Court Opinion

ID: 9700058
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 21:08:27.688453+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:03.689256
License: Public Domain

HOOD, Associate Judge
(concurring).
A matter which gives me concern is the charge in petitioner’s brief that the transcribed report of the hearing is not complete. The charge is made that the hearing officer “operated the transcribing machine at his whim, in turning it on and off, as he saw fit,” with the result that the transcript does not accurately and completely show what occurred at the hearing. This charge is the móre disturbing because we have had similar charges in other appeals of this nature. The Corporation Counsel can neither deny nor admit these charges because no one from that office is present at these hearings.
It is my understanding that at these hearings there is a recording machine which is controlled by the hearing officer, and that the recording is later transcribed by a person who was not present at the hearing. In the instant case the person who transcribed the recording certified “that to the best of my ability, the foregoing is an official and accurate transcript of the testimony taken and proceedings had before the Hearing Officer.” If my understanding of the procedure is correct, all this certificate amounts to is a certification that the recording was accurately transcribed, but is not a certification that the entire hearing was recorded. I feel, and hereafter shall insist, that the hearing officer himself shall certify that the transcript forwarded here is a complete and accurate record of the hearing.
I join in the opinion because petitioner, while insisting that the record is not complete, expressly makes no objection to our considering it.