The SKREM Task Force last year was a rushed process and the resulting Final Report, where these suggested rule changes came from, are not in the public interest. The legislative language from the Final Report that was sent to the Legislature this year was dropped. The bill died because of many issues and recognition that this would be a huge disservice to the litigants and to our legal system as a whole. Please vote against any change to the current rules.

Brigid Donovan, RPR
Arizona Certified Court Reporter
Washington Certified Court Reporter
Phoenix, Arizona
[email protected]
206.930.4320

I am in opposition of the suggested rule changes. The currently mandated proceedings are just too important to risk to the inherent inefficiencies of ER because property, freedom, and life all depend on a clear and accurate record. Please vote against any changes to the current rules.

I am in opposition of the suggested rule changes. Certified Court Reporters have ethical responsibilities in taking down testimony and in the production of the transcripts. These areas are instances where people's lives and liberty are at stake. To rely on electronic recording leaves too many opportunities for error. Please vote against any changes to the current rules.

I am against any change to the current rules. The Keeping the Record Committee in 2005 did a thorough study with all stakeholders present regarding what court hearings needed a certified court reporter to preserve testimony and what the best practices were. Nothing has changed since 2005 that would warrant changing the policy determinations previously made by the Arizona Supreme Court. People’s lives and liberty are at stake, and relying on electronic recording to create the record would be a major injustice. Please vote against any changes to the current rules.

The SKREM Task Force last year was a rushed process and the resulting Final Report, where these suggested rule changes came from, are not in the public interest. The legislative language from the Final Report that was sent to the Legislature this year was dropped. The bill died because of many issues and recognition that this would be a huge disservice to the litigants and to our legal system as a whole. Please vote against any change to the current rules.

Thank you for your time and attention in considering this very important issue.

Leslie C. Craith, RPR
P. O. Box 1898
Higley, AZ 85236
[email protected]

Hello,

I am strongly in OPPOSITION to Rule R-20-0013 and urge that you vote against it.

In this legislative session the legislature heard HB2235 and it failed in the House. However, the Administrative Office of the Courts wants to circumvent both the will of the legislature and the attitude and viewpoints of the public by putting forth Rule R-20-0013 that contains the same language as HB2235 and IN ITS ORIGINAL FORM WITH NO CHANGES.

I have been a certified court reporter in the state of Arizona since 1987. I take my duties as an officer of the court very seriously and the term "Guardian of the Record" accurately describes my responsibility as well as every other court reporter whom I know. We are independent third parties whose obligation is to record and maintain a verbatim record of all court proceedings - from Grand Jury proceedings, depositions, jury selection, any and all testimony given under oath, and the rulings and decisions by judges and juries. We can stop speakers if they are talking too fast or overlapping one another. Verbatim means EVERY WORD is reported and transcribed, not “inaudible” or “indiscernible." Someone's life may be placed in jeopardy if an answer is tape-recorded and subsequently deemed "inaudible" or "indiscernible" by a typist employed by an outside transcription company or outsourced somewhere overseas to a transcript factory. We are educated, highly qualified, required to participate in continuing education, and dedicated to our profession.

The SKREM Task Force last year was a rushed process and the resulting Final Report, where these suggested rule changes came from, are not in the public interest. The legislative language from the Final Report that was sent to the Legislature this year was dropped. The bill died because of many issues and recognition that this would be a huge disservice to the litigants and to our legal system as a whole. Please vote against any change to the current rules.

Please do not put the lives of Arizona's citizens into the "hands" of a tape recorder. Vote against Rule R-20-0013 and uphold all of our rights to fair and equitable justice. Thank you.

Annette Satterlee, RPR, CRC
Arizona Certified Reporter, Certificate No. 50179
4310 E. Cayuga Ln.
Rimrock, Arizona 86335
928.225.1722
[email protected]

I am against any change to the current rules. The Keeping the Record Committee in 2005 did a thorough study with all stakeholders present regarding what court hearings needed a certified court reporter to preserve testimony and what the best practices were. Nothing has changed since 2005 that would warrant changing the policy determinations previously made by the Arizona Supreme Court. People’s lives and liberty are at stake, and relying on electronic recording to create the record would be a major injustice.
The SKREM Task Force last year was a rushed process and the resulting Final Report, where these suggested rule changes came from, are not in the public interest. The legislative language from the Final Report that was sent to the Legislature this year was dropped. The bill died because of many issues and recognition that this would be a huge disservice to the litigants and to our legal system as a whole.
Please vote against any changes to the current rules.

Kim Rupiper, CR, CRR, CRC
4411 East Robin Lane
Phoenix, AZ 85050
602-818-8559
[email protected]

To whom it may concern,

I am against any change to the current rules. The Keeping the Record Committee in 2005 did a thorough study with all stakeholders present regarding what court hearings needed a certified court reporter to preserve testimony and what the best practices were. Nothing has changed since 2005 that would warrant changing the policy determinations previously made by the Arizona Supreme Court. People’s lives and liberty are at stake, and relying on electronic recording to create the record would be a major injustice. Please vote against any changes to the current rules.

Paula Campbell, CR, RDR, CRR, CRC
[email protected]
312-560-5253

Kristin DeCasas
1427 N. Gene Ave.
Tempe, AZ 85281
5867707714
[email protected]

I am in opposition to this proposed rule. The bill with the same language was already defeated in this legislative session, and for good cause. It is nonsensical. I am in my 25th year as a stenographer. Ever since I was in school 25 years ago, we were warned that there are people/companies out there who stand to gain considerable amounts of money if they could replace court reporters with just a recording of proceedings. This is nothing new. The reason stenographers are still around is because we have the training and brain function in order to make us the most efficient, accurate and precise method of keeping a record. There is no substitute that is superior to a human being. We have voices to alert participants when there is ANY KIND OF PROBLEM, of which there are about a thousand things that can go wrong in a proceeding. Stenographers are the voice alert to problems and the maker and keeper of the record.

A recording system is a great back up, but should never be used as primary. It is an inferior and incompetent process for keeping the record. The last time this bill was defeated, it was asked "What is the back up for the proposed system?" The person proposing this bill had no answer. He diverted and digressed and did not answer the question because there is NO BACK UP! If there is a failure with the proposed system all record keeping is lost. If two people speak at once, it does not alert. If someone mumbles, it doesn't know. If someone coughs, it doesn't ask to repeat. If someone isn't speaking loud enough, it does not raise its hand and alert. In the end all that the person who is paying for that transcript or that person who is being held in prison, or that child who has had a miserable life and is waiting to be adopted will get -- instead of testimony -- is "(INAUDIBLE.)" and it could be critical and life-altering!

If anyone cares about having an accurate record then this Proposed Rule will not pass. It is ludicrous. In matters of importance you do not make the back up system your main system without having a competent back up. It is a subpar system with many flaws. It is commensurate with asking Siri or Google to answer an important and complicated problem without human interface. Maybe we should just have Siri serve as Judge and jury while we are at it!

Court reporters are well-trained. We are not just typists. We are physically present, producing a record in real time, not after the fact. When something works, you don't change it just because someone sees an opportunity to benefit financially.

Thank you for your consideration.
Kristin M. DeCasas, CSR, RPR

To whom it may concern:

I OPPOSE R-20-0013

Please vote against any changes to the current rules.

Last year I reported a trial where an attorney was called as a witness. During the testimony he recounted the difficulties he faced to adequately represent his client during an appeal due to the failure of electronic recording. This one exchange, in particular, shown below, has remained in my mind to cite when faced with having to advocate for court reporters over ER.

The case I am referring to is Larsgard v. Straub, et al., 4:13-cv-00638-DCB, Jury Trial Day 2, March 19, 2019, Page 52, Lines 1 through 20, as excerpted from the testimony of Attorney Criss Calendaria:

"Q. Okay. And have you ever learned new information in between the filing of a brief and before a reply brief that could result in you requesting relief from the Court to add new issues before the answer was filed?
"MR. CARTER: Objection. Vague.
"THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.
"A. There is a procedure whereby you can ask them, say, 'Hey, look, I just found this stuff out, Judge. I'd like to be able to address this because it's part of the record.'
But, you know, usually -- because we're all electronic reporting in Navajo County, and we don't have court reporters, sometimes the machines don't work and you don't have a transcript at all, so I have to deal more with trying to reconstruct a record. So, thank God for court reporters. I'd never have electronic if I was a judge.
MR. CHAMI: Thank you. Nothing further, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right, sir. Thank you for your appearance.
MR. CANDELARIA: Thank you, Your Honor."

In short, the people of Arizona, the courts, judges, lawyers, and parties to an action deserve the advantage offered by a Certified Court Reporter, as the maker and guardian of a record which is able to be produced upon request in a timely manner. The perceived savings offered by using ER will not matter when the recording fails and attorneys are forced to "reconstruct a record" from memory.

Respectfully submitted,

Tracy Jamieson, RDR, CRR
Official Federal Court Reporter
Arizona Court Reporter # 50117
(520) 460-6449
[email protected]

I am strongly in opposition to these suggested rule changes. Members of the Public are entitled to the most accurate transcript of proceedings, which can only be provided by a Certified Court Reporter. Inaudible parts in the electronic recordings are all to common, and DO NOT serve the needs of the Public or the needs of the Attorneys serving the Public! There is no way to know that a recorded proceeding has been compromised due to the failings of the electronic recording. They don't work when people overspeak each other, or when attorneys walk across the courtroom away from microphones, etc. These can very adversely affect lives due to inefficient electronic recordings!
Please vote against any changes to our current Rules. Thank you.

Donna Terrell,
RPR, RMR, RDR, CRR
Certified Court Reporter
Brush and Terrell
12473 West Redfield Road
El Mirage, AZ 85335
623-561-8046
[email protected]

I am in opposition of R-20-0013 because certified court reporters have an ethical responsibility to be keepers of the record and ensure the transcripts are accurate. ER has flaws such as words lost due to louder noises. Such interruptions are not fair to citizens that deserve an accurate record of their proceedings. ER poses a threat to people's lives and well-being. Please vote against any changes to the current rules.

Lorraine Milligan
[email protected]
623-221-9315

I am in opposition to the suggested rule change. I have been a court reporter for 33 years, the last 12 in Superior Court in Maricopa County. I have had trials with witnesses that had such heavy accents no recording could possibly decipher the content of their testimony. I've had trials with such fast witnesses that no recording could decipher the content of their testimony. The SKREM Task Force was rushed through without adequate consideration. The final report that was sent to the legislature this year was dropped. The bill died because of many issues and recognition that this would be a huge disservice to the litigants and to our legal system as a whole. Please vote against any changes to the current rules.

Thank you.

Gail E. Ferguson
Certified Court Reporter 50797
[email protected]
(323) 804-4553

I have been a court reporter for 43 years, have been certified in three states, and have reported both in-court proceedings and depositions. I have also transcribed tapes from the court FTR systems. I can tell you that trying to create a record after-the-fact from tapes is a frustrating and often impossible task. The joy and benefit of having a Certified Court Reporter during proceedings allows that reporter to verify that everything said can be understood, heard, and transcribed. It is too late to try to create a record when the hearing is over and everyone has left, which is when a tape would be sent out for transcription. I am therefore strongly in opposition to these suggested rule changes. Everyone appearing in court is entitled to the most accurate transcript of proceedings, which can only be provided by a Certified Court Reporter.
Respectfully submitted:

Charlotte A. Powers, RMR, CSR, CRR, FCRR, CMRS
503-312-8526
[email protected]
4845 E. Charleston Ave.
Scottsdale, AZ 85254

Arizona Court Reporters Association (ACRA) is opposed to the proposed rule changes and attaches its Dissenting Opinion to the final report of the SKREM Task Force. We strongly urge no change to the current rules, as the proposed changes do not provide justice for the parties, are a grave disservice to the legal system, and do not provide for the best record available to the parties and public at large. Refer to the attachment for the complete basis of our opposition.

Tracy Johnston
Court Reporter
ACRA President
SKREM Task Force Committee Member
622 W Zia Dr
Tucson, AZ 85704
520-488-9420
[email protected]

I am against the proposed rule changes in the above matter. Certified court reporters have ethical responsibilities in the stenograph reporting and producing of transcripts. Although an electronic recording system may seem to be an initial savings, it is my thought that there would be inevitable losses due to technological malfunctions that may not be immediately apparent, that by the time they are discovered would be too late to do anything about. A live certified court reporter present at proceedings where someone's life and liberty is at stake can ask for things to be repeated that a machine cannot, can stop people from talking over each other whereas a machine cannot. Please vote against these changes.

Tara Kramer, RPR
Certified Reporter
[email protected]

I am OPPOSED to the rule changes for the same valid reasons already mentioned by many. In addition:
There is no shortage of certified reporters. The Request a Certified Reporter program has been implemented, and counties statewide have utilized this program to request a certified reporter, and it has been VERY successful in filling their requests.
There is an inability of the transcription agencies to produce transcripts timely from the FTR/ER recordings. They are consistently PAST DUE on the Court of Appeals website, and the transcripts are small pretrial matters consisting of 5 to 20 pages in length. Allowing them to do trials consisting of hundreds and thousands of pages will cause an even bigger delay to the appeal process. There's also NO accountability for these transcription agencies and NO measures in place to address issues that will certainly arise regarding recording/transcription errors and omissions.

Please vote NO to these rule changes. Thank you!

Cindy L. Lineburg
602-363-9743
[email protected]

I have been a Court Reporter for 38 years, 21 years in Superior Court. I now own a business that transcribes the audio produced from ER Courtrooms. It all goes well until the Clerk hits "Play" instead of "Record", or two speakers sound exactly the same and the transcriber cannot figure out who is saying what. Then when an attorney jumps up to object to another's question while both the other attorney and the witness are speaking at once, and his objection is completely garbled in the mayhem. How about jury selection? You have jurors responding in the back of the courtroom, not providing their name, and give details about their knowledge of the case and everyone in the back of the courtroom heard the prejudicial comments, but the ER system won't pick it up. Then there's the famous nod of the head instead of an answer and the only one that realized it was the Court Reporter who asked the witness to answer out loud.

There are so many instances that occur on a regular basis in a courtroom that "trash" the record unless the highly-skilled Certified Court Reporter is present and is able to control the proceedings by asking witnesses to speak louder or to repeat their answer, asking a juror to state their name, asking the attorneys to please speak one at a time, identifying the person who made the loud comment from the back of the courtroom. Then comes the all too often "private" discussion between the attorney and his client where they whisper quietly so no one can hear it except the transcriber who transcribed the comments, or the opposing counsel who purchased the CD and heard their conversation. The Court Reporter knows without hesitation to not include those discussions in the record. None of this can be adequately captured by simply pushing a button!

The Certified Court Reporter is highly-trained in legal jargon and expert terminology. They listen intently, and immediately either clarify or request a repeat of an "inaudible" response or question. The ER system simply records the proceeding including the parts that are not discernible, and the moment is lost to clarify the record.

This rule change is a TERRIBLE idea for so many reasons. No person is a litigant in the Superior Court because they want to be there. They are either charged with a crime where their life and liberty may be at stake, or civil cases where the outcome can literally leave them penniless. Please explain to me which part of the record in their case is okay to be compromised, even slightly! This is not a money-saver and is a very bad idea, and I completely OPPOSE any attempt to compromise the Official Record of Proceedings in Arizona's only Court of Record!

Respectfully Submitted:

Lerryn Horton Roberds, RPR CCR
6170 East Treadway Trail
Flagstaff, Arizona 86004
928-213-1040
[email protected]

• I am against any change to the current rules. The Keeping the Record Committee in 2005 did a thorough study with all stakeholders present regarding what court hearings needed a certified court reporter to preserve testimony and what the best practices were. Nothing has changed since 2005 that would warrant changing the policy determinations previously made by the Arizona Supreme Court. People’s lives and liberty are at stake, and relying on electronic recording to create the record would be a major injustice. Please vote against any changes to the current rules.

Barbara H. Stockford
Official Court Reporter
401 W. Washington Street, Spc. 39
Phoenix, AZ 85003
480-332-7407
[email protected]

I am in opposition of the suggested rule changes. Certified Court Reporters have ethical responsibilities in taking down testimony and in the production of the transcripts. These areas are instances where people's lives and liberty are at stake. To rely on electronic recording leaves too many opportunities for error. Please vote against any changes to the current rules.


Kristyn Lobry, RPR
Official Court Reporter
Maricopa County Superior Court
[email protected]
602-506-1608

Good morning,

I have been a court reporter for 41 years. I currently work in the Federal Courthouse in Phoenix. The supreme manner of record-keeping in courts is with a real-time reporter, NOT an audio recording. A court reporter's sole job is to put the spoken word into the written word as quickly, as efficiently, and as cost-effective as possible. A real-time court reporter can provide INSTANT access to the printed word, something that an audio recording cannot, and never will be able to do with the same accuracy as a certified court reporter. Please do not deny litigants their right to a supreme written record of their proceedings.

The SKREM Task Force last year was a rushed process and the resulting Final Report, where these suggested rule changes came from, are not in the public interest. The legislative language from the Final Report that was sent to the Legislature this year was dropped. The bill died because of many issues and recognition that this would be a huge disservice to the litigants and to our legal system as a whole. Please vote against any change to the current rules.

Thank you.

Elaine Cropper, RDR, CRR, CCP
Official Court Reporter
United States District Court
401 West Washington Street, Suite 312, SPC 35
Phoenix, AZ 85003-2150

I am in OPPOSITION of the suggested rule changes. Certified Court Reporters have ethical responsibilities in taking down testimony and in the production of the transcripts. These areas are instances where people's lives, property, freedom and liberty are at stake. To rely on electronic recording leaves too many opportunities for error. Please vote AGAINST any changes to the current rules.

Michael E. Farro
Attorney at Law
3533 Canyon de Flores, Suite B
Sierra Vista, Arizona 85650
(520) 458-8494

As a freelance court reporter for over 30 years in Arizona, and having transcribed audio from hearings through ER courtrooms after the fact, I can aver that the live, in-person court reporter produces a superior record over the ER. People's lives and liberties are at stake. We need live court reporters in courtrooms. Please vote against any change to the current rules.

The SKREM Task Force last year was a rushed process and the resulting Final Report, where these suggested rule changes came from, are not in the public interest. The legislative language from the Final Report that was sent to the Legislature this year was dropped. The bill died because of many issues and recognition that this would be a huge disservice to the litigants and to our legal system as a whole. Please vote against any change to the current rules.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Karine Moore-Deysie, RPR
No. 50293
779 S. Dodge St.
Gilbert, Arizona 85233
(480) 203-9959
[email protected]