 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 
|
|
 |
||||||||||||||||
|
Bar News - September 3, 2004 Court Stenographers: Promises Regarding Jobs' Future Were Broken By: Peter Bonafide OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS (stenographers) are dedicated, highly skilled, loyal employees of the state. Ever since the experimentation with and proliferation of the use of tape recorders, stenographers have asked what this means for them. They were told several times by former chief justices of the New Hampshire Superior Court not to worry, that their jobs were secure, that their positions would transfer only through attrition. These assurances were offered to the stenographers specifically to allay fears that we would be directly replaced with tape recorders. This was a very narrow promise, one on which the stenographers placed significant reliance. We have questioned why such promises have been found to be meaningless. The Supreme Court tells us that "lifetime employment" was never contemplated. The stenographers never presumed this promise to mean "lifetime employment," only that we would be protected from losing our jobs to tape recorders. We are now in peril of losing our jobs because of flawed data used by the legislature in making recommendations to the Supreme Court that we, indeed, be replaced with less expensive tape recorders. As the number of stenographers dwindled and the number of tape recorders grew, we continued to express our concerns. Repeatedly, the same assurances were given. The Supreme Court is now reneging on those promises. The data gathered was incomplete. Hidden costs were given no consideration. It’s alleged stenographers cost double what tape recorders do. Not true. Monitors who run the tape recorders have been given salary increases. Equipment used to make recordings is paid for and maintained by the state at enormous expense. Conversely, stenographers purchase and maintain their own state-of-the-art equipment. In August 2003, the stenographers had their salaries significantly reduced when the Supreme Court started confiscating fees traditionally paid to stenographers for the preparation of transcripts. These fees are set by statute. The stenographers now generate money for the state, using self-financed equipment. When transcripts are produced from tapes, the state pays the statutory fees to outside transcriptionists. Regarding the alleged advantages of digital recording, those being immediate access to portions of the record and improved transcription quality, I dare say any experienced trial lawyer would state differently. Stenographers are frequently requested to locate specific portions of the record by both judges and counsel. It’s an established fact that stenographers produce better quality transcripts and are more professional in their demeanor [than non-professional level monitors.] The state continues to expend resources trying to bring tape recorder technology up to par with that of the stenographers. Stenographers sit quietly and unobtrusively in the courtroom, but we are specifically trained to perform our courtroom functions. It takes years to hone our skills to a level where we become certified and are able to undertake our responsibilities at the highest level. The true innovation in courtroom technology lies in real-time reporting, where the stenographer’s steno strokes are immediately translated into English for all to see on computer monitors. Several of the stenographers are already certified in this field. This technology is not available with tape recorders. Because our skills are specialized, if terminated, the majority of us would have to relocate out of state. The least tenured stenographer is approaching 10 years of service. Many stenographers have been employed between 15 and 20 years, some even longer. We all have roots in our communities. We have children in grade schools, high schools and colleges throughout this state. We made a commitment to raise our families here in New Hampshire because we were assured that if we performed well in our jobs we could retire with dignity. We are now being told those promises were unauthorized. Superior Court judges recognize our value to the court system and have united in an effort to enlighten the Supreme Court of alternate proposals in an attempt to halt our termination. Other court personnel have supported us. This support falls on deaf ears. The Supreme Court seems intent on dumbing down the courts. Concerning the alleged lack of authority to extend any promises to the stenographers, one has to assume the Superior Court judges believed they had such authority; otherwise, the only other conclusion is that they lied. Judges are held in the highest regard. Great significance is attached to the words spoken by any judge. Anything conveyed by a judge should not be dismissed as meaningless or unauthorized. You can’t pick and choose when to trust the integrity of statements put forward by a judge. Justice and fairness dictate that honorable men and women are held to their word. Peter Bonafide is an official court reporter at the Hillsborough Superior Court, Northern District, in Manchester. This article is published with permission.
|
|
Home | About the Bar | For Members | For the Public | Legal Links | Publications | Online Store New Hampshire Bar Association |
