Tag: bylaws

Vote Yes! NCRA 2021 Proposed Bylaw Amendments

The National Court Reporters Association gave members notice of proposed bylaws amendments recently. If you haven’t given these proposals some thought recently, and you intend to vote during convention time, then please take the time to consider them now. I’ll give a summary of each and what I see myself doing, and why, come voting time.

Amendment 1 – Fellows of the Academy of Professional Reporters

What’s the deal?
The proposal amends the requirements to become part of the Fellows of the Academy of Professional Reporters. The new language mostly points to needing to have stronger ties to NCRA to be a part of FAPR.

My takeaway:
I usually lean toward inclusion, but I also see validity in fellows having close NCRA ties. I believe I’m going to vote yes.

Amendment 2 – Stenographic Captioning and Stenographic Captioners

What’s the deal?
Stick the words “stenographic” captioning and “stenographic captioners” in areas where the bylaws say “stenographic reporting” or “stenographic reporter.” It’s making it a point to mention reporters AND captioners.

My takeaway:
I have always found the need to differentiate ourselves as a bit silly and the term reporter inclusive of who we are and what we do (steno). As an example, if someone walks into a room and greets a group of colleagues, “hey ladies,” I have two choices, I can huff, puff, and yell “I AM A MAN,” demanding that everyone acknowledge the difference, or I can roll with it and say hello. That said, the differentiation and explicit mentioning of captioners makes some of them feel good. It makes them feel included. It makes them feel respected as having a distinct and important skill. I am voting yes on this one without hesitation!

Amendment 3 – Holding Elective Office

What’s the deal?
In full disclosure, I am one of the people that proposed this amendment. This amendment would make it so all participating members who are stenographic reporters can hold elective office in the NCRA. As of today, you can pay dues and vote on the future of the organization if you are not a certified reporter, but you cannot hold elective office. If this amendment passes, any stenographic reporter that has been a member for five years would be able to hold elective office.

My takeaway:
I respect certification very much. I became an RPR shortly after proposing this amendment. But I feel it’s important for us to acknowledge that certifications do not necessarily make a person a leader. The bylaws committee has a little blurb against this stating anyone could claim to be a reporter, join, and run for office, and that much is true, but this idea that someone would join for a minimum of five years and then win an election without anyone else pointing out their complete lack of history is one I just can’t get behind. Take the leap, allow uncertified people to hold office, and open up this association to a pool of leaders it would otherwise not have. About forty percent of the association is not certified. It’s a reality that it’s time to address and tell all stenographic reporters that this association values them enough to give them a seat at the decision makers’ table if they win it fair and square. Any uncertified reporter that could win an election against a certified reporter has political savvy that we frankly need in leadership, so please vote yes.

Amendment 4 – Eligibility to Vote

What’s the deal?
In full disclosure, I am one of the people that proposed this amendment. In 2019 there was a membership dues increase. People that were not at the annual business meeting physically were not allowed to vote on it. This amendment would allow everyone to vote via e-mail.

My takeaway:
The dues increase was in line with inflation and completely warranted, but by limiting the pool of people that could vote for it, it made people really mad and gave the impression that leadership would do whatever it wanted and limit who had a say when it was convenient. In reality, it was done that way out of precedent. This amendment will force NCRA leadership to communicate more about dues increases, but I have a lot of confidence that members will vote for increases that keep the association healthy and strong. Please vote yes so that all voting members have a say on dues increases.

Amendment 5 – Conflict of Interest

What’s the deal?
In full disclosure, I am one of the people that proposed this amendment. This amendment would put the requirement for a conflict of interest policy in our bylaws and gives the board full authority to determine the scope of language and enforcement.

My takeaway:
Some time ago, Jim Cuddahy was NCRA’s Executive Director. That’s when the Ducker report was commissioned and we had a study done on our court reporter shortage. Fast forward, Jim Cuddahy is a part of the Speech To Text Institute and, in my view, one of many digital reporting proponents using the shortage to say “there are not enough court reporters, we must record it.” It makes it look like NCRA was used to do something that was later weaponized against members. People are angry about that, and NCRA has taken social media flak for it despite there being nothing NCRA could really do. One of the questions that floated up on social media was “WHY ISN’T THERE A POLICY?” Only when this proposal was made was I made aware there was a COI policy, and that’s the point, letting members know in big, bold letters there is one.

There’s a blurb about how counsel interprets this amendment to be illegal, but the association already has a conflict of interest policy. Honestly, I’m stunned. We have a conflict of interest policy, but putting the requirement for a COI policy in our bylaws would be illegal? Baloney. In full fairness, to the extent a COI policy can be viewed as a non-compete agreement, it could be illegal, but that’s why this amendment gives the board power over the language and enforcement. Every single board member and the NCRA have a duty to follow the law and they are required to interpret this amendment in a way that follows the law. Again, it is stunning to me that for purposes of proposal, everyone seems to be assuming it must be interpreted in the most unfavorable possible light. I am hoping that you will all see this as I do and vote yes.

Amendment 6 – Virtual Annual Business Meetings

What’s the deal?
This amendment will allow NCRA to have virtual annual business meetings.

My takeaway:
I think this modernizes our bylaws to help us operate even when force majeure would not apply. It’s an obvious yes.

Amendment 7 – Integration of CLVS as Participating Members

What’s the deal?
Certified Legal Video Specialists will be allowed to vote in the association, but will not be able to hold elective office.

My takeaway:
It seems unfair to be a certification body for people that have zero input. NCRA advisory opinion 44 points to the verbatim reporter and video specialist roles not mixing, so there’s no reason to think this is some attempt to undermine the association’s goals or membership. This is a chance to show CLVS members that we value their certs without losing any steno board seats. I’ll vote yes.

Final Thoughts

Associations have a duty to follow their bylaws and the law. The votes we make here dictate to NCRA how it must conduct itself in the future. I’m not against anyone that votes against me here. These votes are unlikely to make or break the association, but they will shift perceptions. On amendment 3, we have a shot at telling reporters without certs we want them to be active in the association, not just collect their money and votes. On amendment 4, we have a shot at telling voting members they deserve a say in dues increases whether or not they can physically make it to the business meeting. On amendment 5, we have a shot at telling all members yes, we have a conflict of interest policy. We have a shot at adding value to membership. Value leads to growth. In the interest of growing our national association, I am voting yes, and I hope you do too.

NCRA Bylaw Amendment Proposals 2019

Like many of you, I got the email proposing bylaw changes. You’re free to read them for yourself if you are a member of NCRA. I wanted to give a brief summary of each and my general thoughts. Voting will take place August 15, 2019, so set that in your calendars and make sure you make your voice heard in the next election. Remember, they send out the emails to electronically vote, and they hold that vote open the whole day, meaning you do not have to be present.

  1. Amendment 1 is going to make it so members may submit written or verbal requests to be reinstated. This is a great choice for all those members who have left who want to join back up because they’ll have more options. I’ll vote yes.
    Amendment 2 would make it clear that registered members can be reinstated as registered members as long as they fulfill educational requirements. This is also a great move. It shows that the NCRA is not money grabbing for the exam dollars. In my view, if it was a money grab amendment, they’d demand returning members retest and re-qualify for certs. This is pretty much the opposite, pro-stenographer, and I’ll vote yes.
    Amendment 3 seems to be about moving the proration of dues from the bylaws to the policies and procedures. Without an argument as to how this might hurt us as members, I’ll vote yes.
    Amendment 4 deals with how leadership seats will be assigned in the event of a vacancy. It seems to streamline the process and simplify it. The only thing I will caution here is that the language might be challengeable or confusing in that the previous language was that in the event of a vacancy, the president-elect would take the president’s office, and if that term was six months or less, have the opportunity to serve a full term. This new proposed language just says “half a term” when it should probably say “half a term or less.” This new language could probably be argued to allow someone who serves more or less than half a term to still go on to serve another full term. I would urge us to revisit this language next year. That said, I’ll be voting yes.
    Amendment 5 just changed the language to make more sense, saying the nominating committee will meet before the election instead of before the next election. This is an easy yes.
    Amendment 6 changes the National Committee of State Associations to the National Congress of State Associations. Oddly enough, I had written about this in the recent NCRA survey, saying we need more emphasis on state action. This is definitely more emphasis on state action, and I’ll be voting yes.
    Amendment 7 would change the requirements to be a state association affiliated with the NCRA. Currently you must show your organization is in line with NCRA’s bylaws and constitution and that most of your members are stenographic reporters. This would remove that majority stenographic members requirement. Now, some people will likely urge a no vote on this one because it can come off as anti-stenographer, but there is a clever catch. NCRA’s bylaws and constitution are all about promulgating stenographic reporters. So basically it would allow hybrid state associations to affiliate with NCRA if they were in line with promoting stenography. This is a creative way to be inclusionary, and I’m voting yes, but I also have to urge us to make sure we have a process for taking away affiliation if an association shifts from our team to against us.

NCRA Amendment Proposals

A short post encouraging everyone to read and eventually vote on the recent NCRA amendment proposals. Though I have not been the NCRA’s greatest fan in most recent times, I do believe all of the bylaw changes are necessary and good. I do believe I will be voting yes on each, and I encourage everyone to vote as their heart tells them to vote. In a quick summary, it deals with a lot of clarification regarding who is a voter and maybe most impactful of all, changes the name to National Captioners and Reporters Association. I see this move as inclusionary and reasoned. Many court reporters are upset that we are moving away from the court reporter title, but I do believe there is a bright side to the change.

There are two things I have commented on in the past that are worth mentioning though, and it’s unfortunate to not see them mentioned, nor see any mention of them. One, the price of CEUs had been increased, as per my memory, and at that time I stood by NCRA’s decision to do that, and I retract that. I think given everything I know, NCRA probably shouldn’t increase the cost for instructors to make CEUs available. Accessibility is key.

The second thing that I had commented on, and stand by pretty firmly, is that the NCRA should continue to keep people’s testing legs for the lifetime of a membership. And I still stand by the statement that I would sacrifice my own legs, of which I hold 3/4 on the RPR, if the testing procedure would remain holding the legs for the lifetime of a membership. Again, accessibility is key.

Now, I’d have to ask anyone who takes the time to read this to really voice your concern about the legs, or anything you have concern over. Write NCRA. Perhaps that should’ve been something we voted on as a membership? But regardless, also vote on the proposed amendments. I basically put my stake in the ground and said I’m letting my membership lapse if the testing legs stop being kept for members. There’s literally nothing more I could do to convince anyone of how seriously I feel on the issue. And if anyone feels as I do, please speak up. Please vote on the amendments. Please be an active part of the association and profession for as long as you are a part of it.

EDIT. Important update. The vote should go to your email on August 2, 2018. That’s the date I have currently.