Opinion ID: 2631062
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: hearing transcription costs

Text: {21} Riegger averred that the Board erred in requiring repayment of the transcription costs of the hearing before Hearing Officer Khalsa. Riegger claims that the Board opted to employ a stenographer instead of making a tape recording of the proceedings, and that he should not be responsible for costs the Board elected to incur. The Board contends that Section 61-1-12 authorizes it to make a stenographic transcript and thus is a recoverable cost. We agree with the Board that the transcription costs are recoverable. {22} Section 61-1-12 states, [t]he [hearing] record shall be preserved by any stenographic method in use in the district courts of this state, or in the discretion of the board, by tape recording. The Legislature has clearly stated that a stenographic record will be made, and gives the Board the discretion to choose to tape record the proceedings instead. See NMSA 1978, § 12-2A-4(A) (1997) (`Shall' . . . express[es] a duty, obligation, requirement or condition precedent.). Additionally, Rule 1-054(D)(2)(d) and Section 61-32-24(F)(2) explicitly permit the Board to recover transcription costs. Consequently, on remand, the district court should presume that the Board can assess these transcription costs against Riegger.