what she told reporters on a Friday conference call. Along with $544 million in cuts to the courts, the budget bars the Judicial Council from spending trial court money on statewide programs without the Legislature’s consent. Since late 2009, branch leaders have tapped roughly $200 million from the Trial Court Trust Fund to pay for technology maintenance and projects, according to council meeting records. The shifts steamed council critics who wanted the money to go directly to courts.
The council will keep control of a much smaller pot of money created by merging two other funds.
Cantil-Sakauye said the spending restrictions won’t affect the Administrative Office of the Courts at all.
“The cuts we obviously opposed, but in terms of the concepts that are contained within the [budget] bill? No, no opposition to that,” she said. “We approved that concept for clarity.”
That’s not what those in the Capitol say they were hearing from Judicial Council lobbyists. Those familiar with the budget trailer bill’s drafting say council representatives fought restrictions on branch spending.
And the chief justice’s tone has turned much more conciliatory since she took aim at Assembly Bill 1208 earlier this year. The bill would have blocked the Judicial Council from spending any trial court money on programs unless two-thirds of local courts OK’d the transfer. In January, Cantil-Sakauye called the Assembly’s passage of AB 1208 “no victory for Californians, for our state courts or for equal access to justice.” The bill later died in the Senate.
On Friday, the chief justice said she saw no similarities between the budget language and AB 1208.
“Have you read 1208?” she asked reporters. “That’s not how I see it. In terms of the language [restricting] the Trial Court Trust Fund, I’m happy for the clarity. I appreciate that. Judicial Council appreciates that clarity.”
Wendy Darling
June 30, 2012
It’s interesting that it took action by the State Legislature in order for the Chief Justice and the Judicial Council to get some “clarity.” Doesn’t speak well of the competency of current branch “leadership.”
Long live the ACJ.
Nathaniel Woodhull
June 30, 2012
Wendy,
You have always displayed such great clarity and insight! Sadly, the current Chief Justice has not understanding that she is being had. Beth Jay has only one task, to ensure the legacy of her surrogate hubby, Ronald George. As to the current Chief’s comments…what were the lyrics to the song “Hurts So Good”?
As to your earlier post, great observations, all of which are true. Some of us were unable to get to Philadelphia to sign a certain document for a whole host of reasons, but we were happy to leave their mortal embodiment for the sake of the cause of Liberty and Freedom.
Remember folks, there are no guarantees here, we are simple provided with the “pursuit” of happiness. Make of life what you will…
Nat
Wendy Darling
June 30, 2012
Thank you for kind words, General Woodhull. As has been said before, it’s all of us together, or none of us at all.
Whether the current Chief Justice is being had, or is choosing to turn a blind eye to the truth, or just doesn’t care – she has made her bed, and she can lie in it. The judicial branch belongs to all of us.
Long live General Woodhull, and the First Amendment. And long live the ACJ.
wearyant
June 30, 2012
Collegiality and civility we’ve got! hahahah …
JusticeCalifornia
June 30, 2012
Love this post, Unionman. . .
I wonder if this was the tune Ron George was singing when he assigned Tani Cantil Sakauye the dirty job of asking the JC to accept the AOC “cleaner” John Judnick report regarding Kim Turner’s destruction of child custody evidence during a BSA audit of the Marin Family Court, thereby proving to the world that Tani would get down on her knees and do whatever it took to get ahead, including throwing her support base under the bus.
As for Sakauye’s statement: “I’m happy for the clarity. I appreciate that. Judicial Council appreciates that clarity.” Watch out, we heard that before. We heard that when Tani thanked the legislature for its direction on CCMS. She then immediately turned around and, with Herman’s help, played game-changing word games with option 3 regarding CCMS, stopping “statewide deployment”, but setting aside almost $9 mil for the continued development and partial deployment (SLO) of CCMS.
She is a tricky gambling barmaid, yes she is. . . .and she and her thugs genuinely believe that “leadership” of the biggest judiciary in the Western World begins and ends with them. So how long is the branch going to put up with this, I wonder?
Wendy Darling
June 30, 2012
“Cantil-Sakauye said the spending restrictions won’t affect the Administrative Office of the Courts at all.”
Of coarse not. It’ll be Grey Goose matinis, caviar, lobster, and wasting the public’s money as usual. Heck, let’s just throw in another embezzlement of public funds and cover-it up for consistency.
Because it’s just not permissible for spending restrictions to affect the AOC. At all.
Pigs will fly and every trial court in the state will have to shut down before that could be allowed to happen.
wearyant
June 30, 2012
“Cantil-Sakauye said the spending restrictions won’t affect the Administrative Office of the Courts at all.”
I don’t understand how anyone could put a “thumbs down” on Wendy Darling’s comment here.
Anyway, the above quote from our beloved CJ — I sense a hidden meaning behind this quote. It makes me shudder. We will soon find out, I suppose. She’s got something else in her arsenal for law-abiding, hopeful California citizens?
Recall Tani!
Long live the ACJ!
unionman575
June 30, 2012
Me too Justice!
I suppose JCW kinda liked it too (the BOLD really stands out).
Nice!
🙂
courtflea
June 30, 2012
I told you Stepford wife…..behind the scenes: dealer of the shell game
JusticeCalifornia
June 30, 2012
you know what’s funny? The “politically correct” do not appreciate those calling out Ron George Stepford wife Tani regarding her down and dirty gambling barmaid past, but she herself touts that as a qualification to be the top dog of the biggest judiciary in the Western World. Uh huh. Yeah, right. Just so the whole world understands–loud and clear– where top leadership of the biggest judiciary in the Western World is coming from. . . .
wearyant
June 30, 2012
I’m just wondering — I know, I have too much time on my hands now that I’m retired — how will the wholly publicly-funded retirements for the top 30 gang members — I mean the top 30 elites in the AOC — be paid for? For example, is Sheila Gonzalez Calabro gonna have to kick in some of her own money from her past egregiously high paychecks?
Peter Madoff’s past just caught up with him the other day. Well, I can only hope.
Recall Tani!
Long live the ACJ!
unionman575
June 30, 2012
Nothing like TCOB at the TOP…
http://www.courts.ca.gov/18535.htm
FOR RELEASE
Contact: Leanne Kozak, 916-263-2838
June 29, 2012
Filing Fees Increase for Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal
SAN FRANCISCO—Senate Bill No. 1021 (2011-2012 Reg. Sess.) authorized an increase of approximately 20 percent in certain filing fees to offset budget reductions in the Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal.
The following increases are effective immediately:
Supreme Court: The fee for filing petitions for review in civil cases and writ petitions within the original civil jurisdiction of the Supreme Court increases to $710. The corresponding fee for filing responsive documents increases to $390.
Courts of Appeal: The fee for filing notices of appeal in civil cases and writ petitions within the original civil jurisdiction of a Court of Appeal increases to $775. The corresponding fee for filing responsive documents increases to $390.
wearyant
June 30, 2012
Oh, yeah, Unionman, the fat bureaucrats are here for the people they serve! “Filing fees increase …”
If the fat bureaucrats kick court reporters out and replace them with the crappy digital recording electronics, I can guarantee that the price of a transcript will quadruple! The so-called CEOs of the courts (court administrators) will jump on it and jam California taxpayers happily! When I was working, the transcript prices were controlled by gov’t statute and didn’t change for 20 years! So hold on to your socks, folks. CART is out for your pocketbook. Always, forever, unceasingly, looking for another revenue stream from the hapless California taxpayer.
HOW will the AOC/JC fund the top 30 elitist public funded retirement? And no piddly retirement, either. Top dog. Country clubs. Big mansions with renovation and re-decorating every other year. New, fancy cars. Lobster, steak and Grey Goose martinis. Ask Sheila. That’s what she lives for.
Recall Tani!
Long live the ACJ!
unionman575
June 30, 2012
Ant: “Oh, yeah, Unionman, the fat bureaucrats are here for the people they serve! “Filing fees increase …”
Here’s today’s meal: Shit on a platter.
Brought to you by the Death Star…
unionman575
June 30, 2012
https://recalltani.wordpress.com/
courtflea
June 30, 2012
J. CA, like you I don’t give a hoot about what the politically correct say or feel. I just calls em as I sees em. Wheather they be a man or a woman. Geeze, when you obtain the position CJ and Dirketor, you gotta expect and or be able to take some flack. It is like clebrities that complain that they have no privacy, give me a break.
Besides, if someone is that politically correct, they should not be purusing blogs, their sensabilites are bound to be tramatized in one form or other, boo hoo. I say to those people join the diplomatic corps or get a frikin life. If I don’t like it, wheather it be on TV, the radio, in a newspaper or a blog, I quit viewing/reading it and stop wasting my time and complianing that other folks have a different opinion than I. That said these PC people should take a moment read Wendys post above about the authors of the declaration of independence to remind them of those that paid the highest price so we could be free to disagree. And no you PC fools, Mel Gibson was not one of the signers or a member of the Continental Congress.
yes Wendy I have my pjs on now.
unionman575
June 30, 2012
Click to access Tulare-closure-2012-06-28.pdf
unionman575
June 30, 2012
Next Judicial Council Meeting: Friday July 27
unionman575
June 30, 2012
http://www.courts.ca.gov/18528.htm
DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES AND DELIVERABLES
The AOC seeks the hotel or conference center for the following program:
• Title: Criminal Assignment Courses
• Dates: October 21 – 25, 2012
• Description: Furnish sleeping rooms only for the program
• Location: Sacramento near the NCRO – 2880 Gateway Oaks, Sacramento
• Payment: American Express Meeting Planner Account
unionman575
June 30, 2012
The OBT
July 1, 2012
Everyone at JCW is great as all are contributing to the free expression of ideas to improve our branch of government. General and Wendy your knowledge of the Revolutionary War is very impressive and relevant to what is happening here. Our battle really started when Chief Justice George pronounced at a CJA meeting that any calls to democratize the Judicial Council would be tantamount to a declaration of war on him. When I heard that I was shocked . I couldn’t believe that in our democracy built from the Revolutionary war and protected in every war since, that the head of the largest judicial system in the world was supporting a dictatorship of his own making. It then got worse from there. Self congratulatory dinners, and awards. Uncontrolled growth of the the AOC and perks authorized by the insular and anti democratic Judicial Council to top AOC employees. The decision to waste half a billion on CCMS .An extensive review and check of Judicial Council records will not reveal when and where that decision was made . Authorizing and approving telecommuting lawyers from Europe and half way across the USA. The dictatorship continued at full tilt, attempting to force mandatory judicial education, taking over the CJA’s educational and ethics functions, attempting to sneak trailer bill legislation that would have allowed the Council and AOC to pick PJs and CEOs . The ultimate use the branch dictatorship was to force for the first time ever court closures and furloughs when the economy turned south. I think the court closures mandated by Chief Justice George became the straw that broke the camels back and led to our own branch revolution . That revolution won its first major battle when the legislature voted over strong Council and AOC opposition to audit CCMS. Since then it has been a downhill ride for the insular anti democratic crowd that runs the Council and AOC. The SEC report commissioned by our current Chief Justice , captured all the failings of the dictatorship that Ronald George built and which continues to today. Incredibly , the current administration of the Judicial Council won’t vote to accept and move toward implementing the SEC recommendations. This requires our fight for reform to continue. The price has been high for many of us. Reform is however inevitable as was demonstrated this week. Happy July 4th everyone. This great holiday just inspires me to continue fighting the good fight to democratize the Judicial Council and to recall the Chief Justice.