MCRA this year has incurred legal expenses in the neighborhood of $11,000 to back an official reporter where a defense attorney had petitioned the court, and the appeals court to try to obtain the backup audio of the reporter. Circuit Court found for the reporter, and the case was up at the Appeals Court when the defendant's trial happened.
The defendant was found not guilty. And, therefore, not pursued at the appellate level. We're finding more attorneys requesting audios.
Most Missouri courts offer the ability to obtain a CD of a hearing when done by the FTR Gold audio recording for the low price of $25 or thereabouts. The audio is incredibly good on these CDs and the attorneys are using their requests for the CDs as a fishing expedition for off-the-record comments, etc.
MCRA board is currently working on a proposal to submit to the Circuit Presiding Judges to request that local court rules be changed to not provide audios.
Submitted by Melissa Hannah
**********************************************************************
MCRA, through its lobbyist, sponsored language to 488.2250. Currently, the language reads that the only amount that can ever be charged by ANY -- freelance & official -- reporter for ANY transcript produced is set at the appellate rate. Our language proposed changing the statute to read that those rates applied to "appeal transcripts only" and that language was passed through the House and Senate. We were one of 75 bills that made it through the legislature this year out of approximately 2,000 that were introduced.
However, during the course of the journey through the House and Senate there was an objection raised by the Public Defender's Office that this would mean that if they were to ever pay more than $2.60 a page for any transcript that it would be an increase of $100,000 to their budget.
Our lobbyist, David Klarich, reached out immediately to me and I forwarded a reply to him explaining that, in fact, this would mean no increase to them. He took that to the committee working on the legislation. Upon further exploration, the number provided by the Public Defender's Office had no facts to back up their claim.
However, the governor's office did not take notice of that fact, instead relying on a summary that had been dealt with in committee. We never received any request for information from the governor's office that they had concerns about our language. Our language was line-item vetoed on the final day it was on the governor's desk.
Upon discussion with the Board and upon the lobbyist's recommendation, we will proceed again next year through the legislature. We will also attempt to educate the governor's office about what it is that we do and how we perform our jobs.
MCRA will once again go and testify before the committees and answer any questions that come from the legislature in the next session to ensure passage of this bill.
There was an article in Missouri Lawyers Weekly. Mr. Klarich responded on our behalf and his comments are as follows:
"The recent veto of a bill seeking to clarify reimbursement rates for court reporters has drawn criticism by the main backer of the legislation.
On July 14, Gov. Eric Greitens vetoed Senate Bill 128, a bill initially dedicated to removing the division designations from Jackson County Courts. The bill expanded to include several other issues, prompting Greitens' disapproval.
In his veto letter, Greitens specifically targeted a portion of the bill that focused on court reporter's fees, calling it a "serious" flaw.
He wrote that the state employs more than 140 court reporters, each of whom create an official transcript of proceedings in their assigned courtroom, and the amount they can charge for transcripts is statutorily capped. The cap is $3.50 per page.
He expressed concern that the final version of the bill would remove those caps altogether, which backers said was inaccurate.
"Under this bill, court reporters could charge any price they choose," he wrote. "A court reporter could, for example, charge $100 per page. This is problematic because court reporters have a monopoly on producing these transcripts."
Greitens additionally wrote that the bill would limit citizens' access to transcripts and negatively impact taxpayers. He pointed to estimates from the Missouri State Public Defender that the increase could cost its office at least $100,000 per year.
David Klarich, a St. Louis attorney who represents the Missouri Court Reporters Association and lobbied for the change in Section 488.2250, said he didn't anticipate a veto on the issue because the bill had overwhelming approval in the General Assembly.
What also took him by surprise was the content of the veto letter, which he said fails to clearly identify the purpose of the statute and contains erroneous information.
"I have to say it was just jaw dropping, the inaccuracy of the message," Klarich said.
Greitens' office did not respond to a request for comment.
Klarich said the association's members wanted to fix the statute's language, which was updated in 2013 to increase the per page reimbursement cap from $2 to $3.50, and update the law to reflect current technology.
"Our intention in 2013 was to have the per-page (rate) attributed to appellate transcripts only," he said. "The way that it was drafted has been interpreted for all transcripts, extraordinary writs and everything else."
In the 2017 session, he said the MCRA hoped to revisit the statute and clarify that the $3.50 per page cap applied to appellate transcripts only.
The bill would have removed a portion of the statute's language that specifies the $3.50 rate applies to "proceedings in any circuit court."
He said some of the confusion may have come from an inaccurate summary of the bill. Still, he said there should have been more careful consideration of the statute. "We don't legislate by summary, we legislate by statute," he said.
Klarich said that Greitens failed to mention in the letter that there are also independent, freelance court reporters.
He also took issue with Greitens' description of the "monopoly" court reporters have on transcripts, noting that such a monopoly is intended by statute.
"It's no different than attorneys having a monopoly over the practice of law and doctors having a monopoly on practicing medicine," he said. He added he would like to see the language pass in a future session.
"We have to make that change so it doesn't have a deleterious effect on court reporters throughout the state," he stated."
Submitted by Kathy Foley
*********************************************************************
Another concern in Missouri, some firm owners in MO are doing a grassroots effort of writing letters and emails to the CCR board to try to get reciprocity, because of the difficulty in hiring new reporters.
In the past the CCR Board has been adamantly opposed to reciprocity when MCRA has brought it up. If the CCR Board heard from the members and how it is affecting you, maybe they will take another look at the issue.
The mere number of new reporters passing the MO CCR is not meeting the demand. And factor in the average age of the reporters in MO are growing ever closer to retirement.
If this is your concern, the CCR board contact info is as follows:
ATTN: CCR BOARD MEMBERS
C/O Ms. Maggie Burch
Supreme Court of Missouri
Board of Certified Court Reporter Examiners
P.O. Box 150
207 West High Street
Jefferson City, MO 65102
(573) 751-4144
BOARD OF CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER EXAMINERS
**The Honorable Colleen Dolan, (Chair)
Judge, Missouri Court of Appeals, E.D
**The Honorable David Lee Vincent III
Judge, 21st Judicial Circuit
**Ms. Angie Culler
Court Reporter, 28th Judicial Circuit
**The Honorable Laura J. Johnson
Presiding Judge, 38th Judicial Circuit
**Mr. Brett Harrison
Court Reporter, 30th Judicial Circuit
**The Honorable Russell E. Steele, Vice Chair
Presiding Judge, 2nd Judicial Circuit
**The Honorable John M. Torrence
Judge, 16th Judicial Circuit
**Ms. Deborah McLaughlin
Freelance Court Reporter
**Ms. Linda Dattilo
Court Reporter, Division 4
21st Judicial Circuit
**Ms. Mary K. Conway (CONSULTANT)
5th Judicial Circuit (Retired)
Also, if you would cc MCRA at [email protected] that would help us know how to proceed. Thank you.
Submitted by Melissa Hannah
**********************************************************************
Another concern in MO is the never ending problem of losing copy costs with the sharing of our transcripts electronically and how to address that. If you have thoughts or ideas on how to address that please email us at [email protected]
And with that, those are all the concerns that MCRA are working on and trying to address currently.
If you feel that MCRA is not addressing your topic of concern, please share that with MCRA at [email protected]
|
erving as the Vice President of the Missouri Court Reporters Association. I have been on the board for approximately seven years, serving in different capacities. I enjoy volunteering and giving back to the court reporter profession, as it has given me so much throughout the years. 
