Bill Text: CA AB253 | 2019-2020 | Regular Session | Amended

NOTE: There are more recent revisions of this legislation. Read Latest Draft

---

Bill Title: Remote court reporting.

Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Democrat 1-0)

Status: (Passed) 2019-10-02 - Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 419, Statutes of 2019. [AB253 Detail]

Download: California-2019-AB253-Amended.html

---

Amended  IN  Senate  June 13, 2019

CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2019–2020 REGULAR SESSION

Assembly Bill

No. 253

---

Introduced by Assembly Member Mark Stone

January 23, 2019

---

An act to amend Section 66018.55 of the Education Code, relating to postsecondary education. An act to add and repeal Section 69959 of the Government Code, relating to courts.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

AB 253, as amended, Mark Stone. Postsecondary education: social security numbers: task force: reporting. Remote court reporting.

Existing law authorizes a superior court to appoint official court reporters and specifies the fees for court reporting services.

This bill would authorize, only until January 1, 2022, the Santa Clara Superior Court to conduct a pilot project to study the potential use of remote court reporting, as defined, to make the verbatim record of certain court proceedings. The bill would require, if the court elects to conduct the pilot project, the remote court reporting to be performed only by official reporters of the Santa Clara Superior Court who have at least 5 years of courtroom experience and only in certain types of cases, including child support and misdemeanor cases. The bill would require the presiding judge of the Santa Clara Superior Court to appoint a committee to prepare a report to the Legislature on the results of the pilot project and would require the committee’s report to be presented to the Legislature within 6 months of the conclusion of the pilot project. The bill would require the pilot project to terminate no later than December 31, 2020.

Existing law establishes the University of California, under the administration of the Regents of the University of California, the California State University, under the administration of the Trustees of the California State University, and the California Community Colleges, under the administration of the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges, and private, independent institutions of higher education as the 4 segments of postsecondary education in this state. Existing law requires the Office of Privacy Protection in the Department of Consumer Affairs to establish a task force, with specified members, to conduct a review of the use by all public and private colleges and universities in this state of social security numbers in order to recommend practices to minimize the collection, use, storage, and retention of social security numbers. Existing law requires the task force to submit a report of its findings and recommendations to the Office of Privacy Protection and to the Assembly Committee on Judiciary and the Senate Committee on Judiciary, on or before July 1, 2010.

This bill would repeal that obsolete reporting requirement.

Digest Key

Vote: MAJORITY   Appropriation: NO   Fiscal Committee: NOYES   Local Program: NO  

---

Bill Text

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

SECTION 1.

 Section 69959 is added to the Government Code, to read:

69959.

 (a) For purposes of this section, “remote court reporting” means the use of a phonographic reporter who is not present in the courtroom to take down a verbatim record of court proceedings that are transmitted by audio or audiovisual means to the reporter.

(b) The Santa Clara Superior Court is authorized to conduct a pilot project to study the potential use of remote court reporting to make the verbatim record of certain court proceedings. If the court elects to conduct this pilot project, the pilot project shall comply with all of the following requirements:

(1) The remote court reporting shall be performed only by official reporters of the Santa Clara Superior Court who have at least five years of courtroom experience.

(2) The official reporters shall be physically located in Santa Clara Superior Court facilities while performing the remote reporting. After 180 days of meaningful remote reporting testing, the Santa Clara Superior Court and the exclusive representative of the official reporters of the Santa Clara Superior Court may, by mutual agreement, agree to include an additional off-site location to test remote reporting.

(3) A maximum of two courtrooms may be equipped to participate in the pilot project.

(4) Remote court reporting may be used only to report proceedings in limited civil cases and child support, misdemeanor, and infraction cases.

(5) Transcripts created through remote court reporting as part of the pilot project may be used whenever a transcript of court proceedings is required. The fees of the official reporter and costs of transcript preparation for remote court reporting shall be the same as when an official reporter is present in the courtroom.

(6) The presiding judge of the Santa Clara Superior Court shall appoint a committee to prepare a report to the Legislature on the results of the pilot project. The committee shall include at least two judicial officers who participated in the pilot project, at least two official reporters chosen by the exclusive bargaining representative of the official reporters of the Santa Clara Superior Court, and at least two attorneys who regularly practice in the Santa Clara Superior Court. The committee’s report shall be presented to the Legislature, in accordance with Section 9795, within six months of the conclusion of the pilot project.

(7) The pilot project shall terminate by no later than December 31, 2020. The Santa Clara Superior Court shall terminate the pilot project earlier if the court determines that the use of remote court reporting is prejudicing the rights of litigants or the interests of justice.

(c) Except as authorized by this section, remote court reporting shall not be used by courts to make the record of any court proceedings, and courts shall not expend any funds to purchase equipment or software to facilitate the use of remote court reporting.

(d) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2022, and as of that date is repealed.

SECTION 1.Section 66018.55 of the Education Code is amended to read:

66018.55.

(a)As used in this section, “college and university” includes all institutions of public higher education and all independent institutions of higher education.

(b)The Office of Privacy Protection in the Department of Consumer Affairs shall establish a task force to conduct a review of the use by all colleges and universities of social security numbers in order to recommend practices to minimize the collection, use, storage, and retention of social security numbers in relation to academic and operational needs and applicable legal requirements.

(c)The task force shall be known as the “College and University Social Security Number Task Force.” The Office of Privacy Protection shall determine the composition of the task force, which shall include, but not be limited to, all of the following:

(1)Two representatives from each of the three institutions of public higher education.

(2)Two representatives of the California Association of Independent Colleges and Universities.

(3)Two representatives each from two organizations devoted to the protection of personal privacy.

(4)One representative from a national organization devoted to the management of information technology in higher education.

(5)One representative from the business community with expertise in technological solutions to privacy concerns.

(6)One representative each from the Assembly Committee on Judiciary and the Senate Committee on Judiciary.

(d)The task force shall seek input, as deemed necessary and appropriate, from all of the following:

(1)Representatives of organizations with expertise in technical policy and practices of Internet disclosure, privacy policy relevant to Internet disclosure, and fostering public integrity and accountability.

(2)The constituencies of the college and university communities, including students, staff, and faculty.

(e)The task force shall review and make recommendations to minimize the collection, use, storage, and retention of social security numbers by California colleges and universities and shall include, but not be limited to, all of the following:

(1)A survey of best practices at colleges and universities and the costs of implementing those best practices.

(2)The necessary use and protection of social security numbers for all of the following:

(A)Research purposes.

(B)Academic purposes, including, but not limited to, academic research, admission, financial aid, and other related operational uses.

(C)Operational uses by academic medical centers, including, but not limited to, patient identification, tracking, and care.

(D)Business purposes, including, but not limited to, the provision of employee benefits, tax purposes, loan programs, and other requirements imposed by current state and federal statutes and regulations.

(E)Another operational need of the college or university.

(3)Current personal privacy protections provided to students, applicants, staff, and faculty of colleges and universities.

(4)Existing state and federal legal requirements, including regulatory requirements, mandating the use of social security numbers at colleges and universities.

(5)The possible use of personal identifiers or other substitutes for social security numbers that protect personal information and meet the operational needs of colleges and universities.

(6)The cost of funding any recommendations presented by the task force, including those that are of minimal cost and can be implemented immediately and those that require additional funding or time to implement.

(f)The task force shall commence meetings no later than May 1, 2008.