Came to my attention that under 2422 California test takers were allowed to review their dictation licensing test. At least one source has stated that since 2020, CSR candidates have not been entitled to review their test.
Since the CA CSR Board has been violating the law for at least four years, they’ve decided to correct that by changing the rules so that they simply won’t allow people to review their test. Ana Fatima Costa is spearheading some activism related to this. Allowing our students to review errors can only improve pass rates. If you want to help, go take a look now. This is really something that you want all your state legislators and the people on Ana’s list to be looking at, because it’s a good example of how government should not be doing its business. It’s shady. I’ll demonstrate how:
Word on the street is that this is about preventing cheating. Oh, I’m glad that we’re worried about cheating suddenly after all these decades and not the alleged shortage of doom that allegedly requires the wholesale replacement of stenographic court reporters with digital court reporters. It’s not our fault you only have 20 tests in the vault and can’t be bothered to periodically write more. Sounds like you manufactured a problem to get a desired result, at least to anyone that thinks about it for more than five seconds.
The CA CSR Board is the poster child for my corruption arguments. Let’s put it this way: If the Board is 100% uncorrupted, they’ve done everything in their power to look as dirty as possible. The CA CSR Board is known for failing to protect consumers and crushing working people. If you’re using all of your regulatory power, authority, and trust to make it harder for us to license actual court reporters, laying down the law on solo practitioners, and hurriedly looking away when the multiverse of corporate America breaks the law by using digital, then you are effectively handicapping our side of the market and the motivations for that become fair game for discussion. Yeah, I get it, it’s pretty lucrative for the government to ignore these things, let these businesses spend some money trying their luck at taking that work off the plates of California CSRs using the companies’ illegal business models, and take a slice every time a dollar gets spent in that competition while simultaneously milking the CSRs for their dues. Does that make it right? Does that mean that we should treat corporations better than people wherever it’s economically convenient?
First Amendment was made for issues like ours.
P.S.
I know digital court reporters can’t be court reporters in California. I use the verbiage I do for the standardization of language and so that when people find out digital court reporting is a scam, they don’t get confused! It also picks up better in search engines. It’s like the typing/writing thing. We can’t force the whole world to use the language we want them to use. We can, however, stand up and speak out against state-sanctioned lawbreaking. We can share why we prefer the language we prefer.
I’ve been told a participant in a public hearing was muted because they asked when survey results from a survey done by the board would be published. I sure wish I could use my government-granted powers to silence people that ask questions I don’t like. That’s the American dream, baby.
If any of you have lawyer friends, maybe it’s time for us to crowdfund some writs, or lobbying, or whatever makes us enough of a headache that the games and obvious deflections end. I guarantee you that your success is directly related to how many people you can get to take action.
You cool with that?
The CRB’s list of ACTIVE CSR licensees had a glitch recently. It showed almost 1,000 active licensees as “Deactive,” yet with expiration dates in the future. I personally reached of to a few on the list who I know to be working reporters, and they were unaware, and working. I believe this was intentionally done by the CRB and whoever they’re colluding with to intentionally reduce the number of active CSR’s on the list in CA so it bolsters the “shortage” narrative – – – so that the judges could install electronic recording equipment in the courts in CA. This came at a time the legislature was crafting SB 662 which would give the thumbs up to the courts to record all civil unlimited and family proceedings. But the judges in unlimited civil cases have been recording unlimited civil proceedings anyway, in anticipation of 662 passing, in violation of Government Code 69957. They even put the signs up in their courtrooms that are used in LIMITED civil courtrooms that say recording is allowed under that code – which only refers to LIMITED cases, NOT unlimited and family law cases. But that law hasn’t been passed yet. The judges have been taking things into their own hands and are now legislating from the bench. And intentionally deceiving the public with these signs meant for limited cases, probably thinking no one would ever question it if it’s on a sign posted on the bunch under their name tags. Talk about corruption. * * And now on the CRB board is GLOBALIST Mike Dodge-Nam, appointed in 2023. He’s an officer at RoarSocial who has on their advisory board Globalists including Jeff Raikes, CEO of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; philanthropist and entrepreneur Mark Rockefeller. The GLOBALIST agenda includes absolute control and a one world government. What it means for court reporters is replacing us as the guardian of the record and giving that role to the courts who would OWN the record. Are you starting to see the big picture here? The GLOBALISTS have been financing the BigBoxes and their Digital push. Absolute power & control corrupts absolutely. If they own the record, there is no more democracy or justice in America.
I appreciate your comment very much. To be honest I could at least to some extent appreciate the desires of businesspeople, I just don’t think they should supersede a state or nation’s laws.
I’m a Capitalist and pro-business. But this is law breaking and I don’t condone that in any form. I am also American and believe in the American Justice System and this is a direct attack on Democracy and justice and freedom! This is much bigger than just profits and business. This is now political. It’s a bigger enemy we are fighting, with a lot more money than we ever imagines. This is no longer the private equity profiteers we thought we were fighting against.
I’m also pretty pro-business. But I do believe we should all be playing under the same rules.
The board approved policies and procedures for online testing in a public meeting way back in 2017 that eliminated the right to appeal online test results.
Appeal or review? And if they changed it in 2017, why does it need to be changed again in 2024?
My understanding is they are changing the CCR regulations, which applied to in-person testing, to correspond with the previously approved online testing policies. The CRB also voted and approved this specific change regarding 2422 back in November 2020 at a board meeting. I am unsure why it did not result in actual language change back then.
But what good are these changes except ensuring fewer people pass the CSR? It was already the hardest test in the country, no?
I don’t have firsthand knowledge. I only know what I’ve been told.
My understanding is they are changing 2422, which applied to in-person testing, to now match the previously approved online testing policies from 2017. The CRB also voted and approved changing the language of these regulations in November 2020. I am unclear why that never resulted in a full regulation change back then.
I do not know the statistics of how many people have appealed and succeeded before this change, so any arguments regarding that are not based in fact at this point and are purely speculative.
The CCR also states that you will be notified in writing if you pass or fail, so even knowing your score is not a so-called right as it currently stands.
It’s not speculative. It’s common sense. If you let people see their errors, they’ll improve. My school operated this way. Any school worth its salt seems to have operated this way. I don’t really see an actual argument for getting rid of the appeal and review process except “they want to do this anyway.”
Yeah. They want to do it. And they did this, this, and that to get it done. And for those that this adversely affects, I guess they don’t matter. Right?
Again, while breaking the law, the board is looking away from the corporations breaking the law. I see no reason to make excuses for or defend this behavior.
NCRA does not let you appeal, nor do they tell you what your errors are. The CRB took many of their policies and procedures from the easy NCRA conducts online testing. The arguments could have been made back in 2017 when this was approved. And why has there not been uproar since 2020 when people were not allowed to appeal?
The NCRA’s tests do not and have never had the same reputation as California’s CSR.
Maybe the people that have an issue with it took a while to find each other and organize? We don’t all get CRB news downloaded into our brains.
Outsider looking in, Californians would be better served by dissolving their CRB. It’s made it clear it has no intention of protecting consumers. It only cares about making it as hard as possible for people to pass the test. Oddly convenient for the corporations that banded together under the Speech-to-Text Institute to lie to government decision makers.
2023 had the highest number of total passes for the dictation exam since 2014, so the data seems to indicate that something is working to allow more people to pass.
Total dictation exam passes for past years:
2023 – 118
2022 – 54
2021 – 36
2020 – 52
2019 – 65
2018 – 28
2017 – 104
2016 – 75
2015 – 76
2014 – 125
2013 – 137
2012 – 105
2011 – 103
2010 – 27 (incomplete data for this year)
2009 – 111
2008 – 141
Okay. But then do we just ignore the abysmally low passes from the half decade prior to that, that occurred after they apparently stopped the appeal process in 2017? Because that looks like a pretty significant drop. And if we’re going to use the anomaly of 2023 to say the review process didn’t help our candidates, it seems fair to look at the five years before it, with 2018 having only 28 passes.
I have to argue that candidates are passing in spite of the board’s sabotage.
They did not eliminate the right to appeal test results for in-person testing ever. People were permitted and did appeal their results up through the last in-person exam in March of 2020. The inability to appeal began with online testing in July of 2020, so all results prior to 2020 included appeals. So the low pass rates prior to 2020 are related to lack of preparedness for the exam; it is not based on an inability to appeal.
Thank you for clarifying that. Do they publish how many tests were online and how many tests were in person for those years?
All tests were in person through March of 2020. Then all tests switched to online beginning with the July 2020 exam forward.
Interesting. That does change my mind some. Thank you for all of the information.
I have friends that want to reinstate the appeal and review processes, so I lean that side of the fence. But you’ve certainly convinced me that the data does not support what I believed about it helping the test takers.
So thank you for that. It was really special. This is the first time in a very, very long time someone has bothered to talk numbers with me. And I love it when people do, because I learn.
I greatly appreciate the civil discourse back and forth. I’m glad that the data I provided was helpful to you in your analysis.
Longtime CA CSR here. I do not agree with dissolving the CRB. If we are no longer a license state there will be even less oversight and any method – including AI – could move in even faster than they already are.
I could appreciate that. I guess in seriousness I don’t want to dissolve them either. But I’ve noticed that strong language like that gets people to pay attention. So if putting things like this and that out into the universe gets people talking and gets a little momentum going on them not using every ounce of their power to hamstring CSRs and potential CSRs, I’m happy to be that guy.
It’s kind of like when I blasted NCRA over them not releasing the white paper I contributed to several years ago. Within months it was released.
We also face the problem that if they’re not regulating then these companies are going to move in anyway.
I’ve had my share of angst with the CRB and thought – to hell with them, they should be sunsetted! But after the cooling off period, they’re the lesser of two evils. Florida is a great example of a state with no oversight and they’re ground zero for what happens with ER and Digitals. They’re taking over the state. I think if we didn’t have 25 states with CRB’s, then they would have proliferated and taken over the whole country already. Our CRBs are slowing down all of the illegal activity nationwide. We just need to work harder to find a way to stop it and reverse the damage.
Having spoken with a lawyer contact, I still believe stopping the damage might require unionization. It could contractually bind the companies to a digital : steno ratio so that we could not be replaced.
Can I ask why you think the CCRB would do anything to try to help digital reporting when they do not have authority over them, nor do they “allow” them? That makes zero sense. In fact, the lobbyists and those who are stenographers cheered themselves on that they were able to halt access to justice for those who have civil trials but stopping the continuing discussion on digital reporters being allowed to cover civil matters. I don’t understand how those commenting are saying that digital reporting has anything to do with this at all. I only wish the board would certify digital reporters, they hate us as much as the rest of the steno community does, unfortunately.
This is my overall point. I think it’s a convenient lie that they do not have authority over them. If someone claims they are a digital doctor can they render medical services without a license? This whole line of logic is a farce.
So why do I believe they’re helping? Because they effectively are. Digital reporters are allowed to act without the regulatory constraints stenographers face.
Exactly.
Take any other Board under the Department of Consumer Affairs:
The Medical Board doesn’t get to say, “Sorry about your liver falling out during surgery, but there’s nothing we can do since your surgeon is not actually a licensed doctor. Your surgeon was actually taught the trade in his dad’s butcher shop and decided to call himself a surgeon, so we have no oversight.”
How about if your brand new roof just caved in and squished all the residents of the house. “Sorry, your builder is allowed to build roofs that spontaneously cave in without consequence. After all, he’s not licensed. Only licensed contractors have to build to code.”
It’s a ludicrous argument when you think about it.
And if the CRBC truly doesn’t have jurisdiction over digitals, why has nothing been done to rectify that?
Exactly.
Take any other Board under the Department of Consumer Affairs:
The Medical Board doesn’t get to say, “Sorry about your liver falling out during surgery, but there’s nothing we can do since your surgeon is not actually a licensed doctor. Your surgeon was actually taught the trade in his dad’s butcher shop and decided to call himself a surgeon, so we have no oversight.”
How about if your brand new roof just caved in and squished all the residents of the house. “Sorry, your builder is allowed to build roofs that spontaneously cave in without consequence. After all, he’s not licensed. Only licensed contractors have to build to code.”
It’s a ludicrous argument when you think about it.
And if the CRBC truly doesn’t have jurisdiction over digitals, why has nothing been done to rectify that?
We waste our time complaining to the CRBC when we should be complaining about the CRBC.
https://www.dca.ca.gov/consumers/complaints/citizen.shtml