BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Noreen Evans, Chair
2013-2014 Regular Session
AB 655 (Quirk-Silva)
As Amended June 14, 2013
Hearing Date: June 25, 2013
Fiscal: Yes
Urgency: No
RD
SUBJECT
Court Reporters: Salary Fund
DESCRIPTION
This bill would authorize each trial court to establish a
Reporters' Salary Fund, and provide that the fund shall be a
revolving fund and must, upon appropriation, be used solely to
contribute to the salaries and benefits of official reporters.
BACKGROUND
California law requires that an official court reporter or
official court reporter pro tempore of the superior court take
down in shorthand all testimony, objections made, rulings of the
court, exceptions taken, arraignments, pleas, sentences,
arguments of the attorneys to the jury, and statements and
remarks made and oral instructions given by the judge or other
judicial officer. That requirement applies to specified case
types, including civil cases, on the order of the court or at
the request of a party; felony cases, on the order of the court,
or at the request of the prosecution, the defendant, or the
defendant's attorney; and misdemeanor or infraction cases, on
the order of the court. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 269.)
Additionally, California law prescribes certain fees for such
court reporter services.
Since 1998, with the enactment of AB 233 (Escutia and Pringle,
Ch. 850, Stats. 1997), California consolidated all court funding
at the state level, giving the Legislature authority to make
appropriations and the Judicial Council responsibility to
allocate funds to state courts. In doing so, AB 233 required
(more)
AB 655 (Quirk-Silva)
Page 2 of ?
that all court reporter fees collected by the trial courts be
deposited into the Trial Court Trust Fund (TCTF). The court
reporter fees are then returned to the trial courts as part of
their annual allocation and are distributed on a pro rata basis,
as opposed to on the basis of the dollars collected.
At the same time, with respect to the Los Angeles County
Superior Court, existing law requires the salaries and benefits
of official reporters to be paid from a revolving fund called
the Reporters' Salary Fund. (Gov. Code Sec. 72708 et seq.)
In light of budgetary cuts that have affected court interpreters
in courts throughout California, this bill would authorize the
creation of similar revolving Reporters' Salary Funds in other
trial courts throughout the state. Pursuant to this bill, those
funds could then, upon appropriation, only be used to contribute
to the salaries and benefits of official court reporters.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law establishes the Trial Court Trust Fund (TCTF).
(Gov. Code Sec. 68085.)
Existing law requires that the fees collected by the trial
courts for official court reporters be deposited in a bank
account established by the Administrative Office of the Courts
(AOC). The AOC must distribute those deposits as specified,
with the remainder going to the TCTF. (Gov. Code Sec.
68085.1(a)(4), (b)-(d).)
Existing law requires certain fees be charged for each civil
proceeding in which court reporter services are provided,
depending on the length of the proceeding. Fees collected
pursuant to this section must be used only to pay the cost for
services of an official court reporter in civil proceedings.
(Gov. Code Sec. 68086.)
Existing law provides for the appointment of official court
reporters and prescribes the fees and compensation for various
court reporting services in superior courts, except in counties
where statutes provide otherwise. (Gov. Code Sec. 69941 et
seq.)
Existing law , with respect to the Los Angeles County Superior
Court, requires the salaries and benefits of official reporters
to be paid from the Reporters' Salary Fund. (Gov. Code Sec.
AB 655 (Quirk-Silva)
Page 3 of ?
72709.) Existing law requires, on order of the court, the per
diem fees and benefits of official reporters pro tempore be paid
from that Reporter's Salary Fund. (Gov. Code Sec. 72710.)
Existing law requires that fees for court reporter services
payable by law by the parties to proceedings in the court to
official reporters or official reporters pro tempore be paid to
the clerk of the court, who shall deposit them in that
Reporters' Salary Fund. (Gov. Code Sec. 72711(a).)
Existing law , with respect to the Los Angeles County Superior
Court, requires that a revolving fund in the amount of $750,000
known as the Reporters' Salary Fund be set aside from the
revenue of the court. At the time of each monthly distribution
of the revenue of the court to the cities and to the county, the
clerk of the court must proportionately deduct from their
respective total shares such sum as will equal seven hundred
fifty thousand dollars ($750,000) when added to the sum then
remaining in the fund, and deposit it in the fund, as specified.
Deductions from the county's share of the revenue must 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. Existing law defines "revenue" for these purposes to
include all fines, forfeitures, and fees accruing to the cities
or the county, except law library fees. (Gov. Code Sec. 72712.)
Existing law , with respect to the Los Angeles County Superior
Court, requires that, if at any time the Reporters' Salary Fund
is insufficient, on order of the court the amount of the
deficiency be paid from the Trial Court Operations Fund. (Gov.
Code Sec. 72713(a).)
This bill would permit each trial court to establish a
Reporters' Salary Fund.
This bill would provide that the Reporters' Salary Fund shall be
a revolving fund. Funds deposited into the Reporters' Salary
Fund must, upon appropriation, be used solely to contribute to
the salaries and benefits of official reporters.
COMMENT
1. Stated need for the bill
According to the author:
AB 655 (Quirk-Silva)
Page 4 of ?
[The] Los Angeles Superior Court has demonstrated the positive
efficiencies and stability created through the Reporters'
Salary Fund. Today the fund pays the salaries and benefits of
74 official reporters reporting misdemeanor proceedings.
This revolving fund is supported through a set-aside of court
revenue derived from fines, forfeitures and fees accruing to
the cities or county, except law library fees. Proportionate
deductions from the county's share of the revenue is made from
the portion of it distributable to the general fund of the
county, and deductions from each city's share are made from
the portion of it distributable to each city.
With the establishment of the Court Reporters' Salary Fund,
Los Angeles County has seen faster resolution of cases,
reduced volume of records storage, and increased access to
records.
However, not every county has the authorization to establish
something like this, and due to diminished budgets, trial
courts throughout California have reduced the number of court
reporters they employ. The trial courts have used various
strategies to make reductions in the number of official court
reporters employed. These strategies range from reduced hours
to layoffs, outsourcing, or no longer providing court
reporting services in various types of proceedings.
With the mass reduction of state funding over the last few
years many courts are finding it impossible to keep vital
services such as court reporters. The Los Angeles Superior
Court is the only County that has been able to establish a
fund to assist with these crucial cuts.
AB 655 expands the use of a Reporters' Salary Fund to help
ensure the availability of adequate funding for employment of
certified shorthand reporters to make the official verbatim
record in the trial courts of California.
The sponsor of the bill, the California Court Reporters
Association (CCRA) writes that, "[d]ue to reduced budgets[,]
trial courts throughout California have reduced the number of
court reporters they employ. [ . . . ] Court reporter services
are critical to the administration of justice by ensuring a
verbatim record of proceedings for purposes of judicial process
and appeals. CCRA believes that authorizing local trial courts
to [i]mplement a Reporters' Salary Fund will provide a funding
AB 655 (Quirk-Silva)
Page 5 of ?
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 to more adequately meet the court
reporting staffing requirements necessary for the process to run
smoothly and future costs savings to be maintained by the court
reporters themselves-electronic delivery of certified
transcripts and the rough draft transcripts of the daily court
proceedings (often referred to as 'realtime translation') will
lead to fewer continuances of cases, faster resolution of cases
and more accurate and timely court minute orders, among other
court reporter driven savings."
2. Court reporters
Under existing law, most courts throughout the state are
required to remit their court reporter fees to the Trial Court
Trust Fund to be distributed at a pro rata basis. In contrast,
separate statutes require Los Angeles County to maintain a
revolving fund known as the Reporters' Salary Fund, to pay for
court reporters in its courts. According to the author and the
California Court Reporters Association, the sponsor of this
bill, that fund dates back to 1945 and has helped Los Angeles
County maintain the vital services of court reporters despite
crucial budget cuts being made to the courts throughout the
state in recent years. Moreover, the proponents assert that by
enabling Los Angeles County to avoid the level of outsourcing,
layoffs or reduced hours as is being seen in other courts, Los
Angeles County has faster resolution of cases, reduced volume of
records storage, and increased access to records. As such, this
bill seeks to authorize trial courts outside of Los Angeles
County to set up similar Reporters' Salary Funds.
Specifically, this bill would allow other trial courts in the
state to establish a revolving Reporters' Salary Fund, from
which the funds can only be used, upon appropriation, to
contribute to the salaries and benefits of official reporters.
The Judicial Council writes, in opposition, that it is:
[ . . . ] concerned that, by encouraging courts to set up a
special fund to pay salaries and benefits to court reporters,
this bill applies pressure to trial courts to treat certain
classifications of employees differently than other. In turn,
litigants may have greater or lesser access to court reporter
services depending on whether their trial court was in the
position to create a fund thereby fostering unequal access to
AB 655 (Quirk-Silva)
Page 6 of ?
justice for court users. With the recent adoption of a new
funding formula to provide equity in funding for all trial
courts, the council is seeking to provide greater equality of
access to litigants, not lesser.
Furthermore, the bill creates an unnecessary statute that
could have the unintended consequences of eroding trial court
discretion over management of its employees. Trial courts
have the ability to create such funds if the court deems it
necessary. The enactment of a statute authorizing all 58
trial courts to create a Reporters' Salary Fund likely will
result in undue pressure on the courts from affected employee
groups to create such a fund to protect their salaries and
benefits. This pressure may unnecessarily compromise labor
negotiations or delay bargaining agreements.
Further, even while AB 655 is silent as to where revenue for a
Reporters' Salary Fund would come from, the very existence of
the statute could be the first step towards making Reporters'
Salary Funds mandatory.
Finally, AB 655 is silent as to where revenue for a Reporters'
Salary Fund would come from. . . . By putting the onus on
the trial court to create the fund and by not specifying where
the revenue will come from, the pressure is on the trial
courts to come up with this revenue. In light of the
significant ongoing budget reductions facing the trial courts,
a statute implying that the courts should divert additional
funds from court operations to fund one classification of
employees reduces the courts' ability to manage their overall
resources and may unnecessarily hamper the public's access to
justice.
In response, the author contends that:
The salary fund is designed to be a tool [to] create an
additional stable, supplemental source of funding to support
the provision of court reporter services. To the extent that
entities reach a mutually agreeable arrangement (to be
negotiated locally to reflect the scope and scale and elect to
use a portion of their revenues from fees, fines and
forfeitures (as has been the case in Los Angeles for decades),
these revenues could result in additional court reporter
services in the courts. This bill does not require any trial
court to set up a fund, but simply would give courts an
optional new mechanism for ensuring compensation for official
AB 655 (Quirk-Silva)
Page 7 of ?
court reporting services. Access to a quality record ensures
access to justice. A great reduction in equal access to
justice is a proceeding without a court reporter. If the
Salary Fund provides funding that supports keeping reporters
in court, it increases the public's access to a proceeding
with a record and court enhances access to justice.
[Moreover, given] that this legislation is permissive, but not
a mandate, it is unclear how this voluntary program erodes
management discretion. The intent here is to put forth a
solution oriented tool - to allow others to look at the
longevity of the successful program in Los Angeles and see if
such a model might be appropriate and beneficial in other
jurisdictions. This is their concern that a union
representing would bargain for the fund, therefore getting it
mandated. CCRA is not engaged in bargaining issues, since we
represent both union and non-union certified shorthand
reporters (CSRs).
[Lastly, the] "onus," as they state, is on the court to form
voluntary agreements with locals to help pay into the fund.
There is nothing mandatory about this bill and any attempt by
CCRA or anyone else to make it mandatory would fail miserably.
It is not lost on our reporters that at a time the when the
courts are eliminating their jobs, they are also opposed to a
voluntary effort that might keep a few of them.
Committee staff further notes that with respect to the argument
that this bill may create inequitable access to court reporter
services between courts that do or those that do not create a
Reporters' Fund, such inequality arguably already exists under
current law, given that Los Angeles County is the only county
with such a fund. As such, this bill could actually be seen by
some to help restore some of the existing inequity by allowing
other courts the option to develop Reporters' Funds as well.
With respect to the funding issue raised by the Judicial
Council, staff also notes that the silence arguably provides
more flexibility as to how such a fund would be funded. As
noted by the California State Association of Counties (CSAC),
which writes to remove their opposition to the bill based on
recent amendments, "the amended construct of the bill confers
the authority to establish a revolving reporters' fund at the
local level and gives flexibility going forward to exercise this
authority at the local level pursuant to opt-in, cooperative
agreements among willing parties."
AB 655 (Quirk-Silva)
Page 8 of ?
As a matter of public policy, insofar as the creation of this
fund is voluntary, and any Reporters' Salary Funds would be
dependent upon having appropriations that could then only be
used for the payment of court reporters and their salaries, this
bill appears to provide courts the flexibility to promote and
protect the vital function of court reporters and potentially
increase efficiencies in the administration of justice, much
like the Los Angeles County Superior Court.
Support : Los Angeles County Court Reporters Association;
Northern California Court Reporters Association; Orange County
Superior Court Reporters Association; San Bernardino Public
Employees Association; San Luis Obispo County Employees
Association; Service Employees International Union
Opposition : Judicial Council of California
HISTORY
Source : California Court Reporters Association
Related Pending Legislation : None Known
Prior Legislation : None Known
Prior Vote :
Assembly Floor (Ayes 71, Noes 1)
Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 16, Noes 0)
Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 10, Noes 0)
**************