Good morning,

I oppose R-20-0013. I have been a reporter for over 23 years. I have seen firsthand failures in court with just recordings without a reporter present. As much as technology has evolved in the last few decades, it still needs maintenance, constant monitoring, servicing, and there are still quite a few failures where important proceedings were not recorded. To implement this across the board would be detrimental to our system of justice, incurring unnecessary costs to retry capital cases, felony cases, appellate cases. The petition also excludes wording agreed to by David Byers with the Arizona Court Reporter Coalition, to preserve the record in maintaining the continued use of court reporters in court. This language is not what was presented to the Legislation. R-20-0013 should be rejected and the wording should be changed to conform with statutes and to uphold what the Legislation was told would be the language in this petition.

Respectfully,

Lisa Bradley, CA CSR, RPR, Certificate 50442
Direct Line (602) 372-9435
[email protected]

I am in opposition to the proposed rule changes. I firmly believe that certified court reporters are needed to prevent grievous errors where people's lives and liberties are at stake and dependent upon clear and accurate record taking. The courts have an ethical responsibility to do what is best for the citizens they represent. Please VOTE AGAINST any changes to the current rules.
Anne Liu
6232258332
[email protected]
[email protected]

I oppose this proposed rule change. You will not find anyone (or any machine) more committed to ensuring an accurate and verbatim court record than an official court reporter. If the issue is a shortage of certified court reporters, the state of Arizona should consider raising salaries and page rates for qualified court reporters rather than attempting yet another shameful, demoralizing attack on these dedicated public servants.

Erica R. McQuillen
[email protected]

I am in strong opposition of the suggested rule changes. I have been a certified reporter in Gila County now for 33 years and I value what I bring to the table with my skills and help with the justice system here in Arizona. I just think that death penalty cases, felony jury trials are just too important to risk to the inherent inefficiencies of electron recording because life and liberty are inextricably dependent on a clear and accurate record. I believe this rule will hurt the judicial system as a whole and not protect those who need protecting in our society. Please vote against any changes to the current rule.

Denice Ripple
1400 East Ash Street
Globe, AZ 85501
(928) 402-8684
[email protected]

I oppose this proposition once again. I can tell you that there are many flaws with the recording system in Mohave County. Microphones forget to be turned on. There are some audio recordings where you can't even hear a single person, much less multiple people speaking at the same time. I have attorneys requesting audio from many of the family law court hearings, and the audio is horrible! One attorney said he was going to have to ask for a redo of a hearing because the audio was impossible to hear. Is this your idea of a good record? I said this before, and I'll say it again: There is no court reporter shortage! The shortage comes from our licensing board in getting court reporters certified here in Arizona. This proposal failed before, so I'm not sure why this keeps coming up. We court reporters are the Guardians of the Record, and we will keep fighting to preserve the record.

Christine Bemiss
3748 Northstar Dr
Lake Havasu City, AZ 86406
928-715-4412
[email protected]

I oppose this amendment. I had to take down a family court proceeding because the first time it was heard, the electronic recording failed. The court was responsible for the expenses of both attorneys and my transcript. That was just one instance. KR-RS -R AU/SOPL
Lori Thielmann, CR, RPR
[email protected]

I strongly oppose the proposed language changes and respectfully request you vote against the proposed changes. As a court reporter for the past 30 years, 8 years as a freelance reporter and the past 22 years as an official reporter, I have encountered many occasions where the FTR or Liberty equipment malfunctioned and an Official Court Reporter had to be called in to make the record, and many times finding out after the fact that disks are missing, only partial recordings existed or no recording at all was found. Please do not let ER become the norm. The proceedings are too important; the record will suffer gravely, creating extreme injustice and inequality in the justice system. Insist on the gold standard, nothing other than a Certified Court Reporter for all proceedings. The proposed language changes will surely violate any party's right to accurate, fair and impartial judicial proceedings when their life and liberties are at stake, effectively eliminating the party's ability to the best and most accurate record available; and potentially costing thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money to retry a matter due to digital recording failure.

Please vote against this proposed language change for the rights of all citizens. Thank you.

Jonna E. Baker, RMR
[email protected]
(928) 679-7552

I strongly oppose the proposed changes. My mom has been a court reporter for the past 30 years and has encountered many instances where the ER failed and an Official Court Reporter had to be called in to make the record. As my mom stated: “The proceedings are too important; the record will suffer gravely, creating extreme injustice and inequality in the justice system. Insist on the gold standard, nothing other than a Certified Court Reporter for all proceedings. The proposed language changes will surely violate any party's right to accurate, fair and impartial judicial proceedings when their life and liberties are at stake, effectively eliminating the party's ability to the best and most accurate record available; and potentially costing thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money to retry a matter due to digital recording failure.”

Jordyn Baker
[email protected]
(928) 699-6104

I have been a court reporter for 40 plus years. I have worked in Illinois, Florida, Colorado and now Arizona. I strongly oppose the suggested rule changes. Certified Court Reporters have an ethical responsibility to take down testimony and produce transcripts. These areas are instances where people's lives and liberties are at stake. To rely on electronic recording leaves too many opportunities for error.
Additionally, 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.
Please vote against any changes to the current rules.

Josie Roper
306 N. 8th Ave.
Holbrook, AZ 86025
CSR # 50511
928-853-0909
[email protected]

Lori Zucco
Chief Criminal Deputy
Cochise County Attorney's Office
150 Quality Hill Rd, Bisbee, AZ 85603
(520) 432-8700

I am in opposition to this rule change, especially as it relates to felony jury trials. Having a Court Reporter in a felony jury trial take a verbatim record is essential to the administration of justice in felony criminal practice. When people talk over each other or a witness doesn't speak loudly or clearly enough, the Court Reporter will often times halt the proceedings and make sure the situation is corrected so that we have a complete record for appeal. This function is essential in our practice and significantly limits the number of felony jury trials that have to be re-tried for lack of an accurate record.

I am opposed to the suggested rule changes. Death penalty cases, felony jury trials and abortion without parental consent cases are just too important to risk to the inherent inefficiencies of electronic recording because life and liberty are inextricably dependent on a clear and accurate record. 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 in 2019 was a rushed process and the resulting Final Report (where some of the suggested rule changes originated) are not in the public interest and are outdated based on newer information and standard practice. Please vote against any changes to the current rules.

Barbara H. Stockford, CRC/RMR/CRR
Court Reporter
401 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
[email protected]
602-322-7247

I am in opposition of the suggested rule changes. Death penalty cases, felony jury trials, and abortion
without parental consent cases are just too important to risk to the inherent inefficiencies of electronic
recording because life and liberty are inextricably dependent on a clear and accurate record. Please vote
against any changes to the current rules.

Certified 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.

In transcribing electronic court proceedings in the past, I've run into the following challenges and had indiscernible audio due to:
- speaker not close enough to microphone as they're handling exhibits
-speaker didn't enunciate can or can't
-multiple speakers speaking at the same time
-bench discussions re: objections whispered too low to discern
-shuffling papers or coughing near microphone(s) drowning out testimony or question
-soft-spoken speaker
-fast speaker with foreign dialect who is hard to understand, especially when they don't enunciate contractions (can|can't, did|didn't, would|wouldn't) where these may be crucial
-remote hearings where one side had great audio and the other did not, giving one side a great record and the other side being put at a disadvantage due to their poor connection/equipment

In each of the above circumstances, a live court reporter would interrupt to clarify the record to ensure accuracy. Some judges and attorneys are cognizant of the record and ask for clarification or that the speakers stay close to the microphones or answer audibly, etc., but adding this responsibility to the judges and attorneys to ensure an accurate recording takes away from where their focus should be, the case they are there to decide or represent.


Lorena Marin-Garcia, RPR, RMR, CRR
AZ CCR 50541
2415 E. Camelback Road, Suite 700
Phoenix, AZ 85016
602.512.1300
[email protected]

I am in Opposition of the bill as it currently stands. I've been a reporter for 25 years and I personally think there are good points on both sides of the amendment. I think there are some avenues that aren't being explored for how the rural counties can guarantee a reporter when needed, such as investing in better Internet and equipment to allow reporters to appear remotely. Also, how we can ensure the current officials don't lose their jobs as a result of relying on audio recording only. I don't think, or at least I hope, the proposers of this amendment believe reporters aren't vital to ensuring the record. That's exactly what the rural counties are in need of, more reporters, and due to the shortage, they're asking to rely on the electronic record. I believe it's approximately $30,000 per courtroom to install the audio equipment. Has anyone looked into installing stronger Internet capabilities and videoconferencing platforms to allow reporters from any state to appear? I also think if we offered some incentives to come work in Maricopa County, i.e., a higher pay, increase the page rate, etc, we would attract more reporters. Maricopa County is the fifth largest county in the country, yet the page rate hasn't increased in over 30 years and we're one of the lowest paying courthouses.
I think more discussion is needed, from all the people this bill will affect, before any decision is made.
Kristen Kasprzyk
44 W. Monroe St
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
480.678.4272
[email protected]

I oppose these changes. People's lives and liberty are dependent on receiving a fair trial and to leave the official record up to a machine is dangerous and lax. Not permitting attorneys to request and/or arrange for a court reporter to report proceedings in their case will hinder their ability to represent their clients and provide fair representation. I have had the experience of transcribing audio tapes from court hearings. They are of poor quality to say the least. Vital portions of testimony often cannot be discerned due to soft-spoken voices, persons speaking at the same time, coughing, shuffling of papers. In addition, what happens if the person in charge of the "record" forgets to turn it on or doesn't notice that it has stopped working?

In addition, the petition excludes wording agreed to by David Byers with the Arizona Court Reporter Coalition and this language is not what was presented to the Legislation. R-20-0013 should be rejected. Go back and work with professionals who understand the enormity of what such a change actually entails and would mean in the real world, not just on a piece of paper. Conform to statutes and to uphold what the Legislation was told originally would be the language in this petition. Do not place the lives of Arizona citizens in danger due to an incomplete record.

Annette Satterlee, CRC
275 W. Ft. McDowell Pl
Camp Verde, AZ 86322
928.225.1722
[email protected]

I am in opposition to the suggested rule changes. I have been a court reporter for close to 30 years and understand the dangers of relying on electronic recording when it comes to the well-being of the parties involved. Too much is at stake to decrease the standards for any reasons.

Having a certified, well-trained court reporter in person is the gold standard and, for the sake of the lives involved, we should accept nothing less. Court reporters have very good equipment that has evolved over the years to keep up with our high-tech world. We have built-in backup systems that ensure we can provide a reliable transcript every time. We have the ability to make sure the proceedings go smoothly and ask for clarifications or repeats when needed. This is invaluable to the making of a complete and accurate record.

There are many questions that arise with electronic recording. Who will be the person transcribing the recording when it's needed? Will that person be qualified or certified? Will there be an issue with chain of custody? Can the people typing up the proceedings meet deadlines? What will the cost be? I know from personal experience that often the page rate for persons typing a recorded hearing are more than what a certified reporter charges. What happens when the electronic recording fails or is not turned on, etc.? Who is held responsible? What happens to the lives of those who are depending on the State to give them a fair hearing?

Sincere thanks for your consideration in this matter.

Cindy Mahoney, RPR, RMR
623.512.7069
[email protected]

I am in opposition of the proposed rule changes. Digital preservation and transcription is NOT the same as a certified, professional human stenographer making and preserving testimony. Digital equipment fails, people forget to turn it on, transcripts are littered with "inaudible" due to too many variables to count.
Professional human stenographers are experts in taking down testimony, preserving, and creating a record. We know when testimony is not being captured for whatever reason because we are there, front and center, using our human brains with the ability to detect when someone is speaking too softly, papers are being rustled, someone is coughing, sneezing, or simply even clicking a pen when someone else is speaking causing a disruption for the record. Digital equipment simply does not have this ability. Stenographers are dynamic and smart. We are required to maintain continuing education in our specialized field. Many have spent decades perfecting our craft. Records of notes are kept in our control as opposed to recordings being sent out to be transcribed by anybody or any machine in any country who may have answered an ad to work for, in some cases, pennies where English may not even be their first language.
The record is too important to turn over to inexperience, potential security risks, or loss. Please keep the professional human stenographer in the chair and behind the wheel of this integral part of our justice system.

Dineen Squillante, Registered Professional Reporter
Double D Reporting
Arlington, VT
802 342-7199
[email protected]

I strongly oppose this amendment. There are many disadvantages to the use of electronic recording systems in lieu of a trained, certified, professional stenographic court reporter. Cost savings are negligible, if any. Costs of electronic recording include installation and maintenance of equipment, staff to monitor the equipment, office space for those employees and transcribers, (if done onsite), as well as storage costs for the large amount of space required to house audio and video files. For reference, I’ve attached a study done by Pierce County, Washington, which found cost savings to be minimal, and the advantages of court reporters to far outweigh any potential savings.*

Another factor that must be considered will be what happens when the recording systems fail, which they do frequently. Whether it is because someone forgets to turn the system on or because of a technical problem, the result is no record. Several states have experienced malfunctions that were not noticed for weeks. Even when the systems work, they are plagued with problems, such as speakers walking away from the microphone, clicking pens or rustling papers that drown out their voices, or outside noises, such as slamming doors or sirens going by. If you would like further documentation or examples, I am happy to provide them.

Security of these files is also a concern. Large municipal systems are attractive to hackers, whereas individual court reporters maintain their own individual records and files, and are unlikely to attract a hacker’s attention. It should also be noted that unlike audio files, a stenographer’s notes would not be usable by anyone else, as they are unique to each stenographer.

However, the most troubling issue to me is the impact on equal access to justice. Every litigant deserves an accurate record. When the court abdicates that responsibility and instead shifts the financial burden of preserving the record onto the litigants by having them hire their own stenographer, unequal treatment can and will result. When one party can afford to hire a stenographer with state-of-the-art skill and training and the other one cannot, the advantage goes to the wealthiest, leaving the party least able to afford it at a disadvantage. At a time when faith in government institutions is already under fire, this action would further undermine faith in our justice system. I urge you to reject this amendment.

*I am unable to attach the Pierce County study. It may be found here - https://online.co.pierce.wa.us/cfapps/council/model/otDocDownload.cfm

Elizabeth Patterson Harvey, CCR, RPR
PO Box 16009
Seattle, Washington 98116
206.300.5324
[email protected]

I am in OPPOSITION of the proposed rule changes because there are substantial risks associated with this change for multiple reasons outlined below:

- FTR and electronic equipment failures. For example, frequently the FTR system goes down and provides no notification to the administrators of the FTR and those in the current proceedings. The result is the loss of an official record which impacts VICTIMS' RIGHTS and Due Process of DEFENDANTS. This poses financial, reputational and regulatory risks.
- Massive volume of cases and continued increase as Arizona leads the nation in growth. At this point in time, Administration is unaware of the volume of trial pages produced. A cost benefit analysis has not been completed.
- Not highest and best use of managing expenses by sending electronic court recordings to be transcribed out of tax base losing the opportunity for sales tax growth here in Arizona.
- In addition to complete FTR failures, much of the recordings are inaudible again, resulting in an incomplete official record which directly impacts VICTIMS' RIGHTS and Due Process of DEFENDANTS thus increasing financial, reputational and regulatory risk.
- The current FTR team strategy to manage existing volume is falling short demonstrated by the high percentage of late transcripts to the Court of Appeals. The requests for the Rule change is absent language that describes or provides a strategy to increase performance, address current deficiencies, and how they will manage an influx of transcript volume.
- The Court is required to ensure the sanctity of VICTIMS' RIGHTS and Due Process for all DEFENDANTS including having appropriate staff, technology, and safeguards in place for electronic failures. As stated in the examples above, the performance of the FTR system and team managing it do not meet that standard.
- The request for the Rule change fails to address the current lack of compliance and how the transfer of work assignments from the court reporting team to the FTR team will increase performance levels, timeliness, and the confidence level that all previously stated risks are cared for.
- Potential reputational risk around the optics of eliminating or downsizing the Court Reporting Department in Maricopa County Superior Court that is comprised of 85% females and 30% minorities. In addition, the impact the Rule change will have state wide.
- Two years ago, the court reporting leadership team implemented process changes ensuring coverage in all outlying counties when required. Since that adjustment two years ago, there are no known instances of failing to provide court reporter coverage when required for outlying counties.

At this point in time, the reputational, regulatory and financial risks associated with this Rule change request are not in the best interests of the citizens of Maricopa County including VICTIMS' RIGHTS and due process required to all DEFENDANTS. In addition, the request seems even further misguided when considering the financial health, growth and tax revenue projections in upcoming years to maintain the current court reporting team.

Thank you,
Vanessa Gartner
[email protected]

I am in opposition of this change. Having been a certified court reporter for nearly 20 years in the Superior Court, I have seen many problems with the FTR system. There have been several times where the FTR has froze up during court and thankfully we as court reporters were there to keep the proceedings going. Just recently in a trial I was in in a "brand-new" courtroom, there were problems with the FTR on a daily basis. As hard as it is to hear in the courtrooms during jury selection, I just happened to go back to see if FTR was picking up what I was having difficulty hearing. Well, it didn't! I am glad I was there to have the jurors repeat their responses. Last year during the pandemic when things were slow, we were assisting the FTR department get caught up on their "past due" appeal transcripts. Transcribing those recordings was a nightmare. There were attorneys speaking away from the mics, speaking at the same time, etc.

Sincerely,
Treva B. Colwell
[email protected]

I am in opposition of the suggested rule changes. Please vote against any change to the current rules. To rely on electronic recording leaves too many opportunities for error. Nothing has changed since 2005 that would warrant changing the policy determinations previously made by the Arizona Supreme Court. Relying on electronic recording to create the record would be a major injustice. I believe this has been proven time after time. The transcript that is produced from these recordings is not an accurate record of the proceedings. I can't even believe this is even being considered. I strongly oppose these suggested rule changes and I hope you vote against any change.

Thank you.

Lori Reinhardt
183 E. Benrich Ct.
Gilbert. AZ 85295
480-216-1508
[email protected]