Re Idaho Certification

I read with interest your editorial criticizing the efforts in Idaho to enhance interpreter training and development. The author of this article painted a misleading picture of our commitment to professional court interpreting. In fact, if the author had verified any of the information, she would have found a much different picture than that portrayed in the editorial.

The State and Federal Courts have been working together for 18 months to develop and implement a strategy which fosters improvement of our respective interpreting programs.

"In the federal court, we have always used non-certified interpreters and they have done an outstanding job."

This has included developing a forms library, conducting a state-wide training needs assessment for interpreters, training interpreters, developing a more stringent code of professional responsibility, writing articles about interpreter services, revising legislation (state court), offering certification testing and providing training to judicial officers. We believe that these programs have improved interpreter services at all levels. Some of the training for our interpreters has been conducted by one of your board members, Ms. Holly Mikkelson. In fact, a large majority of courts have never had a training program for interpreters, let alone a program which bridges judges' perceptions with those of the interpreter. As 28 U.S.C. § 1827 indicates, the interpreter will be appointed by the presiding judicial officer. The federal interpreter guidelines indicate that "when a certified interpreter is not reasonably available, the court may use an otherwise qualified interpreter."

In the federal court, we have always used non-certified interpreters and they have done an outstanding job. If certified interpreters were reasonably available, we certainly would use these skilled professionals. In fact, no federally certified interpreters are located in Idaho, Montana or in Spokane, which is proximate to our northern divisional office. I applaud the sentiment in the article which encourages interpreters to reach the highest standard possible in their profession. Certainly, we do not believe that our program diminishes any national standard of excellence. The consortium test used by state and federal courts in Idaho sets a very high standard of excellence. Only a very small percentage of the candidates pass this examination. Unless the author of this editorial has taken the consortium exam, I do not know how she could classify this examination merely as a "screening device."

The two-day general interpreter training has been offered in several locations in the state and included sections on simultaneous and consecutive interpreting, legal terminology, state and federal local procedures, state and federal rules, working with judicial officers, and ethics. Interpreters interested in the consortium test are given a screening examination which includes oral simultaneous interpretation and a written ethics examination. Candidates who pass this phase are given an oral examination of sight translation and consecutive interpreting. We believe that this process only strengthens interpreter services in our district.

The editorial indicated that the federal court in Idaho intends "to use those newly certified by the consortium test in lieu of federally certified interpreters." This is not correct. If there are certified interpreters reasonably available at our four locations, we would be happy to use them. However, as the article correctly pointed out, no one from our state has passed the national exam.

There is an element of cost related to using certified interpreters in our rural district: the cost of airlines and per diem on top of the certification rate. If we used certified interpreters in all matters before our court, we estimate the costs would increase by a factor of ten or more on an annual basis. Is this the sole reason we do not use certified court interpreters? The answer is no. Do we believe that the rights of non-English speaking clients have been protected? Certainly. The District of Idaho has many language-skilled interpreters that have been meeting the needs of our district for over 15 years.

As you know, the federal courts are piloting a telephone interpreting project. This certainly would make certified interpreters more readily available on a national basis.

As an aside, I do have some understanding of the excellent federal certification test, since I worked in Arizona as a court administrator with four federally certified interpreters. When testing was revised in the mid-1980's, we volunteered staff time and expertise to work on the national examination. In fact, many of us were used in narrating portions of the national certification exam. I have the utmost respect for those who have passed this rigorous examination process.

Your article indicates that I have set myself up "as the arbiter of the level of competency that federal court interpreters must have." This is inaccurate information. The judges, court personnel, public defender, and U.S. Attorney all have come to rely upon the professionalism of the court interpreters we use in this district. We have implemented a system, approved by the Court, which meets the needs of non-English speaking litigants within the District. The work with the state court certainly improves upon the systems we already have in place. Your article seems to infer that we are paying non-certified interpreters at the highest rate available within the Federal Judiciary. Again, this is false. In Idaho we pay all interpreters, even those passing the local certification test, at the language-skilled rate, which is less than the federal certified or professionally qualified rate.

The article also attributes to me a statement which suggests that trials and other matters do not require the highest level of competency from its interpreters. This certainly is a false representation of my conversation with the author of this editorial. Certainly, trials are one of the most important events of our judicial system and must have professional interpreters present at all times. However, for more routine proceedings, such as initial appearances which last 15 minutes, I do question whether we should spend $1,000-1,500 to bring an out-of-state interpreter to the courthouse for these proceedings before a Magistrate Judge when we have excellent in-state interpreters.

Finally, the article notes that "the federal court in Idaho should be repudiated by all those who defend the due process rights of non-English speaking litigants." The author clearly does not understand the professional quality of our judicial officers and how they vigorously defend the rights of all who come before the court. We have worked hard with the state courts in developing additional training and professional standards to improve interpreting services within the state. If the author of this editorial believes that our court is jeopardizing the due process rights of non-English speaking litigants, I wonder what her view may be of the state courts which have 100 times more cases than the federal courts, and rarely use federally certified interpreters.

Cameron S. Burke
Court Executive, U.S. District Court of Idaho
Boise, Idaho

Mirta Vidal Replies

Court Executive Cameron Burke complains that the editorial on the Idaho certification program contains "many inaccuracies" and accuses the writer of failing to verify the information. However, the editorial and article are based solely on the information contained in the press release Mr. Burke issued jointly with the Idaho state courts administration or that he himself provided during a telephone interview. Rather than offer new information to contradict the articles, his response merely reiterates his personal view of the situation, which is necessarily biased. Mr. Burke seems unaware of the difference between opinion and fact. The problem here is not that the information is incorrect, but that Mr. Burke disagrees with the conclusions drawn in the editorial.

Mr. Burke is mistaken in concluding that the editorial "criticizes the efforts in Idaho to enhance interpreter training and development," which is commendable insofar as it will help improve the quality of services in the state courts. The editorial never intended to criticize the overall efforts made in that state to improve interpreter services. What is at issue here is the fact that, while a certification program on the federal level has been created at great expense and effort, the federal courts in Idaho are promoting a testing program that no one disputes is a less rigorous measure of competency.

Mr. Burke repeatedly refers to training and testing as one and the same. That "a large majority of courts have never had a training program for interpreters" is true, but it doesn't necessarily follow that any testing program is therefore automatically acceptable. He also points out that a NAJIT Board of Directors member conducted some of the training. As part of their work, many NAJIT members are involved in professional activities, including training and testing, which have not been officially endorsed by the association. The editorial does not take issue with the fact that federal and state court interpreters are receiving training jointly. What it does criticize is the assertion that interpreters in the Idaho federal courts are now certified by virtue of taking the consortium test, because, according to Mr. Burke, it "sets a very high standard of excellence."

Indeed, Mr. Burke repeatedly refers to the "excellence" and "outstanding" performance of those working in his courts. While these dedicated professionals may very well be doing a good job, the fact remains that they have so far been unable to meet the minimal standard set by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. As justification for this practice, Mr. Burke invokes the infamous "otherwise qualified" provision of the federal interpreter guidelines. This clause was not intended to provide an excuse for regularly hiring interpreters who fail to obtain the credential required by federal law, but merely as a last resort. In the Idaho federal courts, however, this practice has now become the unquestioned norm. If Mr. Burke considers that each local court is qualified to judge the level of competence of interpreters in that district, why have a federal exam at all? Would not the next logical step be to do away with the exam altogether and simply require a passing score on the Consortium test?

Finally, far from "inferring" that Idaho is paying federally-certified rates to non-certified interpreters, the article points to the strong incentive that some administrators will have to hire non-federally certified interpreters in order to avoid paying federal rates. Court administrators, or their spokespersons, in other parts of the country have openly admitted this to certified interpreters when they offer their services.