An Idea that's All Wet

"When two men share an umbrella, both of them get wet."
- Michael Isenberg

A new umbrella association? By voting yes to Bylaw Amendment #2, videographers will now be full members in our association, classified like us as "registered members," able to vote and be a board member or an officer. In reading the bylaws on the NCRA website, you'll see under Article III, Membership, Secion 9, (b): "Only participating and REGISTERED members, as well as retired and lifetime stenographic reporters, shall be eligible to vote. And (c): "Only REGISTERED members shall be able to hold an elective office of the association."

Until this point, NCRA has been a stenographic writers association. If you look at the bylaws, "Article II--Purpose," everything relates to "verbatim stenographic reporters..." With the umbrella association officially being formed, we will no longer have 100% of the vote on issues concerning our jobs and profession. We will no longer have only stenographic reporters on our board of directors and as our association's officers shaping our future.

New additions to our family are also on the way, coming from the same associate members category (not allowed to vote or hold office) the videographers are currently in. Read the comments on this in the NCRA's online forum under the thread "How does testing digital audio operators help?" You can read the full comments there, but some believe that since we charge dues to associate members and charge seminar fees for continuing education for them, they should be given the registered membership same as us, able to vote and govern.

And as our president, Karen Yates, said in her president's page of the most recent JCR, "The association must broaden its identity." It's clear the current BoD is no longer interested in the association remaining a stenographic reporters association. She states we need to start working with the voice-to-text technologies. She concludes by stating "Please come along with us as we build the new NCRA."

So the plan, of course, is to test and certify other groups and technologies who are associate (nonvoting) members, and then make the argument that they should be able to have full privileges, equal in every way to us in our association, able to vote and sit on our board of directors and make decisions which ultimately affect us.

A new NCRA umbrella association of any and all technologies has thus arrived. Will these other technologies actually vote for our interests...or will they vote for the interests of their own profession, different from ours? And will the dues they bring in really benefit stenographic reporters...or will they have to be returned to spend on these new groups by providing them continuing education seminars and conferences, testing opportunities, etc.?

So where is the ultimate benefit to us, if it's not in having someone vote with us for our benefit, and it's not in seeing all revenues received by them go to benefit the stenographic reporters association, which is what we are designed to be?

This first group of videographers on the list of other technologies to be ushered in might not outnumber us now, but they could easily vote next year or the next to bring in the new "other technologies" to also be registered, voting members, such as ER/DAR, voice writing, et al. And the more groups that are brought in as registered members (which means voting members), the smaller and smaller our piece of the pie gets, until we're the distant, barely-related cousin in this new organization called NCRA.

And Bylaw Amendment #1 votes to begin letting new members in without a current voting member endorsing them in writing. This allows all new large groups of other technologies to be ushered in quickly and quietly, with no paperwork involved. Bylaw #3 votes to allow scoping students to be brought into our student membership category. You do NOT have to be in D.C. to vote against any of these amendments. You can vote on them online within a 12-hour period of the business meeting. Further information concerning how to vote online can be found on NCRA's website http://www.ncraonline.org/.

The amendments are designed to continue working towards the creation of the full umbrella association. This umbrella is full of holes, and it's not that we're just getting soaked. We will be washed away by the incoming tsunami of all other technologies taking away our association if we don't fight what's happening and vote Aug. 6 to stop this incoming red tide.

Judy Runes

Forum Message from Sue Lynn Morgan, President-Elect, NCRA
and the response from CONCERNEDREPORTERS.COM (in italics and blue).

SUE LYNN MOGAN: Do you want NCRA to still exist in five years? Ten years?
CONCERNED REPORTERS: Yes.

SUE LYNN MORGAN: Do you want NCRA to remain the authority on judicial record making?
CONCERNED REPORTERS: Yes.

SUE LYNN MORGAN: Do you want a place to be able to call for answers when you have questions?
CONCERNED REPORTERS: Yes.

SUE LYNN MORGAN: Do you want to be able to have opportunities for learning and networking at conferences?
CONCERNED REPORTERS: Yes.

SUE LYNN MORGAN: If you answered yes to any of those questions, then I respectfully ask all of you to seriously look at the changing environment we find ourselves working in today. No longer are courts making decisions on what is the best way of operating a court, but what is the most efficient use of the public's money to operate the court. It's called accountability and transparency. At their own pace the courts were already evolving into a digital technology environment, but the current economy has shifted that pace into high gear.

CONCERNED REPORTERS: While the courts have never been the budgeting authority, they play an integral role in deciding how best to apply their funds in a manner consistent with protecting constitutional rights of litigants. The states that are returning to live steno reporters are learning that the added hidden costs associated with ER/digital/audio transcribing are causing budgets to be strained again - not only their governmental budget, but the budget of litigants who receive poor quality transcripts.

SUE LYNN MORGAN: What is out of our control, and frustrating, is that in many courts the decision makers are not from the legal side of the courthouse. They are county commissioners and they are controlling the court budgets. And when they see that the court's budget is 95-98% salary and benefits, they have 2-5% left for operations, where are they going to start cutting? Even when judges and administrators are making the decisions, when considering such a large amount of the budget is salaries and benefits, their two options are either layoffs or furloughs.
CONCERNED REPORTERS: What is the source for quoting that a court’s budget is 95-98% salary and benefits? This is not true in a felony court. The more appropriate comparison is to see what percentage of the overall budget is spent on the "legal side" of the government - local, state or federal. NCRA has in the past and should continue in the future to play a lead role in educating those who "are not from the legal side of the courthouse" as to the function of the "legal side." Benefits paid to a county employee are a fixed cost to an employer, regardless of the position (i.e. judges and administrators)

SUE LYNN MORGAN: What does the machine court reporter produce? A transcript of the proceedings. How much do court reporters make? Use the figure $50,000 for a base salary. How much do benefits cost for that reporter? $20,000? $25,000? That's $70- to $75,000 per court reporter. CONCERNED REPORTERS: Benefits on a 50,000 salary would be calculated to cost approximately 30% -- 50k x 30% = $15,000.

SUE LYNN MORGAN: How much does it cost to install a DAR system into a courtroom? A courtroom can be made DAR-capable for $25,000. A courtroom with an obsolete, analog tape system can be brought up to state-of-the-art for DAR for $5- to $10,000.
CONCERNED REPORTERS: The low salary for the person who monitors the $25,000-system is attractive to unskilled employees, and also to the non-legal side of the courthouse. The necessary transcript production that would be entailed attracts unskilled transcribers who are not familiar with legal procedures and proceedings in the varying court settings (criminal, civil, medical malpractice, juvenile, probate, etc.) Now add the benefits of the recorder monitor. This money savings has always been debateable in that verification of the figures have not to this point been forthcoming. It can cost as much or more for the transcript when all is said and done.

SUE LYNN MORGAN: What does the DAR operator/reporter produce? A transcript of the proceedings.
CONCERNED REPORTERS: The DAR operator produces what appears to be a transcript of the proceedings with many inaudibles and speech that is indiscernible, and speakers who are unidentified or wrongly identified.

SUE LYNN MORGAN: I ask you to think of all the records you have taken and how many have you prepared a certified transcript of? The average percentage of cases that attorneys and courts need a certified transcript is 5%.
CONCERNED REPORTERS: What is the reference source for the average of only 5% of the cases being transcribed? Is there a study showing that attorneys and courts need certified transcripts in only 5% of their cases? But when they do require a certified transcript, they receive a hodgepodge of inaudibles and indecipherables back from the recorder. And when you have only a recording for your record, if the inevitable crucial moment of testimony has a sound obliterating it by a cough/sneeze/paper rustling/door creaking/chair squeaking/speakers talking over each other … then the litigants’ opportunity for an accurate transcript of that testimony has come and gone; a live reporter has immediate control and could request the testimony be restated. Regardless of the percent of proceedings that is transcribed, should we be willing to allow the litigants to suffer through the problems associated with poor transcripts (new trials, lost witnesses, memory of events slip away with time, increased cost for the attorneys, and the strained county budgets for administrative overhead)? Most attorneys still request a paper transcript - in addition to their digitized format - and most appellate courts still require a paper transcript to be filed on appeal.

SUE LYNN MORGAN: The dominant trend in court technology discussions today is "paper on demand." The courts remain responsible for ensuring that a complete record exists electronically. A complete record consists of the entire case record, not just the paper or electronic transcript and/or notes. If anyone wants a paper copy of any electronic document, they, and not the court, will have to pay for it.
CONCERNED REPORTERS: That is what is available from a realtime court reporter, still being paid for by the party who wants the copy.

SUE LYNN MORGAN: Digital technology is here to stay because it encompasses all facets of the court record. Attend any court technology, court management or judicial conference and you will be amazed at the number of vendors marketing their products to the courts. The vendors are focused on efficiency (cost and operational), digital, paperless, and easy and quick access.
CONCERNED REPORTERS: Then why isn’t NCRA there in vast numbers to outshine and outnumber these other vendors? Why isn’t NCRA representing their court-reporting membership to the fullest?

SUE LYNN MORGAN: For machine reporters to continue to exist, we're going to have to reinvent ourselves and admit there is more than one way to make and produce a record. We have to be willing to work side by side with other methods. Because if we don't, that market, digital recording, and their association will continue to grow and will take over and become the authority on judicial record making. This isn't about dollars, this is about surviving.
CONCERNED REPORTERS: Doesn’t sound like surviving, but instead calling it quits.

SUE LYNN MORGAN: Our current business model is one based on membership, certification and education. Our membership is declining. Our revenue is declining. If we continue with this model, there will come a time when NCRA can no longer function. If the membership wants us to continue along this same path we've been on for the last 110 years, then start counting the years until we close the doors.
CONCERNED REPORTERS: How about NCRA giving some examples of realtime reporters giving immediate transcripts, printing out immediate copy?

How about a positive response to this?
How about that same education for the non-legal side of things?
How about highlighting immediate readback from a reporter for the judge or litigants in a hearing or trial?
How about highlighting what’s really happened in New Mexico; Dallas and Bryan, Texas; Kentucky; etc., on obtaining quality, accurate transcripts, and whether those who have gone there before with ER … have come back to live reporters?

SUE LYNN MORGAN: If you want to be a member of a thriving association, one that is driving the technology for making the record, then support your Board of Directors. A board composed of innovative thinkers, who are not afraid to move NCRA forward into a digital environment where every method is held to a professional set of standards.
CONCERNED REPORTERS: We need fresh faces and new ideas to shine the light on realtime in the courtroom, showing what is possible with a stenotype reporter, rather than jumping into the biggest, divisive professional conflict of interest our reporting world has ever seen.

Your Opinion Always Counts

Let your elected leadership know what you think. This is about the future of your profession and your Association. Simply answer the two questions in the surveys to the right of this posting and you will be heard.

It's Time to Turn NCRA Around

The following is an open letter to stenographic method Court Reporters from a grassroots group of nationwide NCRA members.

Dear Fellow Reporters:

The Members’ Motion to Rescind Board Action 08-11-13 will be presented to the NCRA Executive Director and Board of Directors to be voted on by membership at the annual business meeting at the NCRA Annual Convention in Washington, D.C., this summer.

By voting to rescind Board Action 08-11-13, we hope to prevent the NCRA Board of Directors, Executive Director and staff from further spending association money and resources on the exploration and/or development of testing/certification of non-stenographic methods of making the record.

This motion is set forth pursuant to:
NCRA Constitution & Bylaws, Article IX, Section 5

<http://motiontorescind.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/article-ix-section-5.pdf>

Ways you can help:

1. Below is a link to a .pdf version of the official motion with a spot for ten signatures. Please distribute this motion for signature to fellow NCRA members in your area. We need your support!

<http://motiontorescind.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/motion-to-rescind-with-signatures2.pdf>

Please download, print, and mail (with signatures!) to:

Members’ Motion to Rescind

P.O. BOX 3576

Federal Way, WA 98063-3576

Please have your signed motion mailed by June 1, 2009, so they can be included with the official motion presented to Executive Director Mark Golden and the NCRA Board of Directors.

2. You may also become a signatory by sending an e-mail to motiontorescind@gmail.com stating that you are in support of the Motion to Rescind NCRA BoD Motion 08-11-13. Please include your name, city, and NCRA certifications (if any) .

3. We need your vote! You must be present in person to vote on this motion. Please spread the word that, in order to make a real difference here, we need supporters of this motion to attend the annual business meeting, Thursday, August 6, 2009, at the annual convention in Washington, D.C. You do not need to register for the convention to attend the business meeting.

We need volunteers to speak in support of this motion at the business meeting, and most of all WE NEED YOUR VOTE! We need 2/3 of the voting members present to vote in favor of this motion for it to pass.

Let your voice be heard!

Bubble, Bubble, Toil and Trouble

By Ryder P. Moses

NCRA dues-paying members are living out the sad tale of the frog being placed in a pan of cold water on the stove. The heat is turned up so gradually that he doesn't notice it beginning to boil and ultimately bringing about his demise.

We have a triple-threat: the NCRA Executive Director, staff and Board --our leaders -- who want to turn away from the constitued reason for being: stenographic reporters. The new paradigm? Bring all into the big NCRA tent and let them bring cash. But at what price glory? This has all been done very slowly and very deliberately. We've recently learned of their meeting this summer with the ER and DAM (digital audio machine) operators, with NCRA seeking to train, educate and certify them.

The members are told our association is working for US, the steno writers. We are the association. At the same time, non-steno ER/DAM (digital audio machine) operators are being openly courted with enticing offers to train and certify. It doesn't take a genus to see the logic of if you train and certify, that the offer of membership would not be far behind to complete the financial triangle. The stated reason for the "Inter-Industry Summit" this summer is to talk and exchange information. The true reason for a meeting such as this is to solidify positions of a predetermined agenda: Get the Money.

An attempt to spin the issue comes from the NCRA's April 2009 issue of Tech Tracker:

"If a court administrator or other decision maker proposes digital audio recording, the best argument for keeping court reporter jobs does not revolve around the shortcomings of digital audio recording systems. Instead, focus on the additional value that court reporters provide. Also, remind decision makers that court reporters want to be a part of the bigger solution to the problem. Showing willingness to be a team player means it is much more likely that court reporters will have input into final solutions."

In the Journal and other reports, they lead us to believe they're working against ER/DAM, (digital audio machines) in an attempt to quiet the membership. Then the membership will not notice that they're gradually turning up the heat by making comments like: We must certify our competition to be on equal footing. But because of the disparate pay rates of the two occupations, it's not equal footing at all. Can you see our future? Courts and states will have additional insentive to justify the budget cuts and remove NCRA SRMs (stenographic reporter members) and replace them with NCRA certified ER/DAM (digital audio machine) operators. Why? Because they are now officially "certified" and being educated by our association. Think about it, you could be replaced by some /DAM NCRA-certified operator because you are too smart, too experienced and too expensive.

And of course, we all know that we wouldn't even be talking to ER people if there wasn't a long-term plan in place to eventually get further revenue from a new source. It is difficult to watch many of my friends and coworkers booted out of their courts by ER. It will also be difficult to justify staying in a job when salaries plunge to the rate of ER low-wage workers. Why is it worth going forward if the staff at NCRA continually try to put in place something the membership continually votes against? So many questions, so few honest answers.

Putting the Association on the Rocks?

I was completely flummoxed to learn that NCRA headquarters staff, executive director, and board propose to design and administer certification tests and provide continuing education for those technologies we have been fighting against to save our jobs, such as the American Association of Electronic Reporters and Transcribers, the digital audio recording operators, and several others. The board and headquarters staff have planned an Inter-Industry Summit to meet with those associations this summer to explore working with them as a way of raising revenue.

I wrote the NCRA president and NCRA board, expressing my alarm that they would even consider certifying them and educating them, thereby giving ER operators credibility in their effort to replace us. In the past, court officials have been replaced by them because they were cheaper technologies with much lower salaries. Our only argument left was that we were better trained and certified and did the better job. We can no longer argue that fact as an association when our own association begins training and certifying them in the same way we are, giving them NCRA-stamped credibility. The NCRA president responded to my e-mail in part as follows:

"Even the Israelis and Palestinians sometimes sit down to talk. Surely those who make a record with their voices or with digital audio are not our enemies. Competitors? Yes, sometimes. But my competitor is also the court reporting firm down the street and the remote CART provider halfway across the country. I provide the best service I can, with highly developed skill and professionalism. Then my client chooses which of us to use. Meanwhile, those other reporters and CART providers are not my enemy. We talk all the time, and often learn from one another. As I have said in the past, it gripes me that people who ostensibly do the same job we do, who collect the same pay we do, are not held to the same standards. That is not fair. We all should be taking the same tests, and that testing is what NCRA is exploring."

What a ludicrous comparison. That would mean, in our case, the Israeli government completely ignores the safety of their own troops and organizes training camps for the Palestinians. They train the Palestinians on how to aim and fire their missiles. They certify their pilots. They educate them on the various bombs and techniques to use them in an effective and deadly way. Oh, and they charge the Palestinians money for coming to that training camp, so they can no longer speak out against the wrongs of the Palestinians to other governments, because they're lining their own pockets with Palestinian money. Then ultimately the nation of Israel is destroyed by the Palestinians…thanks to its own government and leaders who began training the Palestinians, educating them, and giving them a stamp of approval.

For court officials, it's not a matter of working side-by-side with a competitor, and the better realtime reporter wins. ER/DAR is NOT trying to compete skillwise-the companies selling that technology know the bottom line for states and counties often comes down to budgets, regardless of how the judges and lawyers feel about the poor-quality records, and that states are willing to get rid of our better skills simply to hire ER/DAR operators at a very, very low salary rate.

What's also not mentioned by the NCRA president is that the ER operators also SEVERELY cuts the salaries of those not replaced, simply with the threat overhead of being able to replace us with cheaper, easily-trained ER operators, having ZERO to do with skill and realtime skills or certifications. They come in the courthouses at significantly lower rates than salaried court reporters, and for states looking to cut budgets significantly, the court reporters are completely replaced. It spreads like a wildfire. Do you agree to work at a severely-reduced salary and run the ER equipment or do you get kicked to the curb without a job? It has nothing to do with "competitors" when the bottom line of educating and certifying ER/DAR operators involves the future of replacing steno reporters completely and lowering salaries for those of us remaining.

Here's the bottom line for our association, what the NCRA president wrote me. This is the reason for what is happening with the board and headquarters:

"It also puts much-needed revenue in NCRA's coffers without the necessity of returning to our members time after time with our hand out for increased dues."

The bottom line is they want to raise additional revenue…even at the expense of those who are our association, the steno reporters.

Instead of supporting those who seek to take over our jobs, and instead of increasing dues, let the members vote on the services and staff they want to do away with. Let members drive the budget, not the executive director and headquarters staff. As one example, put the Journal online only, saving thousands a year in printing costs, mailing costs, the cost of the paper and ink to print it. Do away with any columns in the Journal we pay for. This is only one example, but members would rather cut services and headquarter staff over funding and training those seeking to completely replace us. Perhaps the NCRA executive director thinks we'll eventually get replaced by ER anyway, and perhaps he's right, but why speed the process and pay to help them do so?

It's baffling to even consider such a thing of training and educating and certifying ER operators and digital recording operators, and I can't see any rhyme or reason to it. It's as if the association for I.T. workers in the U.S. suddenly find their headquarters staff using their association dues money to train and certify the I.T. workers in India to replace them. It's crazy that they would even consider such a thing.

We all certainly know it's not the members behind this. The members of our association have consistently over and over again voted down efforts to expand our association beyond the steno writers. But sadly, the members aren't listened to, which is so puzzling. It's as if we have no voice, only an occasional vote. And instead of listening to our vote and steering our association in the direction we've voted, the NCRA staff and board seem to focus on this issue harder than ever. As soon as our vote is taken to not include anyone in our association other than steno writers, the executive director, board and staff are back at it harder than ever to try to do what we don't want to do.

Their decision on which way to steer our ship is strictly revenue-driven, and instead of letting the members vote and decide what cuts in services and staff they want to make to gain more revenue, the triple threat of the board, executive directors and headquarters staff are now steadily steering our ship straight towards the gigantic iceberg we members see only the tiny tip of. If we continue going forward in the direction we have allowed them to steer us…we are sunk.

- Terri Boling

Building a Fool's Paradise with Fool's Gold?

The rumor stops here. Notes taken at the last NCRA Board Meeting were forwarded to concernedreporters at the same time they were sent to TCRA members. Read and judge for yourself the future plans of NCRA.

Dear TCRA Members:

NCRA's board meeting was held on February 20 through 21, 2009, and we were there as TCRA representatives and participating members of NCRA. The full NCRA Board Meeting Agenda is attached; however, there's one pivotal issue that we would like to bring to your attention.

The staff at NCRA conducted a self-study that concluded that NCRA could gain financial strength through certification of “non-dues” industries, such as digital audio recording transcriptionists, medical transcriptionists, National Verbatim Reporters Association, and the American Association of Electronic Reporters and Transcribers, among others.

NCRA is proposing to design and administer certification tests and provide continuing education to the abovementioned industries. The challenges that NCRA envisions in testing these industries includes cultural bias from NCRA’s membership, not comporting with State tests, putting the current NCRA membership at risk, and resistance from NCRA members and State organizations. NCRA is proposing an “Inter-Industry Summit” with the stakeholders and/or industries listed above.

The summit will be held prior to the NCRA annual convention at a neutral location due to “historical animosity” from NCRA members. The NCRA Board voted unanimously to proceed with the “Inter-Industry Summit.” The deadline for this project is 2009.

It is our fear that if NCRA’s study comes to fruition, NCRA will no longer represent just the stenograph reporters, and in essence will be lending credibility to the electronic and digital recording use in the judicial system, as well as in all aspects of court reporting. NCRA is conducting this study in the hopes to gain financial stability by testing, certifying and offering CEUs to court recorders. However, it is our belief that they will be ultimately validating an inferior product and training these court recorders to potentially replace all machine shorthand reporters.

If you have any concerns, contact your NCRA Board of Directors at ncraboard@ncrahq.org.

Sincerely, Jo Anne Leger Karen Morris

The following outline is generated from handwritten notes originally taken by Karen Morris as an attending participating member of NCRA and as a representative of TCRA, at the NCRA Board of Directors meeting held on February 20, 2009, at the Ritz-Carlton Tysons Corner, McLean, Virginia:

No. 3 – Membership: Testing and Certification of Non-Members (strategic Dialogue) – (Deadline for this project: 2009) NCRA’s staff conducted a self-study that concluded that NCRA could gain financial strength through certification of “non-dues” industries. (“non-dues” means nonreporters.) The study proposed the following:

1. Certification will bring financial gain to NCRA.
2. Certification and inclusion of non-dues industries will increase revenue.
3. Find ways to sell key marketing to this larger group. This would allow making working relationships and elevating educational standards with the following groups that make up the non-dues industries:
a. DAR – Digital Audio Recording and Transcriptionists.
b. ER- Electronic Recording.
c. Expand certifications for Certified Legal Video Specialists to non-judicial.
d. NVRA – National Verbatim Reporters Association.
e. AAERT-American Association of Electronic Reporters and Transcribers.
f. AHDI- Association for Healthcare Documentation Integrity.

The study also proposed that NCRA design, provide the tests, and give CEUs to the above-mentioned groups. Listed challenges to test the non-dues industries are:

1. Cultural bias from NCRA’s membership.
2. Goes against state tests.
3. Puts membership at risk.
4. Resistance from members and state organizations.

PROPOSAL: Have an Inter-Industry Summit meeting with all of these groups away from the annual convention, to try to divert attention from NCRA members and people objecting, due to the historical animosity. This summit will be at a neutral location with these key groups and NCRA attending. NCRA wants to know the following:

1. If testing these non-reporters would be profitable.
2. Who their competitors are.
3. Predetermine the attitude of the NCRA members to this idea.
4. Does NCRA board have resolve to stand tough to this solution?

OUTCOME: The entire board voted to proceed with the Inter-Industry Summit. Deadline of this project: 2009.

The Promise of a New Day

All who were present in Anaheim have praised President Yates’ speech as a call to action from the membership. Read the entire text of her speech by clicking on the link below:

http://ncraonline.org/AboutNCRA/president/default.htm

What we can accomplish individually is magnified in our association work, both state and national by implementing the idea of "I may make a difference."

You can make a difference by supporting local and state government candidates who are friends of Court Reporting.

You can make a difference by joining other reporters and volunteering to work in local, state and national associations.

You can make a difference by enhancing your education and skills.

You can make a difference by letting your voice be heard.

Individually we do not have the resources - both time and money - to tackle all of the problems facing reporters today. In her speech, President Yates said, "This is a new day in NCRA, an exciting time for our profession. We have repairs to make. This is our home, and we need every one of us to put it in order so that NCRA can go from better to best."