Vol. 32, No. 1
"Many Languages.....One Voice"
Winter, 2002
|
|
||
|
Vol. 32, No. 1
|
"Many Languages.....One Voice"
|
Winter, 2002
|
Secret Draft of Interpreter Legislation Revealed: Primary Providers Would be Employees
by Arturo Cásarez
SB 371 continues to be controversial at best. The last time the major players in this continuing saga met was in June of 2001-or so we were told. Apparently there have been a number of private meetings between the JC/ AOC, Senator Martha Escutia's staff, and BACI-CFI (with and without their union, CWA-TNG). They have blatantly excluded CCIA from these talks, which have been going on since the summer of 2001. During these back-room negotiations, they have come to some tentative agreement as to what SB 371 should contain.
Their document, reproduced for your perusal on page 7, has been titled the Draft Outline Interpreters Legislation, and the following are some of the most troubling points contained therein:
At the Court Interpreters Advisory Panel meeting in San Diego in August 2001, an update on SB 371 was presented. Office of Govern-mental Affairs attorney, Dan Pone, briefed the panel on the legislation's progress. He indicated there was nothing new since the last meeting in June 2001 in Sacramento when CCIA last participated. When asked if there had been any subsequent meetings between the JC/AOC, Escutia's staff and BACI-CFI in which CCIA had not been included, he responded with a resounding "No." He further indicated that if any meaningful discussions took place, all interpreter associations would be included.
The JC/AOC sent the Draft Outline Interpreters Legislation to all court executive officers in mid-December 2001 for their comments. Within days, BACI-CFI sent out their own statewide mailer to all certified and registered interpreters. This mailer mirrored some of the same points contained in the previously mentioned document, and even boasted of nearing an agreement with the JC/AOC on SB 371. Though CCIA eventually became aware of the existence of the JC/AOC document in late December, it was not through any official channels or participation in the process. A very troubling fact, considering there has always been an agreement that all parties would be active participants.
At CCIA's state board meeting in Los Angeles on January 5, 2002, this document was discussed at length, and a strategy and plan of action determined. While much of what was decided cannot be divulged for obvious strategic reasons, it was clear we had an obligation to inform our membership, as well as interpreters in general, of these undisclosed talks. The board decided we would wait until after the CIAP meeting of February 2, 2002, in San Francisco, where once again this matter would be on the Panel's agenda, and there would be a presentation by the Office of Governmental Affairs attorney, Dan Pone.
Mr. Pone summarized for the CIAP why and how this infamous document was developed. He indicated the JC/AOC had been involved in ongoing, "informal" discussions with Senator Escutia's staff, who then asked the JC/AOC to draft this document. Mr. Pone further informed the panel that the JC/AOC only agreed to write this proposed draft legislation outline at the behest of Senator Escutia's office. According to Mr. Pone, concern was expressed to Senator Escutia's office about how interpreters should and would be notified, at which time the senator's office agreed they would be responsible for notifying all interpreter groups. I can only suppose CCIA's notification is lost in the mail since we have yet to receive official notice from anyone.
When CIAP members asked pointedly why CCIA, the largest interpreter association, was not kept apprised of developments, Mr. Pone responded that all inquiries should be directed to Senator Escutia, the author of SB 371. He further stated the JC/AOC was in no way a co-author of this bill, but only wrote the draft because they were requested to do so. The fact that the Judicial Council's Interpreter Advisory Panel has also been left totally in the dark about an issue which not only divides court interpreters statewide, but which threatens to drastically change the profession, should be cause for alarm. The very panel appointed by the Chief Justice of the California State Supreme Court to advise the Ju-dicial Council on all matters relating to court interpreting has not even remotely been included.
As an association of professional interpreters, we are expected to believe that no meaningful talks or negotiations have taken place between the JC/AOC, Senator Escutia's staff, and BACI-CFI without our knowledge. The JC/ AOC often reminds us they are our allies, and how pleased they are with our positive contributions to the profession and the courts. Some elected officials have decided to push through legislation solicited by a vocal minority. This is the same minority who keeps trying to convince us that their utopian court employee vision (which is most reminiscent of Animal Farm) is best for all of us, whether we like it or not.
The simple truth is, the choice to remain an independent contractor is in jeopardy. Under this proposed employee system, the independent contractor would be relegated to nothing more than second class status. Unless every interpreter who wishes to retain their independent status steps up and voices this wish to their elected officials now, this proposed employee model could become a reality. Writing your state senator and assemblyman is a great way to make your wishes known. The names of your representatives can be found in your phone book. At the very least, a simple telephone call to their local offices can make a difference. Express your concern about being forced to become a court employee, or perhaps being forced to leave a profession you love. A profession that desperately needs more interpreters, not fewer. You owe it to yourself to do your part, because your professional future, as well as the future of the profession, may depend on it.
CCIA will continue its efforts to keep interpreters informed of all developments, and we shall not be deterred from our stated position that all interpreters must have a "Voice for Choice."
We urge you to spend some time analyzing and discussing the draft legislation with your colleagues. Then decide for yourself: Do the JC/AOC, BACI-CFI, and Senator Escutia have your best interests in mind? Or are they, rather, creating an Orwellian community in which "some pigs are more equal than others?" n
Please contact:
Sen. Martha Escutia
State Capitol, Rm. 5080
Sacramento, CA 95814
Senator.Escutia@sen.ca.gov
Sen. John Burton
State Capitol, Rm. 205
Sacramento, CA 95814
(e-mail in care of) Anthony.Williams@sen.ca.gov
President's Message
by Carlos Cerecedo
Dear CCIA Members,
The year 2002 will be marked by important events and developments in our profession; Senate Bill 371 will either pass or fail to pass and your status as an employee or as an independent contractor will be affected.
This year may also be key in determining the future of the Judicial Council's Interpreter Advisory Panel, according to comments made at their last meeting in San Francisco.
In 2002, CCIA will continue to strive to achieve our two main goals: providing educational opportunities and preserving each and every interpreter's freedom of choice on job status.
On the education front we will continue to provide excellent workshops and our Annual Conference is already taking shape and the location is almost determined. We will continue providing classes for future lawyers, to educate them on the reality of the California courts in the 21st century. Scholarships will be available for students who wish to become interpreters and we will continue supporting the BA program for Translation and Interpretation at Cal State Long Beach.
Concerning your own freedom of choice for job status, we shall put all of our efforts into convincing the legislators, the unions, the AOC, the Judicial Council and the Executive Officers of each county that CCIA wants interpreters to decide whether they want to be an employee or an independent contractor without been pushed either into a second class 'jobber' category or into a forced employee status to satisfy some union's future negotiating strategy.
In 2002 you will elect your next CCIA president and as your outgoing president, I strongly suggest that each one of you fully participate in all activities to safeguard the future of our profession.
Your CCIA officers will need your support in writing letters, making phone calls and even maybe to participate in strong demonstrations of dissatisfaction if your wishes are not heard by those who presume to know how to run your profession better than you do.
Participate and the outcome shall be as you expect it!
Let's Talk Turkey
The Most Complete,
Up-to-Date Answers to What You Can Expect if You Become an Employee
1) Can I become an employee and still have a flexible schedule, as the other organizations have said I can?
No. It would be real nice if we lived in the ideal world for interpreters, but we don't. High-level court and AOC administrators throughout the state have made it clear to CCIA that interpreters who convert to employee status will have to abide by the same personnel guidelines as the other court employees, just like interpreters who are already permanent staff interpreters. Interpreters who are full-time permanent employees in San Diego, Fresno, Ventura and Santa Barbara counties work 8-5. When they take off early for medical appointments, etc., they have to take it as what's called "comp time" or deduct it from vacation time.
CCIA has discussed this issue with the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), which represents 14,000 out of the state's approximately 18,000 court employees. They are thus the union in the best position to say what can and cannot be negotiated with a court. They have informed us that, "For employment in the public sector, this is not negotiable. Full-time means 40 hours per week." Under some labor agreements that SEIU has with various local courts, some employees have "flexible schedules"-working 7-4 or 10-6 instead of 8-5. To allow anything else is what is called a "gift of public funds" and goes counter to law. Also remember: your lunch will be 1 hour-not from whenever you get out in the morning until 1:30.
The fact that many of you have come to believe it is possible to have the benefits of employee status with the flexibility of contractors has been mentioned at high level Judicial Council meetings. Let's just say that those judges and administrators have had themselves a good laugh at your expense. CCIA has heard remarks by some of those jurists as to what they think of interpreters who believe these promises, but we can't print things like that in The Polyglot.
2) Will I have to perform additional duties if I finish interpreting in court early?
Plans are already being made to assign other duties to interpreters who become employees. That is one reason why the Judicial Council and the courts want to make some interpreters employees, so they can assign them to perform other bilingual services.
For example, CCIA recently submitted written comments on interpreter-related laws that are being re-drafted. Some of those statutes will mandate that employee interpreters interpret in civil proceedings and perform some written translations. Those duties will be part of your job if you become an employee, and you will not be paid extra for them, even if the court decides to charge the parties using your services. This is what happens now with staff court reporters assigned to civil proceedings: the court charges the private parties a reporter fee, but all the money goes to the court, not to the court reporter.
Furthermore, there are additional services needing interpreters that the courts need to fill. Recent issues of The Polyglot contained articles written by Dr. Rainof, Language Rights are Civil Rights, dealing with renewed enforcement of provisions of the Civil Rights Act that mandate language services be provided in federally-funded medical and social services agencies.
Last legislative term, Senator Escutia (sponsor of 371) introduced legislation that would apply similar standards to state-funded agencies in California. Under this legislation, such agencies in counties comprised of 5% or more LEPs (Limited English Proficiency) and agencies who serve 5% or more LEPs or have any local office serving 10,000 or more LEP residents must provide bilingual staff or interpreters as needed.
The courts and related agencies such as Probation, Family Court Services, etc. are state-funded agencies. To comply with the requirements of this legislation, if it passes, and to qualify for certain state funding, they would have to provide interpretation and translation services. True, many of these related agencies have bilingual personnel. But who's kidding whom? If language professionals, such as court interpreters, are on staff they will use them to interpret and trans-late necessary written materials.
Another bill introduced by Escutia that is currently in suspense is SB 927, the domestic violence interpreting bill. If passed, it will mandate that we interpret in any setting related to domestic violence, such as the facilitator's office, all mediations, etc.
And, last but not least, is regional coordination. Under the Judicial Council's proposed revision to SB 371, regional coordination will be a requirement, and will not be negotiable. They have already recommended that counties with populations of under 500,000 utilize it, without first getting the approval of the Court Interpreter Advisory Panel. Interpreters who remain contractors will have an edge in resisting cross-county assigning, but employee interpreters whose jobs have been negotiated on a regional basis under the system contemplated will have no choice. Interestingly, at one of the meetings with legislators on SB 371 last year in Sacramento, representatives of BACI/CFI offered regional coordination as a service interpreters could perform to fill in their day or to justify the extra cost of making them employees.
3) But what about court reporters? Don't they sometimes leave early without having to perform additional duties?
We feel that it is inaccurate to compare the court interpreting profession to the court reporting profession. Actually, full-time court reporters are considered 40-hour-per-week employees. Their job consists not only of reporting in the courtroom, but also producing transcripts. Court reporters often end up working well over 40 hours per week to meet mandatory deadlines for the transcripts. In addition, they make no overtime if court goes past 5:00 p.m.
True, they are paid extra money for their transcripts. But they are also responsible for buying their own equipment and supplies, and many of them pay some of their transcript money out to "scopists," who print out the transcripts for them, or to proofreaders. And by law, staff reporters may be paid no more than $2.50 per page, which many reporters complain is whittled down significantly after expenses and does not duly compensate them for all the lost evenings, weekends and holidays they work.
Clearly, there are significant differences between the interpreting and reporting professions. Some staff interpreters may end up doing written translations or tape transcriptions, but by no means all can or will, or will do so only on an occasional basis, not as an integral part of their court interpreting duties.
4) But can't everything be negotiated collectively to our benefit?
Labor negotiations don't cover everything. For example, read section 71634 of the Government Code, which lays out specifically what can and can't be included in collective bargaining for trial court employees. You will see that due to the "unique and special responsibilities of the trial courts in the administration of justice," certain things cannot be negotiated, such as "automation" (which could include phone interpreting), "delivery of court services," and "hours of operation."
CCIA is hearing reports indicating some interpreters want to negotiate with courts on such things as getting interpreter cases called early in the calendar and on things that are in the sole purview of the Judicial Council, such as when a non-certified interpreter can and cannot be used and what professional standards we must comply with. These things are and will be regulated by laws and Rules of Court and cannot be negotiated. But there will be opportunity to negotiate salaries and job duties to a certain extent depending on local conditions.
5) Who will be my union?
That issue will be one of the big keys to how the whole employment issue turns out. BACI/CFI took the step of affiliating with a union, TNG/CWA, before becoming employees. Furthermore, TNG/ CWA does not currently represent any court employees in the state, and most local courts have one-union ("agency shop") agreements. So BACI/CFI's first efforts were directed at becoming state employees, through the Judicial Council. But the Judicial Council refused to accept this, and the only remaining employers are the local trial courts, whose unions most assuredly will not want another union on their turf. Thus BACI/CFI/TNG/CWA proposed regional representation, even though interpreters would be local court employees. It remains to be seen if this will work out legally.
CCIA has heard preliminary reports that the unionized interpreters organizations will not proceed with SB 371 if the interpreters cannot be represented by TNG/CWA. CCIA does not take that position, but rather feels that interpreters desiring employee status should have that opportunity, even if they have to be represented by the unions that already have representation agreements with the local courts, such as SEIU.
6) Why does the Judicial Council now seem to be interested in converting some interpreters into employees?
One reason is to assure the provision of the services outlined in section 2) above to the courts. That is, it will benefit them to have some staff interpreters available all day to help in civil courts and other court-related agencies and to perform written translations. Another reason is so they can have better control of at least some interpreters. The courts complain regularly and bitterly to the Judicial Council that interpreters arrive late and leave when there is still work to do, often to go to other work assignments where they can make additional money. If you are an employee, they can discipline you, maybe even fire you, for chronic tardiness and dock your pay or vacation time if you leave early. CCIA has gotten the impression that some courts would love to assign us more duties and have us stay a full day like everyone else.
Also-and this is where regional coordination comes in again-the courts complain bitterly about the shortage of certified interpreters. Some of them use uncertified interpreters to fill the void, and then get complaints from certified interpreters when they do so. In short, the courts are desperate for more interpreters, and are throwing up their hands and wondering whether to just use Dial-an-Interpreter.
The Judicial Council knows interpreters do not want to be regionally coordinated, and that an independent contractor interpreter only contracts with one local court. Forcing the issue on one of them is a little tougher. But, as outlined above, if an interpreter is an employee under a regional bargaining agreement, he or she has no choice.
7) What possible repercussions could becoming an employee have on my Social Security?
CCIA will consult with an attorney specializing in Social Security law to determine all the particulars, and will keep you informed through The Polyglot. We're not here giving legal advice, but we think this could be of concern to some interpreters.
For example, the retirement system of Los Angeles County, which uses about half of the state's interpreters, does not include Social Security. And the interpreters who work there have been doing so as self-employed persons paying into Social Security for many years. Under any employment plan devised for interpreters at this point, you will be an employee of the local courts, and, so, please check for yourselves now as to whether your local court's retirement plan includes Social Security or not.
We also strongly urge all interpreters to read the following information on the Internet:
www.ssa.gov/pubs/10045.html
www.nea.org/lac/socsec/info.html
http://members.tripod.com/~FlFedLeg/wep.html
CCIA's Position and You
To sum it up, the Board of CCIA wants interpreters who desire employee status to have it. Before Senate Bill 371 was introduced, the Judicial Council informed CCIA they had something in the works they called an "Employee Conversion Plan." We told them we were in favor of such a plan. But many interpreters also want to remain contractors. They do not believe the propaganda being disseminated, which tells interpreters that we are so special we can earn a full salary, keep the flexibility we presently enjoy and not perform any additional duties we don't agree to. All these benefits would be achieved through "collective bargaining," which has not netted similar perks for the state's 18,000 current court employees, who are represented by powerful unions that are experienced in representing court and other public sector employees.
We don't buy it. You can't get something for nothing, especially from the government. Do those of you who want it deserve job security, a high salary and benefits? Of course. But those of you who are content with contractor status also have the right to not be forced into employee status in order to have work, which is the objective of the unionized interpreters. For those of you who have successfully planned your finances around self-employment, the change could be devastating, to say nothing of the possible consequences to your Social Security in the future depending on where you would work.
CCIA is in favor of voluntary employment status, even if you are represented by the local court employees' union and not TNG/CWA. But we'll continue to oppose SB 371 in any form that reduces the independent contractor to a second-class citizen or even pushes him out of the picture altogether. N
More Thoughts on Employee Status
by Renée Veale
Before deciding whether employee status is the best option, interpreters should obtain and evaluate as much information as possible.
Unfortunately, it seems that too many court interpreters in Los Angeles and its surrounding counties rely solely on their own wishful thinking in conjunction with a total disregard for some obvious facts which I list below.
The Los Angeles Superior Court employs 45% of the state's certified Spanish interpreters and an equal percentage of OTS interpreters. These percentages jump to 66% when added to those of Orange and San Diego. The courts of these three counties have a historical continuum of working with large numbers of court interpreters. One can easily guess what their position would be as to which entity-the state, the AOC or the local courts-should be charged with control of court interpreter employees. The obvious answer is their preference would be the local courts, and it is equally obvious that this preference would carry great and significant weight.
Another important issue touches on whether interpreters designated as employees and others who remain independent contractors can work and co-exist side by side. Past experience shows this to be very unlikely. Furthermore, don't count on the legality of this coexistence.
Talk with the Los Angeles court reporters classified in category "C" ("as needed"), and you will soon find out what added obligations an employee has, as compared to an independent contractor. You will soon learn that both the employer and the "as needed" employee have certain defined obligations.
Also there is the issue of pay. We all know of the current State of California budget deficit. Where would the money for employee benefits come from? Note that when SB 371 was introduced last year it listed "None" under the heading of Appropriations. I personally read this to mean "no extra expenditures are necessary." The way I see it is that we interpreters currently earn approximately $60,000 per year. According to government and industry statistics, benefits are factored at about 30% of the remuneration involved with employee benefits. So with no pledged additional expenditure on the part of the state or employer the result would be an annual employee salary of $45,000 plus benefits ($15,000). Is this worth it?
One of the benefits of editing the newsletter is that it provides a rare opportunity to observe at first hand the dedication and energy of a highly disparate group of people who are nonetheless united in their pursuit of CCIA's mission: to advance the standards of court interpreting and further the interests of the profession. To convert these lofty but rather theoretical goals into accomplishments that will make a difference in the day-to-day lives of their colleagues, these community-spirited men and women give up an astonishing amount of their free time taking care of CCIA's business. They prepare for and attend board and committee meetings, ad-dress legislative subcommittees, serve as educators, mentors and watchdogs and-God bless them-they write quarterly accounts of their many activities for publication in The Polyglot.
Yet, since CCIA's membership is scattered all over the state, most of us are only marginally aware of these people as individuals. That's unfortunate, because those who have agreed to serve as CCIA's board and council members are a remarkable group of people. Take, for example, the two newest state board officers: Arturo Cásarez and María Christina McNamara who serve, respectively, as vice president and treasurer.
Arturo is one of those people who, through life circumstances, has become seamlessly bicultural and bilingual. He was born in Tijuana to a Mexican-American family that had lived in Califor-nia during the early years of the 20th century before returning to Mexico in the 30's. When Arturo was very young, the family moved back to California, settling in San Diego County. He was educated in the San Diego area, graduating from SDSU in 1978 with a double major in Spanish and Political Science. After graduation, he traveled extensively throughout Europe while serving a tour of duty in the U.S. Army. Upon his return to the United States, Arturo launched his career as a court interpreter in Lake Tahoe, receiving his state certification in 1983. He moved to Sacramento with his wife, Judy, shortly thereafter and took up an additional career as a fulltime professional firefighter. Evidently encouraged by the similarities between fire-fighting and smoke-filled rooms, he jumped into interpreter labor issues about 6 years later. While he and Judy have been raising two children, he has somehow found time to serve several terms as vice-chair and chair of CCIA's Sacramento Valley chapter. After moving on to a very active 3-year term on the CIAP, Arturo was elected to vice president of CCIA's state board in 2001. He continues to work as both a court interpreter and a professional firefighter. And, of course, as a very vocal activist for the interpreting community.
Not surprisingly, Arturo knows exactly what his goals are as CCIA vice president He will strive to maintain the professional quality of our association through education; continue the struggle to preserve the professional status of the interpreter and oppose attempts to reduce the profession to a job description; and increase CCIA membership. In response to a query about where the profession is headed, Arturo commented: "The language demographics for California are very clear; our career can be very secure if interpreters decide to take an active role in the decisions being made about our future-decisions which should be made by people who truly know and love the profession."
María Christina McNamara has had an equally varied career. A native of Mexico City, she was educated at UNAM, graduating with a master's degree in Chemistry, Biology and Pharmacy. After graduation, she taught organic chemistry at the same university for several years. She went on to earn a diploma in Economic Planning from the Institute of Social Studies in the Hague and to study statistics in Paris. María Christina then spent 16 years working for Mexico's Central Bank. During that period, she became acquainted with several experts from the UN and participated in several international conferences on economics and industrial research. These activities led to several scholarships, which allowed her to study in France and Holland. She authored 5 books on the subjects of pharmaceuticals, petrochemicals and economic planning in Holland, France and the Soviet Union. A translated summary of her book on pharmaceuticals was published in the journal, Drug and Trade News. It was through this publication that Christina met her late husband, who was a fellow chemist. They were married for 31 years.
Like many interpreters, Christina's certification as a court interpreter was an outgrowth of her many intellectual interests. Until 1999, she pursued interpreting only on a part-time basis, devoting the bulk of her time to travel ( she has visited 80 countries) and pursuing other interests, such as photography, archaeology, classical music and art.
I think it can fairly be said that people often engage in volunteer activities in order to reap some direct personal advantage, whether it be to gain a competitive edge for a job promotion, to 'network' in order to expand one's business opportunities, or to increase one's visibility on the way to a career in public service. It is obvious to me that the CCIA members who have stepped forward to volunteer their time and effort to interpreter causes are not motivated by any of these considerations. Rather, they are self-reliant and sophisticated individuals who know that it takes a great deal of hard work and perseverance to achieve any worthwhile objective. Fortunately for their colleagues, they are willing to step up to the plate and do their part-as the dozens of others who have come before them have been willing to do for the last 30 years.
Alcaraz Varó's Latest Book Receives Critical Acclaim
Attendees at last October's conference will recall that in the aftermath of the tragedies on Septem-ber 11, some speakers decided to cancel plans to deliver lectures in San Diego. Among those whose presence we missed was Dr. Enrique Alcaraz Varó. However, Professor Alcaraz did prepare a video presentation that was developed into a workshop in time for the conference. Lourdes Campbell facilitated the workshop, which was extremely well-received. She has since gone on to present it in other locations around the state.
The text used for the workshop, El inglés jurídico norteamericano, was
published just last year. This latest reference work by Dr. Alcaraz and his colleagues has been met with enthusiasm and acclaim by language professionals all over the country. Indeed, the ink was hardly dry on the pages before Rudy Heller, a translator and interpreter who lives and works in Massachusetts, submitted a review for the Summer, 2001 issue of Intercambios.
An excerpt appears below, in translation; interested readers are referred to the complete text at ata-spd.org/boletin.htm
"Although the title of this work includes the word 'jurídico', the book actually encompasses more than what are ordinarily considered to be the limits of that area of specialization. There is a chapter on the language of contracts, another on business terms, one on finance (banking and the stock exchange) and another on corporate law. In other words, the book presents the reader with a complete collection of terms that would never have been expected, given the title.
There are works that raise doubts about the validity of everything on one's bookshelf. But Editorial Ariel has vindicated them all with the publication of this excellent reference source. I recommend it to everyone. What's more, first thing tomorrow I plan to tell the people I know in this state's interpreter coordinator's office that, in my humble opinion, this book should be required reading for anyone who, in his or her capacity as an interpreter, sets foot in court."
CCIA is pleased to offer El inglés jurídico norteamericano for only $30, plus S&H. See page 2 for the CCIA's office contact information.
Goals of Legislation:
1) Fair treatment of interpreters
2) Enhanced public access
3) Sound court management
Employment Status-The legislation would:
1) Provide for employment of court interpreters, including full-time and part-time arrangements, as the primary means for providing access to certified and registered interpreters in the trial courts. The number of positions authorized will be based on documented workload, authorized funding, etc.
2) Specify that such interpreters would be considered employees of local trial courts, and that each court would maintain the exclusive authority to hire, promote and fire, as well as the authority to implement and appropriate discipline system.
3) Provide for contracting with interpreters under specified circumstances.
4) Require that all employees providing court interpreter services must be certified or registered.
Bargaining Issues:
1) Bargaining regions- the Judicial council (JC) would establish bargaining regions through a rule of court, pursuant to specified criteria (e.g. utilization needs, geography,etc.) The six appellate districts established under current law are a possible model, although the exact number and size of the regions may differ, consistent with usage patterns and other specified criteria.
2) Multi-employer bargaining units- the legislation would provide for multi-employer bargaining for the trial courts located in the respective regions.
3) Bargaining agent-the AOC would serve as the bargaining agent on behalf of the multi-employer groupings of courts.
4) Ratification of agreements- ratification of bargaining agreements would be by the JC.
Areas Excluded from Bargaining:
1) Items excluded under SB 2140- (a) the merits and administration of the trial court system; (b) coordination, consolidation and merger of trial courts and support staff; (c) automation, including but not limited to fax, filing, electronic recording and implementation of information systems; (d) design, construction and location of court facilities; (e) delivery of court services; (f) hours of operation of the trial courts and trial court system. [ Note: Bargaining regarding impact of these matters is not excluded.] See Govt. Code Section 71634
2) Cross-county assignments- the legislation would provide for the ability of the courts to make cross-county assignments of interpreters within the region pursuant to procedures established by the JC through a rule of court. Assignments of interpreters across regional lines may also be made, provided that such employees are paid at least the rate established in the region that covers their employing court.
3) Travel costs- reimbursement for travel costs associated with the provision of court interpreter services will be provided in accordance with approved rates established for judicial branch travel.
Miscellaneous Issues:
1) Legislation would provide that the JC/AOC is not a joint employer.
2) Interpreter employees would receive health and retirement benefits as generally offered to the other employees of their courts.
February 2, 2002
San Francisco, California
Madam Chair and members of the Court Interpreters Advisory Panel:
I am addressing the panel this morning as an outgoing member of the Court Interpreters Advisory Panel, and also as the Vice President of the California Court Interpreters Association.
When I received my letter in October of 1998 from Chief Justice Ronald George notifying me of my 3 year appointment to this panel, words couldn't begin to describe the pride and excitement I felt. This was a result of being given the opportunity to sit here and share knowledge and experience, just as we find ourselves doing this morning. A forum in which appointed individuals, considered to be experts in their field, are assembled to advise the Judicial Council of California in the area of court interpreting. Some of you sit hear as members of the judiciary, some as members of the legal field, others as court administrators. The majority of us are members of the court interpreting profession, as it should be since this is the Court Interpreters Advisory Panel, a panel entrusted with the duty of advising the Judicial Council in all matters relating to court interpreting.
The last three years have been filled with a mix of great satisfaction, and bitter disappointments. Satisfaction in what we have been able to accomplish as an advisory panel. We have developed jury instructions for multi-lingual jurors, and a rule of court, 984.4, the professional code of conduct for court interpreters. We have been working very diligently and are possibly close to completing discipline procedures for court interpreters. Countless hours were spent developing fair working conditions and payment policies for independent contractor interpreters. We deserve to be proud of these efforts and accomplishments.
But, disappointment has come from the fact that many of our recommendations for fair working conditions and compensation of interpreters have been ignored, such as our recommended cancellation policy, reimbursement of all mileage, and many of the other important payment policy definitions this panel had worked so hard on. Our recommendations to the "Mercer Study", in general, were rejected in favor of those made by other advisory committees. To add insult to injury, a statewide model contract was developed without any of our input, even though the Mercer study and this panel both clearly recommended against such a contract. Further, there is disappointment because Staff has undertaken projects which clearly should have been this panel's responsibility to either recommend or reject, such as telephonic interpreting, and the creation of the Provisionally Qualified classification of interpreters. In fact, more and more issues now come before this panel merely as informational items, or for its "Rubber Stamp of Approval", well after the fact. And this only when and if this panel meets.
Last year the Court Interpreters Advisory Panel met a mere 2 times, once in March and not again until August. This panel didn't even convene during last year's Judicial Administration Conference, when traditionally all advisory committees meet. One might get the impression there are very few issues or projects for this body of experts to undertake. We obviously know this is not the case. SB 371, the legislation proposing the statewide employment and regional coordination of certified and registered interpreters, which we will hopefully hear about in detail today, is yet another clear example of where this panel should have much greater input. Presently, this panel should be actively engaged in the development of an independent statewide survey of all certified and registered interpreters so the Judicial Council and the AOC can have a clearer picture of what may await them on the horizon.
My intent is not to be critical, but to reiterate that the Judicial Council has the necessary tools to repair the damage being done to the interpreting profession, as well as to the courts. They have you, the experts on this panel, to advise them on how to proceed to ensure there will be "fairness and equal access to justice" for everyone we serve. One of the primary goals of this panel is the retention and recruitment of interpreters. How will this goal ever be accomplished if the Judicial Council and the AOC continue pushing experienced interpreters away from the courts by attempting an employment system that a vocal minority is pushing for, yet many have not asked for and do not want. Make no mistake, many certified and registered interpreters wish to remain independent contractors. Perhaps just an informal poll of the interpreters on this panel would be a quick measure of how many across the state want to retain their independent status.
As Vice President of the California Court Interpreters Association, I am here this morning to say we have been blatantly excluded from a process which threatens to change our profession forever, and quite frankly, "we are mad as hell". It has been brought to our attention that CCIA has not clearly made its position known on SB 371. Once again, our association stands for the right of every interpreter to have a CHOICE of whether they want to continue providing interpreter services to the courts as independent contractors or as employees. We do not support any effort which seeks to exclude the independent contractor as an equal provider of services to the courts and instead relegates them to some type of second class status. The independent contractor has been the backbone and principal provider of interpreter services to the courts of California for more than 30 years.
CCIA's membership will not be subservient to those who seek to control them as professionals, be it the Judiciary or other interpreter groups with political agendas. We remain prepared and willing to work as partners with the Judiciary for our mutual benefit, but please do not mistake our long standing cooperation as weakness. The tone is being set for how we, as an association, will proceed in the future.
Finally, as a hometown fan of the Sacramento Kings, I am compelled to point out that "the ball is in OUR court" and how we choose to use it will depend on whether the Judicial Council and the AOC are willing to "shoot straight and play fair."
Arturo Cásarez
Annual Conference to be Held in Nevada October 12-14th
For the first time in many years, the CCIA state board has voted to hold the annual conference outside of California. The conference site favored by the majority is John Ascuaga's Nugget, a hotel and casino located in the city of Sparks, adjacent to Reno.
Reno is readily accessible by air from most cities and within reasonable driving distance from northern California. While opportunities to attend glitzy floor shows, dine lavishly and be entertained by top-name celebrities abound, Reno has the advantage over Las Vegas when it comes to scenic beauty.
Look for conference details in the spring issue of The Polyglot.
Have you changed your internet service provider or dreamed up a new screen name?
Please take a moment to notify the CCIA office of any change of mailing address, e-mail address or telephone number. Options for contacting the office appear on page 2 of this issue.
Local Reps Get
Mileage Increases
For those of you who get mileage reimbursed at the state rate, it has just been increased to $.34 per mile, after being set at $.31 per mile. Some interpreters, however, have contracted their mileage at the county rate in which they work. These counties tie their mileage rate to the IRS rate, which as of January 1st was raised from $.345 to $.365 per mile. CCIA representatives in Sacramento Valley counties and Santa Cruz County have already confirmed this increase with local court administration, and the interpreters are now billing at that rate.
AH Decertification Issue
Still under Scrutiny
An article appeared last year in The Polyglot on the issue of whether decertification as a certified court interpreter should automatically result in decertification as an administrative hearing interpreter as well, which has happened to some interpreters. A petition was presented to Cooperative Personnel Services (CPS) to reverse the AH decertification of an interpreter who had paid the fees, was able to perform some interpreting duties and had not indicated to CPS he was no longer available to work, as per applicable statutes.
I had not received any further word from CPS in all this time, and had assumed the matter had been swept under the rug, so to speak. I am pleased to report I have spoken with a representative of CPS, and she informs me they are still discussing this issue, which they find a cause of concern. No promises were made, but I feel this is an important issue that doesn't deserve to die on the vine. N
**************************************************************