(Presented Only from Personal Observation)
An amendment has been brought to the membership of NCRA by a group of professionals wishing to recognize voice writers and invite them to membership in the NCRA. This vote will be called during the annual meeting this summer. As with any suggested change to governing documents, members are encouraged to seek out information as and where they can and to use their discernment in making their choice.
Throughout my years affiliated with this career field (35) and membership in NCRA (33), I have met some truly outstanding advocates for our amazing profession, and many whom I hold in high esteem have sponsored this amendment. Though everyone reaches their stance on this topic via a different path, I hope that my almost 20 years of educating NCRA members and leaders on voice have at least shed insight to this highly talented group bringing the proposed amendment.
The TL;DR of this message is that I believe that voice writers are the best proponents of their method of stenography; that NCRA has stated many times over the years that the association is machine stenographic ONLY; and that I will be voting NO on this amendment because I believe that even though many will embrace voice, there will always be people who will not, and inviting people to the table where they will not be appreciated, even if only by a few, does a disservice to the person being invited. This profession is challenging enough as it is without having your colleagues denigrate your skill set.
If you’d like to read more of my reasoning, I’ll be happy to share. And I will do my best to keep my personal and highly emotional experience out of the fray here.
Firstly, again, I need to commend the sponsors of this proposed amendment. The sea change in thinking about voice is welcome. Voice writing and the role voice writers play in the continuity of the profession is something that cannot and should not be overlooked. Thank you, my friends, for your vision.
Over the past 20+ years there have been a few times where an attempt has been made to bring voice into the association, and each time it has been met with not just a solid “No,” but a vitriolic, passionate, and often mean-spirited “Hell No.” The members have spoken. NCRA is a machine stenographic association. [Indeed, per their recent legal papers, they have said that “the American Association of Electronic Reporters and Transcribers (AAERT) and the National Verbatim Reporters Association (NVRA) are insignificant competitors to NCRA”]
To date, there are still places where a voice writer cannot legally work and others that while they ostensibly COULD work, they will most likely never be able to due to long-standing bias from reporters in the area and the attorneys, judges, and paralegals who have been poisoned over the years by this same bias that may come from a sense of fear, superiority, or simply misunderstanding. Nonetheless, there is still a great deal of disparity in the ability for a voice writing court reporter to practice their skill in much of the country. Though some states and their associations are moving toward embracing voice, there is still a long way to go.
Why now? What has changed? Is the two-thirds threshold for passing achievable? (with the caveat that in my recent experience, only approximately 10 percent of the eligible members actually vote so very few make the decision)
- Is it because membership numbers are down and thus revenues?
- Is it because for a third year a dues increase is also up for adoption?
- Is it because there is simply no more room to cut expenses and another revenue stream is needed?
I’m confident that none of the makers are seeing it from this perspective, but the questions cannot be brushed aside.
When I joined the association in the early ‘90s, I would hazard a guess that the membership was near to 30,000 professionals. We’ve seen this number steadily decline over the years and I’m sorry to say I do not even know the current number of eligible voting members as of 2025. I’m sure it’s a far cry from 30,000.
The association for years said there was going to need to be a push for recruitment and education to bolster the number of professionals entering the field as reporters reach the age of retirement. There was even a white paper published. But for years, the strategic plan did not include talking with the NVRA, the counterpart association using voice technology. Why? This outreach even as few as 5 or 10 years ago could have made a difference in both the culture of the profession AND the legislative and lobbying efforts for professional court reporters across the country. And yet, even now, I wonder why no outreach has been made. And every time I personally try to present a program on the similarities and differences between the methods and how they can work together to relieve the shortage, it is denied for continuing education credits and must be modified to remove the “working together” part.
But even if this amendment passes, where is the guarantee that a voice writer will be embraced and welcomed as an equal?
Per the NCRA website (emphasis added): “Upon successful passage of the amendment, all affected sections of the Constitution & Bylaws and/or Policies & Procedures may be amended to reflect the inclusion of voice writers as members, subject to approval by the NCRA Board of Directors upon presentation and recommendation by the NCRA Constitution & Bylaws Committee.”
“May,” not “shall.” Until such time as the rest of the necessary changes are made, will voice writers still be considered “less than” and not eligible to receive full benefit of association membership? How much disenfranchisement is sustainable?
Over the past several years, leadership and staff of NCRA have worked diligently to address their fiduciary responsibilities by limiting expenditures, cutting staff, eliminating programs, and yet there is another call for a dues increase on the table. (If memory serves, the last two failed). If the amendment passes, there is a chance many voice writers will step in to fill the gap; but what about the members who voted no? Will they leave? Which number will be greater? Is it a chance worth taking?
There is more that I could say, especially on the topic of certification and education parameters, and I’m happy to respond separately to that topic. I am quite passionate and would take even more paragraphs to expound upon it.
To conclude, I would again like to thank the sponsors for their consideration and thoughtfulness in how to bring two sides of one coin together. However, both NVRA and NCRA and their members have spoken as to the composition of the respective associations. Indeed, NCRA has said numerous times that machine stenography is the gold standard and prefers to be an association that keeps to that purity. NVRA embraces verbatim reporters, whether voice writing or machine practitioners, and has the knowledge and experience to support voice fully.
Instead of trying to encourage something that may not be palatable to those who have been advocating for voice for years and have been disrespected time and again or dangling a shiny object (membership) before newer reporters who don’t understand the complex history of the two associations, perhaps asking leadership of both associations to meet and determine if affiliating in a different way would work: Develop plans to work together to advocate before the public and our client base about the methods that use ethical, trained, certified, and responsible professional individuals to take down the record and live speech into captions – and – to educate members of both associations about the new environment in which we find ourselves which places us into a collaborative mode rather than one in which we are adversarial.
I urge everyone to vote with their conviction. And with much respect, I remain:
Tori Pittman, BA, FAPR, RDR, CRI (Ret.), CVR-CM-M, RCP, RVR
2023 NVRA Accuracy Challenge Champion
2022 VRCA Speed Contest Champion
2019 Intersteno Overall Silver Medalist – Speed
2017 Intersteno Overall Bronze Medalist – Speed
2013/2015/2017/2019 Intersteno Speed Champion – Voice