Court Reporters Advisory Group (CRAG) Conference Call Summary October 17, 2013 Call Participants Meeting Overview Review of the Court Reporter Allocation Call Participants CRAG Participants JoAnn Bacheller, Official Court Reporter (MT) Nalene Benavides, Official Court Reporter (TX-W) Blanca Carvajal, Court Reporter Supervisor (CA-C) Molly Clayton, Official Court Reporter (IL-S) Tina Gallucci, Official Court Reporter (IN-N) Joe Haas, Clerk of Court (SD) Gary Hollinger, Chief Deputy Clerk (PA-M) Judy Wolff, Official Court Reporter (FL-S) Shirley Hall, NCRA Representative Joe Armstrong, USCRA Representative AO Participants Bob Lowney, Robert Faurot, Robin Cole, Court Programs Division Harvey Jones, Carolyn Peake, Policy and Strategic Initiatives Meeting Overview A conference call was held with the Court Reporters Advisory Group to receive input on the review of the court reporter allocation that will be discussed by the Committee on Judicial Resources (JRC) at the December 2013 meeting. Joe Armstrong, official court reporter in the Middle District of North Carolina, was welcomed as the newest member of the Group. He is replacing outgoing member Jan Davis as the United States Court Reporters Association representative to the Group. Review of the Court Reporter Allocation Harvey Jones of the Policy and Strategic Initiatives Office facilitated this portion of the call. Before the call, he provided the Group with talking points that outlined the discussion, including a list of proposed alternatives to the court reporter allocation. Harvey provided a brief background of this issue. In March 2012, the Executive Committee asked the JRC to review the method currently used to allocate court reporter funding to the courts with a view toward ensuring more efficient use of existing court reporter resources. The JRC deliberated this request in December 2012, but tabled action on the initiative until June 2013. Due to high priority workload at the time, the AO received approval from the JRC Chair to delay the June 2013 update to December 2013. In addition to the review of the allocation, the JRC requested further information on the use of electronic sound recording (ESR). The use of ESR systems is in the jurisdiction of the Committee on Court Administration and Case Management (CACM), and CACM agreed there is not enough information to support the use of ESR over a court reporter. CACM expressed concern that ESR technology is not capable of performing as accurately and consistently as a realtime court reporter. The agenda item that will be presented to the JRC will not address ESR technology issues. Harvey explained that the proposed alternatives to the court reporter allocation will be laid out in the agenda item, but no recommendation will be made. The JRC will review the information in the agenda item and provide a recommendation to the Judicial Conference or request more information from the AO. The agenda item will lay out empirical data as self reported by court reporters on the Form AO 40A Form (Attendance and Transcripts of U.S. Court Reporters). In calendar year 2012, the data from the AO 40A forms shows that the average time spent recording court proceedings, performing administrative work, preparing transcripts and traveling on official business was 1,405 hours per court reporter. The amount of time a full-time court employee is expected to be available is 1,763 hours per year after deducting for holiday and leave time. Thus, the average time court reporters spent performing court reporter duties (1,405), as self-reported on the AO 40A form, was 20.3 percent below what is expected (1,763) for full-time court staff. The 20.3 percent time utilization difference is factored into the allocation options discussed below. Harvey outlined the options that will be offered to the JRC for deliberation. Those options include two strategic approaches that either make no change to the aggregate court reporter allocation, or make changes that reduce the allocation. The options that make no change to the court reporter allocation include: 1. Make no change to the current allocation or process. 2. Make no change to the allocation, but turn court reporters' available hours over to the clerk for duties that may or may not be related to court reporting tasks. 3. Make no change to the current allocation, but redistribute the work units based on a court's specific workload. For example, if a court has 3.4 percent of the nation's workload, then 3.4 percent of the court reporter allocation is provided to that court. The options that reduce the court reporter allocation include: 4. Reduce the court reporter allotment to current onboard strength. Redistribute workload based on the workload model described in Option 3 above. 5. Reduce the court reporter allotment to current onboard strength; further adjust the allotment by reducing the number of court reporters by 50 percent of the 20.3 percent of court reporter time not dedicated to court reporter functions. Redistribute workload based on the workload model described in Option 3 above. 6. Reduce the court reporter allotment to current onboard strength; further adjust the allotment by reducing the number of court reporters by 100 percent of the 20.3 percent of court reporter time not dedicated to court reporter functions. Redistribute workload based on the workload model described in Option 3 above. The percentages of reductions in Options 5 and 6 are examples and are provided for the purpose of facilitating discussion. The percentages may be adjusted by the JRC to any percentage between zero and 100. Harvey asked the Group for their reactions and recommendations based on the talking points he outlined. Nalene expressed concern that the time court reporters wait in the courtroom for the judge is not always accounted for by court reporters. This time can be significant as reporters and other participants often wait forty minutes or more for the judge to take the bench. While the Form AO 40A instructions indicate that standby time in the courtroom should be included, court reporter supervisors may question this, as the time does not match up to the judge's in-court hours as recorded by the courtroom deputy (the deputies record only when the judge is at the bench). Other members agreed that because of the inherent discrepancy between court reporter time and judge's time as recorded by the courtroom deputy, some supervisors have asked court reporters to revise their hours so the time is consistent with the judges' in-court hours. JoAnn also pointed out that the field for transcript hours does not include the hours spent transcribing outside of the courthouse. She agrees that all time spent working on official transcripts should be included, not just time spent during regular working hours. There is general consensus from the Group that all transcript preparation hours should be included on the Form AO 40A. Tina provided input on the trend that administrative hours are increasing yearly. She said that in the last few years her administrative time has increased dramatically due to a variety of reasons, including a requirement to respond to frequent defendant letters; the increase in the use of realtime among judges and parties; and the policies surrounding filing transcripts in CM/ECF and redacting transcripts. Harvey assured the group that administrative hours are accepted at face value in the analysis, and the steady increase is explained in the agenda item, based on similar input gathered from the Group last year. He also pointed out that an increase in administrative time related to realtime services is validated by the increase in realtime pages accounted for on the AO 40A forms, and by a recent Federal Judicial Center survey in which judges indicated an increasing preference for realtime services. Joe A. pointed out that a significant amount of his unaccounted time is essential to his duties as a court reporter, including tasks such as breaking down and setting up equipment, going from courtroom to courtroom, and setting up and testing the realtime connections. There was agreement from the Group that activities directly related to supporting recording and transcript duties should be included in administrative time, but many reporters do not include miscellaneous tasks such as the ones described by Joe. There was general consensus among the Group that more information and guidance should be issued on accounting for administrative time on the AO 40A form. Joe H. pointed out that the courtroom deputy formula, which also provides a one-to-one ratio of courtroom deputies to active judges, accounts 18 percent of a deputy's time to unavoidable delay. Harvey said that the 18 percent downtime built into this formula provides that the courtroom deputies are supporting the clerk's office, which directly supports Option 2. Joe H. agreed with an earlier point that all transcript hours should be accounted for, and he also pointed out that currently some transcript hours are measured and others are not because of how official court reporters historically have operated in the federal courts. The original expectation was that all transcript preparation occurred outside of the courthouse while the forty-hour working week was devoted solely to recording court proceedings. Harvey asked the Group a question that he expects to receive from the Committee: why should any transcript hours be counted since reporters are paid for the transcript pages they produce? Tina said that transcripts ordered by judges are salaried duties for which no transcript income is received, and this time must be counted. Nalene said that equipment and training are significant expenses that reporters must pay for themselves. There is a financial benefit to the judiciary for court reporters to remain responsible for these expenses. Shirley said that the court reporter pay scale is different, and reporters do not have the frequent increases afforded to clerks' office staff. Harvey pointed out that the average court reporter salary is higher than the average clerk's office salary (this includes entry level employees, attorneys, clerks of court, etc). JoAnn said that producing transcripts is an official duty as prescribed by statute and included in the Guide to Judiciary Policy. Joe A. said that there is disincentive for court reporters to complete expedited transcripts in their off time if the transcript income were removed. A few of the court reporters on the Group recommended that Option 1 (make no change) will best support the needs of the judiciary. They also agreed that the twenty percent idle time is necessary and unavoidable. The supervisors (Joe H., Gary, and Blanca) all agreed that there should be no change to the formula as this will have a negative impact on the flexibility of the clerk's office, but that court reporters' available time should be utilized by the clerks' offices to assist with their workload and resource shortages, as described in Option 2.