Louisiana House Bill HB726

Louisiana 2020 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/31/20
• Refer: 5/4/20
• Report Pass: 5/15/20
• Engrossed: 5/25/20

Caption

Provides relative to court reporter fees

Impact

This legislation aims to adjust the financial responsibilities placed on court reporters seeking certification or re-certification in Louisiana. The increase in fees reflects an acknowledgment of the administrative costs associated with maintaining the board's operations. Proponents of the bill argue that the revisions will help ensure that the board has the resources necessary to uphold standards for court reporters, promoting professionalism within the field.

Summary

House Bill 726 amends the existing fee structures associated with the certification and renewal processes for certified shorthand reporters in Louisiana. The bill specifies new maximum fees that the board of examiners for shorthand reporters may charge applicants. For instance, the fee for reinstating a certificate that has been suspended or revoked is raised significantly, with maximums set at $100, $200, and $250 depending on the duration of delinquency. Additionally, the fees for issuance of reciprocal certificates and annual renewals are also doubled in some categories from their previous limits.

Sentiment

The overall sentiment surrounding HB 726 appears to be neutral to positive among those who understand the administrative rationale behind the fee increases. The bill received a unanimous vote of approval, indicating bipartisan support for the measure. However, there may be concerns from individual court reporters about the affordability of these increased fees, particularly for those who may face financial difficulties.

Contention

While there seems to be broad agreement on the need to sustain the regulatory framework for court reporters, the contention arises mainly around the specific increase in fees. Critics may raise issues regarding the impact these adjustments could have on the accessibility of certification for aspiring reporters or those seeking reinstatement after lapses. Despite this, the legislative history indicates that the changes were comfortably endorsed, suggesting that the perceived benefits outweighed potential drawbacks.