BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1630
Page 1
Date of Hearing: March 20, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Mike Feuer, Chair
AB 1630 (Olsen) - As Amended: March 13, 2012
SUBJECT : STANISLAUS COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT: COURT REPORTER
COMPENSATION
KEY ISSUE : SHOULD STATUTORILY-PROTECTED RETIREMENT BENEFITS FOR
COURT REPORTERS IN STANISLAUS COUNTY BE ELIMINATED FOR NEW HIRES
DESPITE THE FACT THAT TERMINATION OF THOSE BENEFITS WAS REJECTED
DURING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING? WOULDN'T THIS BILL EFFECTIVELY
ALLOW THE COURT TO BYPASS THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PROCESS?
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed
non-fiscal.
SYNOPSIS
This controversial measure would, in addition to deleting
obsolete language regarding county compensation of court
employees, eliminate a statutorily mandated retirement benefit
for Stanislaus County Superior Court reporters first hired on or
after January 1, 2013. According to the author and management
officials for Stanislaus Superior Court, the additional
retirement compensation currently guaranteed to court reporters
in that county was originally provided in order to attract court
reporters to the jurisdiction in highly competitive market
conditions-an incentive that they argue is no longer necessary
given the competitiveness of court reporter salaries in
Stanislaus courts. The American Federation of State, County &
Municipal Employees (AFSCME) strongly opposes the bill on
grounds that, during recent collective bargaining negotiations,
Stanislaus Superior Court management relied on the existence of
that additional compensation provision in order to induce other
concessions from court reporters. AFSCME argues that this bill
represents an attempt by management to circumvent the collective
bargaining process in a manner that is inconsistent with
California law.
SUMMARY : Repeals a supplemental retirement benefits for court
reporters in Stanislaus County Superior Court and makes
non-substantive changes to reflect state trial court
responsibility for compensation of court employees.
AB 1630
Page 2
Specifically, this bill :
1)Eliminates a provision mandating that court reporters in
Stanislaus County receive additional retirement compensation
equal to the total of all per diem and transcription fees paid
to all of the regular reporters of the superior court, divided
by the number of official reporters, so that official court
reporters first hired on or after January 1, 2013 will no
longer receive this additional retirement compensation.
2)Deletes obsolete provisions authorizing the Stanislaus County
Board of Supervisors to take various actions related to the
hiring and compensation of Stanislaus County Superior Court
reporters in order to reflect the state's responsibility for
funding court operations and managing court personnel.
3)Retains a provision fixing the formula for per diem
compensation of official court reporters pro tempore for
Stanislaus County Superior Court.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides that the state trial courts are responsible for the
funding of court operations, including the salaries, wages,
and benefits for court reporters. (Government Code Sections
77200, 77003(a)(2); Cal. R. Ct. 10.810(d), Function 3. Unless
stated otherwise, all further references are to the Government
Code.)
2)Provides that the state trial courts, rather than the
counties, are responsible for employment and management of
trial court personnel. (Sections 71615(c)(5), 71601(l),
71645(a).)
3)Provides that the Trial Court Employment Protection and
Governance Act (TCEPGA), except where expressly provided, did
not modify or eliminate any existing wages, hours, or terms
and conditions of employment of trial court employees.
(Section 71612.)
4)Provides that, for the purposes of retirement, the
compensation of each court reporter of the Stanislaus County
Superior Court shall be, in addition to his or her salary, the
total of all per diem and transcription fees paid to all of
the regular reporters of the superior court for all reporting
AB 1630
Page 3
services, divided by the number of official reporters.
(Section 70047.1(e).)
5)Provides specified guarantees of salary increases and the per
diem rate received by official superior court reporters pro
tempore and the supervising reporter of the Stanislaus
Superior Court. (Section 70047.1(c), (h).)
COMMENTS : This bill's key provision repeals part of the
retirement compensation for new court reporters in the
Stanislaus County Superior Court, which is based upon the per
diem and transcription fees paid to court reporters in that
county. It also deletes provisions rendered obsolete by the
state's assumption of responsibility for court employee
management and compensation. The author states that the repeal
of additional retirement compensation would only affect new
hires, and argues that, while the additional benefit "once acted
as an incentive to attract court room reporters to the
Stanislaus County area, �it] is no longer necessary to recruit
qualified employees." As additional support for the bill, the
author notes the court's need to eliminate unnecessary costs and
the fact that Stanislaus is one of only two courts that provide
this additional retirement benefit (Fresno is the other court).
In support of the bill, the Stanislaus County Superior Court
writes:
We believe that the code section, when originally written,
was needed because of the competition for reporting services
that existed at the time. The reason the code section was
enacted no longer exists because the current court reporter
salaries are very competitive with those offered in the
private sector. As we understand, we are only one of two
courts statewide to provide such a benefit.
The new law will also save court operating expenses. In
the current economic climate and with the budget
reductions the courts have had to absorb for the last four
years, AB 1630 will help us to manage our dwindling
resources without adversely affecting any current
employees.
Elimination of Additional Retirement Compensation for Future
Hires . AFSCME opposes the bill on the grounds that it
AB 1630
Page 4
contravenes "a major tenet governing the process for
establishing the Trial Court Employee Protection and Governance
Act, which was to preserve employee protections established
prior to 2002." AFSCME asserts that the bill represents an
attempt to circumvent the collective bargaining process:
AFSCME strongly believes that this bill infringes upon the
collective bargaining rights of employees within Stanislaus
Superior Court. Six months ago, the court and its
employees ratified a new Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
During those negotiations, our members presented court
management with a number of proposals related to the
compensation of court reporters. Court management,
however, rejected the proposals stating that the court
reporters already benefitted from the enhanced retirement
benefits they are now seeking to eliminate.
The employees of Stanislaus Superior Court have provided
many concessions and cost savings with the ratification
of the current MOU. Specifically, court employees
agreed to a second tier for all new hires that increased
the retirement age and changed the benefit formula to
include the three highest consecutive years of salary
instead of the single highest year. It is fundamentally
disingenuous for the management of Stanislaus Superior
Court to extract concessions from its employees during
the collective bargaining process and then attempt to
utilize the Legislature to pilfer additional concessions
from its employees.
Repeal of Provisions Rendered Obsolete by State Trial Court
Funding and Personnel Management . The current version of
Section 70047.1 was enacted in 1990, prior to the state's
assumption of responsibility for the compensation and management
of trial court personnel. See Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court
Funding Act, AB 233 (Escutia and Pringle), Chap. 850, Stats.
1997; TCEPGA, SB 2140 (Burton), Chap. 1010, Stats. 2000. This
bill repeals various obsolete provisions in Section 70041.7 that
purport to authorize the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors
to take actions related to the employment and compensation of
court reporters in that county. In addition this bill retains a
provision fixing the compensation formula for pro tempore
reporters, but modifies the provision to reflect the fact that
the Stanislaus Superior Court, rather than the county, is
responsible for compensation of court reporters.
AB 1630
Page 5
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Stanislaus County Superior Court
Opposition
American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees
Analysis Prepared by : Leora Gershenzon and Josh Fox/ JUD. /
(916) 319-2334