Time's Humming Loom

Among NAJIT’s basic objectives are (1) to advocate working conditions good enough to enable interpreters to do their job and attract new talent into the field, and (2) to promote professional standards of performance, in part by sponsoring educational and training events. Lately NAJIT has been busy doing a lot of both.

NAJIT has been taking public positions on issues relating to working conditions in various places around the country. In New Jersey, Superior Court staff interpreter James Farrell asked for and received our support in a bitter confrontation with the court administration over a number of issues, among them, the use of team interpreting (see "NJ Interpreter Takes the Heat"); in California, we are supporting the Bay Area Court Interpreters in their efforts to prevent the California Judicial Council from eviscerating its own policy on team interpreting (see "Judicial Council Backpedals"); in Illinois, we have appointed and agreed to support a task force of court interpreters who have been working hard to get certification legislation passed in their state.

On another front, Samuel Adelo, longtime NAJIT member and former President, has been working with the American Bar Association to obtain approval for a progressively-worded resolution calling for professional standards, including mandatory interpreter certification. Adelo reports that the resolution has excellent chances of passing at the next ABA meeting in August.

The 1997 NAJIT pre-conference workshops, conference, and annual meeting held this May in Seattle was evaluated by the membership in attendance to be an unqualified success. Congratulations and thanks are in order to all who participated and made it all possible: registrants, presenters, workshop instructors, workshop facilitators, Arlene Stock and Glen Konstantin of Dynamic Management, vendors, and the staff of the Embassy Suites Sea-Tac Hotel.

Federal Court Interps Advisory Subgroup, Redux
Readers will recall that in the last issue of Proteus we published an open letter denouncing the Federal Court Interpreter Advisory Subgroup’s decision that there was "no need" to recommend an increase in the per diem rate paid to federal contract interpreters, which has remained unchanged since 1991. In response, I received a letter from Lydia Pelegrin, then Chief of the District Court Administration Division of the Administrative Office, which reads in pertinent part as follows:

It was unfortunate that you were unable to attend the December 13 teleconference in which the Court Interpreters Advisory Subgroup made its recommendation that a per diem increase was not needed at this time. This was not a recommendation made in haste. The Subgroup discussed this issue at length and determined that the current per diem rate remains competitive with all state courts. Additionally, the district courts have never complained to us that they are unable to secure the services of an interpreter because of the fees.
I disagree with your assertion that the Court Interpreters Advisory Subgroup does not represent the interests of interpreters; one-half of the members consists of staff interpreters. Much thought went into the composition of this Subgroup. We attempted to select individuals who would do their best to raise and address issues that face the interpreting community. Unfortunately, it is not always possible to have a unanimous agreement on all issues, but I believe this Subgroup provides a forum to openly discuss issues and to strive for overall agreement to the extent possible.
Thank you for bringing to our attention the concerns of your constituents.

If Ms. Pelegrin and I agree that much thought went into the composition of this Subgroup, it is for different reasons. Half of the group’s six members are administrators, and half staff interpreters. There is no freelance representation on the Subgroup, even though the vast majority of interpreters working in federal courts are freelancers rather than staff. Furthermore, having participated in the Subgroup’s proceedings, I came to the opinion that not all of the staff interpreters advocate zealously the goal of ensuring working conditions good enough to enable interpreters to perform at the standard they are duty-bound to uphold. Finally, the wording "no need" itself makes it clear that the Subgroup does not reflect per diem interpreters’ point of view. That the courts report little difficulty finding interpreters at the current rate hardly means that interpreters don’t think there is any need for a raise. Nike could well say it has little trouble finding workers willing to make shoes for them at prevailing wages in Indonesia. Hence my contention that "Court Interpreters Advisory Subgroup" is something of a misnomer.

Court interpreters everywhere deserve to be paid fees commensurate with the level of skill and responsibility that their job entails. As for the competitiveness of the federal versus the state rates paid to interpreters, historically, federal rates have always been higher than average state court rates. This fact was no impediment to an increase when the rate was last adjusted six years ago. I suspect that if the same criteria applied today as in 1991, the conclusion would have to be reached that an increase is due. If $250 per day was appropriate compensation at that time, then an appropriate level today would include a percentage adjustment to offset increases in the cost of living.

Court interpreters everywhere deserve to be paid fees commensurate with the level of skill and responsibility that their job entails.

Telephone Interpreting
The Subgroup has also been pursuing the expansion of the federal telephone interpreting program. Plans are underway to expand the existing pilot project, headquartered in Las Cruces, New Mexico, and to add several new provider sites to make the service available to more district courts. Its proponents hail telephone interpreting as a cost-effective way to make qualified professional interpreters available in situations where the courts would otherwise use lay people to interpret. Administrators and some interpreters believe that with the proper equipment properly used, telephone interpreting is highly effective, especially since courts are reluctant to pay travel expenses to bring interpreters from out of town for brief proceedings. Skeptics—such as this writer—maintain that for obvious reasons, telephone interpretation is inherently inferior to live interpretation and therefore should only be used as a last resort in true emergencies. One concern is the slippery slope effect, which would result in the telephone being used in ever less appropriate situations, such as trials. Another danger is that state courts interested in economizing will contract out the service to companies with few scruples about using qualified interpreters. There is ample anecdotal evidence that this is already occurring.

What should NAJIT’s position be in the midst of all this? Are most members hostile, indifferent, or amenable towards telephone interpreting? Can we do our sworn duty over the telephone, even under optimal conditions, as well as we can in person? How much telephone interpreting are we doing already? What have been our experiences with it? Do we see it as a necessary evil, or an exciting, rewarding new opportunity? Will it displace qualified interpreters, or make them busier? We need answers to these basic questions before NAJIT can take a well-informed position on telephone interpreting. The Board of Directors is therefore considering undertaking a membership survey in order to gather information about this important issue.

In the meantime, NAJIT members are encouraged—as always—to share with their colleagues their views about this or any other matter, either by writing to Proteus (proteus@najit.org).

DAVID MINTZ
Chair, Board of Directors
mintz@najit.org