We enjoy reading the “rationales” for changing the Constitution and Bylaws of NCRA. It adds a little spice to some really dry text.
Here are the rationalizations put forward regarding Amendment No. 7:
- “In Purpose 1, of the Purposes of this Association, underrepresented CLVS members DO NOT want to be seen as an alternative method.”
Well, we’ve heard through the grapevine that the 1-800 consolidators have been requiring underrepresented videographers to become notaries so that they can swear witnesses because verbatim stenographic reporters won’t work for them. It’s our opinion that swearing in a witness, videoing without a stenographic reporter present, and sending that digital audio to India for transcription is “an alternative method.”
- “In Purpose 5, the CLVS members feel that they can assist in promoting the proper technical research that ensures the verbatim stenographic record and video record remain lawful.”
How does becoming voting members of NCRA accomplish this, we wonder?
- “Purpose 8, to cooperate for the benefit of the public.”
That’s a weird rationalization for making a major change to the C&B of NCRA.
- “CLVS members are not asking for a seat at the table. By requesting this change, CLVS members are asking to have a say in who sits at the table, to have a voice in their own governance.”
Hey, CLVSs, if you want a say in who sits at NCRA’s table, go pass a stenography course and become a verbatim stenographic reporter. If you want to “have a voice in your own governance,” start a new association just for CLVSs.
- “Currently, CLVS members are Associate Members with annual dues of $179. As Participating Members, CLVS annual dues would be raised to $300 annually.”
We agree that CLVS Associate Membership should be raised to $300. THAT’S a great idea. And it won’t even require a change to NCRA’s C&B.
WAKE UP, NCRA!
FRANK N. SENSE
P.S. Isn’t this déjà vu all over again? How many times does membership have to say NO! to this, Board of Directors? Is it time for new leadership that will focus – and stay focused – on Verbatim Stenographic Reporters?
P.P.S. Please forward this to all NCRA verbatim stenographic reporters that you know so that they will VOTE NO! TO NO. 7, too.