BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2629|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2629
Author: Roger Hernández (D)
Amended: 8/15/16 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 5-1, 6/28/16
AYES: Jackson, Hertzberg, Leno, Monning, Wieckowski
NOES: Anderson
NO VOTE RECORDED: Moorlach
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 8/11/16
AYES: Lara, Beall, Hill, McGuire, Mendoza
NOES: Bates, Nielsen
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 52-26, 6/2/16 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Court reporters
SOURCE: California Court Reporters Association
DIGEST: This bill incrementally increases the fees that court
reporters can charge for transcripts, and copies thereof, over
the next five years, as specified. This bill also requires the
Judicial Council to report, as specified, recommendations to the
Legislature to increase uniformity in transcript rate
expenditures in California.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
AB 2629
Page 2
1)Establishes the California Court Reporters Board (CRB) with,
among other things, the authority and responsibility to
determine the qualifications of persons applying for
certification as a shorthand reporter; make rules for the
examination of applicants and the issuing of certificates of
qualification in professional shorthand reporting; investigate
the actions of any licensee, upon receipt of a verified
complaint in writing from any person, for alleged acts or
omissions constituting grounds for disciplinary action, as
specified; and charge and collect authorized fees.
2)Establishes the Transcript Reimbursement Fund (TRF) for the
purpose of providing shorthand reporting services to
low-income litigants in civil cases who are unable to
otherwise afford those services. More specifically, existing
law requires funds generated by court reporter licensing fees,
in excess of funds needed to support the CRB's operating
budget, to be used by the CRB for the purpose of establishing
and maintaining the TRF. The TRF will sunset on January 1,
2017, unless another statute is enacted before that date to
delete or extend the sunset date.
3)Authorizes a person appearing pro se at any stage of the case
to apply to receive assistance with transcription costs from
the TRF, subject to a limit of $1,500 per case and not to
exceed $30,000 annually for all cases. This provision will
sunset on January 1, 2017, unless another statute is enacted
before that date to delete or extend the sunset date.
4)Specifies the following transcript-related fees:
The fee for transcription for the original copy is $0.85
for each 100 words (also known as the "folio rate");
The fee for each copy purchased at the same time by the
court, party, or other person purchasing the original is
$0.15 per 100 words; and
AB 2629
Page 3
The fee for a first copy to any court, party, or other
person who does not simultaneously purchase the original is
$0.20 per 100 words, and $0.15 for each additional copy
purchased at the same time.
1)Provides that, notwithstanding the above, if a local trial
court had established transcription fees in effect on January
1, 2012, based on an estimate as to the number of words or
folios on a typical transcript page, those transcription fees
shall be the transcription fees for proceedings in those trial
courts, and the policy or practice for determining
transcription fees in those trial courts shall not be
unilaterally changed.
This bill:
1)Provides, instead, that transcription fee for the original
printed copy, which reflects an amount assessed for each 100
words, will be charged as follows:
From January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2018: $0.93 per
100 words (an increase from $0.85);
From January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2020: $1.03 per
100 words; and
Beginning January 1, 2021: $1.13 per 100 words.
1)Provides that the fee for each copy purchased at the same time
by the court, party, or other person purchasing the original
will be charged as follows:
From January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2018: $0.16 per
100 words (an increase from $0.15);
From January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2020: $0.18 per
AB 2629
Page 4
100 words; and
Beginning January 1, 2021: $0.20 per 100 words.
1)Provides that the fee for a first copy to any court, party, or
other person who does not simultaneously purchase the original
will be charged as follows:
From January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2018: $0.21 per
100 words (an increase from $0.20), and $0.16 for each
additional copy purchased at the same time;
From January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2020: $0.23 per
100 words, and $0.18 for each additional copy purchased at
the same time; and
Beginning January 1, 2021: $0.26 per 100 words, and
$0.20 for each additional copy purchased at the same time.
1)Provides that the fee for transcription is an additional 50
percent for special daily copy service, whereas existing law
provides that: for transcription, in civil cases, the court
reporter may charge an additional 50 percent for special daily
copy service.
2)Requires, on or before January 1, 2021, the Judicial Council
report to the Legislature recommendations to increase
uniformity in transcript rate expenditures in California, as
specified. The intent of the report shall not be to reduce
the rate of pay or overall compensation to reporters or
jeopardize collective bargaining agreements and the Council
shall work in collaboration with specified stakeholder groups
for these purposes.
3)Includes specified findings and declarations.
AB 2629
Page 5
Background
CRB is charged with certifying and regulating shorthand
reporters, who perform a vital function for the courts and
litigants in providing official, verbatim records of a variety
of proceedings. (See Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 8017.) The
importance of this transcription function, by such licensed
individuals, is reflected in California law, which requires that
an official reporter or official 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, in specified cases. (See Code
Civ. Proc. Sec. 269.) Existing law also provides that the
report of the official reporter, or the official reporter pro
tempore, of any court, duly appointed and sworn, when
transcribed and certified as being a correct transcript of the
testimony and proceedings in the case, is prima facie evidence
of the testimony and proceedings. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec.
273(a).)
Since 1981, CRB has been charged with administering the TRF,
fully supported by an augmentation in the licensing fees imposed
upon certified shorthand reporters. The purpose of the TRF is to
ensure that low-income litigants in civil cases are able to
afford deposition and court transcripts by reimbursing eligible
applicants or certified shorthand reporters for the cost of
preparing an original transcript and/or copy of a California
state court or deposition proceeding. Attorneys for indigent
litigants apply to the TRF for payments to be made to court
reporters for their work in preparing court and deposition
transcripts in their cases. With TRF in existence, low-income
individuals are afforded access to services that might otherwise
be unavailable. When established, the program was scheduled for
sunset on June 30, 1986. Since then the sunset has been extended
several times, most recently to January 1, 2017. Notably, the
TRF consists of a Pro Bono program and a Pro Per Program, both
of which ensure indigent litigants have access to court
reporting transcripts for civil cases. In January 1, 2011,
AB 2629
Page 6
recognizing that the TRF has historically been underutilized by
indigent litigants represented by pro bono attorneys or
qualified non-profit entities, the Pro Per Program was
implemented as a pilot project in order to maximize the benefits
of the TRF and expand access to justice to those most in need.
The pilot project ran through January 1, 2013, and was capped at
$30,000 per calendar year, with a $1,500 cap per case. This
project is also scheduled to be repealed on January 1, 2017,
unless legislation extends that date. Under the TRF programs,
CRB has paid more than $8.5 million to licensed reporters.
(Senate Committee on Business, Professions and Economic
Development and Assembly Committee on Business and Professions,
Background Paper for the Court Reporters Board (Mar. 9, 2016)
Page 7
or after June 30, 2011, and every June 30 thereafter, the bill
would have required that these costs to be increased according
to the cumulative increase in the Consumer Price Index for All
Urban Consumers, as specified. Ultimately, AB 582 was gutted
and amended into another topic and died in the Senate Judiciary
Committee without a hearing.
This bill seeks to increase the transcript fees that may be
charged by court reporters for the first time since legislation
was over 25 years ago, setting the current rates.
Comments
As stated by the author:
California has not adjusted the court transcript fee collected
by court reporters since 1990. Court reporters employed by
the courts are currently paid under a dual compensation
structure in which the base salary of a court reporter is
supplemented by the income from preparing required transcripts
and providing other required transcription services. The dual
compensation structure protects the state from bearing the
full cost of transcript preparation and other transcription
services. This avoids the resulting consequences of overtime
liability related to these services.
In order to bring parity and fair compensation for court
reporters, this bill advances a modest transcript fee
adjustment. This will ensure the system of dual compensation
is up to date in providing sufficient payment for
transcription services.
The following is a chart of the proposed fee adjustment:
AB 2629
Page 8
-------------------------------------------------------
| |2016 |2017-2018|2019-2020|2021 |
| | | | | |
|------------------+---------+---------+---------+------|
|Original printed |$0.85 |$0.93 |$1.03 |$1.13 |
|copy. | | | | |
|------------------+---------+---------+---------+------|
|Copy purchased at |$0.15 |$0.16 |$0.18 |$0.20 |
|same time as | | | | |
|original. | | | | |
|------------------+---------+---------+---------+------|
|First copy |$0.20 |$0.21 |$0.23 |$0.26 |
|without | | | | |
|simultaneously | | | | |
|purchasing the | | | | |
|original. | | | | |
|------------------+---------+---------+---------+------|
|Each copy |$0.15 |$0.16 |$0.18 |$0.20 |
|purchased without | | | | |
|simultaneously | | | | |
|purchasing the | | | | |
|original. | | | | |
-------------------------------------------------------
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.:
YesLocal: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Trial court costs: Potentially significant increase in annual
court costs (General Fund*) resulting from the transcript fee
increases imposed incrementally over five years. Court
expenditures on transcripts total about $20 million annually.
Based on the proposed fee increases, costs to the courts
statewide could potentially increase incrementally by up to
$1.8 million to $6.6 million (General Fund*) over the
five-year period, and annually thereafter, assuming a
consistent level of transcription usage and adoption of the
mandated rates statewide. However, Senate Appropriations staff
AB 2629
Page 9
notes the estimated statewide costs are projected to be lower
to account for the proportion of costs attributable to local
courts with pre-2012 established rates that may remain
unchanged. At the time of this analysis, the data indicating
the proportion of annual costs attributable to courts with
grandfathered rates was unavailable.
Transcript Reimbursement Fund: Potential future increases in
reimbursements paid out of the TRF (Special Fund**) for higher
reimbursement costs for transcripts for low income litigants,
to the extent the CRB and its administration of the TRF are
extended beyond the impending sunset date of January 1, 2017.
*Trial Court Trust Fund
**Transcript Reimbursement Fund
SUPPORT: (Verified8/12/16)
California Court Reporters Association (source)
Alameda County Official Court Reporters Association
Butte County Superior Court Reporters
Contra Costa Superior Court Reporters
Los Angeles County Court Reporters Association
Marin County Superior Court Reporters
Northern California Court Reporters Association
Orange County Superior Court Reporters Association
Sacramento Official Court Reporters Association
San Diego Superior Court Reporters Association
Service Employees International Union California
Tulare County Superior Court Reporters
OPPOSITION: (Verified8/12/16)
Judicial Council
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The sponsor, the California Court
Reporters Association (CCRA), writes that court reporter
AB 2629
Page 10
transcripts "are vital to the delivery of justice in California.
Parties regularly rely on court records to prepare for future
hearings, explore potential legal theories, as well as, ensure
compliance with statutory and constitutional requirements. In
essence, an official transcript is used both to enable parties
to fully exercise their legal rights and to provide some level
of accountability of our judicial process." CCRA explains that
court reporters spend thousands of dollars to purchase their own
equipment and frequently pay out of pocket for continuing
education courses as well as other ongoing costs. Their
profession is "subject to a dual compensation structure. The
hours we work at the courthouse are paid for through a
traditional employee wage or salary model. However, whenever an
official transcript must be produced, we are required to spend
evenings and weekends doing the work. This is uncompensated
through salary or wages." Instead, their work is compensated by
the statutory transcript fee, which has not "been updated since
1991, falling far behind the rate of inflation. AB 2629 will
address this outdated fix rate fee by implementing a modest
increase that still lags behind 100 [percent] of inflation.
However, this update will help ensure that court reporters are
reasonably compensated."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: In opposition, the Judicial Council
writes, in part:
As originally drafted, AB 2629 would have created statewide
consistency in the cost of court reporters' transcripts. Each
county would have been subject to the same increase in costs,
allowing the branch as a whole to effectively attempt to
predict the costs, and consequently, to plan and budget for
them. The reintroduction of paragraph (c) [of existing law]
in each subsequent version of Government Code section 69950
eliminates this consistency and reinstates the current,
county-by-county negotiated transcript rates that have
hampered statewide budgeting efforts. As the judicial branch
has moved to a statewide funding model, this anachronistic
hodgepodge of transcript rates has hampered attempts to
effectively and consistently predict budget outlays and
requirements. Should AB 2629 pass and become law, thereby
AB 2629
Page 11
increasing the transcript fees statewide, it is a perfect
opportunity to allow for the consistent budgetary
predictability that statewide funding requires.
Because the Judicial Council is concerned with the fiscal
impact the bill will have on the branch [ . . . ] the council
also opposes AB 2629 unless funding for the increased cost for
transcripts is provided. As an alternative to an
appropriation in the bill itself, the council could withdraw
its opposition if the implementation of the transcript fee
increases are made contingent upon an appropriation in the
annual budget act. [ . . . ]
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 52-26, 6/2/16
AYES: Alejo, Arambula, Atkins, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brown,
Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper,
Dababneh, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia,
Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray,
Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Lopez,
Low, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Quirk,
Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Mark Stone,
Thurmond, Ting, Weber, Williams, Wood, Rendon
NOES: Achadjian, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Brough, Chang,
Chávez, Dahle, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Jones, Kim, Lackey,
Linder, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, Melendez, Obernolte,
Olsen, Patterson, Steinorth, Wagner, Waldron, Wilk
NO VOTE RECORDED: Daly, Beth Gaines
Prepared by:Ronak Daylami / JUD. / (916) 651-4113
8/15/16 20:22:27
**** END ****