In a new post by Eric Winkler up on One Legal blog, Presiding Judge Catherine Feinstein mentions how much damage the AOC has done to judicial branch credibility in the state legislature.
“Speaking to an intimate group of 24 members of the San Francisco Association for Docket, Calendar and Court Services, Judge Feinstein said it was the AOC’s lack of credibility with the state’s governor and legislature, which holds it in “such low regard,” that made it incapable of lobbying against the cuts that left the Judicial Branch’s budget reduced by one-third.”
“We were virtually defenseless,” said Judge Feinstein. “Many cuts were not inevitable. The AOC brought discredit to our state’s entire judicial system.”
You can read the rest of the article over at One Legal here.
Sadly, unless the deck chairs are thrown overboard, we see no change in the future of the judicial branch’s legislative credibility. To accomplish that, the legislature needs to clean the AOC’s house. The AOC and Judicial Council have demonstrated they are incapable of doing so. While the L.A. courts endure a monumental reorg that will close all the courtrooms in 10 courthouses in a mere 8 mos, it will take the AOC nearly eighteen months to complete their reorg, which we all know will leave them larger and better paid when it is concluded.
Related articles
- L.A. to close 10 courthouses in the next 8 mos (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- Bureaucrats continue to stonewall judges with new tactics (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- The Long Beach boondoggle gets more press coverage (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- Chief appoints familiar faces to trial court budget working group (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
Judicial Council Watcher 
Wendy Darling
November 15, 2012
Apparently the Chief Justice neglected to inform Judge Feinstein that the AOC is the best and most outstanding example in the California Judicial Branch for promoting “leadership and excellence in court administration.”
Serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
Robert Turner
November 15, 2012
What a wonderfull voice of reason to hear. I think Judge Feinstein was kind in her words for there is much more that is wrong at the AOC/JC than just CCMS as the SEC Report so well documented and which I feel remains largely unimplemented. The fact that the Chief/Jahr have kept the same people in place at the top with new titles shows the culture at the AOC has not really changed. Also the JC just gave out a Bill Vickrey award for excellence to his assist state court administrator at the last meeting and that tells me the culture on the JC has not changed either as a result of the SEC Report. The AOC and JC are stll run by Team George.
I agree that Prog 30 saved the courts more cuts (which is good for my friends in the trial courts) in the short term but Prop 30 is just a temporary tax increase. It buys CA’s Governor and Legislature time to get CA’s fiscal house in order but those funds are not permanent and will not last. There is never a time (boom years or recessions) when waste and misuse of public funds by the CA Courts is smart for the branch. If the 1407 funds for construction are not used well by court administrators what credibility will the JC have left as a body? That’s why the Long Beach courthouse cost overruns looks so bad (another scandal on top of CCMS).
Prop 30 buys time for the other two branches to get CA’s budget in order. It also buys time for CA judges to get the administration of the judcial branch in order before more cuts happen. I say clean house administratively by moving beyond Team George, encourage legislation to democratize the Judicial Council so policy can be debated openly, and start taking ownership of the branch budget so administrative costs actually shrink as promised by unification of the courts instead of just shifting them to the AOC where they then grew exponentially under Team George. That’s my prescription for fixing CA Courts.
Wendy Darling
November 15, 2012
From today’s Twitter Feed at The Recorder, the on-line publication of CalLaw, by Vanessa Blum:
Obama’s Supreme Court Choices
WASHINGTON — Barack Obama’s Supreme Court appointments — he could make several, or none, in his second term — will be key elements of his legacy. Rare opportunities that will last long beyond his presidency.
The “frontrunners” include:
• Kamala Harris, 48: The California attorney general, Harris was elected to the job in 2010, when California’s statewide victories were among the only Democratic highlight in an otherwise bleak election for the left. Harris, a former line prosecutor who was elected San Francisco district attorney, has been named regularly as a possible Supreme Court pick, and she is a longtime Obama backer. As she said while campaigning for the president in North Carolina, “I’ve been supporting the president for a long time; he’s been supporting me for a long time.” Harris, like Obama, comes from a multi-racial background — her father is black, her mother Indian — and her nomination would fit in the mold of his stated “commitment to ensure that the judiciary resembles the nation it serves.”
The wild card possibilities named by one panelist each include “California Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sekauye” (sic).
http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/obamas-supreme-choices
You just can’t make this stuff up. Really.
Long live the ACJ.
court flea
November 15, 2012
Oh shit, you gotta be kidding me! Hey, but such an appointment would get her outta our hair and the old pros on the Supremes would kick her butt. There could be a silver lining in that long shot. 🙂
unionman575
November 15, 2012
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/11/15/budget-shortfall-closes-10-los-angeles-courthouses/
WSJ Blogs
Real-time commentary and analysis from The Wall Street Journal
LAW BLOG
• November 15, 2012, 7:03 PM
Budget Shortfall Closes 10 Los Angeles Courthouses
By Jennifer Smith
Lando
November 16, 2012
I have always had great respect for Judge Feinstein and her remarks regarding the failings of the Judicial Council and AOC couldn’t have come at a better time given the financial struggles every trial court is enduring . The drastic actions by the LA Superior court to close 10 courthouses and lay off hundreds of employees is further stark evidence of the abject failure of the Judicial Council and AOC to properly manage the branch. Ultimately we need to admit and accept that centralized branch control while initially well intended is a public policy failure on a huge scale. Thanks again to Judge Feinstein for having the courage of her convictions to speak out honestly about the mess we are in.
The OBT
November 16, 2012
What a breath of fresh air Judge Feinstein is, for honestly calling out the Judicial Council and AOC for having little credibility in Sacramento. I am looking forward to watching where Judge Feinstein goes from here. She is a worthy candidate for the California Supreme Court or statewide office.
unionman575
November 16, 2012
Another Taj Majal by the Death Star while we all croak in the trial courts form mass layoofs and court closures…
Get me a bucket!
http://www.correctionalnews.com/articles/2012/11/16/new-calaveras-county-courthouse-project-tops-out
New Calaveras County Courthouse Project “Tops Out”
(11/16/2012)
The design for the new courthouse consists of a two-story plan that reflects the building’s natural setting.SAN ANDREAS, Calif. — The final beam in the steel structure of the new Calaveras County Courthouse was put in place on Nov. 2 during a traditional “topping out” ceremony that celebrated an important milestone in the construction of the new courthouse.
Employees of the Superior Court of Calaveras County, the California Administrative Office of the Courts, general contractor McCarthy Building Companies Inc., construction manager URS Corporation, and architect DLR Group commemorated the milestone by signing the last 600-pound steel beam, which was then hoisted and secured in place.
The new courthouse is located in downtown San Andreas and is adjacent to the county’s new jail. The facility will replace the currently overcrowded Calaveras Courthouse as well as a leased modular building. The site will also include ample parking space for court visitors and staff. The current project timeline estimates the courthouse will be open for public service in the fall of 2013.
“The new courthouse will contribute both to the California Judicial Council’s goal of an improved court system statewide, and specifically to the enhancement of court services and access offered to Calaveras County residents,” said Matt Wade, McCarthy’s project director. “As the general contractor, we are thrilled to build a facility that will accommodate the region’s current and future needs, improve service to the public and provide a more secure infrastructure.”
The design for the courthouse consists of a two-story plan that reflects the building’s natural setting and minimizes its impact on the surrounding oak woodlands. The first floor will include jury assembly, clerk services and court offices organized around a natural light–filled, two-story entry lobby and great hall. The four courtrooms will be located on the second floor.
The design and building of the courthouse also includes an emphasis on sustainability. The building exceeds state requirements for energy efficiency by 20 percent, and is expected to earn LEED Silver certification by the U.S. Green Building Council.
Wendy Darling
November 16, 2012
Here’s an interesting piece of news. Published today, Friday, November 16, Legal Pad, the legal blog of The Recorder, the on-line publication of CalLaw, by Scott Graham:
Beth Jay, Principal Attorney to 3 Chief Justices, to Retire
[Scott Graham]
The consigliere to three chief justices is stepping down.
Beth Jay, who has served as principal attorney to California Chief Justices Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Ronald George and Malcolm Lucas and long been regarded as an influential behind-the-scenes player, will retire at the end of the year, the Supreme Court announced Friday.
“I will be forever grateful for her wise counsel and fidelity to the cause of justice,” Sakauye said in a news release. “And, although I will miss her energy, passion, and feistiness, I wish my friend all the greatest in her well-deserved retirement.”
A 1975 graduate of Stanford Law School who’s worked at the court nearly 33 years, Jay said in the news release that she is leaving primarily to focus on some longstanding health challenges, and that she may return to the court in a few months in a part-time capacity “if the chief will have me and if I can be of service.”
Jay worked in private practice and at the Ninth Circuit before joining California Supreme Court Justice Frank Richardson’s staff in 1980. Richardson was succeeded by Lucas in 1984, and after becoming chief justice in 1987 he elevated Jay to principal attorney.
In that role Jay has worked regularly with the leadership of the Administrative Office of the Courts on policy, budget, legal affairs and legislative issues. Her duties also have included serving as the court’s liaison to the Judicial Council, the Commission on Judicial Performance, State Bar, State Bar Court, Administrative Office of the Courts, the Habeas Corpus Resource Center, Office of the State Public Defender and California Appellate Project. She drafted speeches for the chief justices, helped them prepare for weekly case review conferences, and served on the search committees that hired William Vickrey and Steven Jahr as adminstrative directors of the California courts.
“I have had a ringside seat from which to watch California’s judicial branch mature and focus on the administration of justice and access to justice for all — and to contribute to the development of a truly statewide judicial branch that can really make a difference in people’s lives,” Jay said.
Lucas and George used the same word in the news release to describe Jay’s contribution: “invaluable.”
A spokesman for the court said there was no immediate word on who would succeed her.
http://legalpad.typepad.com/my_weblog/2012/11/beth-jay-principal-attorney-to-3-chief-justices-to-retire.html
Long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
November 16, 2012
Interesting but many would say appropriate choice of words in that article, Wendy Darling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consigliere
Judicial Council Watcher
November 16, 2012
It was a PERFECT choice of words.
Wendy Darling
November 16, 2012
From Webster’s Dictionary”
consigliere; con·si·glie·re (k n s -ly r ). n. pl. con·si·glie·ri (-r ). An adviser or counselor, especially to a capo or leader of an organized crime syndicate.
Serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
court flea
November 16, 2012
Humm, another head rolling? Nah! Geez I am watching KCAL news and they are talking about the Wall Street Journal article that put Kamla Harris on the possible list for the US Supremes. They did not mention Tani.Too bad.
The OBT
November 17, 2012
Beth Jay is a highly competent and intelligent lawyer who has dedicated her career to public service. I respect her and admire her modesty and commitment to her work. I also respect her consistency, something we see little of at 455 Golden Gate these days. With Ms Jay’s departure I suspect we will see even more chaos , inconsistency and turbulence in branch management and an over reliance on the arrogant and demeaning Justice Harry Hull who for some reason and without qualification has been elevated to run our branch even further into the ground.
unionman575
November 17, 2012
Another Friday night special from the Death Star…
http://www.courts.ca.gov/19915.htm
November 16, 2012
Theresa Taylor-Carroll Selected as Assistant Director of AOC Office of Governmental Affairs
wearyant
November 17, 2012
Yet another obscenely high paid, high falutin’ top dawg of no benefit to the California judicial system. Unbelievable. Serving themselves at the detriment of all Californians. Sickening.
unionman575
November 17, 2012
http://www.courts.ca.gov/19567.htm
Judicial Council Directives
Get me a bucket!
wearyant
November 17, 2012
You’re right, Unionman575, totally nauseating. Are those people insane? Those directives are a bunch of crap, useless, and of no benefit to anyone other than job security for YEARS for pointy headed bean counters … continuing a generation of unnecessary, unwanted garbage. Gut the AOC, give the funds to the trial courts and let the trial courts get back to work for the sake of all Californians.
Judicial Council Watcher
November 18, 2012
Wait for the grand finale – the compensation survey that will emphasize that every AOC director has more statewide responsibility than any UC administrator. Accordingly, these directors -come division managers will all see 21% raises with similar raises percolating down through the management ranks.
It’s called hush money and at this point, this study is the only way they can justify doling it out.
Oh, and why is Mary Roberts and Bill Kasley still employed by the AOC? One position was to be eliminated and the other makes policy for the branch.
unionman575
November 18, 2012
You are feisty Ant! I like it!
wearyant
November 18, 2012
😀 Hope you have a good weekend, JCW and Unionman575!
unionman575
November 17, 2012
Click to access 68106-Mendocino-20121030.pdf
Judicial Council Watcher
November 18, 2012
That makes the next available court over an hour away by car over some occasionally treacherous roads in a county that lacks a viable countywide public transportation system. Sad.
unionman575
November 18, 2012
The AOC doesn’t get it, so we all march on in our fight against the Death Star.
unionman575
November 18, 2012
A reorganization of the Palace Guard?….Directive #125
JCW they love you! LOL
Judicial Council Directive
E&P recommends that the Judicial Council direct the Administrative Director of the Courts to return to the Judicial Council with an analysis, defining the necessary emergency response and security functions for the branch and a recommendation on the organizational plan for council approval.
SEC Recommendation
7‐54. There is no need for a stand‐alone Office of Emergency Response and Security. Most necessary functions performed by the office can be reassigned and absorbed by existing units in the Judicial and Court Operations Services Division.
7‐55. The functions of this office should be refocused and limited to those reasonably required by statute or by the Rules of Court, primarily including review of security plans for new and existing facilities; review of court security equipment, if requested by the courts; and review of emergency plans.
7‐56. Reductions in this office are feasible. The office cannot effectively provide branch‐wide judicial security and online protection for all judicial officers. Positions allocated for such functions should be eliminated. The Administrative Director should evaluate whether some activities undertaken by this office are cost effective, such as judicial security and online protection functions.
Timeline
ADOC to provide an organizational analysis to the council at the 12/14/12, council meeting.
Status
In Progress
Status Updates
The Office of Security’s Senior Manager is doing organizational analysis (the process in which function and capacity are considered in order to increase efficiency and performance). In doing so, the Senior Manager is examining the necessary emergency response and security functions for the branch as well as the office’s mission and vision and its organizational structure and strategy. When complete, the Senior Manager will submit the information to the Chief Operating Officer and Administrative Director of the Courts for consideration. Per instructions, the Senior Manager will also draft a proposed recommendation report to the Judicial Council for consideration by the Administrative Director of the Courts.
😉
Kevin Grimm
November 18, 2012
Long time since I’ve dropped by the JC Watcher echo chamber. Good to see than nothing has changed. Y’all remain as delusional as ever.
Let me get this straight: Judge Feinstein is some heroic straight-shooter because she blames the AOC & JC for SF’s well-documented mismanagement? Oh, and, statewide budget cuts are the fault of the AOC & JC?
Maybe one or two of you could lay off the Kool Aid for a day and take a look at the pay raises that SF just granted its employees. How do you think the Governor & Legislature view that? Some courts are laying off employees while SF is handing out pay raises. Yeah, that’s the ticket, Judge Feinstein, I’m sure the Governor & Legislature think that makes sense.
Michael Paul
November 18, 2012
Heroic straight-shooter? No. One of the few people that openly says it like it is. The problem of a lack of credibility is owned by the AOC.
Kevin answer me this: Who has been fired for using unlicensed contractors? My understanding is the now-director was the then-assistant director that chose to hire those unlicensed contractors.
Tell me, how does Lee Willoughby get promoted instead of canned?
How does Mark Dusman keep his job after blowing 565 million dollars on phantomware?
How does Mary Roberts keep her job in light of a number of stinging rebukes to her management style?
Tell us all Mr. Grimm, how do these fuck-ups keep their jobs?
Wendy Darling
November 18, 2012
Not to mention that these f**k ups are all consummate liars without an ounce of ethics between them. Which, apparently, is exactly the the reputation of judicial branch administration that the Office of the Chief Justice is going for.
Serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
Shannon Martin
November 18, 2012
Kevin Grimm, you know zero of which you speak. You do not work at SFSC, you do not know what the employees there are dealing with, you did not work on the debacle that was CCMS, and you do not know Judge Feinstein. Shut your piehole.
Kevin Grimm
November 19, 2012
Touchy, touchy aren’t we when someone call’s y’all on your own sh!#.
What I know is that there is plenty of blame to go around but that you JC Watcher groupies are determined to pretend that there are simple, easy answers to complicated, difficult problems: Blame the JC and the AOC! It’s all their fault. Trial courts, virtuous and good, efficient and well-managed; AOC, evil, inefficient and corrupt.
It’s just that life’s not that simple and the judicial branch, much less so.
My question — in response to which I’ve received nothing but ad hominem attacks — is simply this: How does SF Superior Court give out pay raises when other courts are laying off staff? I don’t doubt that staff in SF work hard. But so do staff in other courts and they’re being laid off. Should each court simply look after it’s own employees, regardless of what’s going on in other courts? Are we really looking after the greater good of justice in CA here, or are we just about scoring points?
Good work Judge Feinstein and JC Watcher groupies alike! Y’all do a great service in support of group think!
From the Daily Journal:
Wealthy coastal counties get disproportionate level of court funding, study shows
Posted: 19 Nov 2012 02:00 PM PST
A big imbalance in the way the state Judicial Council funds trial courts infuriates the have-nots and raises questions about some courts’ ability to deliver justice.
Wendy Darling
November 19, 2012
The Assembly Committee of Accountability and Administrative Review, the audit of CCMS and management practices by Elaine Howle and the Bureau of State Audits, the SEC report, and the procedural, management, and oversight audit of OCCM . . . apparently they got it all wrong, and everybody here just made everything up. Somebody is quaffing the kool aid, and it isn’t those here at JCW.
Serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
Michael Paul
November 20, 2012
I don’t necessarily wish to speak for San Francisco but a few points are in order-
1. Wasn’t it the AOC’s Ken Couch that negotiated this package for San Francisco Superior Court and didn’t he start his negotiations with a cut in pay and benefits?
2. Shouldn’t the AOC be leading by example instead of conducting salary and compensation surveys to justify raises?
3. SFSC has also laid off people and as I recall, there is nothing in these agreements that prevents further layoffs at SFSC other than they could probably afford to get nothing accomplished if they did.
4. Wasn’t each of the raises given to AOC employees (nearly 1000 employees…) over the last two years larger and more expensive than the raises won through collective bargaining through San Francisco Superior Court?
ie one group had to fight for a raise (a few hundred people at SFSC) and the other group didn’t even have to ask for a raise – and got two of them.
“The Judicial Council is the policymaking arm of the judicial branch”
Policy is created when you give your employees raises in tough fiscal times. Don’t be surprised if others follow the lead of the policymakers.
Michael Paul
November 20, 2012
P.S. Mr. Grimm, I answered your questions. Now try something novel by answering mine.
lobstahsmaht
November 20, 2012
Michael: Several people in AOC have not received a raise in years. So not all received raises.
Michael Paul
November 20, 2012
You’re correct lobstahsmaht.
In FY 10-11, 77.3% of FTE’s received step increases of 3.5%
In FY 11-12 72.45% of FTE’s received step increases of 3.5%.
Source: AOC.
Did they (or a majority of AOC’s employees) get another step increase in FY 12-13? (this year?)
I haven’t checked but you might know.
lobstahsmaht
November 21, 2012
In answer to your question below. I don’t know if people received a step increase as I haven’t had a raise in 8 years so try not to torture myself by enquiring about such. That said, I think I recall some people complaining they didn’t get a step increase.
Judicial Council Watcher
November 20, 2012
A big imbalance in the way the state Judicial Council funds trial courts infuriates the have-nots and raises questions about some courts’ ability to deliver justice.
Isn’t this imbalance perpetuated by the judicial council and their administrative offices? Is it fine to say things were broken when we took over and we chose not to fix them?
There’s a whole lot of money floating around the AOC for a myriad of programs like CCMS and Court construction and 2,000.00 light bulbs. None of those programs adjudicates cases.
If I were the state legislature and the governor, any further funding would be reliant on the judicial council curing the funding disparities so that Fresno can actually hold court and so that San Joaquin and Sacramento could actually hear small claims cases.
After finding out all of the gory details about AOC commissioned studies, I would find any study conducted by the AOC not worth the paper it is written upon.
Wendy Darling
November 20, 2012
Exactly right, JCW.
The OBT
November 20, 2012
That was really well said Wendy. The bottom line is that the JC/AOC wasted millions on CCMS , ordered closures of courtrooms , refused to reduce their own bloated staff, and wasted money on consultants, part time employees and OGC lawyers some who were allowed to telecommute from Europe. Then when confronted with all this they created an even more expensive and less competent management structure.Have they made any real cutbacks at the crystal palace ? No. The next CCMS is now looming and it is called the Long Beach courthouse . All of this explains why the many who appear here care enough to comment and hope to see democracy in our branch governance. Happy Thanksgiving everyone. Have a great day with family and friends .
unionman575
November 20, 2012
The Long Beach courthouse is:
Shannon Martin
November 20, 2012
There is a fiscal cliff looming for the courts, after which the legislature has decided to take all of each court’s reserve and redistribute it as they see fit. Would you prefer our courts sit on any reserve they have and hand it over to the state, or RESTORE (not raise) salaries to the employees after 3 years of furloughs, layoffs and pay reductions? i say again, RESTORE, not raise, with no guarantee of future salary or position stability. Trust me, no one around SFSC is getting raises.
Bridget Childs
November 21, 2012
Mr. Grimm — your own post answers your question. SF gives raises because it is a better funded court for its workload. Fresno and San Joaquin are closing small claims and branch courts because they are less well funded and have been for years. Look at the AOC’s March 22, 2010 report to the Legislature. Look at the map on page “3.” Look at the Legislative Analyst’s Office’s April 2012 report on the Judiciary in which it points out that 10 trial courts are better funded for their caseloads than they need. Look at the chart showing reserves or lack of same in the trial courts in that report.
CCMS added to the troubles of certain courts because more staff had to be hired to implement it. Which courts have CCMS?? How well are those courts doing now?
The Judicial Council has had 15 years to address these inequities, and have implemented only interim measures to address them. Pro rata baseline funding has ignored the more rapid increases in population in the Central Valley and Inland Empire and has therefore benefited certain courts. Although better-funded courts have suffered layoffs and cuts, if baseline funding is adequate those courts have some capacity to give their employees raises. Unlike Kings county, SF is not subjecting its employees to 27 furlough days a year and laying off its own CEO for 20 (or is it 40?) days a year to save money (this nugget courtesy of the October 25 – 26 Judicial Council meeting.)
On another post on this blog, somebody posted (from John Chiang’s new salary website) the number of employees at the AOC and how well they are paid. As I recall, on average, they were paid almost $20,000 over other state workers.
All these facts speak for themselves. When you have a trial court furloughing its employees for 27 days a year, you don’t spend money on re-class studies so you can give raises to the folks who maintained this mess for 15 years. When you have a county as large as Fresno closing all its outlying courts, you don’t give raises to Central Office.
Thanks for posting about the Daily Journal article.
sunlight
November 21, 2012
Why are the court reporters of this state getting the total shaft? Not only are court reporters being laid off, an entire profession is being pushed aside like the Monday morning trash . Is there a back-door deal taking place here? Does anyone have info to share?
Judicial Council Watcher
November 21, 2012
I don’t know if you heard ’em but there is all sorts of educational programs advertising an exciting career in court reporting here in the SF Bay Area as of late. It makes me want to gag knowing what’s happening to those who chose that career.
What would happen anywhere else you paid a fee for a service that was never delivered? (Court reporters fees)
We’re told that most new courthouses are built with pathways and infrastructure for electronic recording – both audio and video – and then are sealed with a wall plate so that the infrastructure is present in the event that things move in that general direction.
Back room deal?
More like……. slipping electronic recording in under the radar.
We obtained a recent grievance filed on behalf of court reporters in SF that mentioned that they were beginning to record and if someone can assist us in telling that story better, we’d like to pass it on. Contact us at Judicialcouncilwatcher@hushmail.com
courtflea
November 21, 2012
Sunlight, many believe the court reporters priced themselves out of the market after enjoying a total monopoly for decades, and human court reporting is an out of date technology. That is one of many sides to the arguement.
wearyant
November 22, 2012
flea! (I wasn’t the thumbs down)
Karen Louise Peckham
December 4, 2012
I have been a court reporter for the past 33 years, and let me clarify the record here: The present-day Official Court Reporter is quite a technologically savvy breed. Every day I report in realtime all legal proceedings to the Bench with a 99.7, 99.8 percent in my translation rate to the Bench Officer’s computer. We Certified Realtime Reporters receive an extra 5 percent increase in pay to be Certified Realtime Reporters and 2.5 percent increase in pay to deliver instantaneous translation to the Bench as proceedings are ongoing. We are not receiving a daily rate per diem for providing this service. I love what I do. To me, it is all about service. When litigants want to order a transcript, once I receive the payment, I prepare my transcript overnight to provide good service. There really is no such expedite rate you can charge when you are an Official Reporter because Officials are governed by statute as far as the maximum we can charge for our work product. Our job is not 8 to 5. Reporters work late into the night producing transcripts for those parties wishing a verbatim transcript because it’s what we do, providing a service. Privatizing court services is going to end up costing litigants more in the long run. There will always be the litigant who cannot afford the bells and whistles. If a depo reporter on the outside has a contract to report a civil trial for Mr. Money Bags Defense Attorney, that reporter now is biased because Mr. Money Bags is paying for the services. Now, if the Court wants the realtime feed, do you honestly think Miss Biased Court Reporter is going to give away her services for free to the Court on the Bench?
I don’t think so. Those depo reporters are going to charge “free market rates” to whoever wishes to receive the realtime feed or a rough ASCII or an edited e-transcript at the end of the day. And you can bet your sweet bippie THERE WILL BE AN EXPEDITED RATE CHARGED for working late hours into the night.
The AOC needs to WAKE UP and realize they’re getting a bargain for keeping their Certified Realtime Reporters working for their assigned judges in California’s courtrooms. We reporters work for the Court. We all work together, the courtroom staff, to see to it that justice is dispensed fairly to all parties. The system just works better that way. Why would the AOC want to screw up a court system which has worked well since this country was founded only to create a bigger headache to the counsel and litigants who use its services?
DON’T FIX IT IF IT AIN’T BROKE!!!!!
Oh, and NEWS FLASH: Have you ever seen a digital recording system provide realtime/captioning feed instantaneously to the Bench Officer’s computer with a 99 percent accuracy rate in its translation?
Didn’t think so. Who do you think puts the captions on your favorite news shows?
You guessed it, the Certified Realtime Reporter/Broadcast Captioner, Guardian of the Record.
I’ve said enough.
unionman575
December 4, 2012
“The AOC needs to WAKE UP and realize they’re getting a bargain for keeping their Certified Realtime Reporters working for their assigned judges in California’s courtrooms. We reporters work for the Court. We all work together, the courtroom staff, to see to it that justice is dispensed fairly to all parties. The system just works better that way. ”
I agree with you 100%.
😉
unionman575
December 4, 2012
Welcome to the blog. I hope you will become a regular contributor.
😉
Wendy Darling
December 4, 2012
“The AOC needs to WAKE UP and realize they’re getting a bargain for keeping their Certified Realtime Reporters working for their assigned judges in California’s courtrooms.”
The AOC won’t “wake up” to the value of keeping court reporters working for assigned judges in California courtrooms for one simple, and regulary stated reason: they’re unionized. AOC management has the goal of ridding the trial courts of unionized court employees to the greatest extent possible, and see in the current budget situation of the trial courts another golden opportunity to do so — by forcing the trial courts into a financial corner that results in “layoffs” of unionized court employees, and replacing the work with non-unionized/unrepresented independent contractors, starting with court reporters.
The AOC has made no secret of its disdain that the majority of court employees are represented, nor has the AOC made no secret of its loathing of public employee unions. The fact that unionized court reporters, or other unionized court employees, are being lost in droves in the trial courts, is just another silver lining for the AOC in the dark cloud of the current budget situation. The loss of such represented court employees in the trial courts does nothing but put a smile of the faces of AOC administration.
Long live the ACJ.
sunlight
November 21, 2012
courtflea, I don’t want to hijack this thread into a debate over court reporters, but I must point out that official court reporters are making the same amount of money for transcript fees that they were in the late ’80s. Please do your homework on these issues – open a new thread and I can straighten out your facts on each and every “monopoly” and “out of date” argument.
The OBT
November 22, 2012
Hey everyone , court reporters are absolutely essential to the public. No technology exists to accurately record a court proceeding in their place. In addition, court reporters are among the most long standing and hardworking employees we have. Finally, given the way the CJP has gone under J McConnell, court reporters are absolutely essential to protect against false claims made about judges .Happy Thanksgiving everyone .
unionman575
November 22, 2012
No CSR = No Record.
That’s unacceptable.
disgusted
November 22, 2012
“No CSR = No Record.”
Yes, and there are litigants, lawyers and judges that want no record. Hmm, wonder why…..
courtflea
November 22, 2012
Its ok Sunlight and other dear posters here. Iwas just giving the administrative perspective on the debate. Wheather folks agree or not some folks think that. But i do know my stuff regarding court repoting costs. I have personally seen criminal courtroom court reporters make hundreds of thousands of dollars in salaries and transcript fees in one trial alone. I may just be a flea but i do know costs. Wheather CSRs are the way to go is not for me to judge. Just putting t h e perception to some out there in my posts for an fyi out there. Love ya wearyant. Thank your husband for his prayers too.
Karen Louise Peckham
December 4, 2012
That is a bunch of BS and you know it. If it were such
a lucrative career, then why didn’t you go to court reporting
school? We bust our asses every day.
unionman575
December 4, 2012
http://www.courtreportingforum.com/profile/KarenLouisePeckham?xg_source=activity
😉
Karen Louise Peckham
December 4, 2012
What next? The institution of Sharia Law?
Whatever happened to LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL ?
Where in the Constitution does it state the branch of the Judiciary has to be run by an entity known as the Administrative Office of the Courts?
Obviously, unification of the Municipal and Superior Courts isn’t working anymore in the best interest of the taxpayer. The citizens voted for unification and we citizens can unite and tear down the AOC and put our court system back the way it was, a Municipal and a Superior Court.
And let me say THE UNIONS BUILT THIS COUNTRY. It is because of organized labor that the working man can provide a roof over his family’s heads, put food in the bellies of his children and shoes on baby’s feet.
Ladies and gentlemen, it is time to take back our courts. Is it time to bring in Big Ed Schultz to the rescue?
I can see it now: Look, everybody, the Emperor has no clothes!!!!