At its public meeting, the Court Reporters Board of California heard multiple public comments reporting technical problems with the online test delivery used for the skills portion of the court reporter licensing exam and discussed possible scheduling changes to reduce late, unsuccessful submissions.

Several test takers and instructors described interruptions linked to the remote proctoring service and the secure browser used for the exam. Tara O'Connor, identified as a West Valley student, said the problems included “lateness computer privacy concerns and Proctor inconsistency,” and asked the board to consider offering an in‑person option next year. Priscilla Galtney, identified as a CCRA student‑support chair, said ProctorU “has caused a lot of issues” and urged more flexibility for candidates. Zanna Costa, a West Valley instructor, recommended increased outreach on deadlines and suggested the board post exam dates and deadlines on social media so students can see them early. Stacy Gaskill, an official court reporter, supported reserving five days for retests for candidates who experience technical issues.

Board staff presented statistics for the skills portion of the most recent administration. The report said: “We had a total of 141 total applications, of which 33 were voice writers. We had a 120 actually take the exam, of which 94 were able to successfully submit exams for grading.” Staff added that “59 candidates scheduled for the last 5 days,” and that some candidates who experienced technical issues in that final window could not reschedule because proctors require 72 hours’ advance notice. Staff later explained that of the candidates who did not submit, some “just felt they failed it” and were not all technical failures.

Board members discussed procedural fixes. Several members proposed reserving the final days of the testing window for retests to account for technical failures; others pushed back, saying candidates should follow the published instructions and schedule proctors at least 72 hours in advance. One board member suggested outreach to trade associations and training programs so instructors can reiterate timing and scheduling requirements to students. Staff agreed to review notice placement and increase outreach; no formal policy change or vote on an altered testing schedule was made during the meeting.

Public commenters offered to compile and submit written problem reports. Tara O'Connor and others said they would gather ProctorU incident accounts and provide them to staff for review. Staff invited commenters to share specific incident details by contacting board staff.