My campaign table gets moved to the front

News from the convention: My opponent, Jason Meaders, was found to have violated the election rule that says you can only pass out campaign material from your assigned campaign table. He was passing out materials on a totally different floor where all the state leaders and speed contest writers were located. None of the other contestants were passing out anything because no activities were taking place where the tables are located. As a result, my table location for tomorrow's business meeting has been moved to the front and will be the first table seen by the reporters entering the business meeting.

If I Had 15 Minutes

IF I HAD 15 MINUTES
BRUCE A. MATTHEWS

Going through my materials for my speech at the business meeting, I have found that five minutes is such a short period of time that it barely allows me to discuss two topics in any detail at all. So I have decided to post here what I would say if I had 15 minutes to speak. And believe me, I could talk for a lot longer than that. Having five minutes, you really just have to jump from topic to topic.

First, I would say we have to do what our C&B says, promote stenographic verbatim reporting over all other methods. We have gotten so far away from that, it just makes me crazy. The current officers on this board talk about how we have to work with other methods. Well, we’ve been doing that for years and years. The difference is that now we’re losing more jobs, and instead of fighting tooth and nail to keep those jobs, they say that we have to work with the other methods. Not in my world, we don’t.

We need to stop the divisiveness that has been permeating the Association because the board has been going in one direction, while the majority of the membership wishes they would be going in the opposite direction. We need to promote us, ladies and gentlemen, and the best product on the planet, realtime. And we need a change in leadership to do it.

I don’t know this for sure, but I believe my opposition will say that I have been a cause of some of the divisiveness over the course of the past six months. I have always been a positive person, ladies and gentlemen. But when I’m running against what has been going on for the past several years, I have to talk about the negative things we have experienced. How else would I be able to express my opinions on what we should be doing that is different than what has been going on?

I have heard so many past officers say that they did everything they could to promote realtime and the members wouldn’t go for it. Well, that might be true, but that doesn’t mean you give up. This is partly the fault of the membership as well, and I’m not afraid to say that. We need to have more certified realtime reporters, period, and we have to provide the training to make that happen. We have to force feed the judges and attorneys to use it. That’s what we did where I work, and now they won’t do without it.

The board now says they’re going to listen to the members. Well, that’s good. They are supposed to represent the members, so yes, listening to them would be a good start. The majority rules, ladies and gentlemen. That’s how it is in our society.

While I don’t want to dwell on the past, I do want to talk about the thinking or logic of the board over the past several years. How is it that you are so concerned about the number of students we have in our schools, which we should be concerned about, but at the same time write articles and posts and talk about working with the other methods? I mean, if I’m a young person thinking about going to court reporting school and I see or hear what the board has been saying, why would I decide to go to court reporting school? Like I said, we have to promote us. If a prospective student goes to the NVRA or AAERT websites, they will see how NVRA says you only have to go to school for nine months and you can start working right away, and AAERT says their goal is to be the ultimate expert in making the record. And what has NCRA been saying? We need to work with these other methods. It just doesn’t follow, ladies and gentlemen.

After last year’s convention, I called the president of NVRA and asked her if NVRA had any desire for NCRA to do their testing for them. She laughed and said, “Heavens, no. We derive revenue from our testing program just like NCRA does. Why would we want to turn that over the NCRA?“ Now, I found that out in a five-minute phone call. Why would NCRA waste their time trying to do something which simply is not going to happen? Also, it would cost NCRA money to let these folks who use other methods come in because their numbers are so small. With everything that would need to be put in place to serve these new members, it would cost more to serve them than NCRA would receive from them becoming members.

Why over an eight-year period have we increased the Executive Director’s salary an average of 6.76% per year, while at the same time, over the same eight years, our membership declined 18.2%? Does this make any sense to you? It doesn’t to me, and I don’t put that on the Executive Director. I’m for everyone making as much as they can. I put that on the several iterations of the board who voted to keep renewing his contract at a higher rate.

And then there is the confidentiality issue I have discussed. Why do we, as court reporters, have to sign confidentiality agreements when we are assigned to a committee or on the board? Aren’t we all trying to do the right thing for our profession? I know there are things that need to be held in confidence, and so does everyone else. The Executive Director has even admitted that NCRA is over the top in regards to their confidentiality provisions. When I went to Melanie’s planning meeting in February, I was told everything has to be held in confidence, and I objected. I’ve been to more of those type meetings than any other member, and I was never told that things had to be held in confidence before. And after the meeting, it was determined that nothing discussed was confidential. I mean, we were talking about the future of the Association and the profession. What could be confidential about that? And who would we have been keeping it confidential from, the members? It just doesn’t make any sense to me whatsoever.

We need to move forward with realtime. We need to show the courts, the lawyers, and the funding sources that when you take all costs into consideration, DAR is no cheaper than having court reporters do the job. Why are we always taking a step back? We need to promote us.

So the board now says the question will be asked: What should the future of the profession and the Association look like? I hope we can all get together and tell the board that we want to promote stenographic verbatim reporting to the hilt.

I will have financial and membership data on my table at the hotel in Chicago. Please stop by to talk and take a look. I don’t want this election to be all about the duties of the secretary-treasurer, because to hold that officer position means a lot more than being the watchdog of the funds for the Association. The other part of the job is being an officer of the Association and helping to lead the Association through tough times. Ladies and gentlemen, I have served on the finance and budget committee in the past during tough times in the early 1990’s, and I have been in charge as president of the Association and the Foundation of all things financial regarding those entities. I am qualified and ready, willing and able to hold the position and if elected will try to hold the position for three years.

There’s one last thing I want to say. This past June, just a month ago or so, President Morgan admitted in her President’s Message in the JCR that the Association has been focusing too much time on becoming an umbrella-type testing and membership organization. I believe that to be true, and I‘m sure many of you do as well. The question is: Do you want the same officers who have been involved in that focus and on the board for the last several years to now lead you into the future? Or is it time for a change? That’s what this is all about, ladies and gentlemen.

Please check out my past experience on the next page.

Thanks for listening.



Bruce A. Matthews, RDR-CRR, FAPR

PAST BOARD POSITIONS

Past President, Ohio Court Reporters Association, 1984-85
Director, NCRA, 1989-1992
VP, NCRA, 1992-1993
PE, NCRA, 1993-1994
President, 1994-1995
Past President, 1995-1996
Trustee, NCRF, 1995-1996
Trustee, NCRF, 1997-1998
Vice Chair, NCRF, 1998-1999
Chair, NCRF, 1999-2000
Past Chair, NCRF, 2000-2001

PAST COMMITTEE POSITIONS

COPE, three-year term, two years as chair, after 1996
CAPR, three-year term, after 1996
Technology Committee
Realtime Committee
Realtime Contest Committee, wrote and dictated first two contests
Finance and Budget Committee, helped establish policies still used today
Executive Committee
Past President’s Advisory Board, after 1996
Quality Improvement Committee, Chair
Legislative Committee
NCSA Resolutions Committee
Constitution and Bylaws Committee, Chair, after 1996
Nominating Committee, Chair, 1996
Convention Committee
President-Elect’s Planning Committee, 2010 and many others

AWARDS
Fellow of the Academy of Professional Reporters, 1988
Distinguished Service Award, OCRA, 1990
Spark Award, OCRA, 1990
Honor Award, Academy of Court Reporter and Technology, 1987

Mark your calendars to vote next Thursday, August 5

Hello, Friends.

I know there are reminders everywhere, but obviously it is very important that you remember to vote next Thursday, August 5th, for the four persons you deem best qualitifed to help lead NCRA into the future.

Obviously, I am calling for a change in thinking and a change in direction. And I'm hoping the members will tell the Board that they want a change as well by voting for me for Secretary-Treasurer.

Hopefully, you have all registered your email address with NCRA, but if you haven't you need to go to NCRAonline, making sure you can get into that site with your user name (membership number) and password, and then make sure your email is up to date on the site. Look at your settings to be sure. If you are receiving email from NCRA, you should be good.

Next, mark your calendar, by cell phone if possible, and make an appointment for yourself to vote online on August 5th, 2010.

Check your email on August 5th in the early afternoon and keep checking it, including your spam, until you see an email from NCRA which will give you the needed link to the voting website. You'll again have to have your log-in information available to you, so write that down and keep it handy as well. Know your NCRA membership number and your password.

If you have any problem, call headquarters at 1-800-272-6272 or email them at msic@ncrahq.org. Check to be sure you can get into the site before August 5th! There may also be a phoone number listed in the email NCRA sends you concerning voting if you need help. The voting will begin about two hours after the business meeting and then will remain open for 12 hours, so you can vote from home after work if you like.

I'm ready, willing and able to serve you, so please don't forget to vote!!

Thanks.

BAM

The Tweaking of the C&B

I don't know who writes this stuff, but sometimes I really do find it comical. I read with great interest the Board's assessment of the proposed bylaws amendments. It's funny how they say that they take no position with the substance of the proposed amendments and then proceed to say they cannot support them for all the following reasons. Isn't that like taking a position?

Speaking only about the Board's comments to the proposed amendment that I wrote and the rationale that I wrote as well, Article V, Section 2, the Board says the number of seven years is totally arbitrary on my part, which, of course, it isn't. First I looked at the fact that a director can serve a full three-year term, sit off for one year, and then run again and serve another full three-year term. In essence, just being arbitrary now with this picking of numbers, a qualified reporter could be a director for 12 out of 15 years. In choosing seven years for officer positions, I felt that if a person served as vice president and then succeeded in going through the chairs of president-elect, president and immediate past president, that would be four years, and then three more would be seven, so it would be seven years before that person could run for vice president again. I hardly consider that logic arbitrary. It ends up being three times more time that the person serving in the officer position would have to wait over what a person serving in a director position would have to wait.

Then they say that piecemealing the C&B is just not a good thing and perhaps the whole thing should be rewritten. I wonder what someone would say if it was suggested that we rewrite the U.S. Constitution? And, oh, by the way, weren't there a few amendments to that document?

And lastly, I have said here and elsewhere more than once, but do it again here, that if I win the election for secretary-treasurer, I will not try to move up the ladder again. I will try to stay on for three years in that spot and then retire from board service. So if anyone gets up and says this is all about Bruce Matthews wanting to be president again, well, I'm afraid it just won't be so.

BAM

Which is it?

Recently, the Deposition Reporters Association of California asked the reporters running for positions on the NCRA Board of Directors questions so that members could be informed of where these reporters stood with regard to the issues of the day.

The first question asked if the candidates believed NCRA should remain a steno organization or become an umbrella organization.

My opponent in the race for secretary-treasurer answered: "We should and will remain what the membership decides. I do not see and would not advocate bringing in audio recording operators into NCRA."

But earlier in a post on the NCRA Forum, he said, "I'm not in favor of supporting an ER/DAR operator push for membership -- again, lacking facts to sway me to the contrary."

So I guess my question is: Which is it? Are you against it or are you only against it until someone can convince you otherwise? Don't we have the right to have an organization that advocates for what we do? Don't we have the right to have an association that advocates only for stenographic reporters? Isn't that what our Constitution and Bylaws say we are all about? And haven't the members already told the board on three separate occasions that they want to remain steno only?

I am growing tired of hearing about what DAR can do. I already know what DAR can do. But I also know what we can do, and we ought to be talking about that. The president of NCRA just admitted that for the past couple years, the NCRA board was too engrossed in becoming an umbrella-type testing organization and an umbrella-type membership organization. And my opponent has been a member of that board for four out the the last five years. She said they are now going to listen to the membership to see what direction they want the association to go in. That's great! I do question the timing of it all, coming out one month before the convention with all of these contested elections taking place, but let's advocate for steno. Let's advocate to the public and our members for realtime. Let's do what we should have been doing for the last several years.

LISTEN TO THE MEMBERS!

I just received my June issue of the JCR, and as I usually do, I opened it to the President's Page to read what President Morgan had written. Much to my surprise, she wrote: "Almost two years ago, the NCRA Board of Directors attempted to launch a similar discussion, but, in the process, we were thinking too much about the future of the Association rather than on the furture of the profession. To frame the conversation, we focused too extensively on the potential inclusion of those using other methods of making the record within an 'umbrella-type' testing or membershiip scenario. To say the least, this was an approach that served no one well."

They have finally admitted what was going on. They were panicking about their numbers and felt they needed to bring in other people and money either by way of testing or by way of membership. The problem is the membership has been telling them for years, many more than two, that they want NCRA to remain a steno only organization. At the presidential planning meeting I attended earlier this year, SueLynn Morgan told me that NCRA could not afford to have another motion-to-rescind-type scenario happen again. She stopped short of what she is saying now, but it's obvious if the board would not have been looking to test or bring in other "methods," the motion to rescind would have never taken place.

So now, right before the convention, they come out and say, "We are now going to listen to the membership." Well, I say it's about time.

Clarification in ED cost

The following question was asked of me by the Deposition Reporters Association from California, and I have new information regarding the cost to members of the Executive Director of NCRA. I am only including question and answer 4, because DRA is planning on publishing this in their newsletter in July. I will publish the entire thing here when it comes out. I am posting this on this blog site on June 11.

4. Do you think $30,000 a month is an appropriate salary for the executive director?

Let me first explain that when I posted on my blog site that we pay the ED $360,000 a year, that was salary and benefits. I did not use the word “salary” and should have been more careful in my wording. However, let me explain that I have been working with a group of people in the election campaign who are very interested in the money that is spent on the ED position, as well as other positions at NCRA. I have the IRS Form 990 for the year 2007. All non-profit organizations have to file these. And one of the items is the ED’s pay. For the year 2007, the form listed the ED’s compensation at $313,782 and his benefits at $48,969. Adding those together, it comes to $362,751. That is where I came up with the $360,000 figure.

Now, the people I have been working with have been trying to get those numbers for quite some time directly from NCRA and could never get them. So they went to a service that deals in obtaining this information and we got the numbers submitted to the IRS through this service. You do not even need to be a member of a non-profit organization to be able to obtain this Form 990 IRS tax data. Understand that 2007 is the latest Form 990 that we have. The one for 2008 will come out after this year’s convention. So this is the latest information we have. I have now been told that due to some sort of overlap, the information on the 2007 990 is for more than one year.

I have been told directly by the ED himself that his salary is $273,858, and I certainly believe him. So that would come out to about $22,821 per month.

I have also been informed that sometime next week, which will be the week of June 14th, NCRA will send out a notice to all members explaining what the ED’s salary and benefits are.

Having said all that, there are two things to keep in mind as far as I’m concerned. One is that over the period of time the current ED has been employed at NCRA, the membership numbers have been dropping. When I left the board as immediate past president in 1996, I believe we were at right about 33,000 members. We now have approximately 20,000. You can do the math. That includes all membership categories. I am not trying to say this was the ED’s fault. I’m just saying those are the numbers.

The other thing is this whole concept of confidentiality. Why would what we pay a staff member be a secret from the membership? If I pay someone to come and clean my house, I guess I should know what I’m paying them. If I’m going to hire a lawyer, I guess I should know what I’m going to have to pay the lawyer. It’s my money. They will be working for me. I have every right to know.

When there was a teleconference I believe in January of this year with all the people who had been nominated for a board position and were going to be interviewed by the Nominating Committee, the ED was explaining about a confidentiality form you have to sign if you become a member of the board. Actually, they asked you to sign even before you become a member of the board. They wanted it signed before you were interviewed by the Nominating Committee. And he said that this confidentiality thing was somewhat unique to NCRA. Well, I refused to sign the form and said that if I do get elected, I’ll have a discussion with the board first to try to do away with the requirement before I would ever sign it. So the fact that the information relating to the total compensation we pay the ED is going to be released to the entire membership of NCRA, I think is a real plus and consider it a win for those people who really like to know what’s going on. I think we have been able to kind of kill two birds with one stone as far as gathering information and dealing with the confidentiality issue.

Now, I guess you can draw this conclusion for yourselves, but while the group I’m working with was trying to get this information directly from NCRA, did the board not know they were trying to get this information? More importantly, did the secretary-treasurer not know these members were trying to get this information? If he didn’t, then there’s some communication problems between staff and the board. If he did, why was the information not turned over? The members have a right to know.