BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 655
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 9, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Bob Wieckowski, Chair
AB 655 (Quirk-Silva) - As Introduced: February 21, 2013
SUBJECT : COURT REPORTERS: SALARY FUND
KEY ISSUE : SHOULD INDIVIDUAL TRIAL COURTS BE AUTHORIZED TO
ESTABLISH A FUND, MODELED AFTER A LONGSTANDING EXAMPLE IN LOS
ANGELES COUNTY, FROM WHICH THE SALARIES AND BENEFITS OF OFFICIAL
COURT REPORTERS SHALL BE PAID?
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.
SYNOPSIS
This noncontroversial bill, sponsored by the California Court
Reporters' Association, seeks to authorize individual trial
courts to establish a revolving fund from which the salaries and
benefits of official reporters would be paid. The proposed
Reporters' Salary Fund in each court would be patterned after a
longstanding model in Los Angeles County that has been in
operation for over 60 years. This bill does not require any
trial court to set up a fund, but simply would give the courts
an optional new mechanism for ensuring compensation for official
court reporting services. As provided by this bill, the salary
fund would be a revolving fund supported through a set-aside of
court revenue (presumably collected through court fines,
forfeitures and fees), meaning that the fund is replenished each
month to ensure a certain balance is maintained to pay for court
reporters. As currently in print, the bill does not specify the
size of the Fund, but should this bill be approved by this
Committee, it is expected to be amended to specify that amount
prior to being heard by Assembly Appropriations. The bill is
supported by SEIU California and a number of associations of
court reporters, who contend that ensuring the funding of court
reporter services is necessary to protect the public's access to
justice. This bill has no known opposition.
SUMMARY : Authorizes, but does not require, individual trial
courts to establish a fund from which the salaries and benefits
of official reporters shall be paid. Specifically, this bill :
AB 655
Page 2
1)Provides that the Reporters' Salary Fund shall be created by
setting aside from the revenue of the court a revolving fund
in an amount set by statute, but as yet undetermined.
2)Provides that at the time of each monthly distribution of the
revenue of the court to the appropriate state or county funds
as required by law, the clerk of the court shall deduct
proportionately, the sum as will, when added to the sum then
remaining in the fund, equal _____ dollars ($_____) and
deposit it in the fund.
3)Requires fees for reporting services payable by law by the
parties to proceedings in the court to official reporters to
be paid to the clerk of the court, who shall deposit them in
the Reporters' Salary Fund.
4)Requires fees for transcription of testimony and proceedings
in the court to be paid by the parties to official reporters
as otherwise provided by law.
5)Provides that in all cases where by law the court may direct
the payment of transcription fees out of the Trial Court
Operations Fund, the fee on order of the court shall be paid
from the Reporters' Salary Fund, except fees for transcription
of testimony and proceedings in felony cases, which shall be
paid from the Trial Court Operations Fund.
6)Requires that, if at any time the Reporters' Salary Fund is
insufficient, on order of the court the amount of the
deficiency shall be paid from the Trial Court Operations Fund
for that court.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Prescribes the fees and compensation for court reporting
services. (Article 9 of Chapter 5 of Title 8 of Government
Code, commencing with Section 69941.)
2)Requires the salaries and benefits of official reporters in
the Los Angeles County Superior Court to be paid from the
Reporters Salary Fund. (Government Code Section 72709.)
3)Authorizes the per diem fees and benefits of official
reporters pro tempore in the Los Angeles County Superior Court
to be paid from the Fund. (Government Code Section 72710.)
AB 655
Page 3
4)Establishes within the Los Angeles County Superior Court a
revolving fund from the revenue of the court in the amount of
seven hundred fifty thousand dollars ($750,000), known as the
Reporters' Salary Fund. Provides that deductions from the
county's share of the revenue shall be made from that portion
of it distributable to the general fund of the county, and
deductions from each city's share shall be made from that
portion of it distributable to the general fund of each city.
(Government Code Section 72172.)
5)Fees for reporting services payable by law by the parties to
proceedings in the Los Angeles County Superior Court to
official reporters or official reporters pro tempore shall be
paid to the clerk of the court, who shall deposit them in the
Reporters' Salary Fund. (Government Code Section 72711.)
COMMENTS : This bill seeks to authorize individual trial courts
to establish a revolving fund from which the salaries and
benefits of official reporters would be paid. The proposed
Reporters' Salary Fund in each court would be patterned after a
longstanding model in Los Angeles County that has been in
operation for over 60 years. This bill does not require any
trial court to set up a fund, but simply would give the courts
an optional new mechanism for ensuring compensation for official
court reporting services.
According to the California Court Reporters' Association (CCRA),
the sponsor of the bill:
The trial courts continue to face significant funding
reductions, which ultimately negatively impact the public's
access to justice. Due to reduced budgets, trial courts
throughout California have reduced the number of court
reporters they employ, as well as strategies ranging from
reduced hours, layoffs, outsourcing, and no longer
providing reporting services in various types of
proceedings. CCRA believes that authorizing local trial
courts to implement a Reporters' Salary Fund will provide a
funding source that will financially benefit state
government, counties, cities, and courts throughout
California. With the stability created through a Reporters'
Salary Fund, courts would have a tool to allow them more
adequately meet the court reporting staffing requirements
necessary for the process to run smoothly and future cost
AB 655
Page 4
savings to be achieved. However, in order for efficiencies
and cost savings to be realized, a more stable funding
source to support adequate staffing of official reporters
is necessary.
Court Budget Reductions Have Dramatically Reduced Courts with
Court Reporters : On February 12, 2013, this Committee held an
informational hearing titled "The Access to Justice Crisis
Facing California's Families" in order to identify and better
understand the impacts of budget reductions on the trial courts.
In preparing for the hearing, this Committee independently
surveyed the 58 trial courts to assess what measures the courts
report they have taken over the last five years to address the
cuts. Responses were received from 55 of the trial courts, with
the exception of the courts in Glenn, Lassen and Santa Barbara
Counties. Of those trial court responding, 6 have reduced
expenditures for court reporters, and fully 30 courts have
ceased providing court reporters for civil, family and probate
proceedings. In those courts, parties who wish to have an
official record of proceedings must hire and pay the substantial
cost of providing their own private court reporter. Without a
transcript of court proceedings, litigants are unable to appeal
decisions, parties may be unable to draft orders effectively,
and those attempting to recount what actually happened during
proceedings - including jurors deliberating on the case - are
unable to do so.
The Commission on Judicial Performance is very concerned about
elimination of court reporters . The Commission on Judicial
Performance (CJP) is charged with investigating and disciplining
misconduct by state judges. In a letter to the Governor, the
Supreme Court and the Legislature, the CJP Director-Chief
Counsel writes that she is concerned that the significant
reduction in court reporters impairs the Commission's "ability
to fulfill its mandate to protect the public, and undermines the
administration of justice in court proceedings in California."
(Letter from Victoria Henley to Governor Brown, Supreme Court
Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, Speaker P�rez and Senate President
Pro Tempore Steinberg (Feb. 29, 2012).) CJP writes that without
a record of court proceedings:
[I]t can be difficult, if not impossible, to establish what
occurred in the courtroom, where 95% of the complaints to
the Commission each year originate In December 2011, there
were transcripts or recordings in only half of the
AB 655
Page 5
Commission's pending investigations that involve courtroom
conduct. . . . The absence of transcripts or recordings
thus impedes the commission in determining that misconduct
has occurred and in protecting the public from abusive
judges. Equally important, the absence of a record of
court proceedings prevents the swift and complete
exoneration of judges by the commission when appropriate.
Background on the Reporters' Salary Fund in the Los Angeles
courts. According to the author, in 1945 the Los Angeles City
Attorney's office entered into an agreement with the then-Los
Angeles Municipal Court to have the Court assign court reporters
to misdemeanor proceedings in order to, for the first time,
ensure the availability of a verbatim record in such cases.
Under this agreement, funding of the reporters would be paid by
Los Angeles County and participating cities through a Reporters'
Salary Fund ("Fund").
In 1953, the Fund was officially established under state law
(Ch. 206, Stats. 1953). In 2002, the Los Angeles Superior Court
inherited the Fund as a result of unification of the Municipal
and Superior Courts. The fund currently pays the salaries and
benefits of 74 official reporters in the Los Angeles Superior
Court. According to the author, this Fund has provided
uninterrupted financial support to employ court reporters in Los
Angles for almost seven decades.
The Reporters Salary Fund in Los Angeles is a revolving fund
supported through a set-aside of court revenue derived from
fines, forfeitures and fees accruing to the cities or county,
except law library fees. Under Government Code Section 72172,
the Fund is kept replenished at an amount of $750,000, meaning,
for example, that if $400,000 is spent in a given month, then
$400,000 in set-aside court revenue is put back into the Fund to
maintain the balance at $750,000 each month. Proportionate
deductions from the county's share of the revenue are made from
the portion distributable to the general fund of the county, and
deductions from each city's share are made from the portion
distributable to each city.
This bill authorizes, but does not require, individual trial
courts to establish similar fund mechanisms to pay for court
reporters. According to the author and sponsor, Los Angeles
County has seen faster resolution of cases, reduced volume of
records storage, and increased access to records with the
AB 655
Page 6
establishment of the Fund. It is not known, however, to what
extent those outcomes can be directly attributed to operation of
the Fund or to other contemporaneous factors (for example, court
unification and technological improvements). In any case, it
appears that the Fund has provided a stable, continuous funding
of court reporters in Los Angeles for many decades, and may
serve as a model for other local courts to implement if they so
choose, pursuant to authority under this bill.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Court Reporters' Association (sponsor)
Los Angeles Court Reporters Association
Northern California Court Reporters Association
Orange County Superior Court Reporters Association
SEIU California
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Anthony Lew / JUD. / (916) 319-2334