AN ORAL HISTORY OF RETIRED FREELANCE COURT REPORTER MARGARET ARVAY

AN ORAL HISTORY OF RETIRED

FREELANCE COURT REPORTER
   MARGARET ARVAY

BY

CINDY L. LAROSA

*Article is copyrighted. All rights pertain.
**Diagrams and pictures not included in article.

Why do writers write? Because it isn't there.

Thomas Berger

(Goodreads, Inc., 2011)

ABSTRACT

This article focus on the duties and responsibilities of a court reporter, and how indispensible the profession is in relation to the legal field.  The oral history will cover how court reporting technology has changed throughout the years, especially through one reporter’s lifetime.  And thirdly, how the court transcripts court reporters produce has assisted in various research projects, and how the written record has affected our perceptions and molded our history.

INTRODUCTION

            History came into being once events were able to be recorded, “for if it was not written, it did not exist” (Tursi, June 2010).  Since the beginning of time, ancient writings were recorded by official scribes who were specially trained and educated to preserve the important business of the day.  There was abundant evidence of scribal education found in ancient Mesopotamia during the early second millennium which is also known as the Old Babylonian period (Delnero, 2010).  What was unearthed there were tablets containing the daily life and activities of the scribal pupils, and how the scribes were taught the Sumerian language and the cuneiform signs used to write it (Delnero, 2010).  The very first inventor of the shorthand system is attributed to Cicero’s scribe, Marcus Tullius Tiro, which enabled Cicero’s philosophies to survive for 2,000 years (Tursi, June 2010).  This shorthand was famously known as the Tironian Notes, which was the first shorthand system in Rome (Tursi, June 2010). 

According to Smith’s Dictionary (2008), the notarii were short-hand writers, who were generally slaves or freedmen, who were also employed by the Roman emperors.  The term “Notarii” was eventually exclusively applied to the private secretaries of the emperors, who, of course, were no longer slaves, but were now persons of high rank (Smith, 2008).  The short-hand writers who lived during the empire of Constantine were now called Exceptores (Smith, 2008).  The profession began to develop into a type of imperial chancery, who, in addition to their regular duties, was frequently employed by the emperor on important public missions (Smith, 2008). 

            From the stylus to the quill pen, recordkeeping became a prominent part of American culture.  Thomas Jefferson is quoted “If government deliberation is to be remembered, revised, or acted upon, it must first be recorded” (Tursi, June 2010).  Recordkeeping was essential in early American history with much of the writing done in longhand, but in 1873, the United States Senate engaged official reporters to transcribe debates (Tursi, June 2010).  These reporters used a system of written shorthand called Pitman Shorthand which was developed by Sir Isaac Pitman in England in 1837 (Homestead, 2011).  The beautiful and elegant style of Pitman Shorthand looks like calligraphy with the thickness of the pen stroke differentiating consonant and vowel sounds. 

Benn Pitman, who brought his brother’s shorthand writing system to the United States, used this system to report the 1865 Lincoln Assassination Conspiracy trials (Tursi, June 2010).  Although it was not the only shorthand system in use, it did present a number of strengths which made it vastly popular and was learned by a wide audience of writers, office secretaries and newspaper, court and governmental reporters (Homestead, 2011).  Pitman was adapted into 15 different languages (Homestead, 2011).

Other shorthand methods used were Gregg Shorthand and Forkner Shorthand (Homestead, 2011).  All of these systems offered a method of speed writing which has several things in common:  The phonetic sounds are written down, not the letters themselves; the vowel sounds are optional but the consonant sounds can clearly identify a word; many strokes used vary on the number of rules each system follows; and all systems developed a large number of “short forms” or “brief forms” which can represent words or groups of words (Homestead, 2011). 

Below is an example of Pitman Shorthand to see some of the letters and the strokes related to them (Homestead, 2011). 

The Industrial Age of the late 1800s began to develop machines that could type out the spoken word into written language.  The first standing typewriter was developed in 1910 (Tursi, June 2010).  The very first stenotype machine came out in 1879, with successive newer, improved models coming out in 1886, 1889, 1911, 1927, and the 1938 model which was used up until 1988 (Tursi, June 2010).  This last model took us right up to the end of the century as the computerized models came into being.  These stenotype machines still operated on the basic principle of writing phonetic sounds to rapidly write speeches. 

The stenographic machine keyboard can be viewed below. (Google, 2011).  This same keyboard has stayed the same since that first stenographic machine writer appeared in 1938 and continues through to today (Tursi, June 2010). 

 (Google, 2011).

The major change that occurred with the stenographic machine writer is that they are now computerized and have eliminated the paper roll that the notes were recorded on.  The notes have been recorded onto a floppy drive, but now they are recorded on to an SD card (Stenograph Corporation, 2011).  This SD card can be placed in a computer for a software program to read the stenographic symbols, or the writer can be directly connected to the computer through a cable or a blue tooth device and the stenographic notes are transformed into English words instantly (Stenograph Corporation, 2011).

Pitman shorthand was an elegant system of taking rapid notes, but this skill has faded away as machine shorthand gained in popularity.  As a matter of fact, the proceedings of both houses of Congress were written exclusively by pen writers for 200 years before the first stenotypists were introduced in 1974 (Tursi, June 2010). 

Preparation for court reporting school can be an arduous journey.  Students enrolled in a court reporter certificate program learn to use transcription equipment, take shorthand, use court reporting terminology and write professionally. Graduates of a court reporting certificate program may find transcription work in law firms, government agencies or broadcasting corporations. Court reporters looking to obtain industry certifications can earn credentials through the National Court Reporters Association and similar entities (Education-Portal.com, 2010).  First and foremost, a court reporting school should be accredited by agencies recognized by the U.S. Department of Education (Mark J. Golden, 2011).  Once the basic keyboard is learned and memorized, then the next step that a student works on is speed.  Certification is a goal which greatly assists in obtaining employment.  Tips for passing certifications are to practice to taped dictation at least 20 words per minute faster than the test you want to pass; get a stroke for everything and don’t worry about perfection; analyze any word that causes hesitation; and lastly, use brief forms for words and phrases (Linda Larson, April, 2011). 

Coursework in court reporting schools typically involves classes in shorthand, English, transcription, computer technology, and legal/medical vernacular. Depending on the state, either licensure or certifications may be required, but sometimes they are not mandatory (Education-Portal.com, 2010).  There are different certification levels for court reporters.  A national examination is administered which is basically a national board that certifies that you are a court reporter possessing the skills to practice your profession.  There are two portions to all of the certifying tests and that is the speed skill on the machine, and the written knowledge test about the ethics and the profession itself (National Court Reporters Association, 2011). 

The basic level is the Registered Professional Reporter (RPR) (National Court Reporters Association, 2011).  Minimum speeds for this certification are 225 words per minute for Question and Answer Testimony; 200 words per minute for Jury Charge; and 180 words per minute for Literary which can be dictation on any subject matter.  Other higher level certifications are the Registered Merit Reporter (RMR) with speeds up to 260 words per minute (National Court Reporters Association, 2011); and the Certified Realtime Reporter (CRR) (National Court Reporters Association, 2011) which involves more accuracy than speed.  This certification branches off into broadcast captioning and CART reporting for the hearing impaired.

Computer translation of a Court Reporter’s stenographic notes into English is called realtime writing.  Special software had to be developed and there is an interesting history on how that occurred.  In the 1960s, during the Cold War, IBM and the CIA collaborated to develop software that would quickly translate the Russian language into English (Block, Brentano, & Karlovits, June 2010).  The project was not successful and was eventually scrapped, but the software programs had their beginnings, and it eventually evolved into a computer being able to read stenographic notes and translating them into English.  The very first captioned broadcasts were of pre-recorded shows in the 1970s (Block, Brentano, & Karlovits, June 2010).  Julia Child’s show, The French Chef, was the very first open captioned television broadcast (Block, Brentano, & Karlovits, June 2010).  The process of translation was very slow because the computer translated the notes after the file was closed (Block, Brentano, & Karlovits, June 2010).  This was not an instantaneous translation.  The ability of computers to translate stenographic notes instantly into text captions occurred in 1981, in what would be called the “realtime” mode (Block, Brentano, & Karlovits, June 2010). 

In 1981, Marty Block, RPR (Ret.), started out as a consultant to the National Captioning Institute and soon became the project head to coordinate computer-aided transcription into captions (Block, Brentano, & Karlovits, June 2010)  By the spring of 1982, NCI put the first 100 percent of realtime programming on the air (Block, Brentano, & Karlovits, June 2010).  The ticker tape of English words or subtitles, for that matter, that goes across the television screen is an example of how realtime writing can be utilized. 

Another spinoff of captioning turned into Communications Access Realtime Translation (CART) which is a new technology that evolved out of the instantaneous translation of the computer translated steno notes into English words.  CARTing, as they call it, can be used in any setting where the hearing impaired need to read the spoken word.  This can be in a classroom setting where the professor’s words are made accessible to a hearing impaired student, or a church service, meeting, lecture, news broadcasts, or any time the spoken word needs to be read (Baker, Christian, First, Kelly-Bowlen, Kent, & Penniston, 2009). 

In the courtroom setting, realtime writing is essential to ensure due process for hearing impaired litigants.  They cannot hear the proceedings, but they could read the proceedings on the screen as opposed to hiring a sign language interpreter.  Writing realtime secures the Court Reporter’s position as the best choice for the safety and preservation of the court’s record (Kristin M. Ashenhurst, April, 2011).  One drawback is that realtime writing is difficult for some reporters to accomplish because of the speed and accuracy required.  Most court reporters are used to having some mistakes which would be words that mistranslate or words that don’t translate at all, but in the broadcast captioning or CART capacity, only minimal mistakes are allowed. 

Another indispensible use of transcripts, produced by court reporters, is how they have molded our system of justice.  Court transcripts of trials, both criminal and civil, are verbatim records of the proceedings which are used in the appeals process.  The court reporters that work in the courtroom setting are called Official Court Reporters.  “The federal and state constitutions guarantee defendants a fair trial, but not an error-free trial.  In both the federal and state judicial systems, appellate courts determine if significant errors that warrant correction were committed by lower courts.” (Schubert, 2007).  Once a defendant exhausts all appellate opportunities at the state level, they can raise a federal question before petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari (O'Brien, 2008).  If the defendant was already convicted of a crime at the federal level, they seek review in the U.S. Court of Appeals, and then if not resolved, petition the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari (O'Brien, 2008).

Depositions of witnesses are taken mainly in civil cases for discovery purposes so the attorneys can prepare for trial (Schubert, 2007).  Usually, the witness is examined under oath, outside of the courtroom, before a person legally authorized to conduct the deposition which is usually the Court Reporter (Schubert, 2007).  These court reporters are called Freelance Court Reporters because their main capacity is to take depositions and statements conducted for discovery purposes.  The whole purpose of discovery is to allow the parties to identify the core issues in dispute, pin witnesses down so they can’t easily change their views at trial, and determine witness credibility (Schubert, 2007).  This is where Mrs. Arvay spent her career in doing freelance court reporting work.

In criminal cases, it is the government’s responsibility for deciding whether to initiate a criminal prosecution.  Depositions are usually not taken in criminal cases due to a defendant’s right to due process (Schubert, 2007).  These due process rights include the right that the defendant has to be able to confront their accusers, and also they have the right of cross-examination of witnesses.  And secondly, a defendant in a criminal case may not be deposed without his consent because of the Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination (Schubert, 2007).  Along with these rules, there are very few, if any, depositions done in criminal courts. 

The final point on the use of transcripts is in the research and scientific studies that are conducted using court transcripts as the methodology.  In particular, there is much research conducted on witnesses who have learning disabilities.  The methodology for these studies used court transcripts to review the questioning strategies of lawyers and the influence of those strategies on witness responses (Kebbell, Hatton, & Johnson, 2004, Vol. 9).  This study examined the type of questions that will have a significant impact on the accuracy and completeness of eyewitness testimony given by people with intellectual disabilities.  Leading questions are forms of questions that suggest a response.  This suggestibility affects people with intellectual disabilities greater than the general population because people with intellectual disabilities are more likely to acquiesce to the leading questions (Kebbell, Hatton, & Johnson, 2004, Vol. 9).  This study was made possible by comparing the court transcripts for 16 trials that involved witnesses with intellectual disabilities and 16 trials involving witnesses from the general population (Kebbell, Hatton, & Johnson, 2004, Vol. 9). 

These same researchers conducted more research on individuals with learning disabilities who are at greater risk of having a range of crimes committed against them.  Kebbell, et al (2001) researched frequently asked questions by attorneys that can cause problems for victims such as those questions which communicate the answer required and those questions that confuse the victim (Kebbell, Hatton, & Johnson, 2001, Vol. 29).  Again for their data collection, court transcripts were reviewed on various trials involving learning disabled litigants along with trials involving the general population as litigants.

Another study was conducted using court transcripts as their methodology which mainly concerned serious sexual crimes that were obtained from a total of 32 witnesses, 16 involving people with learning disabilities and 16 involving people from the general population.  Each intervention made by a judge was documented and coded into one of three categories:  Interactions with witnesses, interactions with lawyers, and interactions with the jury (O'Kelly C. M., Kebbell, Hatton, & Johnson, 2003, Vol 8).  Extensive research has been done on the subject that people with learning disabilities face particular problems giving evidence in court.  This research demonstrates that the completeness and accuracy of the testimony of these witnesses with learning disabilities is heavily influenced by the way in which they are questioned (O'Kelly C. M., Kebbell, Hatton, & Johnson, 2003, Vol 8).  Again, the method used were court transcripts obtained from a total of 32 witnesses, 22 female and 10 male.  Accuracy and a verbatim record were crucial to these studies.

Jurors’ perceptions of witnesses who are intellectually challenged were also studied by using court transcripts.  The research conducted here indicates that the general perception among care providers and professionals in the criminal justice system view people with intellectual disabilities as not competent witnesses (Stobbs & Kebbell, 2003). 

Research studies on the questioning of young children in court cases were conducted, again, using court transcripts.  The researcher presented the findings at an academic conference (Walker, 1993, Vol. 17, No. 1).  Other research utilizing court reporters involved police interrogations and confessions.  75 undergraduate students were randomly assigned to read one of five different versions of a criminal interrogation.  The transcripts used in this study were transcribed from actual videotaped interrogations and read to the subjects (Kassin & McNeal, 1991). 

Studies conducted by Fishfader, et al (1996) investigated audiovisual materials, such as the use of scene re-creation, as being as effective as printed materials.  Because the use of audiovisual materials was relatively new at the time, little information existed on its impact on juries.  It was found that audiovisual materials are remembered as well as printed materials if the information is easily comprehended (Fishfader, Howells, Katz, & Teresi, 1996).

Another use for an accurate verbatim record is for data collection (Scott, et al., 2009).  The cornerstone of qualitative research projects employing focus groups is to collect data as an accurate representation of the group’s discussion.  The focus group is only as valuable as the data produced in written form.  Typically, focus groups are conducted with an audio recording that is later transcribed into written text (Scott, et al., 2009).  Tape recordings have the potential for error because of such factors as the inaudibility of the voices on the tape and voices that overlap.  Given that the transcribed interviews and focus groups form the core of much of the qualitative research, court reporters were utilized to produce high quality transcripts for the data collection (Scott, et al., 2009).  The realtime translation capabilities that court reporters offered was a superior product because the proceedings were viewed verbatim as the interviews were conducted providing higher quality translation than using audio recordings transcribed at a later date.

So for all the research previously mentioned, court transcripts were used which were produced by court reporters using the latest technology of computerized translation.

METHODOLOGY

            For the oral history of Mrs. Marge Arvay, I created a questionnaire in advance to guide me through the interview process.  I wanted to interview Mrs. Arvay on her early life, her education and her work history leading up to a second career in court reporting.  Her experiences at court reporting school, the changes in technology, and the social issues she encountered during her years of working. 

I made an appointment with Mrs. Arvay and came to her house.  I brought along my Elan Mira Stenograph computerized writer, my laptop which has Case Catalyst court reporting software installed, and my blue tooth connection so as I write down the questions and responses, the stenographic notes are sent to the computer and translated into English by the Case Catalyst software.  The first session was conducted on October 15, 2011, at 5:17 p.m., and the second follow up session was conducted on November 11, 2011, at 7:46 p.m.

RESULTS

THE INTERVIEWER:          Today is October 15, 2011, and we're at Marge Arvay's house in Garfield Heights, Ohio. 

Good afternoon, Marge, how are you? 

MRS. ARVAY:        Good afternoon, Cindy.  I'm fine, thank you. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          We're going to do an oral history of Marge Arvay, a Court Reporter that I've worked with for many years.

What I would with like to do is first ask you about your background and how you came to be? 

MRS. ARVAY:        Okay.  That sounds good. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          Where did you grow up at? 

MRS. ARVAY:        I grew up in the old Hungarian Buckeye Road neighborhood of Cleveland.  I went to St. Elizabeth's Church, which is the first and oldest Hungarian Catholic church in the United States, and luckily it is still standing, and in good, good, wonderful condition, actually.

Went to eight years of Catholic school, and was taught by the Ursuline nuns, which is a teaching order, a very astute group of people. 

And went for the ninth grade at Audubon Junior High School, and then went into John Hay High School in Cleveland for a good clerical education, and things such as typing, office machines, a little bit of bookkeeping, and that type of thing. 

Am I going too fast for you?

THE INTERVIEWER:          No. 

MRS. ARVAY:        Okay. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          What year were you born?

MRS. ARVAY:        I was born Margaret Ratkovski on January 29, 1928, the year before the Great Depression which was in 1929. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          That must have been an interesting time? 

MRS. ARVAY:        It had not much of an impact on me because I was a baby, a child.  And I never wanted for any food, or roof over my head, or anything like that.  But it was quite, quite a bad time in our history.  Many, many poor people.  Didn't know where their next meal was going to come from but we survived. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          So how about your early life?  Did your grandmother raise you?  

MRS. ARVAY:        Yes, my mother passed away when I was a month away from my sixth birthday.  She contracted pneumonia, which, at that time, there were no drugs to treat.  And she died at the age of 26, I believe it was.  And I had a younger brother, at that time, who lived ‑‑ only lived to be about four years old.  He had a brain tumor.  So, therefore, I was raised by my ‑‑ well, my father, he was around.  He lived until I was about 14.  But his life was pretty much shattered losing his wife and his baby son.  And, it was very devastating to his life.  He was a very skilled tailor, who worked at Joseph and Feiss, which was a large men's clothing company.  But after that, his skills went down, down the drain, and he was pretty much ‑‑ I don't know ‑‑ I guess depressed is what you would call it.

Anyway, I was raised by my grandparents who had ‑‑ there were still four children living at home, so there were eight of us all together.  And it was a very good life.  Spent a lot of time ‑‑ we spent a lot of time in those days outdoors in the summertime, in the playground, and with other people.  Riding bikes and roller skating and that type of thing.                    There was still, at that point, there still wasn't any television.  We did have the radio on.  But most of the time we were outside, and did a lot of playing, and socializing out in the streets. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          It sounds fun. 

MRS. ARVAY:        Yes, it was fun, a lot of fun.          

THE INTERVIEWER:          So your education, did you talk about high school?  

MRS. ARVAY:        It was a very good high school.  And at that time, actually, by the time we reached the age of 15, the various companies around town, since John Hay had such a good reputation for clerical students to work, a lot of the companies around town would call the school, asking to hire students to come in after school and on Saturdays, to help out in the office and that's what I did.

I started out at the Linen Supply Company, working in the office.  And at that point, I learned how to run a switchboard, do filing, and typing.  And I was like the little ‑‑ the little spoiled brat in the office.  The girls would wait until I came in, and then they wanted to know all of the gossip that went on in school, about the boys, and this and that.  So I spent about an hour talking with them, and then they gave me money, and I went to the store, next store, and brought back snacks for them, which only left about an hour for me to do any actual work.  But, it was a wonderful experience for me.  It got me started out as to what goes on in offices at that time.  So, that was my first job, actually, that had anything to do with business.

But, before that, I did have a couple of little jobs.  One was at Woolworth's, I believe, Woolworth's Dime Store, in the pet department, of all things.  And I would sell goldfish, and take care of the parakeets which every once in a while they would get out of the cage, and fly all over the store.  And I had to run around with a big butterfly net to catch parakeets.  That was one of my jobs.  And that was about it. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          When did you decide what you wanted to take stenography? 

MRS. ARVAY:        I was always interested in shorthand.  And somewhere along the line, after I got out of high school, I took a course in Greg shorthand.  I also, at one point, I took a course in another type of shorthand.  I really don't remember the name of it any more.

THE INTERVIEWER:          Pittman?  Pittman? 

MRS. ARVAY:        No, not Pittman, no, no, that was before my time, really.  This was something else.  And I seemed to be interested in shorthand, in one form or another.  At one point, I used to help out on the weekends, a friend of mine, who did typing at home.  She had a booklet, which she showed me, which really fascinated me.  It had to do with machine shorthand, and I thought, wow, that would be nice. 

So that's when I first got interested in the actual machine shorthand.  Sort of an actual machine, actually.  So I think I looked into that, and got into school at one point or another, having to do with writing, writing machine shorthand, which eventually led to court reporting.

THE INTERVIEWER:          That sounds interesting. 

So what led you, well, first of all, did you go to a court reporting school?  

MRS. ARVAY:        Yes, yes.  I attended a court reporting school in downtown Cleveland.  I would go down there three nights a week, after work, and go to school.  And I'm afraid that took me about two years to do that. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          That's really pretty quick. 

MRS. ARVAY:        I knew the system pretty well, but it was a matter of getting up to the speed that was needed to actually write in the field, which I understand, at that time, was 200 words per minute, if I'm not mistaken.

THE INTERVIEWER:          It's 225 words per minute now. 

MRS. ARVAY:        Then after I finished with that section of it then I heard about this lady in Cuyahoga Falls who was a shorthand teacher in Akron.  She was conducting a class, just a speed class, on Saturdays, in her home.  And I used to go out there on every Saturday for ‑‑ just to build up my speed.  She had a class of seven or eight people, and she would do nothing but dictate very fast and very hard for at least an hour, just to get us up to the speeds we were supposed to be at.  That was very good.  And I did that for another year.  So I was procrastinating, I guess. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          We're recording this. 

MRS. ARVAY:        I'm sorry. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          You're okay. 

What job were you holding while you were going to court reporting school? 

MRS. ARVAY:        I had a job with a company that had started out from scratch, an engineering company, and I was with them, actually, for 15 years.  I did just about every job in the place.  I was ‑‑ well, when I ended up leaving there, I was ‑‑ I was really the assistant or associate, whatever you want to call it, to the vice president, who was a very old, dear friend of mine, since we worked together for 15 years.  But I had done every other job in the place, like at the switchboard, and filing, and getting the catalogues together.  And I hadn't done any stenographic work, no.  All of the dictation that I had, I had to type a lot of correspondence and a lot of letters, but it was all dictated to me.  They used dictaphones.  And at that time, it was cylinders, it was not tapes, it was cylinders, wax cylinders, to shave when we were through with them.  We had a shaver.  After we were through typing the cylinder, then we put it on a shaver, and shaved it.  They used it again and again. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          That's interesting.

MRS. ARVAY:        If you want to see one of those, they have it at the Garfield Museum.

THE INTERVIEWER:          I'll have to to take a look at that, and maybe get a picture.  That's something out of the past that I'm not familiar with. 

MRS. ARVAY:        You never heard of that? 

THE INTERVIEWER:          Nope.

MRS. ARVAY:        That was before tapes. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          Okay.  So you were working as a secretary to the vice president? 

MRS. ARVAY:        Yes.

THE INTERVIEWER:          You were what?  Salaried?  Was it enough salary?  Or you wanted to better yourself? 

MRS. ARVAY:        Well, yes, I had a daughter who was pretty much ready for college, and I didn't think I would have enough earnings to put her through a college education.  In fact, that's what motivated me into studying court reporting and going into that field.  I was under the impression that I would earn more as a Court Reporter than I was doing.  And I had reached a point with the company that I was with, they said, Well, we really can't afford to pay you any more because you reached your ‑‑ in other words, they're tell me I'm not qualified to do anything else, so I thought, well, we'll see about that. So I said good bye, and I went into court reporting.

THE INTERVIEWER:          So after your court reporting school, what was your next step?  Did you get your certification?  Or did you work for a while first?  

MRS. ARVAY:        No, I got a call from my very first stenograph teacher, who taught me the basics of stenography.  She was very good.  The class that I had started out with had about 40 people in it, and actually, there were only three of us that really went into the field and found a job.  Everyone else dropped out at one point or another.  And she knew that ‑‑ she knew that I was ‑‑ she felt that I was capable of, you know, doing the work.  She called me up and asked me what I was doing, and I told her I was still trying to get my speed up.  And so, she asked me, I think I was at 180 or something at that point, I don't remember, but she said, "Why aren't you working?"

And I said, "I don't know." 

And so, she said, "Well, I think it's time for you to get on the phone, and get yourself a job."  And she gave me the names of about three court reporting firms that she knew in Cleveland.  She was friends with the people that owned them, and she gave me their names, and told me to call them, and give her as a reference, so to speak.  And I should just get off of the couch, and get to work, which I did. 

At that point is when I got in contact with Mr. George Blam and he gave me a job.  And I believe, I was with him for the next 15 years or so.

THE INTERVIEWER:          Was it hard for a woman to work in that field at that time?  

MRS. ARVAY:        Well, not for our company.  Only George really only hired women, that is all I worked with.  We were fairly young girls, just out of school.

THE INTERVIEWER:          What year was that?  

MRS. ARVAY:        I started in 1968.

THE INTERVIEWER:          So you saw the Civil Rights Movement, and the Federal Gun Legislation? 

MRS. ARVAY:        Yes.

THE INTERVIEWER:          And President Johnson's criminal task ‑‑ crime task force ‑‑

MRS. ARVAY:        Yes, I'm sure that was part of it.  I remember coming downtown to work one morning, actually, I took the bus that day.  And I was very shocked to see our US army tanks coming down Ninth Street with soldiers fully armed, and it was very sad for me and very shocking.  And it just looked to me like the world was coming to an end.  I never thought in my lifetime that I would see something like that.

THE INTERVIEWER:          And what was that? 

MRS. ARVAY:        It was very sad.

THE INTERVIEWER:          What caused the troops or tanks? 

MRS. ARVAY:        It might have been ‑‑ it might have been the Kent shootings going on at that time and they were expecting trouble, probably in downtown Cleveland.  No ‑‑ I'm sorry ‑‑ I take that back.  That was the beginning, the start of ‑‑ it might have been the start of the Civil Rights Movement in the country.  But in Cleveland, people were starting to riot ‑‑ oh, that's when they had the rioting in the Hough area.

THE INTERVIEWER:          That's right.

MRS. ARVAY:        People started to firebomb the stores, and a lot of looting going on, and a lot of people getting hurt, and that's when they called in the Army.  And I think they came in to restore law and order is what, I guess, is what you would call it.

THE INTERVIEWER:          The Hough riots became national news. 

MRS. ARVAY:        But it was very, very shocking, very sad, and it brought ‑‑ it just came to the fore that this, this really is going on, and it's going on right in front of you.  So that was the Civil Rights Movement at that time.

THE INTERVIEWER:          Did you have any jobs that pertained to the Civil Rights Movement?  

MRS. ARVAY:        Yes.  We got a contract to get involved in the Kent State shootings, so my boss and I and a couple of other people in the firm, I guess, mostly myself, and Mr. Blam, did it, took the depositions in the case.  We would go to Columbus, and we would take depositions in downtown Cleveland also.  And me and George took the depositions of the ‑‑ took the depositions ‑‑ excuse me ‑‑ may I take a minute?  I'm trying to remember this.

THE INTERVIEWER:          Take your time. 

MRS. ARVAY:        What's the name of the governor?

THE INTERVIEWER:          Governor Rhodes. 

MRS. ARVAY:        George took the deposition of Governor Rhodes, who was quite an object of controversy at that time.  He was blamed for really, the shooting, the shooting, I mean, getting the guards inflamed because of his language that he used, calling them dissidents, so to speak, brown shirts, and that kind of thing.  And that was sort of stirring the pot instead of easing the tensions.  He was blamed for a lot of that.  So Mr. Blam, took his deposition. 

I took the depositions of a couple of the generals in the ROTC.  And I took the depositions of some of the parents of the students that were killed.  When we took them in downtown Cleveland, the newspapers were very interested in these depositions. 

At that time, we had at least three newspapers in town.  The Plain Dealer, the Cleveland Press, the Cleveland News, and then there was some various smaller papers.  And they would all congregate in our small office, and stand around, and wait for these pages to be typed up, so they could put it in ‑‑ try and get in the paper for the day.  It was quite a hectic situation.  They were just hanging onto every word that we were doing.  It was ‑‑ it was a very busy time, very hectic, and very sad. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          Is is there one deposition or more than one deposition that you took that stands out in your mind that you remember?  Or would like to share with us?  

MRS. ARVAY:        Not really.  It was the parents.  It was all very sad, and very touching.  These young people died for, supposedly, as far as they were concerned, no reason.  It was ‑‑ it was a very futile exercise.  Their children were gone, and actually, some of them were not even involved with the so‑called rioting.  They were just going to class, walking across the Commons there, and they were shot when the guards opened fire.  And it's ‑‑ nobody can really make a decision as to what happened there, what caused it.  There are many, many schools of thought and that will probably ‑‑ I don't think it's ever been resolved.  But, anyway, it happened.  And there were young people on both sides, the protestors were young, the soldiers were young, and it was a very tragic thing. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          Do you remember what year that took place?  

MRS. ARVAY:        That was probably in the early 70s, I believe. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          And I thought you took the governor's deposition, but you took the generals? 

MRS. ARVAY:        I think that was Mr. Blam.

THE INTERVIEWER:          Okay.  That was my mistake.  So you took a general's deposition? 

MRS. ARVAY:        Yes, two of them.  That was down in Columbus, I believe.  We took those guys.

THE INTERVIEWER:          What was that like?   How did they sound to you?  

MRS. ARVAY:        Well, it was very tense for me.  This was all very important, and they were on the defensive, of course, you know.  Nobody wanted to take the blame for anything.  So, it was pretty rough to do, but we did it. 

Actually, I think you could ‑‑ if you could probably find some of this background, some of these depositions were probably reprinted in the Plain Dealer at that time.  And it's in the archives of the newspapers, I'm sure, somewhere.  It's probably on line some place.

THE INTERVIEWER:          That would be very good for me to look up. 

MRS. ARVAY:        Sure.  Sure.  You could get a little background information on that. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          Okay. 

MRS. ARVAY:        That was a very important time for me.  I had never worked on anything quite as historic as that situation at that time. 

Actually, we probably didn't even realize how historic it was, because that was, I think, the beginning of the ‑‑ was the Vietnam War starting at that time?  I don't remember. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          Vietnam started earlier.  It started early in the 60s, kind of a remnant from France's occupation of Indochina.  I know that the Vietnam War ended around 1974, when I just started ninth grade, so this was concurrent with the Vietnam War. 

MRS. ARVAY:                          Right.  I think this protesting started the thing to do.  The reason they were protesting at Kent State was the war, and I think that sort of snowballed, and became pretty much nationwide.  It started the momentum or the protestations about the people getting together and wanting to stop this war that was going on.  And nobody seemed to be doing anything about it, and our causalities kept growing, and growing. 

And that Cambodia, that was a big fiasco.  And so this began ‑‑ this was like the match that lit the fuse, at that time, I think.  It may not be, it's just my opinion, but that started a lot of balls rolling in that direction.

THE INTERVIEWER:          I agree.  I think it did.  Because the height of the Vietnam War was 1969 and this was right after. 

MRS. ARVAY:        Right. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          There was a large loss of life during, I think, 1969 to 1970. 

Do you have any more thoughts or reflections on that time period?  Did you have anybody that you knew that was in the war? 

MRS. ARVAY:        No.  I had no personal involvement in that.  My daughter, of course, was in the thick of things.  She graduated from high school in 1970, and they were all very much politically‑minded at that time, and very much against what was going on because their friends, their peers were, you know, being, I guess, people were being drafted at that time.  And they had to go whether they wanted to or not.  And, a lot of people were going up to Canada, and that was that.  But, no, I really had ‑‑ I had no direct involvement in that ‑‑

THE INTERVIEWER:          Okay. 

MRS. ARVAY:        ‑‑ personally. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          We could switch gears a little, and talk about something else.  We had talked about your court reporting training and schooling.  So how about what equipment you used back then? 

You had a steno machine, and did you type up your own transcripts?  Or did you have someone do that for you?  

MRS. ARVAY:        Yes, we dictated our work and we had typists.  When I first started for Mr. Blam, he had a permanent lady that worked in the office that typed our depositions and answered the phone.  That was about it. 

And then as we got busier, there were quite a few girls that worked at home, and we would drop off the tapes at their house, or they would come downtown and pick it up, and they would type it at home, and deliver the transcripts when they were done.  We had some good, very good typists that did that work.  They got paid by the page, I believe. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          How fast did they type?  

MRS. ARVAY:        Very fast, because we were always on their backs.  And lawyers have a tendency to give you deadlines, like, you know, I needed this yesterday.  Well, okay. 

Of course, we had, as you do now, the expedited rate.  If you need it, you are going to pay for it.

THE INTERVIEWER:          Right.

MRS. ARVAY:        So, it was ‑‑ there was always a deadline that you had to meet somewhere along the line, you had to burn the midnight oil a lot, and do a lot of work at home, reading, and making corrections, and that type of thing. 

We did a lot of our own work in the office, putting together transcripts, but at times we had young people working there that did those jobs. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          What did you do about copies at that time?  When a typist did a transcript, they used carbon paper?  Because you didn't have Xerox machines, at that time, did you?  

MRS. ARVAY:        Not, at that time, no.  We did use carbon paper. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          And ‑‑

MRS. ARVAY:        The erasures were pretty primitive and hard to do. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          I would imagine. 

MRS. ARVAY:        We would got our xeroxing done outside of the office at various places that had Xerox machines.  I think eventually the prices came down on xeroxes, and people had them in their offices.  I think that we probably had one.  I don't remember.  I don't know if you remember if Pat Holland had a Xerox machine, did he? 

THE INTERVIEWER:          Yes, he did.

MRS.  ARVAY:       Okay.

THE INTERVIEWER:          What year did you remember a Xerox machine? 

MRS. ARVAY:        Oh, I don't have a clue, really.

THE INTERVIEWER:          How long did you work for George Blam?

MRS. ARVAY:        I would say about 15 years. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          What about the statements that you used to have to take? 

MRS. ARVAY:        Oh, boy.

THE INTERVIEWER:          By your laugh, I know you have some good stories. 

MRS.  ARVAY:       Our main client was a large firm downtown, and their main clients were large trucking companies.  And they would want us to go to scenes of accidents involving tractor trailers, and try to get statements of people, people on the scene, before they left or were taken to the hospital.  So, we would get calls in the middle of the night, regardless, winter, summer, it didn't matter.  Sometimes, I would be told to meet them on exit so and so on the Ohio Turnpike which I had no clue in a snowstorm.  It was very, very rough, and that not what I thought would be a Court Reporter's life.  But, since they were our main clients, and we also did their other deposition work, and they had quite a few lawyers, and they had a lot of work, and it was a very good firm, still is, I believe. 

So, we would go on these statements which were really crazy.  And our friend, Carol, reminded me of an incident which you might like to hear about which I had almost forgotten about.

THE INTERVIEWER:          Yes.

MRS. ARVAY:        Do you remember when you went on this statement with a young ‑‑ well, they would use the young attorneys to go on statements, the rookies, you know.  They were the ones that had to go.  So, I went with this young guy, his name was Douglas.  He said, okay, we have to go to a very unsavory part of Cleveland.  We have to see these people at their home.  They lived in an apartment house there, it was either the Scoville area ‑‑

THE INTERVIEWER:          Yes, that's rough. 

MRS. ARVAY:        ‑‑ somewhere in that part of town.

And we were a little ‑‑ there was a little trepidation there.  I was a little afraid to get out of the car.  There weren't any people around, and it looked almost like it was deserted, but there were people, I'm sure. 

So we managed to find this apartment house and we ‑‑ or they had made arrangements ahead of time that we were going to come and do this, and these people were willing to give a statement.  It was about an automobile accident, I'm sure.  So we had the apartment number, and we went into the building, and we went upstairs to their apartment, and went inside, and there were about three or four men in there.  I don't know whether their women were in the kitchen somewhere, but they were just big burly guys, just sitting around, saying nothing. 

So, we took their statement ‑‑ this one man's statement.  And when it was over with and we were getting ready to leave, and he stood up, and one of the other guys stood up, and said to Douglas, "You guys can't leave by yourselves.  We have to take you out.  You have to stay with us  because you can't walk around here by yourselves.  So we will take you to your car."  And that's going to be it. 

Well, you know, I was shaking in my boots at that point in time.  So I think there were about four of them that took us out of the house, very safely, and almost carried us to the car.  He said because people are watching you, you know, from the windows.  And this is not a place for you to be walking around by yourselves.  I said, "Okay."  And so we left. But that was quite an awakening.

THE INTERVIEWER:          Do you remember what year that was?  

MRS. ARVAY:        No, I don't remember the year.  That was also, I would say, in the '70s, mid '70s, maybe even late '70s.  I don't know. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          You know, speaking of the '70s, that was Danny Green's neighborhood.  Do you remember Danny Green at all?  

MRS. ARVAY:        Well, yes, I read about him in the paper.  But we didn't do any criminal work, much criminal work.  Because criminal work doesn't call for transcripts, really.  As far as I know, they don't really take depositions, per se, I don't think.  Or maybe they do.  But we didn't do too much criminal work. 

Once in a while, I would have to go to criminal court, and work down there for the day, or for some particular lawyer for a certain case, maybe.  But that was my only contact with criminal work.

THE INTERVIEWER:          Okay. 

MRS. ARVAY:        So I didn't know about him.  I mean I read about him in the paper.

THE INTERVIEWER:          I was just wondering, okay.

Back to the house deposition where I cut you off, do you want to finish what you were saying? 

MRS. ARVAY:        Well, that was about it.  We just finished and went to our cars.  

What is that word? 

THE INTERVIEWER:          Well, I mistroked that. 

That's all right.  Maybe you could describe what type of work you did do because many people wouldn't know.

MRS. ARVAY:        I'm afraid most of it was pretty cut and dried. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          Like civil work? 

MRS. ARVAY:        Civil cases having to do with automobile accidents and maybe others.  Whatever has to do with contracts where there were breaches of contracts between two companies. 

For example, there would be days and days of deposing executives having to do with breaches of contracts in one form or another.  Those were pretty ‑‑ pretty boring work, really. 

I will have to say one of my hardest jobs was when we would be given these jobs where people would call us up and have us do a meeting.  They would have a meeting of like atomic engineers or something in town ‑‑

THE INTERVIEWER:          Wow! 

MRS.  ARVAY:       ‑‑ and they would be having seminars or something.  And I would be elected for some reason.  I would be the chosen one. I had no idea, no clue ‑‑

THE INTERVIEWER:          You're good! 

MRS  ARVAY:        ‑‑ of what was going on.  And I think one of the hardest jobs that I've ever had.  It was a large meeting and I think it was in a hall someplace on the west side.  I think there were engineers, some type of scientists, that had to do with acid rain.  Now, if that was ‑‑ I had no idea what they were talking about.  I mean it was one chemical engineer after another, getting up to speak.  Number one, it was not a deposition.  It was not controlled by attorneys.  Nobody could stop them, or slow them down, or ask them anything.  Once in a while, I would stop them and say, "What did you say?"  You know. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          Yes, I know. 

MRS. ARVAY:        But that was ‑‑ that was one of the hardest things I had to do.  And I really didn't get any complaints about it.  But, it was, it was really ridiculous.  They were not speaking for any record, whatsoever, you know.  They were just talking, they all got up and gave their talks.  And a lot of them were upset and angry about acid rain, which is the stuff going on in the atmosphere, and having to do with the chemicals, and the stuff in the air, and why this has this effect upon this and that.  And it was very, very difficult.  I've had some of those cases where I have no knowledge whatsoever on the subject, and you are just sort of thrown into it, and you write by the seat of your pants, so to speak. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          How did you get their names?  

MRS. ARVAY:        It was a challenge.

THE INTERVIEWER:          How ‑‑

MRS.  ARVAY:       Well, they would give you ‑‑ a lot of times, they would give you the program for the day, and you would have the names of the speakers, and the subjects that they were going to speak about.  But that was about it.

THE INTERVIEWER:          It sounds hard.

MRS. ARVAY:        Once in a while, if you were lucky, they might give you a copy of something that they had typed up ahead of time, but not always.  That was hard.

THE INTERVIEWER:          It sounds hard.

MRS.  ARVAY:       Yes, there was that other thing ‑‑ oh, lord.

THE INTERVIEWER:          Any other jobs that come to mind that were funny or difficult? 

I remember you telling me a story about one of your friends who was sure this doctor said "monkey butts," remember that?  That was pretty funny that he might have said that.

MRS  ARVAY:        Actually, he did.  He was referring to the color of this particular ape that has that red bottom.  I don't know the name of that ape.

THE INTERVIEWER:          I think it's a baboon.

MRS. ARVAY:        Baboon?  And we struggled over it, the whole office was into that one.  This couldn't possibly be right, you got this wrong.  Why would he say that? 

But I think it turned out that's really what it was.  Because she had it very plainly in her notes.  Monkey butts.  That's what he said.  And we just didn't know what to do with it, you know. 

There was another case that I really wasn't involved in it, I don't believe, but it had to do with that same trucking firm.  And I believe there was a deposition of a truck driver, and it actually went to court, and they had a trial on it.  And he was on the witness stand, the guy that drove the truck that killed some people in this accident.  And there was a big dispute about whether he said, on the witness stand, that he had stopped for an apple or a nap. 

I don't know how that was resolved, but there was a lot of appealing.  And it got into a higher court, I think, just on that one point alone, you know.  He tried to say that the guy was sleepy, tired, and he, you know, probably needed a nap, not an apple, you know.  And so, I don't know how that turned out, but that happens every once in awhile something ‑‑ something like that where they bring the Court Reporter into the picture, you know.

THE INTERVIEWER:          Oh, yeah.

MRS. ARVAY:        It's got to be resolved in one form or another.  Usually, the Court Reporter gets fired. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          Yes.

MRS.  ARVAY:       That's how it gets resolved. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          I noticed when you mentioned working in the office, and how other people in the office helped each other out with their notes, or if they can't read it, or if they wanted someone to check on what they did.  Maybe we could talk about that. 

MRS. ARVAY:                          Well, in my situation, since I sort of came in as the number one person in that office.  There was another reporter that was there before me that worked for Mr. Blam for quite a while.  She either went and opened her own firm, or got married, or something.  I don't know what happened.  But then I took her place, so I was more or less, after that point, once I learned an awful lot from Mr. Blam, and I was thrown into everything, whether I was ready for it or not, because there was no one else there. 

So, my education, I mean, I had to start writing fast and slow and everything else.  Whatever came up, I had to do.  And so, I learned fast, and I learned very well about things.  And he taught me a lot of the brief forms which I didn't know before, either.  And which really helped me a lot.  And so when he started hiring, he had maybe two or three other people at all times.  There were mostly young girls that came in.  And I was more or less their teacher, which is what he did for me.  And so yes, we were a close knit group because things would ‑‑ he would ‑‑ he wouldn't spend ‑‑ after a while, he wouldn't spend all of his time at the office.  He had other interests.  And he would be gone in the afternoon if it was a nice, sunny day, or something.

THE INTERVIEWER:          He was a golfer, wasn't he? 

MRS. ARVAY:        Yes.  A very good golfer.  As a matter of fact, he played in the Pro Am with one of the named golfers ‑‑

THE INTERVIEWER:          Arnold Palmer? 

MRS. ARVAY:        I think so, yes, partnered up with him, you know.  He was a good golfer. 

But, anyway, these jobs would come in and these decisions would be up to me to assign someone on something.  And I had to determine whether they were ready for this or not, you know. 

And then unbeknownst to him, there were a lot of things or a lot of times when a reporter would say to me, "I just don't think I could do this.  I can't keep up with that certain attorney.  He speaks too fast for me.  I can't take this." 

So somebody else ‑‑ we would say, well, okay, I'll do it for you.  We would cooperate that way because if you didn't do it, the office would be chaos because the next time maybe you would need a favor, and this is the way, usually, we worked together that way and it was very nice. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          That's what I noticed.

Back in those days, it seemed like there was a lot of office camaraderie.

MRS. ARVAY:        Yes. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          And I don't think we have that today. 

MRS. ARVAY:        Well, maybe, at that time, it was still a rather limited field, it was a select group.  We were together.  There weren't too many of us, and we worked together, and we understood each other.  Nobody else knew what we were going through.  They had no idea when we were sitting there, writing something, what was going on with us, in our minds, or if we were nervous or, you know.  This is just a person sitting there, writing on a machine, and they didn't give us a second thought.  And the only person that understood you was another reporter.  Usually, in your own office, because those were the people that you knew.  Of course, later, you got to know other people from other offices, and we all had the same problems, you know.  We got into medical malpractice.  Now that is tough.

THE INTERVIEWER:          I know.

MRS. ARVAY:        We did a lot of that. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          Yes.

MRS. ARVAY:        You almost had to have ‑‑ you should have had a medical education before you even got into it.  Of course we didn't and we couldn't.  But that was very touch and go.  We had to help each other out because there was nobody else that could help us. 

And many, many times, somebody would hand you their notes and say, "Please.  Read this.  What does it say?"  You know, where do I put the punctuation?  Is there something in the medical books that sounds like that?  You know?  And we would figure things out for people, for each other, you know.

THE INTERVIEWER:          That's right.  Because you had to look things up somehow.  There was no Internet.  So you had to look it up in books, or the library, or you had to do research on words or subjects that you didn't know about?

MRS. ARVAY:        And just figure out somebody else's notes.  Sometimes people, it would be right there, but they did not have the experience, and they didn't even know what they wrote. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          Because you're writing phonetically? 

MRS. ARVAY:        You are.  And sometimes it was very, very challenging.  And there was a lot of research that we had to do.  I remember many times looking up topics in my large medical book here that you could look up just about anything.  And I almost had to study that certain section of the body before I could figure out what the heck I had written there, or what the doctor said, you know.  And that was the hardest part for me, I think, medical malpractice.  Because the doctor's on the defensive, usually, because he's being accused of something, or another doctor is called in to testify about some other medical person in the profession, and he may not want to do it.  Or, it gets to be very complicated sometimes.  But it was fun, you know, I always enjoyed it. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          It seems to be high anxiety. 

As far as the office hierarchy, it looks like you were there the longest, so you were in charge if George was out of the office? 

MRS. ARVAY:        Well, yeah, but as I say, we cooperated with one another.  And the ones that were there was almost there as long as I was, so we were all more or less on our own.  I mean everybody took responsibility on themselves, you know, to do things.  They didn't really look upon me as a boss, so to speak.  They'd ask my opinion, or they'd ask to be assigned a certain job.  And if I felt they should, then I would let them have it.  But I did have the responsibility when he wasn't there, and what was really fun, you know, fun in certain ways, is he would go away for a month or so in the winter, I think. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          Florida?  

MRS. ARVAY:        Yes.  So, we were on our own at that point.

THE INTERVIEWER:          I remember a story where you and your co‑workers were stuck in downtown Cleveland at the nearby hotel that was the Hollenden House?  

MRS. ARVAY:        That was the big storm. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          Do you remember the year?  That was the big 1977 or ‑‑ no, no, '78.  '78 was the big snow storm that got a lot of attention.

MRS.  ARVAY:       You know, I don't have any of these dates in my head.          

THE INTERVIEWER:          I remember it because I just graduated from high school.      

MRS.  ARVAY:       There was one big one.

THE INTERVIEWER:          That's why I remember it because I was just out of high school, and I worked downtown myself.  So. 

MRS. ARVAY:        I had taken the bus down.  The buses stopped running and the cars stopped running, too, I guess.  Yes, we had ‑‑ we were stuck downtown.  So, we just went across to the Hollenden, and I had a nice dinner, and sat around.  Yes, I think we, we had to get a hotel room.  We had to go to the ‑‑ we went to the dime store, and picked up some underwear or something.  I don't remember.  I don't know.  We didn't have any extra clothes, you know, for the next day or anything.  But, yeah, that was ‑‑ we all got stranded down there.

THE INTERVIEWER:          It just sounds like fun, and it sounds like you had a good time. 

MRS. ARVAY:        A lot of other people were also stranded down at the Hollenden House, at that time. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          The Hollenden was a famous hotel in the day.

MRS. ARVAY:        Then the Theatrical used to have music and very good food.

THE INTERVIEWER:          That was a landmark, the Theatrical?  

MRS. ARVAY:        It was.  We would go there once in a while. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          And let's talk a little ‑‑

MRS. ARVAY:        Most of those places are no longer there, are they not? 

THE INTERVIEWER:          No, they're not.  And if you need a break, let me know. 

The next subject that I was going to cover is the court reporting equipment.  What you used, and if you remember changing your equipment at any time?  I don't know if you ever used computer compatible equipment?  

MRS. ARVAY:        No, I didn't.  All I did was get a new machine, so I had two of them.

THE INTERVIEWER:          What was your first machine?  Was it called the Headman? 

MRS.  ARVAY:       It didn't have a specific name.  They were just called Stenographs. 

I had a big green one, that big bulky green one.  And then I graduated to a more streamlined beige, pretty beige, which had a smaller body to it, you know.  Those are the only two that I had.

THE INTERVIEWER:          Were they heavy? 

MRS.  ARVAY:       The first one was heavy, yes.

THE INTERVIEWER:          Because you had to carry that.

MRS. ARVAY:        The machine was heavy, and the tripod was heavy.  And the tripod was made out of steel, I think.

THE INTERVIEWER:          It probably was.

MRS. ARVAY:        Yes, uh‑huh, it was. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          You used paper?  

MRS. ARVAY:        But that big machine had a small case.  I mean it was a formfitting case as compared to the second one which had a Samsonite case.  It was like a big piece of luggage.

THE INTERVIEWER:          That's what I was familiar with.

MRS. ARVAY:        That was a little easier to carry.

THE INTERVIEWER:          I just remembered the Headman machine and I thought that was the larger one, the heavier one?  

MRS.  ARVAY:       They are all called Stenograph to my knowledge.

THE INTERVIEWER:          Okay. 

MRS. ARVAY:        Stenograph.

THE INTERVIEWER:          Stenograph is a company.

MRS. ARVAY:        I know but it was imprinted on it.

THE INTERVIEWER:          Right.  I think they're the only ones that made them.  So Stenograph was the company, and that's what they called their product? 

MRS. ARVAY:        That's what they called it.  I really don't remember that. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          They were ‑‑

MRS. ARVAY:        We had that.  And we had the tape recording machine ‑‑ what do you call that? 

THE INTERVIEWER:          Dictaphone?  Or Stenorette?  

MRS.  ARVAY:       Yes.

THE INTERVIEWER:          From my understanding, that was a reel‑to‑reel tape recorder.

MRS. ARVAY:        Yeah, I had one at home and at the office.  We had them at the office, and that was about it.  That's all I needed, you know.  And a lot of paper.        

THE INTERVIEWER:          Yes, they used the paper tape.

MRS. ARVAY:        Yes.

THE INTERVIEWER:          What did it look like?  A big roll of ‑‑

MRS. ARVAY:        They were wads, wads of paper, that were about three, three and a half inches thick, that fit into the tray of the Stenograph.  And then you wound it through, and which reminds me to go back to the statements. 

I remember one notable night where I was called to go on a statement.  It was a cold, dark, winter night, and we went down to the Cuyahoga River.  We were tramping with this young lawyer again.  We were tramping through this big empty lot that was next to the river.  And we got to the shore, and we had to get on to, I think they were called tug boats.

THE INTERVIEWER:          Oh, yeah.

MRS. ARVAY:        So, I had to get on to this tug boat.  I was still dressed in office clothes, which meant high heels and a suit.

THE INTERVIEWER:          Uh‑huh. 

MRS. ARVAY:        And my coat and my equipment.  And we had to get on this thing and take statements of crew members, you know, one after another.  Some kind of an accident.  I don't remember what. 

And Carol reminded me about this, which I had forgotten.  She said, "You are the one that taught us how to do this."  I was on this tug boat, and as I said it was cold and windy and damp.  And I put the paper in the machine, and set it up, and they got me a chair, and I sat down, and I'm writing.  And the paper is flying into the air, like this.  And, my friend, Carol, reminded me about that the other night.  "Well, don't you remember you taught us to put a rubber band around the tray to keep the paper from flying off?" 

THE INTERVIEWER:          Very good.

MRS. ARVAY:        I said, "Oh, yeah, I didn't have it that night."  That was another wonderful experience. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          Not your typical office story? 

MRS. ARVAY:        No, it was not an office.  It was all of these other extra curricular activities that we had to do.

We went to ‑‑ went with another young man, the same thing ‑‑ late at night.  I was called to go with him to ‑‑ I believe we ended up on ‑‑ it was on Rockside Road in Independence.  Somewhere out in that area.  And it was two young couples who had been downtown.  One was a young man and his fiancee.  They just got engaged, and they went downtown to buy her an engagement ring.  I don't think they had been drinking.  If I understand, it was just an accident that happened.  But I think they probably were going too fast or something, and it happened where the truck didn't stop or something.  But they were behind this semi‑tractor trailer, and they just could not stop in time, and they literally went underneath the trailer.  By the time we got there, they has been taken to the hospital.  I believe they were all killed.  And as I was informed, which I really didn't want to know, but they were beheaded, decapitated.  And these are the things that would like, whoa, you know, made you become afraid of driving after awhile.

THE INTERVIEWER:          Yes. 

MRS. ARVAY:        Because we would come upon these terrible accident scenes, you know.

THE INTERVIEWER:          It's amazing that you actually had to go to them. 

MRS. ARVAY:        They had a theory if we could get there as soon as, you know, right when it happened, right after it happened, because the driver will call.  They were instructed to call this firm.  And then, they in turn called whoever in their company was closest to that area:  West side, east side. 

Like with us with statements, too.  I was almost always told you are an eastsider, go to Willoughby.  That's going to take me an hour and a half.  Well, that's okay.  That's your bailiwick, so a lot of times, it would happen right after work, and we would go with them from downtown Cleveland.  We would drive with them. 

Many times we would meet them there, you know.  And it was ‑‑ it was always very, very nerve wracking for me.  Some of the young guys, they would sort of seem to enjoy it.  It was, it was exhilarating, I suppose.  Especially if they got there and they got a witness, or they got somebody that actually talked to us, and we were able to take a statement.  That made them very happy. 

And that was another thing where I would say, you know, "Where am I supposed to take this statement?"  You know, he's talking to somebody outside.  He wants to get the guy to start talking.  And, you know, and so here I am with the machine, and "How do you want me to do this?" 

"Put it on the fender."  I'd put the machine on the fender. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          No tripod? 

MRS.  ARVAY:       No tripod, no nothing.  Just stand there and start writing like crazy.  Fortunately, these statements were not very long.  It was like, you know, who are you?  What is your name?  What were you doing here?  Were you in another car?  Did you see what happened? 

That kind of thing.  And it only lasted maybe 10 minutes, but it was important.  You know, a lot of times, it made a difference in the case when they finally went to court, you know, if they did, later on, so it was important.

THE INTERVIEWER:          Did you have to swear people in? 

MRS. ARVAY:        No.

THE INTERVIEWER:          So it was an unsworn statement? 

MRS. ARVAY:        Oh, yeah.

THE INTERVIEWER:          Because most court reporters have to be a notary, and you usually swore in your deponents.

MRS. ARVAY:        Well, if it's something that's set up that's involved in a court case, yes, but at this point in time, this is not a court case.

THE INTERVIEWER:          I understand.

MRS. ARVAY:        I'm not there in that capacity.  I'm there, simply, as a notetaker.

THE INTERVIEWER:          Oh,I see. 

MRS. ARVAY:        Sometimes we would go to somebody's home, and the lawyer would take you along for ‑‑ you were supposed to be some kind of an official or something.

THE INTERVIEWER:          Like an official of the Court? 

MRS. ARVAY:        I guess.  I remember one time this young man telling me, as we were walking down the sidewalk to go into the home, you know.  And this guy was evidently a hostile witness or something, so he ‑‑ the lawyer that I was with, he was quite tall, well over 6 feet,  and here I am, running after him in my little shoes.  He turned back to me and told me, he said, "Look mean." 

Now, I'm 5 foot 2.  How am I supposed to look mean?  So I'm trying to look mean. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          Like you mean business?  

MRS. ARVAY:        I would sort of intimidate in a way when he saw me with this thing to take apart and this machine comes out.  That's when they get nervous, sometimes. 

"What is that?  

"What are you doing?"  

You know, it is a little bit intimidating to think that, okay, she's just going to take down what you say, you know.  Don't worry about it.  This wasn't anything illegal we were doing.

THE INTERVIEWER:          Right.  Of course not.

MRS.  ARVAY:       I wasn't swearing anybody in, it wasn't a court case, or anything.  But he got a statement, and at that time, as it happened, many, many times, as you know, they will change their story two or three times by the time anything comes up later.  So this way you got it right there.  And they could say, "Well, do you remember on the night of January 3rd, in a snowstorm, when you said, you know, so and so.  And so why are you saying this now because you didn't really say that.  It's interesting. 

And they felt, the company felt, the trucking people, the people that represented the trucking companies, that this was ‑‑ it was very, very important if they could get it right there  at the scene of the accident when people had just seen it, or maybe they were involved, or maybe they were in the car with the person.  It certainly is more important, and new and fresh at that time, than it would be about six months later when they're asked the questions about the same subject.  By that time the memories have faded, or someone has talked to them, and ‑‑

THE INTERVIEWER:          Uh‑huh.

MRS. ARVAY:        ‑‑ maybe sort of changed their minds about something.  So it's important. 

And it would be the same thing.  We would type it up, and submit it to them, and we would charge them for the pages like we did for a deposition and for our time. 

We were always underpaid because how could you pay for somebody to come out at 3 o'clock in the morning in a snowstorm?  They can't give me enough money for that.

THE INTERVIEWER:          Right.

MRS. ARVAY:        But, you couldn't charge what you really wanted to charge because we got a lot of deposition business from them, you know, and he was a very good client of Mr. Blam's and a good friend, too.  So, we had to keep that relationship going.

THE INTERVIEWER:          Right. 

MRS.  ARVAY:       And they really respected Mr. Blam because of his skills, you know, and what he did.  I mean, I think he was one of the best reporters in the city. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          Yes.

MRS. ARVAY:        I'm sure, you know. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          Yes.  What about ‑‑ now, we talked about there were women in the profession at the time.  Do you remember any minorities at the time that were court reporters?  

MRS.  ARVAY:       Frankly, no.  Frankly, no.  I think later on some came into our firms.  But as I say, he always had a small office.  There was usually me, and maybe two other reporters.  And they usually stayed with him quite a number of years until they found something better, or, you know, maybe moved out of town for another job.  But, I don't really remember any reporters ‑‑ there seemed to be some at the courts but not in the freelance profession.

THE INTERVIEWER:          One thing that I wanted to ask you is did you ever encounter celebrities while you were court reporting?  Any famous people?  

MRS. ARVAY:        Yes, we worked a Sam Shepard case.

THE INTERVIEWER:          Yes. 

MRS  ARVAY:        I need to take a little break. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          We took a little break and now we're going to resume with the interview. 

And we were talking about celebrities that you've encountered during your court reporting work.  One name comes to your mind, and that was Sam Shepherd.  And you were going to tell me about that.

MRS. ARVAY:        Well, that was the famous Sam Shepard murder case, which his wife was murdered, and it was in Bay Village, Ohio, right on the lake there.  That, that murder case became the crux or the beginning of the story of the one‑armed man that was on the famous television series for many, many years.  This was because Sam Shepard claimed that he chased someone out of the house, and the man had one arm.

THE INTERVIEWER:          That's the Fugitive,      I believe.

MRS.  ARVAY:       Yes, the television show was the Fugitive. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          So he did say that? 

MRS. ARVAY:        Yes, the television show, the Fugitive story.  And, I really didn't have any involvement with that case, but many years later, after he had gone to prison for some time.  And then, he came out ‑‑ he actually did some good works in prison, I believe he did some hospital work.

THE INTERVIEWER:          He was a doctor.

MRS. ARVAY:        Yes, he was a doctor.  And in prison, he did some good work there, I believe. 

But when he came out, he married a woman who was from Germany, yes, that's right, she was from Germany, who began corresponding with him while he was in prison, and they struck up a friendship that way.  And when he came out, he married her.

I believe I saw him one day at the law offices that I happened to be at.  She was a very striking blonde lady with, I believe, a leopard skin coat on.  And Dr. Shepard was there, and someone else from my office, I believe, took his deposition.  And he was there being represented by these attorneys in another case of some kind of which, at this point, I have no knowledge.  Maybe, we could research that and get that information. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          We can.

MRS. ARVAY:        That's about all I could tell you about Dr. Shepard.   

THE INTERVIEWER:          Okay. We talked about the course of the court reporting technology, how it first started out as pen writers.  And I know you used a machine, you did machine shorthand reporting. 

But I know you wanted to mention your boss, George Blam.  Now, how long have you worked for George, and was he your only boss?  

MRS. ARVAY:        No, he retired and moved ‑‑ well, he retired from the business.  And after a short time, I went to work for the Holland Reporting company ‑‑

THE INTERVIEWER:          Where we met.

MRS. ARVAY:        ‑‑ where I met with Cindy.  And worked there, I'm not sure of the time, six or seven years, maybe?  That I worked there. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          In the early '90s.

MRS. ARVAY:        Yes.  And that was pretty much it as far as my work history is concerned.

THE INTERVIEWER:          George sounded like a pretty interesting character.

MRS. ARVAY:        Yes, he was.  He started ‑‑ he lived or came from New York City.  And both he and his cousin ‑‑ well, in those days when you came from a poor family, you really didn't have the money for an education.  A lot of men, at that time, especially in Detroit, went ‑‑

THE INTERVIEWER:          Detroit? 

MRS. ARVAY:        I mean, I'm sorry, in New York City, went into court reporting because it was a field where you didn't have to do all that much study.  Actually, he started out with manual shorthand, and that he used, in whatever work he did at that time, I don't know.  But he started out doing ‑‑ writing Pitman which is a beautiful form of shorthand where you ‑‑ I think it originally probably started out with the quill pen, where the strokes that you make, the width of the stroke means a difference between one letter or one word and another.  And it is a very skillful, very artistic form of shorthand.  This was prior to Greg shorthand.

You had really had to be perfect and accurate in that one, but it was lovely to look at and lovely to see.  He learned that first, and then he learned Greg shorthand, I believe. 

And eventually, he taught himself the stenograph, and that's how he got into that, and got to be very, very proficient in writing.  I believe he was considered one of the best writers in the city, or in the country, for that matter.  Because he did some very complicated work, especially medical malpractice cases.  He was very much in demand for that. 

In the Second World War, he worked ‑‑ went in as a shorthand writer, and he worked in that branch of the Army, which I'm not certain of the name of it, but I'm certain it was a legal section somehow.  But he did a lot of courts martial's, and did any shorthand writing that was required at that time.  They probably did the same thing that they do in civil work where they take statements, they take depositions, they sit in and do trials. 

But at one point, he went to one of the concentration camps, I think it was Dachau ‑‑ I'm not sure ‑‑ with the general that was in charge of that area at that time.  They went to liberate this camp, and he went in with him, and took notes as to those deplorable conditions that existed at that time.  This was doubly hard for him because at one point in his life when he was a young man, his whole family was decimated by the Hitler invasion, although his parents were able to get out of the country before the main crux of the war started.  But it was a very horrendous thing to see, something like that going on right before your eyes, to see those people who were just merely skeletons of their former selves.  He used to tell us stories about those days in the army.

Just another part of our lives that we went through with it at that time, or he went through it, anyway.  And that's all I could tell you about Mr.  Blam. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          Okay.  Now you have family in Hungary, and didn't you travel to Hungary at one time?  

MRS. ARVAY:        Oh, I've been to Hungary three times, actually. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          You were saying about your grandmother.  I remember a story you were saying about your grandmother who lived in a house with a dirt floor, and now you have a granddaughter that went to Yale.

MRS.  ARVAY:       Yes, I was thinking about the contrast there.  A woman who lived in a house with a dirt floor, who had a second grade education, and has a great granddaughter that went to Yale University.  It is just an amazing contrast there. 

The first time that I went was with my daughter, and I went with my uncle, who wanted to go back.  He had come to the United States as a seven‑year old boy, and when he was living in Europe, the part of Hungary that he lived in at that time was, I believe, at that time, it was Czechoslóvakia.  But they've changed borders along the way, here and there.  But we went there and visited the little town my grandmother came from.  And as I say, for a woman with a second grade education, she really didn't want to speak much in the way of English, but she was very, very intelligent.  She ended up with two or three houses and a 40‑acre farm.  And she just was able to handle her life here very, very well.  And it is just amazing when you think of a lot of people who have done the very same thing.  They started out with nothing, and in this great country of ours, they could just make themselves into whatever they want to be.

THE INTERVIEWER:          That's true.

MRS. ARVAY:        So that was fun.

THE INTERVIEWER:          Now, I don't think that we touched on this, but I was wondering about your certification.  You need to be a member of the NCRA, which is National Court Reporters Association.  And I believe that entity was actually called the National Shorthand Reporters Association back then when you were working.  And, I was wondering what you did to get your certification; and number two, what you did to maintain your certification? 

And if you could tell us about your certification, and what were the requirements back then because they might have changed. 

MRS. ARVAY:        I believe it was just a question of acquiring points.  We acquired points by going to seminars, or conventions, so to speak.  Or we would read some books, and send the report in on that, and get points for that, I believe.  We had some tests sometimes that we would take certain tests, too.  It took me quite a long time to get a certification because I seemed to be too busy to be attending all of these events, but nobody really questioned my certification, as long as I seem to do the job pretty well.

THE INTERVIEWER:          Did they have an RPR, the Registered Professional Reporter certification, where they give you a national test ‑‑

MRS.  ARVAY:       Yes. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          ‑‑ of so many words per minute for question and answer testimony?  And then they had a jury charge?  And then they had a literary?  Well, anyway, this is something that I could look into. 

You probably had to go to Columbus back in the day to get certified, and then you do remember going to seminars? 

MRS. ARVAY:        Yes.

THE INTERVIEWER:          You went to seminars? 

MRS. ARVAY:        To get a certain number of points for a certain seminar, or it depended on where it was located, and it was maybe 20 points to do something.  We could even, at times, they would give us a list of books to read and we would read a book and submit a report on it, and you would get maybe five points for a book or something, and there were different ways that we had to accumulate points in order to maintain this certification that we had.

THE INTERVIEWER:          Right. 

MRS. ARVAY:        Which we were supposed to have to work to be a Court Reporter. 

Maybe it was more important if you were working in court, which I really never did do.  Other than farm‑out jobs every now and then to work in various courts around the state that didn't have court reporters that actually worked there on a daily basis. 

I really enjoyed going to Federal court and working there because the judges there ‑‑ the judges I worked for, anyway ‑‑ were so aware of the record that they spoke for the Court Reporter.  And their eyes were constantly on the Court Reporter, and made sure that proper names were spelled, and that record was 100 percent correct.  And I really appreciated that.  I had a lot of respect for those judges because they knew how to run a court.  And I was sorry that I did not work for the Federal government because I probably would have enjoyed it.  But, that's the way to do it.

THE INTERVIEWER:          Do you remember what kind of work you did in Federal court?  

MRS. ARVAY:        I just remember being called in for the day, and being on a case.  It was usually ‑‑ I really can't remember what it involved.  It would be important cases because they wouldn't be in Federal court if they weren't.  It usually had to do with some complicated business matter, or something like that.  It was never any criminal proceeding or anything, but I really enjoyed that experience working for the Federal courts. But that was about it.

THE INTERVIEWER:          That sounds interesting.  Maybe you could explain just a little bit more how Federal court is more record conscious, than say municipal court.

MRS. ARVAY:        I don't know why.  I think because from the Federal court, the next step is probably is the Supreme Court at that point? 

THE INTERVIEWER:          They have another level of Federal Court of Appeals above them.

MRS.  ARVAY:       Yes. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          The Supreme Court is the court of last resort. 

MRS. ARVAY:        Yes, they want to keep that record certainly as accurate as they possibly can, and that's where it starts, in the Federal court.  That's the basis for it.  And if there are any errors in that, there's a basis for an appeal, or something being ‑‑ what's the word I'm thinking of ‑‑ where it's overturned.  And so they're trying to avoid that, so they keep that record as clear as they can.  I'm sure that's the reason for it, of course.  And because, then they're judged by their record, by the Appeals Court, which in turn, has to account to the Supreme Court.  I mean that's it.  They're God.  You know, you better have your Ps and Qs and your Ts crossed, and everything else before you submit it to those guys because they don't fool around.

THE INTERVIEWER:          Right.

MRS. ARVAY:        So I think that's probably the reason to keep an accurate record.  And the cases are very important.  Well, all cases are important as opposed to say, a run‑of‑the‑mill slip and fall case or something, you know.  Where there is a few thousand dollars involved, or somebody's feelings are hurt about some altercation they got into.  There's a big difference between those cases.

THE INTERVIEWER:          Did you ever do any drug cases?  

MRS. ARVAY:        Drug cases? 

THE INTERVIEWER:          Yes, like any drug dealers, or there was a big crack cocaine problem in the late 80s, early 90s.  I know you didn't do criminal work very much, but I was just wondering? 

MRS. ARVAY:        No, I'm afraid not. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          Mostly like car accidents, and medical malpractice cases?     

MRS.  ARVAY:       Yes. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          Any asbestos? 

MRS. ARVAY:        Divorce.

THE INTERVIEWER:          Divorce? 

MRS.  ARVAY:       Yes, wonderful divorce cases.

THE INTERVIEWER:          The divorce laws have changed throughout your career since when you started.  As far back as the 60s, there became no fault divorce, and it was a lot easier for women to get a divorce, and women were not looked upon as socially unacceptable as they were prior to, like say, in the 1950s.

What are your thoughts on the divorce cases that you did?  They have to be interesting. 

MRS. ARVAY:        Well, I hated them.  Usually, when you came into the room, you know, with everybody's mad at everybody else.  And you would have the wife and the husband and their lawyers and you.  The day would probably end with somebody getting thrown out of the room, or somebody throwing something at somebody else.  Usually, if I was working for the person who was working for the wife who was deposing the husband, or vise versa, usually, it was a fight about the children, which was always very bad.  Or just, just everything.  I mean in the divorce case, they spent all day long knit picking about every little issue that they could argue about.  They'll find fault with ‑‑ and I really hated to do the work because it never seemed to resolve itself.  It just went on. 

The only thing was that the lawyers were doing well.  I don't know if the people involved were doing all that great, and nothing ever seemed to get resolved.  I really didn't enjoy divorce work at all.  It was not my cup of tea, especially having been divorced myself.  But, I didn't go through that, you know, cat and mouse game.

THE INTERVIEWER:          Did you notice any difference throughout your career?  Like divorces used to require some grounds for divorce, and then later, the laws changed, and there was no fault divorce where you really didn't have to have a reason.  Did you notice any changes in the format of the divorce proceedings?  

MRS. ARVAY:        I don't think I was in it at the time that it became no fault.  I think I was out of it by that time.  I am not sure if I really was involved in any no fault divorce cases, I don't believe. 

Usually, when we got into it, at the deposition phase, they were trying to resolve either a child custody matter, or a money matter, and that's the only reason they took depositions.  Usually, all of the other things were conferences between the attorneys and the parties, and they would iron out things that way.  But when it came to taking a deposition, the only reason they did that was because they had to find out the other person's point of view.  They had to ask questions, they wanted to know certain things, you know, delve into the money situation, where the money is, and what they're doing with the children, you know, things like that. 

But, otherwise, I really don't know anything about the no fault.  I don't know exactly what that means. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          Well, they didn't have to have grounds.  They didn't have to prove that the other spouse was unfit.  If you wanted a divorce, you could just go out and get one. 

MRS.  ARVAY:       I thought that depended on the state that you were in.  It seems to me, at the time, when I was in it that certain states were more lenient than others in that regard.  But I don't have any particular knowledge on that score. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          Okay.  Another change in the technology of court reporting and the production of transcripts.  You used to type up your transcript, or you had somebody do it for you.  You mentioned that already. 

At the advent of computer‑aided transcription, this started to eliminate typists.

MRS. ARVAY:        Yes, it probably did away with a lot of jobs that the people ‑‑ a lot of these women were maybe stay at home moms, and they had this rather nice job.  They were good typists.  They could do very well working at home.  They had a reason to be at home, either they had small children, or an elderly parent to take care of, or something where they wanted to work in the home.  And, that was very good for them.  They wouldn't have been able to make that kind of money.  Some of the typists, as I said, were very proficient.  They would make a pretty nice salary because they were able to knock out the pages very fast and accurate.  Neat, too.  And, so that did away with a lot of incomes for women, at that point, they had to go into something else, I guess. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          That's what I was wondering, too. 

MRS.  ARVAY:       Too bad. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          There were a lot of women that were the typists? 

MRS. ARVAY:        Oh, yeah. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          What about the court reporters?  Now your boss was a man, and you worked with other women in the office.  So, was there an equal amount of men and women in the profession in the beginning?  And then maybe later on, was there ever a change?  

MRS. ARVAY:        I think there were some companies in town that hired exclusively men, from what I understand.

THE INTERVIEWER:          I thought that Pat Holland, our boss, was one of them.

MRS. ARVAY:        Yeah.  There might have been some others.  I don't think ‑‑ I don't think there was any differences as far as the pay that was earned.  I don't know they were able to discriminate in that way because they wouldn't have gotten away with it.  We certainly had the same skill as a man would have in that regard, so they would have to pay the same amount of money, or they would lose those people, pretty fast.

THE INTERVIEWER:          Maybe you could describe your pay rate.  You had an attendance rate for taking the deposition and/or statement? 

MRS. ARVAY:        Yes.

THE INTERVIEWER:          Then, you had a page rate? 

MRS. ARVAY:        Per page.

THE INTERVIEWER:          Okay. So, how much was the attendance, if you remember, for taking something down? 

MRS. ARVAY:        Oh, gosh. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          If you don't remember,  that's fine.

MRS.  ARVAY:       No            , I don't.  

THE INTERVIEWER:          Do you remember your page rates? 

MRS. ARVAY:        Well, at first it was a dollar something per page.  Then the copy was, also, per page, but that was at a cheaper rate.

THE INTERVIEWER:          And that was sold to the other side.  Each side had to purchase their own transcript? 

MRS. ARVAY:        That's true.  That's true. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          Did you get paid right away, or was there a long wait? 

MRS.  ARVAY:       It depends on how fast the attorneys paid bill. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          So, what did that entail?  Was it difficult to make ends meet? 

MRS. ARVAY:        George was constantly going out and trying to collect money from people.  And it's a shame. 

Because, I was just talking to my friend, Carol, about that.  She was in business for herself, in Virginia, I believe, or Michigan, after she left town here.  She had that same problem of trying to collect money from people.  And sometimes, she said it seemed like the more ‑‑ the more renowned, or the more expensive the attorney's firm was, they were the slowest in paying their bills.  Sometimes it would be a year that would go by before they paid their bills.  Then as a contrast, you would have a client, some attorney more or less on his own, in a little, tiny office somewhere, where he would be calling up, saying "Did you get the check?  Did you get the check?"  He was so concerned that his bill was paid, you know.  So you have this difference in people, and it all depends on what your idea of what integrity means. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          Yes. 

MRS.  ARVAY:       Because, to me, if you are over there demanding that this transcript be done over the holidays and everything else, and they're knocking on your door and wanting that thing right away, and then they turn around and wait six months before they give you a penny ‑‑

THE INTERVIEWER:          Yeah.

MRS. ARVAY:        ‑‑ to me, that isn't fair.

THE INTERVIEWER:          No.

MRS. ARVAY:        That isn't right. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          No, not at all.

MRS. ARVAY:        But we didn't have to worry too much about that because after working for a number of months, you eventually had a backlog of money that he owed you.  And so, even if the money wasn't coming into him for that particular job, he would still pay you, you know, to more or less on the same level.  He would try to have you stay at the same level or maybe a little higher all of the time.  If you had money that was going to be coming in, he had to more or less stake you on that. 

Not all offices are run the same way.  You have to wait until that bill is paid before you get paid.  But Mr. Blam was very good about that.  He tried to, you know, keep us, fairly solvent. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          Did you ever have trouble paying your bills at all?  Was this getting paid a difficult part of court reporting? 

MRS. ARVAY:        Not for me.  I didn't have to collect. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          Yes. 

MRS. ARVAY:        But waiting for your money, did you have trouble paying your bills?  

MRS.  ARVAY:       Well, the two employers that I worked for were very good about that.  Mr. Holland was very good at that.  Very fair, I think, I thought. 

Some of the other employers I've heard stories about that weren't all that great as far as paying their people.  But I never had any trouble.  Yeah, I had trouble paying my bills back in 1951.

THE INTERVIEWER:          Okay.  What are you doing then?       

MRS.  ARVAY:       Nothing then.  I wasn't doing anything.  But, not when I was court reporting, no.

When I first started out, of course, just like anything else, you know, it is slow.  But, no, I took care of myself pretty good and my daughter.  Eventually. 

I never asked for any charity, let's put it that way.  I never asked for any ADC or anything. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          Okay.  Well, is there anything else that you could think of or that you might want to add?  I know that we were talking about a lot of subjects.

MRS.  ARVAY:       Yes. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          Is there anything else that you would like to put in or say. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          Mostly like differences from your time period? 

MRS.  ARVAY:       It seems to me that this profession seems to be very cut and dried.  We have a certain set of skills.  We're mainly interested in writing down what we hear and do it accurately.  And that's never going to change.  I mean, that's what we're there for. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          What you think of the technology? 

MRS. ARVAY:        The technology, of course, makes things different for you, and other people.  And I imagine it's probably going to even be more changes.  I don't know exactly how, but as technology improves with different aspects, things will change.  But, it pretty much stays the same. 

I'm not sure about the courts.  I never had that much experience in court.  Courts seem to be, some courts seem a lot more lenient than they were in years past, you know. 

What was that I heard the other day about somebody came ‑‑ a juror came to court which the judge didn't think she was appropriately dressed, so he told her to go home, and come back with proper clothing.  And she was going to leave, and he said, "No, you go home on your lunch hour and you change your clothes and come back."

THE INTERVIEWER:          Yes, she probably was dressed bad.

MRS. ARVAY:        So I imagine there's some of that that goes on.  I couldn't see anybody walking into Federal Court, and having on a mini skirt, and you know, something like that, on that score.

THE INTERVIEWER:          Some judges send people home if they have on white T‑shirts and the baggie jeans, or maybe T‑shirts with derogatory sayings on them, or it could be any number of things, really.

MRS. ARVAY:        It all depends on the judge, I think. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          Exactly.

MRS.  ARVAY:       It all depends on how much you let people get away with.  It's a court of law, and you should have respect for that.  It's the basis for our government. 

The same way with a church, I see sometimes people go to church really inappropriately dressed.  You don't mind people in casual clothes, but I've seen some young people that should not be there with what they're wearing.  And I think the people in charge in church should send them home, you know.  As much as they dislike doing it.  The longer you let those things go, I think, just like anything else, the worse it gets.

THE INTERVIEWER:          Right.  Some people dress like there are going out night clubbing, rather than court or church.  And maybe they look nice if they were going to a party, but church and court is not a party.

MRS. ARVAY:        Well, I went to Catholic school.  We went to mass every single morning.  And there was one specific time, I remember, it was Good Friday.  We went to church, for the service, and it was a three‑hour service.  And I remember sitting there, or kneeling, or doing something in that pew.  And I guess I slumped or something, or did something wrong because there was a nun behind me, and she had her ruler.  And I got smacked right in my back, and she said sit up.

And I was probably in elementary school, I was probably maybe third or fourth grade or something.  You know, you just did not get away with anything like that.  Of course, I think that was inhuman, I think, to make a child ‑‑ to make these children, you know, do that. 

But then they were very good to us.  It was just certain times when they would put their foot down about something, or maybe she was in a bad mood.  I don't know.  That's possible.

THE INTERVIEWER:          I remember you telling me and I think this is before you became a Court Reporter, didn't you travel on the road with your husband in a band? 

MRS.  ARVAY:       Yes, I would love to show you that picture of the trio.

THE INTERVIEWER:          Yes.

MRS. ARVAY:        Maybe when we get through here I could get it out for you. 

We travel for a year.  It was ‑‑ well, the first time I've been out of Cleveland, I went here ‑‑ my husband had already gone ahead, I think, to Omaha.  I took the train out to Chicago and from there, we traveled all over. 

There were some places where we worked for two weeks, and some places where we were there a month.  And just, you know, they had bars, or places where they would have music, and they would have like a dinner theater, or restaurants attached, or it would be just a bar, and there was music and dancing.

THE INTERVIEWER:          Supper clubs? 

MRS. ARVAY:        Yes, that kind of thing.

When we were in Omaha, Nebraska, in 1948, and I was 20 years old.  The band my husband played in was there for a month or two at this supper club or night club, if you want to call it.  I would go with him and wait all night and sit with the other band members' wives.  We met some older girls that hung around, sometimes with guys or not.  I got to know them because the girls were friendly and I enjoyed talking to them.  My husband, Bill, told me they were prostitutes.  I didn't know that!  That was an eye‑opener.  But they were very nice and they knew I was homesick.  They were very motherly and they were a lot of fun.  I didn't see anything wrong with it. 

Then we went further west, and we were in Kalispell, Montana; Casper, Wyoming; Kansas City, Missouri.  Places that like that.  That was quite an experience for a little Cleveland girl who never got out of Cleveland until that point.  So, it gave me my little taste for traveling, which I did later on in life. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          Well, court reporting does involve some travel? 

MRS. ARVAY:        Yes, I never did travel for court reporting cases, except around Ohio. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          Okay. 

MRS. ARVAY:        I had a wonderful time.  They gave me ‑‑ they give me a case in southern Ohio, somewhere, another wintery, another wonderful wintery day.  It was snowing when I left, it was snowing all the way down there.  And all the while, I'm taking this deposition.  It's snowing and snowing, and how in the heck am I going to get home?  And the case was about ‑‑ guess what? 

THE INTERVIEWER:          I don't know?       

MRS.  ARVAY:       A hay wagon accident. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          Right of way?  

MRS. ARVAY:        God knows.  I mean, I was so angry, I was ready to spit. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          Tell me about the case.

MRS.  ARVAY:       I don't remember.  It was probably the horse ran over somebody.  I don't know.  I don't know.  It was just really silly to be there in that kind of weather. 

These jobs would come in the office, and you had no idea what they are.  They would just say I want a reporter in ‑‑ in Milan, Ohio, or somewhere, you know, and you say okay.  So you go and you have no idea what you were getting into. 

We got a wonderful call one time, and I think George was out to lunch or something.  And it was a ‑‑ we had to go ‑‑ somebody had to go over to Federal Court and take depositions.  So, okay, that was me.  So, off I went.  And, guess what?  It was actually it was two porn cases.  And there was another reporter there from another firm, employed by another attorney.  And, so we more or less spent most of the time sitting there for most of the afternoon watching a porn movie. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          Wow!     

MRS.  ARVAY:       Now, if that wasn't embarrassing.  But after a while, it got to be so boring.  This other reporter and I would just sit and chat because we were getting tired of watching this stuff.  So I came back to the office, and Mr. Blam said, "What was that all about?" 

I said "I was watching a porn movie all afternoon." 

He said, "Why didn't you call me?" 

I said, "Well, I'm sure you wouldn't want to go and take that."

THE INTERVIEWER:          Was that in Cleveland?  Because the city of Cleveland had a lot of smut for a while.

MRS. ARVAY:        Federal court, yeah, Federal court. 

There was a time when they were trying to ‑‑ there was a specific person that they were trying to bring down, somehow.  He was the kingpin of the porn industry.

THE INTERVIEWER:          I think I remember that.  It was Reuben Sturman.  He was the guy who put on glasses with a big funny nose to disguise himself. 

MRS. ARVAY:        He was being prosecuted, or he was really being investigated. 

There was a lot of stuff going on out there. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          What can you remember about the porn cases, if anything?  

MRS. ARVAY:        Mostly, the depositions we went on was mainly a showing of the pornographic movies, which we spent a couple of hours in the courtroom, which there was nothing, not much writing to be done.  But, they had to show the movie, I guess, to prove, if it was ‑‑

THE INTERVIEWER:          Pornographic? 

MRS. ARVAY:        ‑‑ whether or not  it was pornographic or lewd.

THE INTERVIEWER:          They were trying determine if it was? 

MRS. ARVAY:        That's right. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          What else can you think of about your profession, or what you would like to see become of it? 

MRS.  ARVAY:       Well, we'll always have the court reporter profession, you know.  It will never ‑‑ as long as we have injustice in the world.

THE INTERVIEWER:          Yes.  I like that.

MRS. ARVAY:        I hope we always have courts.  We should always have courts because it's ‑‑

THE INTERVIEWER:          It's our way for redress.

MRS. ARVAY:        Part of our right as citizens, or as a part of the human race.  We're supposed to have rights, especially in this country, and all over the world, really.  And people should be able to ‑‑ that's why we're having all of these uprisings in various Mideast countries at the moment.  People are just sick and tired ‑‑

THE INTERVIEWER:          Yes.

MRS. ARVAY:        ‑‑ of not having their freedom.  Freedom is such a big thing.  We have to have our freedom, love our life, and not be enslaved.

THE INTERVIEWER:          Yes.         

MRS.  ARVAY:       And in fear of your life every time you walk out of the door in the morning.  And we don't realize here how fortunate we are at this point in time.  And that's about all I have to say on that subject.

THE INTERVIEWER:          Well, I want to thank you.  And we'll have to come back and go over a few more points.  But, I want to thank you for your time and your patience with me. 

MRS. ARVAY:                          I wish I had something more interesting to tell you. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          No, you had plenty.

MRS.  ARVAY:       That's about all I could do at the moment.

THE INTERVIEWER:          And that's great and wonderful.  Thank you. 

MRS. ARVAY:        This was called the Zebra Room, and they ended up being called the Zebra Boys. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          That was your husband.  You were divorced, by the way, right?  

MRS. ARVAY:        Yes.

THE INTERVIEWER:          How long were you married?

MRS. ARVAY:        This picture was taken at the Supper Club in Tampa, Florida, Thursday, February 19, 1948.

THE INTERVIEWER:          Wow! 

MRS  ARVAY:        Oh, he sent this to me.  "To my darling girl," my gosh, "love and kisses, Billy." 

Wow, Pete Vincent, drums.  Bill Arvay, bass; Art DeVito, clarinet, baritone sax, wonderful.  Don Suchin, piano.  Okay.  This was Don and this was Artie, and this was Bill, and this was Pete Vincent.  Okay.

THE INTERVIEWER:          Well, should we wrap it up? 

MRS. ARVAY:        Yes. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          Okay.  Thank you.  You would make a good lawyer. 

‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑

(Continued oral history of Margaret Arvay.)   

THE INTERVIEWER:          The date is November 11, 2011, at Marge Arvay's home, in Garfield Heights, Ohio. The time is 7:46 p.m. 

We were talking about significant historical events that occurred during your lifetime and also while you were reporting.  What were your experiences as far as discrimination against people of another race or another ethnic origin? 

MRS. ARVAY:        When I first got married and went to Florida in 1948, my husband and I were going, walking into town to have breakfast.  We were walking down this sidewalk and this black, elderly gentleman was walking towards us.  And he stepped off the sidewalk and went into the street, off of the curb, so that we would have room to walk on the sidewalk without him colliding with us, so to speak.  And I had never had anything like that, had any experience like that in Cleveland when I was younger, and I was so very shocked to see that. 

And, then as we got into the climate of the south, so to speak, got around into the city more, and went to different restaurants and places, we saw how incredibly separatist things were.  The water fountains had the signs above them, "colored only" or "white only."  And the same thing was true with the washrooms.  And I have to say, I was rather young, but I was incredibly shocked by this.  It seemed very foreign to me to see this in my country, because I had no experience with that before. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          Was there separation in restaurant seating that you experienced with people of other races? 

MRS. ARVAY:        Well, I personally did not, but it seemed as though if you did go to eat in a restaurant, there was no co‑mingling of the races.  You didn't see any black faces in the restaurant,that is when we went to other diners.  So any place like that. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          So they had totally separate places to eat, nobody ate together? 

MRS. ARVAY:        No, no, not at all.  I don't know whether if they came to a certain place they were turned away at the door, or how that came about.  But, that's the ways it was.  And in the following year, when I was out west with the band, we went ‑‑ they were playing at this one particular restaurant and club.  And they had a bar there and we went in one afternoon to talk with the owner.  And we were sitting at the table there, and an Indian man came in.  And there was the same type of discrimination against Indians in the western states, which I also didn't realize or didn't know about until I got out there.  But he stood at the bar, and they served him a drink.  And when he was finished but while he was still there, the bartender took his glass, and smashed it on the floor, or on the side of the bar.  I'm not sure, which. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          Do you recall what year this was?  

MRS. ARVAY:        It would have been ‑‑ it would have been 1949, 1950, possibly, I'm not sure.  That was also my first experience with Indian‑white relations in that town ‑‑ it was a small town in Wyoming ‑‑ as a young person.

THE INTERVIEWER:          Let's continue with the racial bias, and talk about when you were court reporting.  Did you know many African‑American Court Reporters? 

MRS. ARVAY:        When I started in the business, I think there were black reporters that worked in the court houses, but since I was in the freelance field, I did not know of any, or did not experience meeting any that were in my field at that time.  That would have been in 1968 and later. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          What about when you went to national conventions?  Did you meet any African‑American Court Reporters at that time?  

MRS. ARVAY:        Well, yes, I think there with a mixture of all kinds of people at the nationals.  There were people from all over the country.  I'm sure there were.  Some, but not too many. 

You'd see a few faces here and there, but I noticed now there seems to be over 25 companies in the Cleveland area.  And when I started, there were only five or six back in 1968 that I know of.  So, it has grown and with it have come all kinds of people who have become skilled at that craft. 

There was racism, I'm sure, in the Cleveland area, but it just seemed in my particular little lifetime, when I was younger, it was probably all  undercover, so to speak.  There wasn't any blatant show of that type of thing in every day life that I knew of.

Actually, I did not have contact with African‑Americans until I went to junior high school and high school.  Then, I became acquainted with all kinds of kids. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          Let's talk now of the  nuts and bolts of how court reporting works.

You and I are both Court Reporters and we both know how court reporting works, but how do you explain it to someone who does not know how we take down stenographically the sounds that we hear, and then how we transcribe them into a booklet form?  Can you explain the process.

MRS. ARVAY:        The stenograph machine is a system of shorthand, and it has to be studied and learned.

THE INTERVIEWER:          Like a second language? 

MRS. ARVAY:        Yes, it is a phonetic type of language, a second language, where all words are transposed into phonetics.  A lot of things that we say or that we hear can be written in one stroke.  Like, for instance, "if it please the Court" or "scene of the accident" or "at that time."  Those are frequent phrases.

THE INTERVIEWER:          Is what they are?

MRS. ARVAY:        Or even words like "courtroom" might be written in one stroke.

THE INTERVIEWER:          You hear these sounds and then you write them stenographically.  So then how do you relate that to your typist who types up your transcripts? 

MRS. ARVAY:        Okay.  Then we take our notes and we usually have a deadline.  So we started dictating in English like crazy and we dictated our notes into a Stenorette machine, which is a reel‑to‑reel tape.  And then we give the typist the case caption, and the names of the attorneys.  As I'm speaking, I'm giving this information to a typist, who then types it.  

Say, for example, a deposition is then dictated from my notes, and we dictate when the plaintiff's attorney is speaking and when the defendant's attorney is speaking.  And it is then dictated to a typist, who types it up, in a deposition form.

THE INTERVIEWER:          Like a booklet? 

MRS. ARVAY:        Like a booklet.  We, at the end of that deposition, put in a statement saying it was taken by us, and the person was sworn in by us, because we are certified notaries public.  We swear by this statement that the information that was given by the witness is correct to the best of our ability, and then it is signed by us.  And in some cases, it is required to be signed by the witness whose deposition we have taken down.  And we put this into a booklet form, and give it to the attorney who requested this document.  And then that is usually the extent of our skill. 

Of course, many other skills are involved.  There are many reporters who work strictly in court and they take down trials all day.  And some are criminal courts and some are civil courts.  Some were domestic relations courts  where people get divorces.  Juvenile court.  It's a very varied field and very interesting.

THE INTERVIEWER:          Explain the times when witnesses were able to read their depositions?

MRS. ARVAY:        If the witness wanted to read their testimony, they could make any corrections they chose to make or feel that they wanted to.  They would write on a separate sheet of paper and that would be included in with the deposition.  And we could either deliver the deposition to the witness, which I often had to do.  Or I would take it to their home, or have them come in the office to read it and sign it.  Sometimes, even at that point, they didn't want to sign it because they disputed what was down there.  But that is just being stubborn, I guess.  But they have the right to read it and sign it or not sign it as they see fit.  We could only go so far in our jurisdiction.  The rest was up to the attorneys to fight about or argue about. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          Now let's talk about your earlier training in stenography.  When you learned shorthand, do you recall how old you were when you learned shorthand? 

MRS. ARVAY:        I was always interested in shorthand.  When I took my first course, I was probably 18 or 19, and that was a course in Greg shorthand.  There was also some type of shorthand called speed writing which I also went to school for, and I was able to take that course.  I never really used either of these systems to get a job or anything.  I was just very interested in that field. 

Eventually, I read about a different system when I came across a leaflet or a booklet having to do with machine shorthand, and that really intrigued me.  So I found a school that was teaching it here in Cleveland, and I went to this school two or three nights a week in downtown Cleveland.  I started studying the machine shorthand system, and I believe I went to that school for two years.  The actual system of machine shorthand is not that difficult to learn, but it's a question of trying to get up to the speeds that you need to work in court.  I believe the speed used to be 200 words per minute.  I understand that people are talking a lot faster these days.

It was hours and hours of dictation and going to school to simply take speed tests, trying to improve your speed.  Now a lot of people dropped out.  I believe my class had like almost 40 people in it, and there were only three people left at the end of a couple of years who were able to actually use this knowledge and skill to get a job in court reporting.  And I happened to be one of them, which I was very fortunate. 

Actually, I spent an extra year going to Akron, on every Saturday, just for dictation to build my speed.  The teacher would do nothing but dictate to us, pushing us to the speeds that we needed, and she was very good.  She talked me into going out, and getting my nerve up to get a job with the court reporting firms that were available at that time.  So, that's what I did. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          Do you remember your first job or your first couple of jobs that you had?  

MRS. ARVAY:        No, because when I first started going out, I would go along with my boss, and sit in with him at a deposition, so he could see how I was doing.

THE INTERVIEWER:          So there was an internship?

MRS. ARVAY:        There was an internship per se.  It didn't last very long because he needed another reporter.  So after a while, he said, "Oh, you're fine."  And he would send me out on so‑called easy jobs.  These easy jobs were depositions on a fender bender accident, for example, or something that he knew definitely was not going to be written up, which meant that it didn't have to be put into a typed up format.  It was simply taking notes about an accident or some such thing. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          So there are really two jobs of a Court Reporter:  One is to take down the testimony, verbatim, in stenotype form; and the other part of the job is to transcribe the stenotypy back into English words?

MRS. ARVAY:        Yes.  But if there is no transcript required then they're not transcribed into English words.  They're just kept, and the attorney is billed for your attendance, but they were not translated into the English language, and they are just filed away.  They have to be kept as official court records because they are part of a court case.  Also, they have to be kept for a certain number of years, I believe, according to the rules of law. 

At some point, someone may call up and say they want a transcript on that, and you have to pull it out, and do it.  You would read it and transcribe it, regardless of how old your notes are. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          Do you remember any?

MRS. ARVAY:        That's the beautiful part of machine shorthand.  It's right there for you, and you should be able to read it five or 10 years down the line.  Only if you haven't forgotten it all. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          Court reporters mark exhibits as part of the deposition process, and do you remember any unusual exhibits, like airplane parts, or anything odd other than papers or documents? 

MRS. ARVAY:        Well, if it was a patent case, we would put stickers on all kinds of odd objects being wheels or cams, or a carburetor of a car.  Or we would try and mark whatever it was that they wanted to be a part of a deposition or case. 

This is so odd for me not to see any paper. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          Old machines had rolls of paper that you would keep as your record.  And now, the new technology is paperless, and it is all computerized.  

MRS. ARVAY:        Well, I think that's wonderful.  And I'm sure there will be a lot more changes in the years to come.  And you don't have to have all of that storage space, boxes and boxes, and boxes of things.  Sometime, some things could get misplaced and it would be a real nightmare. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          We should talk about the wax cylinders that we touched on earlier.  Maybe you could describe the process of using a wax cylinder as recording equipment.  Is that what it was?  Recording equipment? 

MRS. ARVAY:        One of the first jobs that I had is when I worked for a firm of engineers, and I would have to do their dictation.  And, the time would have been probably around 1953 through 1967.

THE INTERVIEWER:          That was the job just before your court reporting career? 

MRS. ARVAY:        I did all kinds of office work.  And the main crux of it was taking dictation from these engineers.  They would dictate letters, reports, and they would dictate papers on their tests that they did.  We would have a contraption or machine that was a recording machine.  It is considered a museum piece now, but it used to be a wax cylinder that were put into these machines with a needle.  And they were actually two machines:  One that the boss would dictate on this wax cylinder the letters that he wanted transcribed, and then he would give the secretary the cylinder.  The second part is when the secretary would put the cylinder on her machine, and put the needle down, and she had foot pedal and pair of ear phones.  Then she would start the machine with the on and off pedal with her feet, and she would listen to the dictation.  It would stop and go.  And she would type it as he dictated it.  It would usually be a letter to Mr. So and So, a business letter to a company.  Dear John or whatever.  And then they would type the letter.  She would put "yours very truly," and she would put them on piles, and give them to the boss.  When he was done, he would sign them, and send them out in the mail, the US mail. 

Now when we were finished, usually, when we were finished, we had a wax cylinder.  We had another machine that we would put it into, and put them into it one by one.  It had some type of  knife or a razor arrangement in there where you would press the button.  And the cylinder would revolve, and the wax should be shaved off of the top layer.  The top layer would be shaved off of the cylinder.  The rest of that cylinder could be used and when it reached a point where it had been used so often, where it was very thin, and not very useable any more, so at that point, it was thrown away. 

That contraption was in use for, I imagine, quite a number of years until they developed the next step in that procedure which was the celluloid sleeve.

THE INTERVIEWER:          Some kind of a sleeve, a vinyl sleeve, you were telling me?  

MRS. ARVAY:        Yes.  That was a different kind of a newer type of machine that was smaller, and it served the same purpose.  The exception was that it didn't have to be shaved and saved us from going through all of that rigamarole.  We just took the dictation from it and threw it away, unless they wanted to save it for some reason.  Then we would file it and that was the next step in the process.  We also had various other office machines.

The other office machines were the calculators and that was manual, also.  It was used with the fingers, you know, and if you wanted to multiply ten times 20.  You would put 20 in and press it down ten times and that would multiply.  We learned that at John Hay High School when I went there, these very various office machines that we had at that time.  It was fun. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          What kind of typewriters did you have?  

MRS. ARVAY:        Well, at first in high school, they were just manual type writers.  There were usually Royal, manual type writers . And then the electric ones came in, and they were IBM, I believe, was the largest company that made the electric typewriters at that time.  That was quite a boon. 

Yes, we loved the electric typewriters when they came in.  It sure saved a pounding on the fingers.

THE INTERVIEWER:          Is there anything memorable about any of your past jobs prior to court reporting.

MRS. ARVAY:        Yes, I was still going to high school, and I was given a job by the school.  A lot of the companies in the Cleveland area would call the school, and ask for an employee to work part time in their office.  Only if they're grades were good, and if their skills were good, if they were a good typist, and they knew filing, and office machines, they were given these jobs that we could go to.  And we would go after school, usually we got out fairly early, like 3 o'clock or so.  And we would go to our job for a couple of hours and also on Saturdays we would work, or maybe be a half day Saturday if they didn't have that much for us to do.  We would help out the regular secretaries with the filing and some of the typing if they didn't want to be bothered with, and just general office work. 

Well, at that time, that was probably 1946, 1947.  I was a young teenager, and the girls at the office that I went to, thought that I was really cute, and I was their pet.  So when I came to work about 3:15, 3:30, they would want to know all about what happened at school, and what happened at the school dance, and at the game, and I would embellish everything, of course.  I would make it into a very interesting, exciting time of my life, which it really wasn't. 

But, anyway, they would give me money then and send me downstairs to buy snacks.  And so I would come back with candy bars and popcorn and things like that.  And, so by that time, it was 4 o'clock, so I had about another hour to work, which I would do a little filing.  And they taught me how to run the switchboard, which at that time, was the plugs that you plugged into the console.  And I learned quite a few skills there when I wasn't running out for candy and coffee and things.  And it was quite a nice job.  It was a linen supply company. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          Did something unusual occur there? 

MRS. ARVAY:        Yes, they had the laundry downstairs, and the offices were on the second floor.  We were all glass‑enclosed.  And one afternoon, it happened to be pay day, and every one was paid in cash in small envelopes.  And the money was kept in this big box in the bookkeeper's office.  And when it was almost time to pay everyone, all of a sudden, this large burly fellow came up the stairs, and he had a huge gun in his hand, and he pointed it at us, and told us to get away from the desks and to line up against the wall, and to put our hands up in the air.  And that was it.  He told the telephone operator to get away from the switchboard, which she turned her back to the switchboard.  He went through the offices and went in the bookkeeper's room, and he picked up the box with all of the envelopes in it.  And he turned back around, and saw that the switchboard operator had put her elbows on all of the keys and it was ringing all of the telephones downstairs in the laundry.  So he got very angry about that, and he was brandishing his gun around.  He told her to get away from there or he would shoot her. 

And so, then he ran down the stairs, and ran down the street with this money, and he was dropping his money envelopes all done the street.  Meanwhile, all of the people in the laundry seen this going on upstairs, so they all ran out the door, after him, trying to get their money. 

So this whole group of people were running down Payne Avenue after this robber.  Meanwhile the police had been called, after three or four blocks, he had gone into an abandoned warehouse up there, and they went in there after him, and they threw tear gas in there, and got him out and arrested him. 

Meanwhile, Payne Avenue was strewn with pay envelopes all over the place, but that was very exciting.  That was my first very first job, and my very first experience in crime and punishment. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          So did you get your pay?                                                       

MRS. ARVAY:        Oh, sure. Yes, we did. 

I don't know whether they recovered all of the money out on the street, because who knows who got some of that.

THE INTERVIEWER:          I guess there was insurance to pay every one, even though the pay was stolen?  

MRS. ARVAY:        I think so.  I really have no knowledge of that.  Nobody confided in 15 year olds.

THE INTERVIEWER:          That was during the time of the East Ohio gas explosion? 

MRS. ARVAY:        Yes, the same year or the year after, or the year before.

THE INTERVIEWER:          That's in all of the history books. 

MRS. ARVAY:        You don't know that year, do you? 

THE INTERVIEWER:          I'll find out. 

I know it was like around World War II.

MRS. ARVAY:        I think it was 1946 or 1947, I think.  I don't know.  I didn't make any notes of it.

THE INTERVIEWER:          What was that like?  With the big explosion?

MRS. ARVAY:        Well, we heard ‑‑ it was it was a block to the north of us.  I believe the other street was to the north of Payne Avenue.  And there was a huge explosion, and we  looked out of the back windows, we could see huge flames in the air.  We didn't know what had happened, but it turned out it was some large tanks of the East Ohio Gas Company had exploded, and wiped out, literally, blocks of homes.  It was like a war zone.  They were just razed to the ground, I guess, is what you would call it.  I don't know.  There was an awful lot of damage.  I don't know how many people were killed in that.  I think quite a few people were killed in that explosion.  It was a very bad thing. 

It just so happened that it didn't spread to our section, and I managed to ‑‑ we all left, and we all got on the buses.  The buses were running where I was at, and we just got on the street cars, rather, and went home.  At which time, people were calling, wondering if I was still alive.

But that was a very bad thing, at that time.  In the history of Cleveland, I don't think they had any fire or explosion to that extent.  Other than there was a fire at the school, wasn't there? 

THE INTERVIEWER:          Yes. 

MRS. ARVAY:        Where the doors opened inward, swung inward, instead of outward.  I think after that, all of the doors were changed in all of the schools.  These children were killed in this fire. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          That's another part of Cleveland history. 

MRS. ARVAY:        I'm sure it was in Cleveland, but I don't remember what school it was.  That was before my time, a little bit. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          I remember reading about that. 

MRS. ARVAY:        In the late 30s, but I'm not sure. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          We should talk about your statements.  Did all of the court reporters do statements like that?  

MRS. ARVAY:        No.  It was because our client represented a large trucking company.  Our client was a firm of attorneys that represented tractor trailer companies.  They were the legal counsel for tractor trailer companies, and they would have accidents.  Bad accidents, usually, because these trucks were enormous.  You know how they are. 

And, they had a number of young attorneys or paralegals who as soon as ‑‑ if a trucker had an accident, he was told to immediately call the attorneys, regardless of what time of day or night, they were to report to the attorneys immediately on top of calling their company, of course, or maybe their company would call the attorneys, I don't know. 

But they wanted to have a lawyer try and get to the scene of the accident as soon as it happened.  In case there were any eyewitnesses or in case there were witnesses that were in the accident that was still there, and the attorney could get there as soon as it happened while events were still fresh in the minds of the people to which this calamity had happened.  They could make notes and get a statement as to what occurred right at that time.  So, these attorneys in turn, regardless of what time of the day or night it was, would call us to go on a statement with them, or to meet them somewhere, which was usually on some exit on the turnpike in the middle of a snowstorm at 3 o'clock in the morning.  And, they would try and have a shorthand writer with them to take the notes.  It didn't matter how you took the notes, but you were to take the notes.  If you took Greg shorthand or Pittman, it didn't matter.  George used to take his shorthand book and take it down in Pittman.  But I had to take my machine. 

We would go to the scene of the accident and try to find someone there to whom it happened or who was a witness to it.  Usually, by the time we got there, the people involved would either be gone, or they would have gone to the hospital, or the car was getting towed away or something.  But, sometimes the following day, we would go with the attorneys to ‑‑ if he got any names and addresses ‑‑ we would go to their homes to see if they would give us a statement. 

But I was not there in my capacity as a court reporter.  I was not to say that I was a court reporter.  I was simply there as a secretary to take notes.  I did not swear anyone in.  I didn't say a word.  I just kept my mouth shut, and took whatever was said by anyone.  I took down whatever questions the attorney asked and whatever answers was given by that person.  I took down whatever I could, considering the circumstances, the weather, and time of day, and everything else that went along with it.

So usually, they wanted that typed up, so they would have it for future use, you know.  And it was very, very, very important because many times, you know, months later and years later, if it ever went to court, if it was an important case, or if it was a bad accident, they could always come up with this thing.  These papers, and say, well, you made a statement on December 10th, you know, and this is what you said, and now you say this.  Which one of these answers are true?  Were you telling the truth on December 10th?  Or are you telling the truth today?  You know what lawyers do.  They ask these questions, and they could get better information that way.  So some of these statements were valuable.  Most of the time, they meant nothing.  I mean they didn't come to any ‑‑ maybe they helped the attorney or the company of attorneys make up their minds as to how the case should be handled.  Whether there was any merit to it, or whether there wasn't, or whether there was going to be a case at all.  All of these things were taken into consideration. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          When you went on these three in the morning statements, what did you wear? 

MRS. ARVAY:        My pajamas? 

THE INTERVIEWER:          Were you expected to be dressed in business attire?  

MRS. ARVAY:        No, I was not a Court Reporter, I was secretary, I was an assistant.  They would say, oh, this is Marge.  I brought her with me to take notes, if you don't mind.  He would drop it right then, you know. 

Of course, sometimes the witness or the person would get curious, "What is that?  A machine?  Is that a shorthand machine?" 

They might get a little curious about it, but I was not there as a Court Reporter, or an officer of the court.  There was no court involved, at that point. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          I didn't know that.

MRS. ARVAY:        I was not allowed, or I should not open my mouth, and give any information to anybody, which is not what I was there for, you know.  I was simply there to take notes, which is what I did. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          You mentioned earlier that you were on a ship taking notes, and you had on a business suit and high heels? 

MRS. ARVAY:        Yes, it just so happened that I went with this attorney.  I still had my work clothes on.  And we were going to Lorain, Ohio, to take some statements about some type of a boating accident.  It wasn't a ship, it was a tug boat.

THE INTERVIEWER:          A working boat?  

MRS. ARVAY:        It tugged, or pulled other boats from whenever, I don't know exactly.  It was a rather small boat, but it had a crew of so many men. 

And so we were trying to find this place, where this boat was.  We got to the Black River in Lorain.  This was another wonderful weather night  where it was cold and rainy and windy.  And I had to go through this swampy field of grass and weeds to get to the banks of the Black River so we could board this little boat, tug boat kind of thing.  So we finally made it down there, and got on board.  We were going to take statements from these different men on the crew, and we took them one by one.  It was quite an experience because the weather was so inclement and the wind was pretty bad.  And the paper on my machine was flying all over the place.  In those olden days, we used paper in those stenotype machines.  So that was quite an experience that I never forgot because not being able to see ‑‑ it was dark already ‑‑ and not being able to see what I was writing was quite an experience when I ended up having to transcribe all of these statements from these guys having to do with some type of a boating accident.  I don't remember any of the details about it, but evidently, it was important enough to try to get these guys while they were off‑duty, or something, before they took off somewhere else.

THE INTERVIEWER:          They probably hit something? 

MRS. ARVAY:        Somebody hit something. 

Oh, I had another wonderful court reporting day.  This was a job in southern Ohio, also in the middle of winter, January, I believe.  January, my favorite month.

THE INTERVIEWER:          That's your birth month? 

MRS. ARVAY:        Yeah, it was a snowy day, and my boss decided that I was the chosen one to go for some reason, to this town in mid Ohio.  I don't even remember the name of it, Cannonberg or something.  And I really had no idea where it was.  I just kept driving and driving and driving.  The longer I drove, the smaller the roads were getting, and the faster the snow was coming down.

Anyway, I finally got to this attorney's office, and I went in there, and it was simply going to be some depositions about ‑‑ believe it or not ‑‑ a hay wagon accident.  I was quite angry about that one.  So, we spent a few hours taking depositions of people having to do with a hay wagon accident.  And the snow kept falling and falling.  I was looking out the window and it was getting denser and denser.  And I thought how in the world am I going to get home?  

THE INTERVIEWER:          How did you get home?

MRS. ARVAY:        I got home, you know, five or six hours later.  It was just horrendous.  It was not one of my favorite days.  I don't know why the heck he sent me on that one. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          Another good point to get into is the research.  The World Wide Web didn't start until 1992, so how in the world did you look up important information or technical words that you were unfamiliar with?  

Did you go to the library?  

MRS. ARVAY:        Well, to begin with if I was take a deposition of an expert witness, for example, an electrical engineer or a chemical person, someone in that field.  As I was writing, if I had my wits about me, I would keep in a little corner of my brain, some of the words that he used that were completely over my head.  And before he ran out the door, I would grab him, and sit him down and say, "Now, is this what you said and how do you spell that?"  

Before he got away, I would try to get that information from him.  And usually, it would be a pretty tricky word in order for me to be able to remember it, or I would sort of somehow make a note of it, maybe on piece of paper, you know, in between time.  And I would try and get the information from them.

Also, most of these expert witnesses had papers with them.  And, I would get them to give me ‑‑ maybe let me look at it before he left.  Or sometimes he would say, "Oh, keep it."  And I would be so happy.  There it was, it was in his report that he was referring to all day.  There it was, right in front of me, and that was like heaven.  I had all of that information in front of me which I would need later when I transcribed it. 

A lot of it is by the skin of your teeth, you know, I mean, a lot of it is luck.  And I did spend a lot of time down at the Cleveland Public Library, which is a wonderful library for research.  And a lot of information, you know, you could find out a lot of things if you searched deep enough.  

As far as medical is concerned, a lot of that is mostly spellings.  You could find it, or look for in the medical books, or refer to that certain part of the body, and these words would sort of pop up for you.  And you could find them that way. 

Sometimes I would have to call the doctor, if I could get a hold of him.  A lot of times they were very nice and very pleasant.  They realized that they were saying things that were beyond your depth of knowledge, or how could I possibly know what it was.  So they were very pleasant and very helpful. 

Other times, they wouldn't want to help you at all.  They couldn't be bothered.  They wouldn't even want to speak with you, you know. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          So this is not a beginner's type of job?  You had to have experience before you took technical testimony, or expert testimony? 

MRS. ARVAY:        Well, yes.  The boss would try to send the reporter that had some experience under their belt.  If he knew that what it was going to be about.  The attorneys would usually tell us, "I've got an expert witness coming here."  Or "I've got a neurosurgeon coming in."  It was sort of to clue you in that he wanted somebody who had some training, or had some type of knowledge in that field, or who is a more experienced reporter.  You would not send a novice into something like that because they would be completely floored.  They couldn't possibly do it. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          At the time, there were a lot of reference books.  And did some reporters have their own private library of reference books? 

MRS. ARVAY:        Oh, yes, in the office, yes.  And I would ‑‑ well, I would go to my boss, usually for questions, because he was excellent in medical law.  He really was.  Mainly, because he usually took them, and they usually asked to have him take the medical depositions because they liked his work, and they knew that he was very accurate.  And he insisted on getting whatever information he needed from that doctor, you know.  He didn't guess at things.  So, I would get a lot of information from my boss, if I got into trouble, and he would help me, or help anybody else in the office that needed some particular help in mostly the medical field.  I think that was the hardest for most of us to do. 

We were unfortunately or fortunately in having a couple of attorneys' firms, or maybe more than a couple, who did a lot of medical malpractice.  So, you know, you had to get into it, or got out of it. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          Was there any way that you found to keep track of unusual words?  

MRS. ARVAY:        Yes.  As we were writing and some word was said that was completely beyond my scope, I had a small stack of business cards, and I would throw the card into the paper tray, and then it would be enveloped in the paper.  And then when it came time to dictate, or before the witness left, I would go through the pad, and find the spots with the cards in it, and I would question the witness about it.  I would just say, "Could you tell me how to spell this before you leave?"  And they would usually be very helpful and do so at that time.  Or could you help me with this word, and try to get that information while they were still there.  Before they disappeared into who knows where.  Yes, I forgot about that.  That's right.  That's what we did.   We had a few little short cuts, here and there. 

I suppose you still do that in your court work?

THE INTERVIEWER:          No, we don't have a paper tray.  Now with the computer machines, we have electronic marks that we could place in the notes without adding a word or anything.  Just like a marker for us. 

MRS. ARVAY:        Does it put a red mark?  Or a green mark? 

THE INTERVIEWER:          No, no colors.  Just a stroke that you would define as something that you could recognize, but does not translate into the testimony.

THE INTERVIEWER:          You were working at muni court one time; do you remember the year? 

Probably pre‑1977, because you weren't in the Justice Center? 

MRS. ARVAY:        No, it wasn't the Justice Center.

THE INTERVIEWER:          So it must have been pre‑1977, and I think muni court, at the time, was at the old police station on Payne Avenue or maybe not?

MRS. ARVAY:        I just don't think they had marble floors, but they might have.

THE INTERVIEWER:          Well, start your story from the beginning.  What story do you have with your encounter with muni court?

MRS. ARVAY:        I was asked to go to Municipal Court to the criminal court, where it was the court where they handled one case after another.  There might be ten cases in the morning, one after another, and the court was full of people.  And I was one of them that had to stand in the aisle next to a wall on one side, and my attorney was on an aisle against the wall on the other side.  I had my machine out on the tripod, ready to go, because when they called you, you had to go up and start writing right away.  So my machine was ready for me to use, and it was standing up in front of me. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          Did they have a court reporter there already?  Or they didn't have court reporters there at the time?  

MRS. ARVAY:        Yes, I think they did, because otherwise they would have to have ten reporters standing around there.  There was only me that I knew of, so I think they maybe had an official there.  But I was there for that particular attorney, I was working for him.  I was not working for the court.  I was there to take notes down on his case. 

So I was standing there, waiting, and before my case was called there was a case going on of a neighborhood dispute, a bunch of people were there, very large people.  Who were arguing and had a big argument about something or a big fight.  And there was a lot of shouting going on at the desk where the case was being heard before the judge.  And I guess it was finally adjudicated and it was over, and they were coming up the side aisle where I was standing to leave the courtroom.  And there were two large women, one was walking.  They were both sort of rushing out pretty fast, but one was walking in front of the other.  And then all of a sudden, when they got right near me, the one just jumped up and jumped on the back of the other one, and flung her to the ground, and grabbed her by the hair, and was pounding her head on this ‑‑ it looked to me like a marble floor.  All I could think of was my machine.  I just grabbed my machine so it won't get hurt because it looked like it was going to be knocked over by these two women fighting in front of me.  And I looked for my attorney, and he was way over on the other side of the room.

THE INTERVIEWER:          Staying out of it?

MRS. ARVAY:        Staying out of it, and you know, didn't seem to see me over there.  But anyway, I finally, somehow, managed to get out of there, but that was very frightening.  All I could think of was my machine was going to get destroyed here.  Somebody was going to knock that down with that tripod.  And I was afraid that poor lady was going to get her head bashed open on that floor.  But that was another exciting day for me. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          Just another day at muni court. 

How much were the shorthand machines?  They were pretty expensive, weren't they? 

MRS. ARVAY:        I think they were in those days.

THE INTERVIEWER:          Because they are now.  They're about $5,000. 

MRS. ARVAY:        Is that right?  Well, with your new technology and everything.  I didn't realize that.  

I don't think they were even one thousand dollars, but that was a lot of money back then.

THE INTERVIEWER:          That was a lot of money.

MRS. ARVAY:        It was a lot of money when a person is starting out in the field, and is making zero money.  Especially, in the freelance reporting field.  Of course, you had to sort of build up a bank for yourself before you were paid according to how much money was going to be coming in for you, even though it wasn't there yet.  But, you were paid according to how much work you did. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          By the page or by the hour? 

MRS. ARVAY:        Paid by the page for the transcripts, and by the hour for the  attendance.  I'm talking about a total balance due which would be coming to you.  You might get paid on that basis, but you were always behind, you know, because the money wasn't there yet.  Some money was hard to actually get in.  Some people don't pay their bills very fast.  And some people do. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          And if you had trouble transcribing your notes, were there people in the office who would assist each other?  Comradery was prevalent; wouldn't you say?  

MRS. ARVAY:        Definitely.  We always had a nice group of reporters in freelance work, and we would help each other.  A lot of the girls would come to me because I seemed to have more years in than some of the newbies, newer ones.  And we would help each other as much as we could.  There were a couple of people there that were a lot smarter than I was, so I always got help from them. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          It wasn't a competitive business? 

MRS. ARVAY:        No, not at all.  Not at all.  And we sometimes would trade jobs, too.  One of the girls would come to me and say "I just can't take this.  Would you mind doing it for me?" 

And I would say, "Sure.  I would do it if the boss said it was okay."   And he didn't care, so ‑‑

THE INTERVIEWER:          And we talked about the Hollenden House and how it has a history.  What about some of the other hot spots in Cleveland in the day that you went to, maybe at lunch time?

MRS. ARVAY:        Theatrical Grill.  I would go there for their wonderful scallops.

THE INTERVIEWER:          That's it. 

Would you meet after work and hang out with your co‑workers? 

MRS. ARVAY:        Yes, sometimes we went to the little bar next door which was called Moriarity's.

THE INTERVIEWER:          That place has a history. 

MRS. ARVAY:        Swap stories.  It was really great on St. Patrick's Day, wasn't it? 

THE INTERVIEWER:          Still is. 

MRS. ARVAY:        Is it?   Oh, good. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          It's still a big cop bar. 

Can you think of anything else we didn't cover? 

There were computers around when you were working.  Did you ever think of getting a computerized writer and computer software so you didn't need a typist?  

MRS. ARVAY:        Well, people talked to me about that off and on.  And I sort of thought about it, sometimes, but I was getting to a point where I would have been thinking about retiring.  Maybe in a certain  period of time.  And I didn't feel that I wanted to make that investment at that period of time.  If I had been younger, I probably would have gone into it. 

If it wasn't for the typist, I didn't mind that.  I mean I didn't mind the dictation.  And the job, the second job with Pat Holland, I wasn't quite as busy as I was with the first job that I had for the first 15 years.  I didn't have quite the pressure that I had before where you just had to do pages and pages and pages of things.  Especially, when you got involved in like all the work we did on the Kent State matters, you know.  And that's the time when you thought, gee, I wished I had a computerized type of thing where you wouldn't have to do all of that dictation and all of that reading.  Well, I guess you do have to do the reading, don't you? 

THE INTERVIEWER:          Yes, you still have to read everything. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          You never did Governor Rhodes' deposition, did you?  I thought that you did. 

MRS. ARVAY:        No, that was George who did that. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          What did your daughter, Linda, think of you being a Court Reporter?  Did she ever want to follow in your foot steps?  

MRS. ARVAY:        No, she told me one evening that she didn't want to go into court reporting because I worked too hard.  She could see me dictating at my table here, and she would be going to bed, and I still would be yacking away or doing something. 

They say we are very well paid, and that's probably true.  But they don't realize the amount of hours that we had to put in in this job.  It was no nine to five.  It was nine to midnight.  Many, many, many nights up and weekends ‑‑ I mean there was no Saturdays or Sundays.  It was either running to a typist's house.  This one typist I had lived in Euclid, Ohio, and I always had to run out there to pick up transcript or deliver transcript.  And we did that on Saturdays and Sundays.  There was just no stopping to it. 

But I can't really complain about it because it was rewarding in many ways, right?  

THE INTERVIEWER:          Right. 

Did you ever watch Court TV?  And what do you think of that? 

MRS. ARVAY:        I used to watch the Court TV channel, but I don't think they have it on any more.  I would watch trials from beginning to end. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          Yes.  Did you ever watch Judge Judy? 

MRS. ARVAY:        No.

THE INTERVIEWER:          Or Judge Wopner. 

MRS. ARVAY:        No, that's all phoney stuff. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          Yes, I agree.

MRS. ARVAY:        They're real cases but they're just done for the entertainment value.  They're not really serious. 

I did watch some of the Dr. Murray testimony on HLN channel.  They ran that, quite a bit of that. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          And you watched Casey Anthony, didn't you?  The woman accused of killing her baby?   

MRS. ARVAY:        Yes, I did.  I did see some of that, I believe. 

There was a channel, it was called Court TV, wasn't it?  What happened to it? 

THE INTERVIEWER:          I don't know. 

MRS. ARVAY:        It's disappeared from my cable. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          They changed it from my cable, too. 

MRS. ARVAY:        I don't know what they call it now, or maybe it's been discontinued.  I don't where it is. 

I suppose I could call Dish and they could tell me. 

THE INTERVIEWER:          Call Dish. 

MRS. ARVAY:        Hello, Dish?  They'll walk you through on the phone.

THE INTERVIEWER:          Well, I think that wraps up the interview.  Thank you very much for your time, Mrs. Arvay, and I really enjoyed interviewing you for your oral history.                   

(Oral history concluded at 9:17 P.M.)

DISCUSSION

            One of the most interesting topics that I discussed with Mrs. Arvay is the change in technology that she experienced since she started working.  Before computerized court reporting systems came into being, a court reporter either typed all of her notes, or hired a typist to type her notes for her.  If a typist was employed, Mrs. Arvay would read her notes into a recording device, called a Stenorette, which had reel-to-reel tapes.  The typist would play the tapes, and type the dictation into English words.  Mrs. Arvay’s previous office experience involved the Dictaphone machine which did not use tapes, but wax cylinders.  There is a Dictaphone playing device complete with wax cylinder located at the Garfield Historical Museum in Garfield Heights, Ohio (Garfield Heights Historical Society, 2008).  Mrs. Arvay and I took a trip there on November 26, 2011 to view this antique dictation device.  This is what Mrs. Arvay used during her secretarial career with the linen company and the engineering company pre-court reporting school, which was pre-1968.

            Below are photographs of the wax cylinder recording device and Mrs. Arvay is holding a wax cylinder.

           

  Also pictured is the Stenorette machine that was used up until the later 1980s and early 1990s just before the computer software became more affordable and more prevalent (Garfield Heights Historical Society, 2008). 

            One of the most impressive topics Mrs. Arvay covered was her witnessing of the American civil rights struggle.  Mrs. Arvay recounted her experiences with racism in the south with the segregation of the races, even with separate drinking fountains!  She also recounted how she saw the Ohio National Guard tanks going down East Ninth Street, back in 1966, in response to the racialized violence of the Hough Neighborhood riots which lasted for seven days and claimed four lives (Bartimole & Gruber, 1967).  These riots or “demonstrations” were for African-American civil rights and socioeconomic equality (Skow, 1967).  The Cleveland-based Hough Neighborhood riots were also labeled the worst civil rights demonstration in the nation (Time, 1966).

It all started over an incident at a bar on East 79^th Street where an African American man wanted some water and he wasn’t served.  This created a riot of the African-Americans who were tired of the slums, tired of their lack of job prospects, and the way that the police treated them (Skow, 1967).  Three of the four lives were claimed in the actual Hough Neighborhood (Skow, 1967). 

The fourth life claimed by the Hough riots occurred some 40 blocks away from the Hough neighborhood in a community called Little Italy, which was known at the time for its racial intolerance (Michney, 2006).  This shooting was not a byproduct of the Hough riots, but actually a spilling over of the racial hatreds that existed at the time. 

In the aftermath of the Hough Neighborhood riots, the case went to the Grand Jury of Cuyahoga County where it was determined, after an investigation, that it was Communists that firebombed the neighborhood and not a racially charged neighborhood riot (Fischer, 1966).  Cleveland’s ineffective mayor at the time, Ralph S. Locher, agreed with the finding, thus ignoring the racially motivated violence and eliminating the cure to end the racial inequality (Fischer, 1966). 

Historians have taken divergent approaches in seeking to explain the residential transitions and the broader scope of racial conflict in postwar U.S. cities (Michney, 2006).  Most historians agree that it is a compilation of the segregated housing policy, segregated schools, discriminatory lending, local labor markets, and economic inequality along with the exclusionary actions of white residents in fostering unequal access to these resources which lead to the Hough Neighborhood riots (Michney, 2006).  As a matter of fact, housing and public school segregation became sites of continued racial conflict lasting well in to the 1970s as African American and white Clevelanders previously segregated were now order by Federal District Judge Frank J. Battisti to desegregate (Miggins, 1986).

This was not the end of the civil rights conflict.  Historically, Black/White marriages were illegal all the way up to the 1960s (McClain, 2011).  In 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down anti-miscegenation laws, although Black/White marriages were still illegal in 17 states at the time (McClain, 2011).  It is found that the civil rights movement destabilized the social taboo of interracial marriages which set into motion a cultural shift that continues today.  Polls now show that Americans are becoming less opposed to interracial dating and marriage than in previous decades (McClain, 2011). 

Carol Shepherd McClain (2011) undertook a research project to explore the significance of race in the lives of young married Americans of Black/White parentage who were born in the 1960s.  Her main research question tapped respondents’ knowledge of family responses to their parents’ marriages.  Her research design was qualitative with semi-structured interviews which allowed Ms. McClain to explore specific questions but allowing her subjects to elaborate on topics they felt were important (McClain, 2011).  Her findings fell into four major categories.  The first was that White parents rejected the child who married a Black person, and the severity depended on whether the marriage occurred before the civil rights movement.  The second finding was the Black parents were more accepting of a White in-law.  The third finding was that the in-marrying spouse in an interracial marriage assumed an “insider-outsider” status within the receiving family.  And the fourth finding by McClain (2011) was differing degrees of acceptance by other family members by relatives of the White spouse. 

The sociocultural changes American families began to experience during the 1960s through the 1970s were reflected in literature and in plays.  Sam Shepard, the Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright, wrote a series of family dramas that offered surrealistic depictions of the dysfunctional American family (Sparr, Erstling, & Boehnlein, 1990).  Mr. Shepard brought a shocking look into the breakdown of the American family which was a helpful reminder for therapists who focused primarily on technique and/or internal family dynamics (Sparr, Erstling, & Boehnlein, 1990).  Mr. Shepard was among the first to address major social issues in his plays, and he also pointed out the need to continue to struggle to understand family dynamics and individual experience within the family (Sparr, Erstling, & Boehnlein, 1990).  This is significantly linked to the changes in society at the time of the civil rights movement, interracial marriage, and women seeking careers and working outside of the home.  Family therapists need to continue to pay close attention to the issues of family organization as well as the internal dynamics in order to guide family members into making the healthiest decisions for them (Sparr, Erstling, & Boehnlein, 1990).

Another study done on racism delved into the negative effects experienced on its victims (Georgescu, 2011).  Georgescu (2011) studied the various psychological effects, social interactions, and how importantly these dynamics work in a racist society. His conclusion was to explore new constructive settlements for handling ethnic conflicts and the relationships between individual and ethnic identity (Georgescu, 2011).   

In the Journal of Psychohistory, Ms. Gilda Graff (2011) describes the aftermath of the shame and trauma of slavery and how that shame and trauma has been transmitted through the generations linking it to severe anxiety and social unrest.  The author points out that slavery meant a complete and total destruction of the Africans’ way of life.  The shame of the trauma can be compared to a “severe anxiety” attack upon one’s personal identity which results in a dissociative process (Graff, 2011).  The author cites how slavery and racism is absent from the psychoanalytic and trauma literature, although attention is given to other traumatic events such as the Holocaust, floods, earthquakes, sexual abuse, rapes, et cetera (Graff, 2011).  In the aftermath of the civil rights era, the problems of shame, trauma, slavery and racism will change only if the unequal socioeconomic issues change. 

            Another sociological aspect this time related to Mrs. Arvay’s career involved her taking depositions in the Kent State shootings.  The depositions she took were of the generals involved, the surviving victims, and the victims’ families during that tragedy.  Her boss, George Blam, took the deposition of Governor James Rhodes.  At this point in her career, this subject matter really affected Mrs. Arvay as she related her experiences to me.  She stated how it was an awful tragedy that she relived with the deponents as they related their story.  It was especially sad when the parents were being deposed because Mrs. Arvay could relate to their pain since she had a daughter in college. 

Mrs. Arvay also experienced a lot of pressure and stress typing her notes up because, at the time, reporters from the various newspapers sat in the court reporting office, waiting for each page to be transcribed by Mrs. Arvay.  Talk about someone breathing down your neck.  The sheer importance of the subject matter makes you want to take your time to do the job right, and to proofread it first to make sure of the accuracy of the transcript.  Mrs. Arvay said that the sadness of the tragedy and the stressful working conditions on this case in particular is still felt, even to this day, 40 years later. 

Mrs. Arvay felt that the reason there was so much controversy with the shootings lies centered on Governor Rhodes.  There was a minority of people that blamed Governor Rhodes for inflaming the situation, rather than calming the tension and the stress down.  However, the general public held the sentiment that the shootings were justified.  The victims and their families faced quite a bit of hatred and resentment and very little understanding.  Mrs. Arvay related to me that the parents of the fatally shot victims could not believe their children were dead.  They sent them to school, feeling it was a safe environment, and now they’re gone.  It truly was a tragedy.  The attitudes of resentment had changed, but it took many years for this to happen, just like in the attitudes of racism.  

The era of the 1960s had heralded the civil rights movement for minorities, women, and free speech, but they also started the protests against the war in Vietnam. 

Christopher Broadhurst (2010) gives an excellent historical review of the events which lead up to the protests and then the shootings.  In 1969, when President Richard Nixon was elected, he inherited an unpopular war, and he talked of soon ending it.  The voting age was now 18, and many of the students who were allowed to vote, voted for Nixon because of his stance on ending the war. 

On May 2^nd of 1970, the very day after President Nixon announced he was going to escalate the war with the additional invasion of Cambodia, Kent State became the very first university campus to protest.  The students, who started protesting, turned violent and started to burn an ROTC building, and a professor was attacked trying to stop them.  This action caught the attention of the mayor of Kent who then called the Governor of Ohio, James Allen Rhodes, to call in the National Guard.  By the next day, open conflicts between the students and the National Guard began, culminating in a major rally on May 4^th with 2,000 students protesting the war and the National Guard while another 10,000 students watched.  The protest turned violent when the Kent State students threw rocks at the National Guardsmen who then retaliated with shots that wounded nine and killed four students.  After the national media broke the story, a wave of protests engulfed college campuses across America which became the largest student strike unprecedented in the history of American education.  From the University of California at Berkeley to community colleges all over the country, over four million students from nearly 1,350 campuses demonstrated (Broadhurst, 2010).

Christopher Broadhurst (2010) did a research study on the different temperaments of the demonstrations at the campuses of two universities:  Kent State University and North Carolina State University.  In his study, Broadhurst (2010) contrasts the relatively peaceful campus of North Carolina State University compared with the violent shootings at Kent State University.  He also cites in his paper that the Vietnam War protests were coupled in with other movements.  The amount of diversity that existed on a college campus determined how much involvement students would have in the protests (Broadhurst, 2010). 

Another factor involving student protests was also determined by the curriculum offered at the college.  NCSU had mostly a science and technology based emphasis; whereas KSU was mostly liberal arts which seemed to fuel more civic-minded students (Broadhurst, 2010).  And North Carolinian students also did not readily oppose military policy due to their state’s connection to the Navy (Broadhurst, 2010). 

Another factor cited by Broadhurst (2010) which accounted to the peaceful demonstrations at NCSU was the stabilizing leadership of Chancellor John Caldwell by supporting the ideals of the antiwar movement and by providing an outlet for the students’ frustrations and concerns.  By allowing the NCSU students to voice their opinions peacefully Chancellor Caldwell is quoted “We let everybody have their say…that’s why we didn’t fire a shot, we didn’t burn a building.” (Broadhurst, 2010).  And for those reasons, since the campus did not have a strong student base to form a dominating culture of student protests, NCSU was able to maintain a peaceful campus (Broadhurst, 2010).  Therefore, not all campuses had protests or violent protests at that.

The sentiments of the country, at the time of the shootings, were mostly against the students protesting and rioting.  This would comport with the sadness Mrs. Arvay felt for the victims’ parents’ when she was taking their depositions.  At the time of the events, the then Governor of the State of Ohio, James A. Rhodes, reported that 85% of the letters he received concerning the Kent State shootings were in support of the Guard and the belief that more students should have been shot (Barbato, 2003).  And the then president of Kent State University, Robert I. White, also received letters in support of the National Guard (Barbato, 2003).  With these feelings expressed by so many people, it would have been very difficult for the parents of the dead students to deal with their losses.

It wasn’t until 1990 that the attitude of the Kent State shootings would change from a symbol of war and domestic conflict of our violent and troublesome past, to a symbol of celebration and remembrance for post-war unity and historical reconciliation (O'Hara, 2006).  This new beginning was ushered in by Bruno Ast, the designer of the official monument, which showed the remarkable change in attitudes which no longer vilified the students, but made them heroes (O'Hara, 2006).  By seeking this new meaning to traumatic events and trying to understand them, we can take control of our lives.  The losses influenced by the Kent State shootings affected not only the families of the four students, but the wounded students who had to go on with their lives (Barbato, 2003).  In the 30 years since the shootings, social and psychological changes have occurred in identities, attitudes, beliefs, and even fundamental values (Barbato, 2003).  It could be that the students have aged and have now replaced the population that held the Kent State shootings as justified.

There is an interesting study done by Thistlethwaite (1973) on the attitudes of the students and how the shootings had impacted them.  A variety of goals were established and values were given to students’ attitudes at the time.  The data collected in this study may be interpreted as evidence that the episodes of war-related protests in May of 1970 was a universal phenomena on campuses at public and private universities in all geographic regions of the country (Thistlethwaite, 1973).  A conclusion that can be reached is that the power and the strength of these protests were unprecedented historically in the U.S., and the likes of which have not been experienced since.

Mrs. Arvay was definitely ahead of her time by feeling empathy for the deponents related to the shootings in the 1970s when the majority of the nation did not share that empathy.

            Another work-related story was when Mrs. Arvay was working at a law office that was one of her major clients, she one day encountered Dr. Sam Sheppard and his new wife Ariane who were also at the same law office.  This law office did specialize in medical malpractice cases, and at the time, Dr. Sam Sheppard was still a practicing physician after his second trial cleared him for the murder of his first wife Marilyn (Montaldo, 2011).  “His life quickly dissolved after he was sued for malpractice after one of his patients died,” (Montaldo, 2011).  The murder case of Marilyn Sheppard was an extremely high profile case filled with convoluted turns (Boertlein, 2008).  Dr. Sheppard was adamant that a “bushy haired man” was responsible for his wife’s death (Boertlein, 2008).  His story later spawned the popular television series “The Fugitive” which ran from 1963 to 1967 (The Internet Movie Database, 2011) featuring a doctor wrongly accused of killing his wife, blaming the killing on a “one-armed man” (Boertlein, 2008).

            Another one of Cleveland’s colorful characters was the so-called “porn king” Reuben Sturman (Associated Press, 1997).  Sturman began selling magazines with sexual content in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1964, which had sold so much better than his comic book business (Trickey & Vickers, 2006).  This blossomed into his “kingpin” status by the end of the 1980s with Sturman selling his sexually explicit materials throughout the United States and Europe (Associated Press, 1997).  Sturman’s elusion of the law ended in Cleveland when he was convicted of tax evasion (Trickey & Vickers, 2006).  It seems nobody can escape the IRS.  There were many obscenity trials in Cleveland, Ohio during the 1980s when Cleveland was trying to clean up its smut.  According to Mrs. Arvay, the materials had to be viewed in court in order to determine if the materials were obscene when applying the community standard. 

            The famous Hollenden Hotel was a place Mrs. Arvay had frequented and it even sheltered her and her co-workers during a record blizzard that occurred in Cleveland, Ohio in 1978 (Ohio Historical Society, 2006).  The history of the Hollenden Hotel is quite extensive.  It opened in 1885 and was a sumptuously elegant and modern building for its time.  It had electric lights, which were only invented six years previously, 100 private baths, extensive mahogany and redwood interiors, the longest bar at the time with the most colorful balls and festive parties of the day (Herrick, 1987).  The five United States presidents who stayed at the hotel were McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt, Taft, Wilson and Harding (Herrick, 1987).  In 1926, a five million dollar expansion project enlarged the hotel to 1,050 rooms.  Unfortunately, its heyday soon ended in 1960 with its deterioration and it was razed in 1963 and another new much smaller Hollenden House Motel was erected with 362 guest rooms, a cocktail lounge, a ballroom, and meeting rooms (Herrick, 1987).  The new motel was a huge success so another $1.5 million restoration began in 1965 adding another 190 guest rooms, a health club, and a swimming pool (Herrick, 1987).  It was really quite a landmark for its day.  Unfortunately, a severe economic condition forced the Hollenden House to close in 1989, and then was demolished and replaced by Fifth Third Center on Superior Avenue at East Sixth Street.

            Another favorite stop in the heyday of Cleveland history is the Theatrical Grill which was located on Short Vincent Street, down the block from the Hollenden House (Higgins, 2009).  This is the restaurant where Mrs. Arvay stopped to enjoy their famous scallops.  The Theatrical Grill was a popular jazz spot along with other entertainment establishments along Short Vincent Street (Higgins, 2009).  None of these establishments exist today. 

Mrs. Arvay is leading an interesting life to this day.  She is retired but keeps active by pursuing new hobbies, traveling, and maintaining social relationships.  She has experienced much technological advancement since she started working and has embraced these advancements throughout her career.  This is not unusual.  According to the research done in Finland and Sweden, many people entering the retirement age are healthy, active, and are computer-literate (Salovaara, Lehmuskallio, Hedman, Valkonen, & Nasanen, 2010).  It was found in this study that most people focused on their life changes in retirement, and utilized technology to make their transition possible (Salovaara, Lehmuskallio, Hedman, Valkonen, & Nasanen, 2010).  And that’s exactly what Mrs. Arvay has been doing all along and still continues to this day.

CONCLUSION

This study examined the history, the role and the responsibilities of court reporters, their extensive training, and the new opportunities that technology is opening to court reporters.  Through Mrs. Arvay’s oral history, I was able to follow the technology that court reporters used and how dramatically it has changed within 30 years.  This oral history has proven that the written record will last over other media, such as wax cylinders, reel-to-reel tapes, floppy diskettes, VHS tapes, none of which will be able to be read hundreds of years from now.  Only the stone monuments and written documents will have a chance to survive and be deciphered by later generations.

Another change that I’ve noticed is that face-to-face contact has dwindled since Mrs. Arvay’s time.  There was office camaraderie when Mrs. Arvay was working because reporters would help each other out and look up terms and unfamiliar subjects back when there was no Internet.  Today, many freelance court reporters work alone out of their homes and send in their transcript electronically; they do not share office camaraderie and they can easily look things up on the Internet.  Many libraries have online sources to reference and there is a multitude of classes to take online alienating the student even further before they enter the workforce. 

Face-to-face socializing seems to be a lost art which is now done through the Internet.  Currently, face-to-face contact has been replaced electronically by technology such as Facebook and Twitter.  Twitter has actually toppled governments by uniting many people, such as in the Middle East.  Mrs. Arvay has noticed that most clubs and face-to-face gatherings seem to consist of older people.  Younger people do not seem to join clubs physically, rather they do it electronically.  Mrs. Arvay feels this is a sad trend because human interaction is so important.  Without it, she feels, we become alienated and distant from each other.  I tend to agree with her, as humans we need human touch and human contact.  Sometimes just a look of understanding can communicate so much more than electronic interaction.

Another benefit of face-to-face contact is that human interaction also develops an understanding for people different than you and also a development of tolerance.  Mrs. Arvay’s travels lead her to meet very different people, from the friendly prostitutes in Omaha, Nebraska to the people of different ethnic backgrounds that she encountered during her travels with her husband and his band.  Her experience of diversity opened her up to accept people different from her and her lifestyle. 

Great insight was given into the changes in ideology, beliefs, and social mores during Mrs. Arvay’s time frame.  She was a pioneer as a working woman in the workforce in the 1940s on up which was not the norm for women until the 1970s when the vast majority of women entered the workforce.  Sweeping changes in equality and political beliefs were also examined, along with the changes the city of Cleveland faced.  In this way, local history along with national history was examined through the opinions of one individual.  The drawback to oral histories is that this is the opinions of one individual, and there also may be errors in memory.  But overall, oral histories provide a link to the past as it was lived at the time, which no factual history book can offer.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Associated Press. (1997, October 29). Porn figure Sturman dies in prison at 73. Retrieved November 24, 2011, from Review-Journal: http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/1997/Oct-29-Wed-1997/news/6322832.html

Baker, D., Christian, J., First, A., Kelly-Bowlen, A., Kent, B., & Penniston, C. (2009). Status of the Captioning Industry. Journal for the Reporting and Captioning Professions , 54 - 58.

Barbato, C. A. (2003). Embracing Their Memories: Accounts of Loss and May 4, 1970. Journal of Loss & Trauma, Vol. 8, Issue 2 , 73 - 98.

Bartimole, R. S., & Gruber, M. (1967, June 26). Cleveland: Recipe for Violence. Nation, Vol. 204, Issue 26 , pp. 814 - 817.

Block, M., Brentano, J., & Karlovits, J. (June 2010). History of Captioning and CART. Journal For The Reporting and Captioning Professions , 44 - 51.

Boertlein, J. (2008). Ohio Confidential. Cincinnati, Ohio: Clerisy Press.

Broadhurst, C. J. (2010). "We Didn't Fire a Shot, We Didn't Burn a Building": The Student Reaction at North Carollina State University to the Kent State Shhotings, May 1970. North Carolina Historical Review, Vol. 87, Issue 3 , 283 - 309.

Delnero, P. (2010). Sumerian Extract Tablets and Scribal Education. Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 62 , 53 - 69.

Education-Portal.com. (2010). Becoming a Certified Shorthand Reporter: Certification and Career Info. Retrieved November 26, 2011, from Education-Portal.com: http://education-portal.com/articles/Court_Reporters_Job_Information_for_Students_Considering_a_Career_as_a_Court_Reporter.html

Fischer, R. (1966, September 10). Why Hough Got Tough--the Real Agitators. New Republic, Vol. 155, Issue 11 , pp. 9 - 10.

Fishfader, V. L., Howells, G. N., Katz, R. C., & Teresi, P. S. (1996). Evidential and Extralegal Factors in Juror Decisions: Presentation Mode, Retnetion, and Level of Emotionality. Law and Human Behaviour, Vol. 20, No. 5 , 565 - 572.

Garfield Heights Historical Society. (2008). Museum. Retrieved November 26, 2011, from Garfield Heights Historical Society: http://www.ghhist.org/museum.htm

Georgescu, M. (2011). Psychoanalytic Aspects of Ethnic Identity. Contemporary Readings in Law & Social Justice 2 (2) , 313 - 318.

Goodreads, Inc. (2011). Thomas Berger > Quotes. Retrieved November 26, 2011, from goodreads: http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/28517.Thomas_Berger

Google. (2011). Stenographer Keyboard Google. Retrieved November 27, 2011, from Stenographer keyboard: http://www.google.com/search?q=stenographer+keyboard&hl=en&rlz=1T4ACAW_en___US415&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=6H7STuDAHaHe2QXGzpGpDw&ved=0CDAQsAQ&biw=1366&bih=617

Graff, G. (2011). The Name of the Game is Shame: The Effects of Slavery and Its Aftermath. Journal of Psychohistory, Vol. 39, Issue 2 , 133 - 144.

Herrick, J. C. (1987). Cleveland Landmarks. Cleveland, Ohio: Landmarks Publishing Company.

Higgins, B. L. (2009, August). Restaurants. Retrieved November 27, 2011, from Encyclopedia of Cleveland History: http://ech.case.edu/ech-cgi/article.pl?id=R3

Homestead. (2011, January 11). The Basics of Pitman Shorthand. Retrieved November 26, 2011, from The Joy of Pitman Shorthand: http://pitmanshorthand.homestead.com/index.html

Kassin, S. M., & McNeal, K. (1991). Police Interrogations and Confessions. Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 15, No. 3 , 233 - 251.

Kebbell, M. R., Hatton, C., & Johnson, S. D. (2001, Vol. 29). People With Learning Disabilities as Witnesses in Court: What Questions Should Lawyers Ask? British Journal of Learning Disabilities , 98 - 102.

Kebbell, M. R., Hatton, C., & Johnson, S. D. (2004, Vol. 9). Witnesses With Intellectual Disabilities in Court: What Questions Are Asked and What Influence Do they Have? Legal and Criminological Psychology , 23 - 35.

Kristin M. Ashenhurst, R. C. (April, 2011). Realtime: What's In It For Me? Journal for the Reporting and Captioning Profession , 37.

Linda Larson, R. (April, 2011). Tips to Earning Certification. Journal for the Reporting and Captioning Professions , 51.

Mark J. Golden, C. (2011, June). Stenographic Court Reporter Certification, Education and Contests in the United States. Retrieved November 26, 2011, from National Court Reporter Association: www.ncraonline.org/certification

McClain, C. S. (2011). Family Stories: Black/White Marriage During the 1960s. Western Journal of Black Studies 35 (1) , 9 - 21.

Michney, T. M. (2006). Race, Violence, and Urban Territoriality: Cleveland's Little Itady and the 1966 Hough Uprising. Journal of Urban History, Vol. 32, Issue 3 , 404 - 428.

Miggins, E. M. (1986). Cleveland Public Schools. Retrieved November 27, 2011, from The Encyclopedia of Cleveland History: http://ech.cwru.edu/ech-cgi/article.pl?id=CPS2

Montaldo, C. (2011). Sam Sheppard - The Sam Sheppard Murder Case. Retrieved November 27, 2011, from About.Com Crime/Punishment: http://crime.about.com/od/history/p/sheppard_sam.htm

National Court Reporters Association. (2011). NCRA Certifications. Retrieved November 26, 2011, from NCRA: http://www.ncra.org/Certifications/content.cfm?ItemNumber=8657&navItemNumber=516

National Court Reporters Association. (2011). NCRA Certified Realtime Reporter. Retrieved November 26, 2011, from NCRA: http://www.ncra.org/Certifications/content.cfm?ItemNumber=11598&navItemNumber=11599

National Court Reporters Association. (2011). NCRA Registered Merit Reporter Certification. Retrieved November 26, 2011, from NCRA: http://www.ncra.org/Certifications/content.cfm?ItemNumber=11594&navItemNumber=11595

National Court Reporters Association. (2011). NCRA Registered Professional Reporter Certification. Retrieved November 26, 2011, from NCRA: http://www.ncra.org/Certifications/content.cfm?ItemNumber=8657&navItemNumber=516

O'Brien, D. M. (2008). Storm Center. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

O'Hara, J. F. (2006). Kent State/May 4 and Postwar Memory. American Quarterly, Vol. 58, Issue 2 , 301 - 328.

Ohio Historical Society. (2006). Severe Weather in Ohio. Retrieved December 4, 2011, from January 26, 1978: Statewide Blizzard: http://www.ohiohistory.org/etcetera/exhibits/swio/pages/content/1978_blizzard.htm

O'Kelly, C. M., Kebbell, M. R., Hatton, C., & Johnson, S. D. (2003, Vol 8). Judicial Intervention in Court Cases Involving Witnesses With and Without Learning Disabilities. Legal and Criminological Psychology , 229 - 240.

Salovaara, A., Lehmuskallio, A., Hedman, L., Valkonen, P., & Nasanen, J. (2010). Information technologies and transition in the lives of 55-65 year-olds: The case of colliding life interests. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies , 803 - 821.

Schubert, F. A. (2007). Introduction to Law and the Legal System. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Scott, S. D., Sharpe, H., O'Leary, K., Dehaeck, U., Hindmarsh, K., Moore, J. G., et al. (2009). Court Reporters: A Viable Solution for the Challenges of Focus Group Data Collection? Qualitative Health Research, Vol. 19, No. 1 , 140 - 146.

Skow, J. (1967, July 29). The Question in the Ghetto: Can Cleveland Escape Burning? Saturday Evening Post 240 (15) , pp. 38 - 49.

Smith, W. D. (2008, April 18). Notarii. Retrieved November 24, 2011, from LacusCurtius-Ancient Roman Stenographers: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/SMIGRA*/Notarii.html

Sparr, L. F., Erstling, S. S., & Boehnlein, J. K. (1990). Sam Shepard and the Dysfunctional American Family: Therapeutic Perspectives. American Journal of Psychotherapy, Vol. XLIV, No. 4 , 563 - 576.

Stenograph Corporation. (2011). Stenograph. Retrieved November 27, 2011, from Software and Devices: http://www.stenograph.com/category.aspx?id=1470001&subid=5370001

Stobbs, G., & Kebbell, M. R. (2003). Jurors' Perception of Witnessess with Intellectual Disabilities and the Influence of Expert Evidence. Jouranl of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 16 , 107 - 114.

The Internet Movie Database. (2011). Episode list for The Fugitive. Retrieved November 27, 2011, from IMBd: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056757/episodes

Thistlethwaite, D. L. (1973). The Impact of the Episodes of May, 1970 Upon American Universities Students. Research in Higher Education , 225 - 243.

Time. (1966). The Jungle & the City. Time Vol. 88, Issue 5 , pp. 17 - 19.

Trickey, E., & Vickers, J. (2006, August). Notorious Cleveland 4. Retrieved November 24, 2011, from Cleveland Magazine: http://www.clevelandmagazine.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=586CA122EB394032BD4AA3B686FF03D9&nm=Editorial&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=1578600D80804596A222593669321019&tier=4&id=4C34DE8A294D4DA5B8503A1F78FAD07B

Tursi, D. (June 2010). Evolution of a Timeless Profession. Journal for the Reporting and Captioning Professions , 52 - 57.

Walker, A. G. (1993, Vol. 17, No. 1). Questioning Young Children in Court. Law and Human Behavior , 59 - 81.