BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|Hearing Date:April 4, 2011 |Bill No:SB |
| |671 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SENATE COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS, PROFESSIONS
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Senator Curren D. Price, Jr., Chair
Bill No: SB 671Author:Price
As Introduced: February 18, 2011 Fiscal: Yes
SUBJECT: Shorthand reporters.
SUMMARY: Requires the Court Reporters Board of California to
establish continuing education requirements for renewal of a shorthand
reporter certificate.
Existing law:
1) Certifies and regulates some 7,700 certified shorthand reporters
(CSRs) and regulates 16 shorthand reporting schools by the Court
Reporters Board of California (Board) within the Department of
Consumer Affairs (DCA).
2) Provides that a CSR certificate is valid for one year, and may be
renewed by applying for the certificate renewal, paying the renewal
fee, and notifying the Board of any substantially related criminal
convictions or of any disciplinary action taken by any regulatory
agency against the licensee. (Business and Professions Code (BPC) �
8024)
3) General provisions of the Business and Professions Code require the
director of DCA by regulation to develop guidelines for continuing
education programs within DCA. (BPC � 166)
This bill:
1) Requires the Board, by July 1, 2012, to establish minimum
continuing education requirements for renewal of a CSR certificate.
2) Requires, beginning July 1, 2012, a CSR renewing a certificate must
SB 671
Page 2
certify to the Board completion of the minimum continuing education
requirements.
3) Requires the Board to establish a procedure for approving
continuing education course providers, and requires continuing
education providers to comply with procedures established by the
Board.
4) Authorizes the Board to establish exceptions to the continuing
education requirements for individuals who cannot meet the
continuing education requirements for reasons of health, military
service, or undue hardship.
5) Requires the continuing education requirements to fully comply with
the guidelines for mandatory continuing education established by
DCA.
6) Authorizes the Board to adopt regulations to implement the
continuing education provisions.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. This bill has been keyed "fiscal" by
Legislative Counsel.
COMMENTS:
1. Purpose. This bill is sponsored by California Court Reporters
Association and Deposition Reporters Association (Sponsors) to
require the Board to establish minimum approved continuing
education requirements for renewal of all shorthand reporter (both
court reporters and "freelance" reporters) certificates on or
before July 1, 2012.
According to the Sponsors, there are currently no provisions which
ensure the consumer that the CSR is gaining or maintaining the
education necessary to stay updated on the rules, regulations and
statutes that affect the way they practice shorthand reporting.
The Sponsors believe that continuing education will provide
confidence to the citizens of the state that the verbatim record is
and will continue to be held to the highest possible standards.
Mandating continuing education requirements will ensure that all
rules, regulations and statutes specific to the CSR are known by
and followed by the CSR, according to the Sponsors.
2. Background. Certified shorthand reporters, commonly known as court
reporters, typically engage in one of two types of shorthand
reporting practice. "Official" reporters are individuals who work
SB 671
Page 3
as employees of the court system, and "freelance" reporters are
individuals hired privately by court reporting businesses and firms
or attorneys to report depositions. In order to obtain licensure,
both types of reporters must qualify by attending one of the 16
California schools of court reporting authorized by the Board and
passing two written exams and a performance exam. There are
currently approximately 7,700 certified shorthand reporter
licensees statewide. The CSR certificate is issued for a one-year
period, expiring on the last day of the birth month of the
licensee.
3. Judicial Counsel Continuing Education Requirement. Beginning
January 1, 2007, the Judicial Counsel of California adopted a
continuing education requirement for all personnel employed by the
Court , including court reporters (California Rules of Court, Title
10, Division 2, Chapter 8, Rule 10.451, ff.). The Rule requires
each employee to complete 8 hours of continuing education every 2
years. The Judicial Council has listed education as a vital
component in achieving the goals of its Long-Range Strategic Plan,
which including access, fairness, and diversity; branch
independence and accountability; modernization of management and
administration; and quality of justice and service to the public.
4. Continuing Education for Court Reporters: A Legislative Sunset
Review Issue. The issue of continuing education has been raised
when reviewing the Board under the sunset review process. In 1996,
the Joint Legislative Sunset Review Committee (Joint Committee)
noted that the Board had been instrumental in attempting to provide
leadership in the area of continuing education for the profession.
At that time, there had been much discussion about the pros and
cons of such requirements, but the Board had deleted a continuing
education proposal from its 1994 legislation when it learned that
the Governor would not approve it.
At that time the Board stated, that many in the profession believe
that the Board's pre-license testing system keeps the standard of
entry at an appropriate level, and the intensity demanded in the
day-to-day requirements in this occupation drives the individual
licensees to seek and find the educational training requirements
necessary on their own initiative. However, others believe that
the use of electronic information processing and the speed with
which technologies are changing, are putting more pressure on the
profession to keep the standard of performance at its highest
level.
Ultimately the Joint Committee's recommendation did not include
SB 671
Page 4
pursuing continuing education. The issue was again raised in the
2004/2005 review of the Board, however, the Joint Committee did not
recommend establishing a continuing education requirement.
The current sunset date for the Board is January 1, 2013. This
would make the Board subject to the oversight hearings by the
Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee in the
winter of 2011-2012, and require legislation to be carried to
extend the Board in 2012.
5. Prior Legislation. This bill is essentially identical to AB 2189
(Karnette) from 2008, which would have required the Court Reporters
Board of California to establish continuing education requirements
by July 1, 2009. That bill was vetoed by the Governor stating that
the continuing education requirements impose an additional burden
on the regulated profession without justifying a compelling need.
6. Arguments in Support. One of the Sponsors of this bill, California
Court Reporters Association (CCRA), states that currently there are
no structures in place that ensure that the CSR is gaining or
maintaining the education necessary to stay updated on the rules,
regulations and statutes affecting the practice of shorthand
reporting. The recently-adopted Judicial Council rules mandating
continuing education for all staff, including court reporters does
not specifically mandate that the official court reporter obtain
continuing education specifically as it relates to the job of court
reporting according to CCRA.
CCRA further states that in the world of ever-changing technology,
the consumer of the products and services of the CSR expect to be
offered and provided the latest technological advances that are
available; i.e. real time reporting, Internet text streaming,
transcript repositories, exhibit scanning and linking to
transcripts, and much more. The job of a CSR has really morphed
into more of an information manager, an important and integral
component to the litigation process, according to CCRA.
Concurring with the arguments above, the Deposition Reporters
Association of California (DRA) argues further that deposition
reporting is one of the most critical parts of our system of
resolving disputes. An accurate written record of who said what in
court is essential if the outcome of judicial proceeding is to be
accepted by the litigants and the public as non-arbitrary, fair,
and credible, and against a backdrop, where a single error can
translate into the distorted and arbitrary administration of
justice, deposition reporting professionals absolutely must, not
SB 671
Page 5
just at the time of licensure but throughout their careers,
maintain the highest possible level of ethics and competence to
protect consumers and our system of justice.
DRA suggests that continuing education as well as vigorous
enforcement are the two tools regulatory boards use to ensure a
sustained level of quality in licensed professionals throughout
their careers.
DRA additionally argues that although official reporters who work
in courtrooms must currently complete ongoing continuing education,
deposition reporters must ensure the integrity and accuracy of the
vital written record while working in a private commercial setting,
even though they are hired by one of the parties in often hotly
contested litigation.
7. Policy Considerations . In establishing a continuing education
requirement for CSRs, the Sponsors may wish to address several
significant issues:
a) It is unclear whether the continuing education requirement
of the bill is in addition to or the same as the continuing
education requirement established by the Judicial Council for
official reporters. The Sponsors may wish to clarify this
issue, and if necessary offer amendments to make clarification.
b) The bill is silent regarding the nature of the continuing
education that the Board is to require. Continuing education
courses should be relative to the practice of a CSR and should
promote continuing competency of the practitioner. The Sponsors
may wish to clarify this issue, and if necessary offer
amendments to make clarification.
c) The bill is silent on how many hours of continuing education
would be required for each annual license renewal period. Is it
the intention of the Sponsors to defer to the Board in
establishing the number of hours required, or should the minimum
number of hours be established in statute?
d) The bill requires the Board to establish requirements for
approving continuing education providers; but does not provide
for any fees for approving continuing education providers. It
is unclear whether the Board has the current funding and
staffing necessary to assume this new responsibility. The
Sponsors should consider establishing fees for those entities
seeking Board approval to be continuing education providers, in
SB 671
Page 6
order that other licensing fees do not subsidize the continuing
education program.
8. Policy Concern : Is Continuing Education Necessary? The arguments
for the bill focus on informing CSRs about changes in laws and
regulation, court procedures, and technological advances in the
profession. However, the proponents should clearly document the
harm that consumers encounter without a mandatory continuing
education requirement for licensees.
A mandatory continuing education requirement would generate
unspecified costs to licensees and generate corresponding revenues
to continuing education providers, which typically are educational
institutions and professional associations. The Board would also
incur costs in establishing continuing education standards and
tracking licensee compliance. In light of the low number of
complaints by consumers and enforcement actions against licensees,
what is the demonstrated need to mandate continuing education? The
proponents should address the justification for, cost, and
availability of such continuing education before going forward with
a continuing education proposal.
It may be useful to draw a distinction between continuing education
that is undertaken voluntarily by conscientious, motivated
practitioners, versus continuing education that is undertaken
involuntarily by unwilling or unmotivated practitioners. While
continuing education seems intuitively to be highly beneficial to
licensees and the consumer public, there is no empirical evidence
that demonstrates a clear conjunction between a continuing
education mandate and improved practitioner competence.
SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION:
Support:
California Court Reporters Association (Sponsor)
Deposition Reporters Association (Sponsor)
Opposition:
None received as of March 30, 2011.
Consultant:G. V. Ayers
SB 671
Page 7