77th (2013) Session
Opinions
View all submitted comments for each bill by the most recent, by votes for, or by votes against.
| SB64 | ||
| - | ||
| Against | In order to preserve the integrity of the record, it is imperative that court recorders, like court reporters, be certified to ensure the welfare of the public. It does not seem logical that you would have certification for the person protecting the court record and replacing them with a person who does not. | Feb-25-2013 |
| Against | This is a very bad and misguided bill. Please vote no. | Feb-13-2013 |
| Against | Feb-13-2013 | |
| Against | Feb-13-2013 | |
| Against | Feb-13-2013 | |
| Against | Recorders are not trained like court reporters, and should not be treated the same | Feb-13-2013 |
| Against | "The record" is protected and reliable only when captured and produced by a skillfully educated and trained individual who has credentials, licenses and continues to educated themselves in the course of their profession. A certified court reporter meets those requirements. A court "recorder" at this point in time has no formal training and would be a disservice to the public and the judicial system. | Feb-12-2013 |
| Against | Feb-12-2013 | |
| Against | Feb-12-2013 | |
| Against | Feb-12-2013 | |
| Against | Feb-12-2013 | |
| Against | Feb-12-2013 | |
| Against | Dear Senator Segerblom: I have been a court reporter for 24 years, all of them here in Nevada. I am writing to you today to ask you to vote NO on SB 64. I am familiar with digital recording and believe it has a place in Nevada's courts under certain circumstances. Those circumstances include the requirement that professionals entrusted with creating and transcribing the official judicial record should be qualified, tested, and have ongoing accountability to the courts for the quality of that record. These requirements are already in place for Nevada's Certified Court Reporters. The judicial system should establish the same kinds of requirements for court recorders and transcribers. Until those requirements are in place, SB 64 should not pass. Thank you for your consideration. Tonja Gill Lemich CSR No. 380 Tick Segerblom tsegerblom@sen.state.nv. | Feb-12-2013 |
| Against | As a court reporter, I had to attend court reporting school and get certified by the state to become a court reporter. I was required to take academic classes and pass each class before I could take the state exam to become licensed. In court reporting school, you have 18 months of English, 6 months of Anatomy, 6 months of medical, vocabulary and legal classes, plus your speed classes. You also have to learn how to put a transcript together. I am appalled that the legislature would even consider SB64 for a vote. Recorders are not required to have any kind of certification, yet they are being considered to get the same per diem rate and page rate as we do. I urge you to not let this bill be passed. | Feb-12-2013 |
| Against | Feb-12-2013 | |
| Against | court reporters work very hard and provide quality work. if anyone were to do it, you would not get the quality transcripts that we do now. | Feb-12-2013 |
| Against | a court reporter is a very hard job, and not anyone can do it | Feb-12-2013 |
| Against | a court reporter job is very difficult and important to our judicial system. it would be a joke to not realize that. | Feb-12-2013 |
| Against | My sister is a court reporter, and so is my aunt, and their jobs are extremely hard and they do a great job, and take their jobs very seriously. this would not be a good bill to pass. | Feb-12-2013 |
| Against | My daugher has been a reporter for 8 years, and she works extremely hard to do her job. My sister has also been a reporter for 30 plus years and she works extremely hard as well. if this bill passed, it would be a disgrace to our community. | Feb-12-2013 |
| Against | My mom works very hard being a court reporter, and not anyone can just do this job.. it would be sad if this bill was passed. | Feb-12-2013 |
| Against | My girlfriend has been working as a court reporter for almost 9 years, and I see all the hard work she puts into it every day! this would be a disgrace if this bill was passed for not only the judicial system, but for citizens as well. | Feb-12-2013 |
| For | court recorders don't have the education required to make the legal record. | Feb-12-2013 |
| Against | Not for the best interest of the public | Feb-11-2013 |
| Against | Inequitable toward certified court reporters | Feb-11-2013 |
| Against | I, Cecilia Thomas, CCR 712, am against court "recorders" making a record for compensation when they are not properly licensed and trained. | Feb-11-2013 |
| Against | SB64 undermines the intent of certification of court reporters in Nevada in that it imposes no equal certification requirements for court recorders. Since the Legislature felt originally that public welfare and safety were at stake when instituting certification requirements for court reporters working in Nevada, we feel that these same protections and certification requirements should be mandatory for court recorders working in all Nevada courts VOTE NO ON SB64. Thank you! John Molezzo | Feb-11-2013 |
| Against | Legislative wisdom in Nevada for professionals (teachers, chiropractors, cosmetologists,etc.) has always favored certification to provide the public with confidence in competency. As an airline pilot I agree with this philosophy. Please vote against this bill in its current form. | Feb-11-2013 |
| Against | Feb-11-2013 | |
| Against | Feb-11-2013 | |
| Against | Feb-11-2013 | |
| Against | Feb-11-2013 | |
| Against | Feb-11-2013 | |
| Against | Feb-11-2013 | |
| Against | Feb-11-2013 | |
| Against | I went to school for six years to become a certified court reporter in nv, and do continuing education every year. This is very unfair if this bill is passed. A court reporter job is an important part of the judicial system and should be kept that way | Feb-11-2013 |
| Against | Feb-11-2013 | |
| Against | Feb-11-2013 | |
| Against | Please vote NO on SB64. This legislation undermines the intent of court reporter certification in the State of Nevada in that it imposes no equal certification requirements for electronic court RECORDERS. Since the Legislature felt originally that public welfare and safety were at stake when instituting certification requirements for court reporters working in Nevada, I feel that these same protections and certification requirements should be mandatory for court recorders working in all Nevada courts | Feb-11-2013 |
| Against | Feb-11-2013 | |
| Against | Feb-11-2013 | |
| Against | Feb-11-2013 | |
| Against | Feb-11-2013 | |
| Against | Feb-11-2013 | |
| Against | Feb-11-2013 | |
| Against | Feb-11-2013 | |
| Against | Feb-11-2013 | |
| Against | Completely undermines the intent of certification for certified court reporters. Will cause the public an injustice. As well undermines the hard work and dedication court reporters endure to get and maintain their licenses in good standing. | Feb-11-2013 |
| Against | Feb-11-2013 | |
| Against | Feb-10-2013 | |
| Against | It is patently unfair for court records to command the same pay for transcripts and per diems as court reporters. Court reporters must be licensed by the state, attend continuing education and annually renew state certification. If your goal is to truly protect the public, court recorders must come under the same authority and meet the same certification requirements as reporters do. | Feb-10-2013 |
| Against | Why should court recorders be considered an equal to court reporters when there are no certification requirements for court recorders? Reporters and recorders both are responsible for creating the verbatim record in court, yet recorders are not accountable for their performance -- or lack thereof. This proposed statute creates a huge exception for when recorders are derelict in their duties such as improper oversight of transcription, equipment monitoring failure and a missing and/or unusable record as a result. Transcripts on appeal are the "engine" of propelling the case forward to resolution. When there is no transcript, the justice system fails. Reporters, not recorders, are certified and regulated by the Nevada Court Reporters Board and have statutes that pertain to their obligations under the law when performing their job. When one is responsible for protecting the integrity of the record in Nevada courts, the citizens must be assured that person is competent and qualified. Please vote No on this bill! | Feb-10-2013 |
| Against | This bill will allow enterprising criminal defense attorneys to look to defects in the recording process as a whole new area of potential due process errors. A live court reporter controls the process of presenting evidence to assure that a good record is produced. They do this by asking attorneys not to speak at the same time, by slowing down the speaking rate of attorneys, by asking them to speak at a reasonable volume, by distinguishing between speakers and background noise. Court recorders do none of these things. The transcriber cannot correct the lack of control over the presentation after the fact. It is inevitable that the quality of the records produced by the recorder-transcriptionist process will be of lower quality than the court reporter process. | Feb-08-2013 |
| Against | NEVADA STATE CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER CCR 365 SINCE 1992. TO USE A RECORDER WITHOUT THE EDUCATION BEHIND THE STATE CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT IS AN INCORRECT TRANSCRIPT. JURY SELECTION AND OTHER TRANSCRIPTS WOULD BASICALLY BE A JOKE WITHOUT THE CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER THERE TO SPEAK UP WHEN YOU CAN'T HEAR, PLUS HAVE ACCURATE SPEAKER IDENTIFICATION AND KNOWLEDGE OF MAKING AN ACCURATE RECORD. YOU MIGHT AS WELL HIRE SOMEONE FROM TACO BELL TO DO A TRANSCRIPT. | Feb-08-2013 |
| Against | Feb-08-2013 | |
| Against | Certified court reporters are the most appropriate professionals to provide transcript preparation for court proceedings. A recording, monitored by uncertified, untrained sources, is no match for the duties that skilled and certified court reporters perform. Appearance fees and page rates comparable to what a certified court reporter receives by statute should not be paid to any person selected to run and monitor a recording device and attempt to produce a written record. Certified court reporters provide instantaneous verbatim records and provide the human element necessary to ensure the integrity of a proceeding. Court clerks have too many responsibilities to perform the function of monitoring the electronic equipment to the highest level necessary to avoid the potential pitfalls and liabilities of a defective record, or no record being captured at all, due to equipment malfunctioning. | Feb-08-2013 |
| Against | Nevada statues require Certified Court Reporters to be licensed, tested, and attend continuing education, yet this bill grants most of the same powers to court recorders without any prequalifications beyond possessing one finger to press the record button on the recorder. In Colorado where electronic recording is used, one operator managed to confuse the duties and paused the recorder during testimony and recorded the recesses for an entire two-week trial. We should demand more from those entrusted with making a record of judicial proceedings, including death penalty cases. | Feb-07-2013 |
| Against | Feb-07-2013 | |
| Against | Feb-07-2013 | |
| Against | Feb-07-2013 | |
| Against | Court recorders should be held to the same standard as Court Reporters, who adhere to the rules of a governing Board, if they want to inherit the same privileges. | Feb-06-2013 |
| Against | Feb-06-2013 | |
| Against | The way this law reads, it seems to be directed at some occurrence where a mistake was made. That's a bad reason for overarching legislation. Also, to propose to hold another very expensive trial based on alleged flaws in the content of a transcript is ridiculous! Why not have the well-trained Court Reporters do their jobs as professionals and have a backup tape or tamperproof digital recording? Redundant systems can prevent any fraud or mistakes. | Feb-06-2013 |
| Against | I would be FOR this SB, except that I think its pretty clear this introduced bill has some serious flaws that need to be worked out before I'd say FOR. Please fix the defects and reintroduce. | Feb-05-2013 |
| Against | Feb-05-2013 | |
| Against | Feb-05-2013 | |
| Against | Feb-05-2013 | |
| Against | Feb-05-2013 | |
| Against | Feb-05-2013 | |
| Against | Feb-05-2013 | |
| Against | Feb-05-2013 | |
| Against | Feb-05-2013 | |
| Against | This bill is not a good idea. No matter how advanced the recording equipment, it cannot replace the services of a court reporter. | Feb-05-2013 |
| Against | It is imperative that all court recorders be held to a higher standard. Court Reporters are highly trained and educated. We can't make changes that hold two people doing a similar job to different standards. | Feb-05-2013 |
| Against | recorderd are NOT certified by the state, nor do they have to have continuing education, license renewal, etc. | Feb-05-2013 |
| Against | Electronic court recorders lack the training and certification requirements that certified court reporters must complete and should not be entitled to the same per diem and transcript compensation. In conversations I have had with attorneys, one of the comments I hear is that there is a real difference in the quality of transcripts; when a transcript is produced by a certified court reporter, the quality is much higher. | Feb-04-2013 |
| Against | Please vote NO | Feb-04-2013 |
| Against | I think this bill is outrageously unfair to the real court reporters who have a highly technical skill, who have gone to school, have to be certified by the state and maintain that certification, as opposed to a recorder operator, to get paid the same. I vehemently oppose this. | Feb-04-2013 |
| Against | SB64 undermines the intent of certification of court reporters in Nevada in that it imposes no equal certification requirements for court recorders. Since our Legislature felt originally that public welfare and safety were at stake when instituting certification requirements for court reporters working in Nevada, I feel that these same protections and certification requirements should be mandatory for court recorders working in all Nevada courts. Thank you for your time, Cecilia Vohl, NV CCR #246 Certified Court Reporter Department 9 Honorable Scott N. Freeman Washoe County Courthouse 75 Court Street Reno, NV 89501-1982 Mailing Address: 2265 Watt Street Reno, NV 89509 Phone: 775-827-0672 Fax: 775-827-5850 Email: cvohl@att.net | Feb-04-2013 |
| Against | Please vote AGAINST SB64. I am a Nevada certified court reporter. Court reporters must pass an exam in order to be licensed in Nevada, and also have strict standards to which they must adhere in Nevada and across the country. SB64 subverts the intent of the certification of court reporters, as there is no equal certification requirement for court recorders. I urge you to vote AGAINST SB64. | Feb-04-2013 |
| Against | As court reporters in Nevada have to be licensed by the state and have to take a state licensing proficiency exam in order to be licensed, court recorders should also have to take a proficiency examination and be licensed by the state if they are to be compensated the same as a reporter. There will be no means of address if a court recorder's transcript is deficient. I frankly do not think they should be compensated the same as a reporter, as I don't know how much proficiency is required to run a tape recorder, which is essentially what recorders do. | Feb-04-2013 |
| Against | Recorders should not be able to charge the same rate for transcribing ER recordings as a Court Reporter. They are not certified and subject to the same regulations as Certified Court Reporters. | Feb-04-2013 |
| Against | As a working court reporter who has to be certified and licensed, I believe court recorders should be held to the same standards. | Feb-04-2013 |
| Against | Feb-04-2013 | |
| Against | I am a certified court reporter in the state of Nevada. Court recorders should be held to the same standards as court reporters if they are going to receive compensation for transcribing the record and receiving per diem rates comparable to court reporters. Court recorders should have to get certified just like court reporters. Compensating court recorders as if they are certified court reporters undermines the whole court reporting profession and the integrity of the verbatim record. It takes a certain skill to do what court reporters do. Anybody can transcribe an audiotape or CD. You wouldn't pay someone the same salary who was unskilled as you would someone who is skilled. That's unfair. If this bill does pass then any official record from a court recorder better not be allowed to have (inaudible) throughout the record. Court reporters don't know that word and don't use it. I am so against this bill. It really angers me that this is even an issue in our judicial system. | Feb-04-2013 |
| Against | As a court reporter for many years, I am proud of the fact that I have been certified in three states, New York, Rhode Island and Nevada,(scoring extremely high scores in each) and I don't think that a court recorder, who has to take no certifying examination, should be receiving the same compensation as the certified court reporter in Nevada. | Feb-04-2013 |
| Against | Court reporter certification was enacted for the protection of the citizens in Nevada and the integrity of the record. Court recorders should have to be certified for the same reasons. | Feb-04-2013 |
| Against | If court recorders are to be compensated equally to actual court reporters, they should also have a strict certification process and continuing education requirements as well. | Feb-04-2013 |
| Against | Why would you want to pay a recorder the same as a reporter who has to be licensed and certified? Also, recorders already receive a salary. This bill will entitle them to receive additional compensation where a recorder would earn more money than a reporter. | Jan-31-2013 |
 Session Info | NELIS | Interim Info | Law Library | General Info | Counsel Bureau | Research Library | Assembly | Senate | FAQs View Scheduled Meetings | Publications | Proposals | Career Opportunities | Gift Shop | Site Map | Contact Us © 2013 Nevada Legislative Counsel Bureau |
|