When Leadership Becomes a Target – Clarifying the Role of Advocacy and the NCSA Chair

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

By: StenoImperium Editorial Board
Posted: June 23, 2025

It’s easy to throw stones from behind a pseudonym. It’s harder to lead with integrity, transparency, and vision.

A recent blog post circulating under the name Frank N. Sense accuses the current Chair of the National Committee of State Associations (NCSA) of unethical behavior for sponsoring a bylaw amendment and encouraging members to participate in NCRA’s election process.

Let’s be clear: what’s being portrayed as scandalous is, in reality, responsible leadership in action.

✅ Participation Is Not a Conflict—It’s the Process Working

Sponsoring a bylaw amendment does not disqualify a person from continuing to serve in a leadership role. In fact, NCRA bylaws encourage member participation, innovation, and dialogue through the amendment process. The accusation that a leader sponsoring a bylaw is in “a big, fat conflict” lacks any basis in law, ethics, or organizational governance.

It is not a conflict of interest for a member—whether in a leadership role or not—to support a policy change and also remind the community to vote. That’s what advocacy looks like in any healthy democratic organization.

🧠 Misleading the Community? Let’s Look at the Facts

The email cited in the blog post allegedly only referenced the VP election—yet the accusation is that it somehow sneakily confused that with the bylaw vote coming weeks later. That logic collapses under scrutiny. You cannot “confuse” readers by mentioning one event without even naming the other.

More importantly, the message did not come from NCSA or NCRA official channels—it was distributed via the Deposition Reporters Association (DRA), which is an independent organization and fully within its rights to encourage civic engagement among its members.

The only thing this email did was encourage participation. That’s what we want from our leaders—whether they’re supporting amendments or opposing them.

🧼 Let’s Call This What It Is: A Smear Campaign

The over-the-top language in the blog post—“smell the rat,” “big, fat conflict,” “underhanded advocacy”—is not the language of reasoned concern. It’s the language of fear tactics and political theater. These attacks aren’t about ethics. They’re about silencing those who challenge the status quo.

Calling for the resignation of a dedicated volunteer leader over their participation in the amendment process is not just overreach—it’s anti-democratic. We should be able to disagree on amendments without demanding people step down for having an opinion.

🕵️ This Isn’t About Names—It’s About Standards

Whether a blog is anonymous or signed, what matters most is the quality of the argument, the clarity of the facts, and the integrity behind the message.

The blog post in question—written by “Frank N. Sense”—doesn’t rely on data, sourcing, or procedural analysis. It leans entirely on inflammatory rhetoric, vague innuendo, and sweeping accusations.

Anonymity can serve a valid purpose. It can protect whistleblowers, foster candid dialogue, or allow dissenting views to be expressed without fear of retaliation. That’s one reason StenoImperium exists.

But when anonymity is used not to question power but to undermine responsible leadership without evidence, that’s not advocacy—it’s sabotage. It’s not about transparency or reform. It’s about creating confusion and manufacturing scandal where none exists.

So let’s not get distracted by pen names or blog titles. Let’s look at what’s actually being said—and whether it holds up under scrutiny.

🧭 What Kind of Profession Do We Want?

Court reporting is in a pivotal moment. We need serious conversations, informed debates, and respectful disagreements. Not kangaroo-court accusations wrapped in blog rants designed to incite outrage and defame those working hard for the profession.

Instead of shouting “conflict!” every time someone dares to lead, we should be asking:

  • Are they transparent?
  • Are they ethical?
  • Are they open about their views?

In the case of the NCSA Chair, the answer is yes on all counts.

We’re better than this. Let’s act like it.
Let’s uphold truth, transparency, and the democratic principles this association was built on.

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