A Strategic Bypass or a Pattern of Evasion? A Deeper Look at Margary Rogers’ Candidacy for NCRA Vice President

Posted bystenoimperiumPosted inCourt ReportingTags:, , , , , , , , , , , ,

In every election, voters are asked to weigh more than personalities—they are tasked with evaluating qualifications, character, and a candidate’s respect for process. This year’s NCRA Vice Presidential race demands that kind of scrutiny. Two candidates stand before the membership: one, Carol Reed Naughton, nominated through the official Nominating Committee (NomCom) process after years of consistent service and transparency; and the other, Margary Rogers, a sitting board member who chose to bypass that process entirely, entering the race by petition. While that path is technically allowed, the implications behind the decision—and her track record—warrant a serious second look.

A Campaign That Started with a Circumvention

Rogers publicly stated during the NCRA VP Town Hall that skipping the NomCom process was “strategic” and intentional. That alone raises questions. The NomCom exists not just as a procedural formality but as a safeguard—a vetting mechanism to ensure those aspiring to leadership have been properly evaluated and deemed fit to lead. Rogers’ bypass of this vetting was not born out of exclusion. She didn’t apply. She didn’t interview. She simply circumvented, strategically.

Strategic… or calculated?

Members must ask: Why avoid a process designed to test readiness and suitability for leadership? Is it because she would not have passed that test? Or because she didn’t want to be asked tough questions about her past leadership conduct?

The Fiscal Toll of Skipping Steps

Margary’s petition campaign doesn’t come without cost—literally. Every ballot initiative, including one triggered by a vacated board seat, costs the Association over $1,600. If Rogers wins the Vice Presidency, her current director seat will become vacant, requiring yet another election and another hit to the Association’s budget. All of this at a time when NCRA resources are better used fighting legislative threats, promoting certification programs, and advocating for stenographers nationally—not cleaning up the financial side effects of political maneuvering.

For an association that prides itself on fiscal responsibility and transparency, it’s an ironic twist that one candidate is putting financial strain on the organization before even taking office.

A Troubling Legacy in Maryland

The deeper concern lies not in how Rogers entered the race—but in how she left her last leadership role. During her presidency at the Maryland Court Reporters Association (MCRA), the numbers simply don’t support her self-promotion.

Public comments from the current MCRA president paint a far different picture than the one Margary has pushed. She claims she tripled membership during her tenure. In reality, the numbers showed only minor fluctuations—42 members at the start of 2022, a peak of 47, and a decline to 36 by the time she left.

More alarming than the numbers is the fiscal wreckage she left behind.

In her final year, MCRA had over $13,000 in its coffers before its annual conference. After the conference—planned and executed under Rogers’ direction, by her own admission—the bank account dropped to just $204.18. The association was left with over $6,000 in unpaid liabilities. And while Rogers insists she was off the board in July, email documentation and firsthand accounts confirm she remained in control of conference planning through at least September.

This is not just mismanagement. It’s financial negligence. And it left the next generation of MCRA leaders scrambling to salvage the association, rebuild funds, and regain control over its digital assets—including its Facebook page, which Rogers reportedly refused to relinquish until very recently.

Character, Not Just Credentials

Leadership isn’t about ambition. It’s about stewardship.

Rogers’ defenders argue that her visibility, passion, and community-building efforts warrant recognition. But passion alone does not make a person fit to lead an organization like the NCRA. When a leader refuses to submit to standard procedures, misrepresents results, mismanages finances, and clings to control even after their term has ended, what does that say about how they will act when given more power?

Would the same fiscal mismanagement seen at MCRA repeat itself at a national level? Would the same resistance to transparency and bypassing of norms be tolerated when NCRA’s reputation is at stake?

Dirty Campaigning and Public Fallout

Throughout this election, Rogers’ campaign has also been marred by accusations of misinformation, manipulation, and coordinated attacks on those who question her qualifications. Past and current MCRA officials who’ve spoken out have done so reluctantly, many hoping to avoid internal division. But as facts surfaced—facts about finances, leadership decisions, and post-term behavior—it became impossible to remain silent.

The public comments now live online for any NCRA member to read, including a 30+ thread in response to Carol Reed Naughton’s detailed statement. These aren’t partisan potshots. They’re firsthand accounts from people who worked with Rogers, served alongside her, and were left to clean up after her.

The Clearer Choice

Carol Reed Naughton is not a flashy candidate. She’s not playing to social media or stirring up drama. She’s doing the work—quietly, steadily, and transparently. She followed the process. She submitted herself to the NomCom and earned the official nomination. Her board service has been marked by collaboration, not conflict. And most importantly, her leadership is rooted in ethical standards, fiscal responsibility, and respect for the Association’s mission.

This is not about one person’s charisma versus another’s. It’s not about optics or who can rally the most Facebook supporters. This is about the future of the NCRA.

Will we elect someone who skipped the vetting process, mismanaged a state association into near insolvency, and continues to stir controversy wherever she goes?

Or will we choose a candidate who leads with integrity, values process, and has the experience necessary to move the profession forward responsibly?

Your Vote Matters—Choose with Clarity

This year’s VP race isn’t just a fork in the road for the NCRA—it’s a stress test for the organization’s values. Members must decide whether leadership is earned through process and merit, or seized through tactics and theater.

If you believe in vetting.
If you believe in accountability.
If you believe in financial responsibility.
Then cast your vote for Carol Reed Naughton.

Because leadership should never be a strategic bypass. It should be a path walked with integrity.

Disclaimer

The content of this post is intended for informational and discussion purposes only. All opinions expressed herein are those of the author and are based on publicly available information, industry standards, and good-faith concerns about nonprofit governance and professional ethics. No part of this article is intended to defame, accuse, or misrepresent any individual or organization. Readers are encouraged to verify facts independently and to engage constructively in dialogue about leadership, transparency, and accountability in the court reporting profession.

  • The content on this blog represents the personal opinions, observations, and commentary of the author. It is intended for editorial and journalistic purposes and is protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
  • Nothing here constitutes legal advice. Readers are encouraged to review the facts and form independent conclusions.

***To unsubscribe, just smash that UNSUBSCRIBE button below — yes, the one that’s universally glued to the bottom of every newsletter ever created. It’s basically the “Exit” sign of the email world. You can’t miss it. It looks like this (brace yourself for the excitement):

Published by stenoimperium

We exist to facilitate the fortifying of the Stenography profession and ensure its survival for the next hundred years! As court reporters, we've handed the relationship role with our customers, or attorneys, over to the agencies and their sales reps.  This has done a lot of damage to our industry.  It has taken away our ability to have those relationships, the ability to be humanized and valued.  We've become a replaceable commodity. Merely saying we are the “Gold Standard” tells them that we’re the best, but there are alternatives.  Who we are though, is much, much more powerful than that!  We are the Responsible Charge.  “Responsible Charge” means responsibility for the direction, control, supervision, and possession of stenographic & transcription work, as the case may be, to assure that the work product has been critically examined and evaluated for compliance with appropriate professional standards by a licensee in the profession, and by sealing and signing the documents, the professional stenographer accepts responsibility for the stenographic or transcription work, respectively, represented by the documents and that applicable stenographic and professional standards have been met.  This designation exists in other professions, such as engineering, land surveying, public water works, landscape architects, land surveyors, fire preventionists, geologists, architects, and more.  In the case of professional engineers, the engineering association adopted a Responsible Charge position statement that says, “A professional engineer is only considered to be in responsible charge of an engineering work if the professional engineer makes independent professional decisions regarding the engineering work without requiring instruction or approval from another authority and maintains control over those decisions by the professional engineer’s physical presence at the location where the engineering work is performed or by electronic communication with the individual executing the engineering work.” If we were to adopt a Responsible Charge position statement for our industry, we could start with a draft that looks something like this: "A professional court reporter, or stenographer, is only considered to be in responsible charge of court reporting work if the professional court reporter makes independent professional decisions regarding the court reporting work without requiring instruction or approval from another authority and maintains control over those decisions by the professional court reporter’s physical presence at the location where the court reporting work is performed or by electronic communication with the individual executing the court reporting work.” Shared purpose The cornerstone of a strategic narrative is a shared purpose. This shared purpose is the outcome that you and your customer are working toward together. It’s more than a value proposition of what you deliver to them. Or a mission of what you do for the world. It’s the journey that you are on with them. By having a shared purpose, the relationship shifts from consumer to co-creator. In court reporting, our mission is “to bring justice to every litigant in the U.S.”  That purpose is shared by all involved in the litigation process – judges, attorneys, everyone.  Who we are is the Responsible Charge.  How we do that is by Protecting the Record.

Leave a comment