Requiem for an Interpreters Office

1985 - 2001

Unlike most articles interpreters will read in professional journals, this piece has little to do with the advancement of interpreter practice in the judicial setting. Rather, it is intended as a warning bell for interpreters who seek full-time employment in a court system. What follows is the experience of just one office, but it illustrates a troubling trend, so interpreters take note: the prognosis may be grim for your professional future if you sign on with a court system in the throes of management upheaval.

This story takes place in Arizona, whose population is clustered in two large urban centers, Phoenix and Tucson, creating a big-city vs. small-town mindset, which will come into the picture later. The Arizona state court system is different from that of many other states. In the absence of a centralized administrative office in the capital with satellite courts scattered throughout the state, each county administers its court according to its own plan. The number of judges is proportionate to each county's population. This decentralized system also means that in the more populated counties, judges are selected differently from the way they are chosen in the smaller districts.

Early Years

Phoenix experienced a population explosion in the 1980's. As a result, in Phoenix's Maricopa county, the court faced an increased demand for all services, including a growing need for more Spanish interpreters. Prior to the late 1970's, no qualification standard existed for state court interpreters in Arizona--or for that matter, interpreters in most other state courts. In Maricopa county, up until 1978, "interpreters" were bilingual law library clerks sent to "help out" when needed in the courtroom. That year an examination began to be administered, although the way it was scored left a great deal to be desired as to validity and reliability. By the early 1980's, the structure of the qualifying exam had been streamlined, professional interpreters were hired and the quality of interpreter services rose appreciably.

Standards Established

By 1985, the county had three staff interpreters and a pool of five qualified freelance interpreters. In parallel with the work carried out in California and nationwide from the mid-1970's, after the passage of the Court Interpreters Act in 1979, the Phoenix staff interpreters set to work on establishing standards, creating a professional organization and drafting proposed legislation to set a minimum competency level for court interpreters. In Maricopa county, these efforts were successful: an Office of the Court Interpreter (OCI) was created, with a chief interpreter position and a body of rules and regulations written and approved by the bench.

Statewide, however, attempts at improvement were met with resistance. The Supreme Court feared that "big city" (the counties in which Phoenix and Tucson are located) standards could not be met by "the small towns" (the remaining 13 counties in Arizona). The legislation proposed by the interpreter's association was rejected as impractical. Fear of a statewide qualifying examination was an important factor in this lack of support.

At the time, training opportunities were nil: Arizona had no training program for interpreters in its three universities or in any of the community colleges. The University of Arizona's Summer Institute was created in the 1980's, but that program was brief (several weeks) and expensive. By the mid-1980's, the issue of state certification was put on the back burner.

The interpreting department at the Superior Court in Maricopa county had by this time earned a national reputation. The office administered its own written and oral examinations and the court respected the qualification procedure. Interpreter salaries were the highest in the state. The professional atmosphere attracted people with the right stuff. Unlike California and many other states, the majority of the practicing interpreters in the Superior Court were not freelancers brought in piecemeal. The office was managed like a firm: a judge would enter an order appointing the OCI to a case, and the senior interpreter would assign an interpreter for each need (defendant, witness, victim). In criminal matters, each interpreter had his or her own caseload, appeared before specific judges only, and managed any out-of-court contacts related to the case.

Administrative Changes

By 1986, the administrator and the presiding judge who had overseen and supported the steps taken by the Phoenix staff interpreters were both gone, the former to retirement, the latter to the federal bench. Then came a change in administration at the Superior Court that would impact interpreter practice for the rest of the century. The new administrator and presiding judge showed scant interest in maintaining the standards previously agreed upon. Over the next few years, the court administrator re-classified many positions. The law library director, chief probation officer and chief conciliation services counselor--earlier on a level equal to that of the court administrator--now came under his direct control. Court administration continued to micro-manage technical areas which had previously been left to the judgment of experienced practitioners. The Office of the Court Interpreter was no exception. The chief interpreter position was eliminated and a judicial administrator, three levels below the court administrator, was appointed to take over interpreter supervision. He devoted the rest of the decade to augmenting interpreter staffing levels and removing any self-determination on the interpreters' part.

Staff Interpreter Input Unwelcome

Court administration eliminated the role of staff interpreters in administering the written examination, setting their own interviews, orienting new judges on interpreting issues, evaluating interpreter practice, discussing policy as it affected their practice, and recruiting potential staff interpreters. By the mid-1990's, court administration side-stepped the county's human resources department and created its own in-house department for personnel matters. This department was charged with interpreter recruitment (although many other positions continued to be recruited through the county system). Under their aegis, the number of qualified interpreter candidates plummeted: in just three years, the number of applicants passing the written test was reduced by more than half. Senior interpreters believed this was because the court's human resources department failed to identify and attract competent practicing interpreters from other jurisdictions. Staff salaries were not increased proportionately with those in comparable settings.

Beginning in fiscal year 1999, staff interpreters had begun to look elsewhere. Six interpreters obtained federal certification. Better pay, better procedure, and a better life elsewhere moved 6 of the staff of 15 to resign within a 13-month period.

By 2001, four presiding judges had taken office since the Office of the Court Interpreter had been created. The fourth one's mission was to eliminate all delay in criminal trials. Defense and prosecution counsel were warned that no continuances would be granted without sufficient justification; trial judges no longer had the power to grant continuances beyond a certain point; certain cases were automatically sent to a cadre of carefully-selected jurists who examined the lawyers requesting the continuances in another courtroom. Trials delayed by the unavailability of an interpreter accounted for less than one percent; still, the administration was troubled by the scarcity of new interpreters for the Superior Court.

More Reshuffling, Job Description Altered

Last month, the Office of the Court Interpreter was reshuffled in the organizational chart once again--this time, ironically, to Human Resources. While changes in administration are not infrequent here (in 20 years, we have been supervised by 14 different judicial administrators), this change is different. The court administrator and human resources director have created a new position, called a "staffing services manager." The position has been filled with a person who holds a graduate degree in language, whose work experience includes banking and teaching Spanish to the CIA. This new manager's mission is to hire more interpreters, or to be precise, to "fill interpreter positions." The oral exam (in use to qualify interpreters since the 1980's) is now waived. The new applicant must only take a written exam (a multiple-choice language competency test) and have an interview. The requirement in the job description, that the interpreter have at least one year of paid professional experience, has been waived.

The first goal has been achieved: four new people have been hired. None has any experience in interpreting, translating, or anything to do with law or the courts. Staff interpreters who devoted years to achieving their current proficiency, either through academic training or nose-to-the-grindstone practice, have been told that none of it matters: the new hires will be paid at the same level as they. An underlying theory--interpreting outside the courtroom requires less skill than interpreting inside the courtroom-- has taken root. "Para-interpreters" are now doing interviews on which counsel and client base decisions at trial.

In this world of the tail wagging the dog, staff interpreters have no apparent recourse. The state association has no influence over practice in the field. No statute, rule of court, or policy is in place stating that interpreters need any qualification other than the avowed ability to speak Spanish.

For many years, we worked hard to create a professional practice that many judges took for granted as the norm. No one on the bench now remembers how interpreters struggled back in the seventies: most of the new judges were in high school then. Speed is now of the essence in all things judicial, and the Office of the Court Interpreter has all but in name been dismantled. Let us have a moment of silence.

[The author's name has been omitted by request.]