Board reviews budget, licensing numbers, transcript reimbursement payouts and Supreme Court case affecting recording rules

At its October meeting, the Court Reporters Board of California received reports from Executive Officer Yvonne Fenner and staff on budget and fund condition, licensing statistics, examination results, transcript reimbursement payouts and a pending Supreme Court case that could affect electronic recording in court proceedings.

Budget and fund condition Executive Officer Yvonne Fenner reviewed fiscal year‑end expenditure projections and the updated CRB fund condition. Staff reported a small reversion to the board fund and noted that the board is using the last of a general fund grant received in prior years. Starting in the 2026‑27 budget year, staff projected transfers of $150,000 per year to the Transcript Reimbursement Fund (TRF) while noting the board remains authorized to transfer up to $300,000 per year; board staff said they would monitor months in reserve closely and watch revenue from new licensees and ongoing expenditures.

Licensing and exam statistics Board staff reported the following licensing and testing details (numbers cited by staff): - Stated skills‑exam applications and scheduling: one skills exam cycle had 113 applications (66 first‑time applicants); the upcoming November skills exam cycle showed 108 total applications in staff materials. - Voice writer and dual certification counts: "as of October 14" staff reported 332 voice writers, including 28 reporters certified in both steno and voice methods. - Reciprocity and firm registrations: staff reported 144 licenses issued via reciprocity with NVRA and 169 firms with active registrations.

Transcript Reimbursement Fund and pro bono payouts Board staff reported that pro bono and Transcript Reimbursement Fund payments continue to be in demand. Staff said they had paid out more than $20,000 for the pro bono program this fiscal year and that since allowing pro per litigants to apply the program has distributed over $400,000 since 2011. Staff also reported provisional approvals and pending claims in the packet; staff said the TRF remains an important resource and that transfers will be monitored in conjunction with operating reserves.

Exams and test proctoring Board staff and members discussed test security and proctoring. Staff recommended continuing to require live proctors for board exams; the board expressed concerns about some proctors' behavior raised by commenters but agreed to maintain proctored testing for now. Board members emphasized the need to work with vendors and schools to ensure proctors are trained and that proctor issues are addressed on a case‑by‑case basis.

Pending California Supreme Court matter Executive Officer Fenner updated the board on Family Violence Appellate Project v. Superior Court (case S288176), a matter that questions whether a prohibition on electronic recording of certain proceedings (as in the Government Code citation discussed at the meeting) violates the California Constitution when an official court reporter is unavailable and a litigant cannot afford a private reporter. The Supreme Court has ordered respondents and the legislature to show cause; the board will continue to follow the case because a decision could have lasting impacts on how recordings and official transcripts are handled in California courts.

Why it matters Budget projections and TRF transfers can affect availability of funds for indigent litigants and transcript reimbursement programs. Licensing and testing statistics inform workforce planning and the board’s decisions about exam format and training. The pending Supreme Court decision could alter the legal environment for electronic recording and the circumstances under which a transcript is produced or certified.

Next steps The board asked staff to continue monitoring fund condition and TRF claims, to coordinate with schools and vendors on any test‑format transition, and to track the Supreme Court case for potential policy or rule changes.