Vol. 31, No. 3	"Many Languages.....One Voice"	Summer, 2001

President's Message
by Carlos Cerecedo

There are so many issues to address: the model contract; SB371 and the possibility of all of us becoming employees; and the union's efforts to direct our profession are just a few that come to mind.

But I have chosen to talk to you about education and, in particular, CCIA's efforts and accomplishments in these areas. We have sponsored at the Santa Barbara -Ventura College of Law the first-ever class for attorneys and law students concerning interpreter's issues and ethnic and cultural matters within the courts. Twenty-six people have enrolled in this series of five Saturday- morning classes, which will provide 15 hours of continuing - education credits for attorneys.

The President of the Board of Regents of the College, Pedro Nava, attended the first class, which was held in early July, and the JC sent Joseph Wong as its representative. Other speakers will include Judge Lance Ito, Professor Alex Rainof and Lourdes Campbell. I will also be participating in the teaching.

This class was based on the results of your participation in a survey that was done at the 1999 Annual Conference in Long Beach. Since your responses were critical in designing the curriculum, in a very real sense you have been a part of this effort and should share in the pride we all feel at having reached this milestone. The Judicial Council is talking about using this class as a model for other law colleges and universities. The thought occurs to me that, by 2010, we could have it made into a required class for lawyers.

The program offering a BA in Translation and Interpretation at Cal Sate Long Beach is also flying high. With Professor Alex Rainof at the helm, we have had very successful classes for possible candidates.

Looking ahead to the fall, our 30th Annual Conference, to be held at San Diego's Westgate Hotel on October 6-7, promises to be another great educational experience. Dr. Enrique Alcaraz Varó, a true maestro of the art of translation, will be returning to California to share more of his ideas on dealing with the challenges of legal English. His latest book, El inglés jurídico norteamericano, will be available at the conference and should prove to be very popular among judiciary interpreters and translators alike.

Among the other speakers who left last year's conference attendees clamoring for more is Judge Donal Donnelly. Judge Donnelly has once again chosen an open - mike format to promote a dialogue about what he describes as "the delicate, and often difficult, interplay between interpreter rights and responsibilities granted in the Code and Rules and the practical realities of daily routine in a California courtroom." The conference will also include presentations by an attorney who specializes in DNA evidence, a professor who will speak on multicultural issues and the criminal justice system, and much, much more. The conference brochure, which will have complete details on all the speakers, will be in your mailbox about the middle of August.

As you can see, our association has more to offer than just labor issues and legal positions, and that is why we want you to consider CCIA as the best choice for membership. We are independent, we are traditional, we excel in educational matters and we treat everyone with the respect that a professional deserves, with freedom of choice concerning labor issues and with idealistic objectives that raise the profession of interpreting just a notch higher year after year.

We are not everything to everyone -- but we accept constructive criticism and we embrace those who want to work for their beliefs as long as they respect everyone else's views.

Carlos Cerecedo

SB 371: How I'm Spending My Summer Vacation
by Arturo Cásarez

Anyone who has been following the developments on SB 371 should know by now that it is temporarily stalled. This is primarily because the JC/AOC has put a proposal on the table which BACI-CFI/CWA-TNG has yet to either accept or reject. The proposal is for the establishment of interpreter employee positions at the local county court level. These positions would be as full time, part time, and possibly per diem employees. CCIA has always voiced support for the creation of employee positions, as long as certified/registered court interpreters are given the choice to either accept employee status, or to continue doing business with the courts as independent contractors.

According to their own literature on SB 371, BACI-CFI/TNG-CWA is seeking to eliminate the choice of remaining an independent contractor court interpreter, and instead would convert these individuals to per diem employees. To include the independent contractor in their statewide employee model is not an option because in their words..."Such a system would limit interpreters' bargaining power and is unacceptable to BACI-CFI and our union." Whose bargaining power are they truly concerned with: that of the interpreting community as a whole, or strictly theirs and their union? When did the majority of certified/registered court interpreters in California relinquish their representation rights to BACI-CFI/TNG-CWA?

When referring to per diem employees they state..."We are pressing for per diem employment to provide flexibility and greater freedom to those interpreters not interested in traditional employment." Yet, they continue to ignore the fact that many of us achieve the greatest flexibility and freedom by remaining independent contractors- a freedom that we would lose if we were to be classified as "per diem employees." The only flexibility a per diem employee would have is in deciding which days of work to accept. Per diem employees, according to their model, would accept either a half day (4 hours) or a full day (8 hours), and would be "subject to the same supervision and control by the employer" as other full time/part time employees of the court. Let us not forget that employees are subject to "duties as assigned." In our profession, this could mean that when interpreters finish a courtroom assignment, they may be required to do translations, tapes, interpret at the clerk's service counter, or anything else the courts decide is reasonably related to interpreting.

An employer's right to supervision and control may be the main reason many court interpreters wish to remain independent contractors. Independent contractors, by definition, are not subject to the same control that is exerted upon an employee. The fact that some independent contractor court interpreters have allowed themselves to become micro-managed and controlled by some of the state courts is undeniable. The time is ripe for interpreters working in these overly controlling county courts to exercise their bargaining power and negotiate just and fair independent contractor agreements, which include reasonable assignment parameters and definitions. As highly-skilled professionals, in great demand throughout the public and private sectors, we must not question our bargaining power.

Further, let's not lose sight of the fact that these tightly-controlled situations do not exist in every county throughout California. There are several areas that serve as excellent examples of what can be accomplished when interpreters work together with their local court administration and negotiate in good faith. Some administrations will not be receptive to change, but it can be achieved when approached professionally and with determination. There are existing models of good agreements which have been signed by independent contractors in various areas of the state.

By the same token, interpreters who wish to become employees of the court must also have the right to organize and demand that full time and part time positions be created throughout state trial courts. No one working in the state courts can deny that many court interpreters work full time schedules without any of the benefits afforded to regular full time employees, and if this type of security is what these individuals seek, CCIA believes they should have it. On the other hand, should these interpreters have the right to decide that what they want for themselves is best for ALL court interpreters? The answer is so obvious, and yet some of our colleagues refuse to concede that every single one of us has an inalienable right to decide their own professional future. When was BACI-CFI/TNG-CWA duly elected to represent the interests of all certified/registered court interpreters in California? When did my colleagues and I give them carte blanche to represent us in front of third parties, the JC/AOC in this case? The clear answer is: We never did. Yet, they continue to tell certified/registered court interpreters they will not be deterred from converting independent contractors to per diem employees. They claim to know what is best for all of us.

Why does BACI-CFI/TNG-CWA no longer want the independent contractor interpreter to be a part of the California court system? Could it be that the very existence of the independent contractor status would dilute the power and control they seek statewide? Interpreters must not forget: CCIA is not about power and control, but continues to be a "non-profit organization dedicated to advancing the standards of court interpreting and of furthering the interests of the profession." We have been dragged into a political tug-of-war that we neither asked for, nor wish to participate in. However, this does not mean we are not equipped to meet the challenge. We shall remain committed to upholding the right of all interpreters to choose their own professional path. In doing so, CCIA will continue to be directly involved in the ongoing talks on SB 371. We know that, otherwise, the voices of ALL interpreters will not be heard. Our association has received a great deal of correspondence from interpreters throughout the state, including some members of BACI-CFI/TNG-CWA, telling us they wish to remain independent contractors. They have written to thank us and to say they are glad CCIA is an integral part of these ongoing negotiations, and to urge us to continue struggling to preserve their way of doing business.

If you wish to remain an independent contractor, and believe, as CCIA does, that it is every interpreter's right to choose their own working status, you should immediately contact the officials listed below. Let your "Voice for Choice" be heard!

Sen. Martha Escutia State Capitol, Rm. 5080 Sacramento, CA 95814 (e-mail) 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 And please cc. CCIA, and Justice James Ardaiz Judicial Council of California 770 L Street, Suite 700 Sacramento, CA 95814 (e-mail) Justice.James.Ardaiz@jud.ca.gov

Yes, it is a hot summer in Sacramento-in more ways than one. Senate Bill 371 continues to stagger in the Senate. Although the bill's sponsors (BACI/CFI) announced that SB371 has passed the Senate, all that went through is a skeletal version that changes nothing, and that is "held at desk" at the assembly. The bill is actually still in the Senate and continues to be negotiated in a special committee of four basic parties, although anything could still happen. Political winds shift in unexpected ways, and the stakes for all those who care about the freedoms of independent professionals couldn't be higher. This is what we stand to lose:

1) The freedom to be able to leave work as soon as we have completed our professional duties. Employees do not have this freedom. Ron Overholt, the AOC's second in command, made this point clear to BACI/CFI in Sacramento on April 9 of this year when he explained what would happen to California interpreters under SB371. After the meeting, one of the BACI/CFI leaders on SB371 matters is reported to have shouted a question to Arturo Cásarez of CCIA, asking whether he intended to tell other interpreters about the outcome of the meeting (he did). Aren't all interpreters entitled to know what we are getting into?

2) The freedom to be able to work as a real professional, deciding how each task is performed, without a supervisor. Employees do not have this freedom, as defined by the IRS regulations and federal case law, and we interpreters could end up with supervisors who know much less than we do telling us how to do our jobs.

3) The freedom to schedule our vacations, travel time and time off for any period we want. No employee will ever get away with that.

4) The freedom to move quickly to another part of the state, and start working right away without having to go through a long application procedure for job positions that may not exist.

5) The freedom to shift work easily between counties. This means that we can instantly increase or decrease the time we give any county-and is a real bargaining chip for interpreters, which helps to develop relationships of mutual respect with the courts.

6) The freedom to tailor your work schedule to dovetail with school, childcare, or other businesses or projects.

7) The freedom to go into semi-retirement, working four, three, two, one days a week or whatever amount of time we choose.

Most interpreters would not give up those rights and freedoms willingly-we would have to be trapped or fooled into losing them. Legislation and contracts could end our freedoms-so we must know what is happening in Sacramento.

The main reason a few hundred interpreters have signed forms telling state officials that they want to be employees is because we have been told that we can be well-paid employees, get benefits and bargaining rights, and still have all those freedoms.

I'm sure all of you have heard the maxim "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is." No prudent person should ever forget that, and whenever somebody promises us amazing stuff, you really have to check it out. Some of my BACI colleagues may remember (and the others will be surprised to hear) that I voted to create a union affiliation in the summer 1999 BACI picnic in El Sobrante where that proposal was passed unanimously by the 35 or so interpreters present. I immediately (while still at the picnic) started to ask questions, but could not get good answers. And as time went on, it became clear that there were people bent on acquiring personal power and privilege who were maneuvering behind the scenes in various ways. I was one of the founders of BACI, but it eventually became clear that I could not trust this organization. Even those who were not manipulating the situation and going on power trips lacked the wisdom and courage to do anything about what was going wrong.
And wrong it went, culminating with the secret negotiations to get the SB371 version that was introduced on March 26. Even BACI's board of directors did not know what was in the bill when it was introduced. (This should completely dispel the notion that BACI is a democratic organization. The CCIA only found out because the indefatigable Denise Look Choate began calling around to see what was going on in Sacramento- for which she is hereby nominated for a medal.)

So why would BACI/CFI not want interpreters to know what they were doing, if they had the strong support among interpreters they claimed? The answer, of course, lies in the bill and its implications. SB371 (March 26 version) provided that "On or before April 1, 2002, all certified and registered court interpreters...shall automatically become employees of the Judicial Council." Further, the JC was to create by 4/1/02 rules that would allow the creation of "a single, statewide bargaining unit" under closed shop provisions. In other words, once those provisions (called "closed agency" in the bill) went into effect, you would either have joined the union and paid your dues or you would not have worked as a court interpreter in California.

Those who may think this is a sacrifice that one might make for job security should think again. The March 26 bill also provided that the JC could lay off interpreters for "organizational necessity…including, but not limited to, a reorganization or reduction in force." When you consider that the AOC was planning to create four regional coordination centers in California, this language almost certainly means that many interpreters would have either been out of work or working much less. Even now, the current talks in Sacramento include the AOC concept of regional coordination by the counties themselves.

For AOC administrators, the March version of SB371 would have meant an expansion of their turf and the numbers of their employees, with possible promotions and the creation of a new program that might bring national prestige. For the alphabet soup union (BACI/CFI/TNG/ CWA), it would have meant a bonanza of member dues. The minimum collected from CWA union members is 1.15% (Spring 2001 Proteus, page 6), which once you do the numbers, means about $700 a year per full-time interpreter. Compensate for those who do not work full time now and those who would be forced to work less, and you end up with about half a million dollars a year-minimum.

Fortunately for those of us who value the freedoms of independent professionals, once the CCIA came into the picture on April 9, SB371 was radically reduced to a skeletal condition (90% gone) by Senator Escutia. Even so, BACI/CFI tried to make its crushing defeat look like a victory. Behind their celebratory headlines, buried on the back of their expensive glossy mailer we find an intriguing sentence: "In order to facilitate our discussions, we have pulled back to temporary, intent language."

The sentence I just quoted is an excellent example of what is meant by the term spin doctoring. It is probably the single most amazing piece of spin-doctoring that California interpreters have ever been subjected to.

How is it that losing most of your bill "facilitates" discussions? BACI/CFI is now stuck in such a quagmire in Sacramento that it may end up with nothing of what it wanted. Even the most crucial "intent language" was removed: "It is the purpose of this act to convert from the present system in which the vast majority of interpreters are treated as independent contractors to a system in which all certified and registered court interpreters…are employees of the Judicial Council." The intent to which BACI/CFI supposedly "pulled back" is actually gone. And contrary to what the spin-doctoring implies, it was not their decision.

At this point, there are four major players in the SB371 drama: 1) Senator Escutia and her staff, 2) BACI/CFI, 3) the AOC, and 4) the CCIA. There is a potential fifth player: you the professional interpreter-if you get informed and take immediate action. Keep in mind that we now have an opportunity to put just about anything in SB371 that would support the goal of improving the interpreting profession. Some possibilities:

1) New Government Code sections could be enacted creating grievance procedures patterned after the highly successful protections Los Angeles had in the 80's. Neutral arbitrators could rule on the injustices (including blacklisting) that interpreters are still subjected to, with one level of appeal. 2) We could have protection from amateurish telephone interpretation for the courts, and 3) have a per diem automatic increase formula built into the code, just like judges have (GC 68203), which would also insulate our profession from political winds.

All of that and more is possible, because as the Chinese saying goes, with every danger there is an opportunity-if we recognize it. And it is not a matter of being pro or anti-union. I happen to be pro-union. I believe that the Communication Workers of America (BACI/CFI's parent organization) has a vital role protecting workers from ever-expanding giant telecommunication corporations that keep looking for greater profits as they battle giant competitors. But the judiciary has entirely different purposes, and a profession is not a technical trade.

Hiram Torres, M.A., a state and federally-certified interpreter working in the Bay Area, can be reached at hiram14@prodigy.net

Perhaps one of the most unfortunate consequences of our work as interpreters is illness resulting from exposure to the dozens and dozens of people in all states of health -- all too frequently, bad health -- whom we encounter in the courts. Haven't most of us come down with particularly nasty colds just hours after passing someone violently sneezing in a hallway, or after assisting a coughing, sniffling in-custody, or some other similarly perilous scenario? Without becoming utterly paranoid, we cannot exercise too much caution in attempting to prevent transmittal of disease, especially if we are to be the transmittee!

Taking the obvious measures is always called for: keeping physical contact to a minimum, using amplifiers with headsets, immediately turning or stepping away from germ projectiles, and keeping one's hands and possessions clean. The same goes, of course, for observing proper courtesy when we ourselves are sick and not exposing others to our illness.

From time to time, however, we meet unusual challenges to our well-being. Here is a specific suggestion to protect you from a particularly noxious hazard: the mysterious "masked" defendant. I am referring to the occasional individual --usually in custody, who enters the court wearing a mask -- a mere dust mask, mind you, not anything that would present any serious obstacle to gnarly viruses and other minuscule but lethal assailants of the human organism. One is usually the last to be made aware that "something wicked this way comes." When the Court announces: "This individual will be called at the very end of the calendar," heads up! That's your cue to ask why, be it of the bailiff, guard, counsel, or if necessary, the judge. For example:

Q: Excuse me, could your honor tell the interpreter if there is any special condition causing the defendant to be passed to the end of the calendar"

A: Mm, yes, he seems to have tested positive for TB.

Presuming (quite a presumption) that neither the court nor the jail would expose personnel to highly transmittable diseases, this is nevertheless no time to be whispering sweet nothings in a defendant's ear. So, put up your own defenses; that is, keep your distance. How? Ask the Court to go into consecutive mode and position yourself at a reasonable distance from the defendant. (You'll probably notice that counsel has already stepped away. Hmm.) It will take the court and counsel a bit of time to get in step with doing normal calendar procedures in consecutive, but with gentle but firm reminders throughout the proceedings, you will all get through it. Most important, you will have actively protected yourself from exposure to the slimes and wheezes of contagious fortune.

Legislative Updates
by Denise Choate

The legislation of primary interest right now is Senate Bill 371, the union's employment initiative. Arturo Cásarez, Sacramento Valley Chapter, has covered that subject in a separate article. There are, however, some other bills pending in the state capital that involve and impact on the interpreting profession.

Senate Bill 927

Our last issue contained an article about this bill, which would mandate that certified/registered interpreters perform additional services in domestic violence mediations and family law facilitator meetings, provided they are not needed at that time in court. There would also be continuing education requirements of three hours the first year of certification, and three hours each two years thereafter. These hours would be part of our existing continuing education requirement, not still more hours on top of the 30 already required.

At the end of our article, we stated it would be interesting to see what the outcome of the bill would be, since it was in appropriations, and the state's budget, we all know, is not in the best of shape, to say the least. As it turns out, the bill has been placed in the appropriations suspense file. We will keep you posted of any change in that status.

Senate Bill 987

The last two issues of The Polyglot contained a very important two-part series 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.

This legislative term, Senator Escutia is sponsoring 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 State Personnel Board would be in charge of ensuring compliance with the Act. Any individual may file a complaint with a state agency they feel is not providing these bilingual services, and if the agency does not respond satisfactorily, the complaining party may file an appeal with the State Personnel Board.

Thus far, the bill has passed the Senate vote and been sent on to the Assembly, where it is currently under committee consideration. Upcoming issues of The Polyglot will contain further developments.

Contracts Updates

Our last issue contained a brief article about the efforts of CCIA local reps to get favorable amendments to local contracts. We have the following to add:

Los Angeles: The latest word is that the existing contract will continue to be used, but no one has heard that they will be asked to re-sign it this year. Therefore, as of press time, no amendments to the contract have been proposed by either the county or the interpreters. The county, however, has made provisions for mileage reimbursement for those traveling from out of county, over 30 miles within county to certain locations, or from location to location during the same assignment period. In our last issue, we stated that there would be some amendments to the contract. Apparently we received incorrect information, and we apologize for its inclusion in The Polyglot.

San Diego: The interpreters of San Diego formed a coalition of CCIA, CFI and independent members for the purpose of negotiating the contract handed them by administration, which was essentially the Model Contract in near entirety. The coalition retained a labor and contracts attorney to advise and assist them.

The group then set The group then set up its own Web site, www.geocities.com/paschmcc/PCISD.html on which you can check the step-by-step progression of the proposals and counter-proposals presented in the negotiations. In creating this Web site, the San Diego interpreters have performed a valuable service to the interpreting community, whereby we can all see how contracts are negotiated.

As of press time, the website indicated the interpreters were preparing to sign a version of the contract containing the following amendments, among others: 1) No liability insurance will be required; 2) No medical or Workers Compensation insurance will be required, but are recommended. Other proposed amendments apparently were not accepted, but the interpreters and the court have agreed to continue discussions towards improving the working conditions of the interpreters in the courts.

Monterey: The contract used by this county must have been one of the principal models used by the AOC in preparing the Model Contract, which follows the same format. Monterey, however, kept most of what it already had, and did not include some of the more noxious elements of the state's Model.

This county only issues written contracts to the interpreters with permanent assignments, which at this time number three. The rest work on a pro tem basis. The contract was sent to the three interpreters in mid-May, and a very short time period was given to propose amendments. The local CCIA rep obtained a 12-day extension for the interpreters to submit proposals for amendment, and offered to help the three interpreters submit their concerns/comments in writing by the deadline. None of the interpreters accepted the offer of help.

After the deadline, the rep found out one of the contract holders had been advised by someone else to not sign the contract, and did not. By then the deadline for proposing amendments had passed. It was later determined that all three ended up signing the contract, as is, with no amendments, liability insurance and all.

Santa Cruz: The county has abandoned its previous bare bones interpreter contract in favor of one virtually identical to Monterey's (and thus closer to the Model), with some improvements consistent with what the interpreters already had, such as the addition of 'excess pay' and mileage. Before the written contract was issued, the local rep spoke several times with the court executive officer requesting she remove the liability insurance requirement and increase the mileage from 31 cents to 34.5 cents per mile. After several discussions, she finally agreed to both amendments.

Since then the written contract has been issued to the interpreters, an extension has been granted to propose amendments, and negotiations are pending.

"Per Diem Employee" Status--
What Is it? What Could it Involve?

Much has been made lately about so-called "per diem" employee status, and examples of the use of persons with this status in various counties have been cited. Some investigating yielded the following results:

Fresno: This is the only county using any interpreters with this status, which they call "extra help." (Actually, this is the more appropriate designation, since it is the one used by payroll personnel and tax authorities. A "per diem" is compensation paid to someone working on a contract basis, like most interpreters. Essentially, "extra help" is the classification used for temp workers.)

It was determined that in this county, there are THREE full-time employees, who earn a very good salary and have full benefits
(and work full-time hours), five who are "extra help," and then twelve who are contractors.

The "extra help" employees are paid a daily amount equivalent to our per diem. They are then covered by Workers Comp insurance, and the county deducts income taxes and FICA (Social Security taxes) out of their paychecks. Of course, there are no employment protections, since they are not permanent employees, and no medical, dental or retirement benefits.

Although these interpreters typically leave when done, they occasionally are asked to perform additional duties after court, such as doing translations and helping out a the clerk's window, since court generally finishes well before 5:00.

Los Angeles: Some court reporters in this county are classified as "daily as needed" employees. This classification is particular to Los Angeles (The vast majority, however, are permanent full-time.) "Daily as needed" can be either full- or part-time.

The full-time reporters in this group are essentially probationary employees who convert to permanent full-time status after 18 months.They receive partial medical benefits and start accruing some sick and vacation time after working three months. After conversion to permanent status, they receive full benefits.

The part-time "Daily as Neededs" are really permanent part-time. They work a pre-arranged schedule, which they are expected to stick to.They do no qualify for any medical, dental or retirement benefits. They accrue some sick pay and vacation pay, depending on time worked, which is calculated based on the formula used for full-time "Daily as Needed" reporters: a percentage of a 40-hour week worked times maximum accrual of 2 weeks per year vacation time and 8 days per year sick time.

All persons in the above classifications are employees. On the days worked, they are treated as such. They must be at the court's disposal that whole day (8-5), available to work, on premises or within a distance of quick access.

This is the dilemma many interpreters may find themselves in if they become "per diem" employees. It will make doing taxes easier, but they will still be employees, and the employer will legally be able to control their time of hire and the "manner and means of accomplishing work."

Yes, if you have been hired for a certain day as extra help, and court finishes early, the court can legally ask you to perform other duties since you have been hired for that eight-hour day, and an employer has the right to control your time. And because of not being a permanent full- or part-time employee, it is doubtful an extra help employee will have the protection of a specific job description.

Remember: As a "per diem employee," you may work the days you choose, but you are subject to their control while hired, and have no guarantee of work and will not get all the benefits permanent employees get. Also, an employer cannot use and extra help employee for more than 999 hours per year. So this would not work for those who always interpret in the same county.

In conclusion, past a certain point, if one works a full day or nearly a full day in court, or has a reasonable expectation of getting a good salary, plus benefits, wouldn't it make sense to just go for permanent full-time? But absent those factors, why give up the flexibility, greater control and good compensation of contractor status? Each interpreter who likes being independent and doesn't want someone else deciding what is supposedly best for him or her should carefully weigh these factors.

BREAKING NEWS!

Independent Professionals Can Negotiate

On July 7, the California Assembly passed a bill, by a whopping margin of 59-8, giving doctors the right to negotiate with HMOs for rates and other issues. The bill in now at the Senate Judiciary Committee. A similar bill was passed in Texas in 1999. For text and details, you can go to www.assenbly.ca.gov, click legislation, then enter AB 1600 at the appropriate box. And to follow SB371, you can go to sen.ca.gov, click Senators, click Escutia, click legislation, and select SB371 from the list.

Poly Got Mail!

Dear CCIA Board of Directors:

Thank you to Carlos Cerecedo for sending me a copy of the report submitted by Arturo Casarez concerning SB 371.

I've known all along that CCIA's position on employee status does not coincide with BACI's and CFI's and am glad that there is an entire organization informing the powers that be that there are many individuals who do not agree with BACI and CFI.

I was also glad to learn that even though the study and the creation of employee positions will be done by the JC/AOC, the filling of the actual positions would be done by the local courts. It is the local courts, after all, who know how many of us they need where and when.

The reason I wrote in the first place is that I wanted to let you know that I do not want to be anybody's employee and am rooting for CCIA to succeed in keeping the independent contractor status for those of us who want it.

Andrea Galvacs

Dear CCIA Board of Directors:

Thank you for the June 11th letter. We would like to advise the association (once again) of our personal preference; that is, to remain as independent contractors, as we have been for the past 20-plus years. We believe that regional interpreter groups are basically trying to "rope" the rest of us into their squabbles with local administrators. We have been able to maintain relatively good relationships in all the counties where we have worked. Where we encountered difficulties with working conditions, salaries, etc., we opted not to return.

That has been our experience in the Central Valley area, for over 20 years.

We appreciate CCIA's efforts to keep pushing for "the interpreters' right to choose the best fit for them..."

Thanks again,

Anna E. Watrous,
Madera, CA

Appellate Court Further Defines Right to an Interpreter
by Denise Choate

On June 20, 2001, the Daily Appellate Report published the decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal of California in the case of People v.Almaraz, a case from Tulare County. The court was asked to determine if failure to follow the procedures set forth in Rule of Court 984.2,regarding use of noncertified interpreters in court, in and of itself, violates the constitutional rights of a defendant to an interpreter under California Constitution, article I, section 14.

What Led to the Appeal?

The defendant was accused of driving under the influence of alcohol, and three priors were alleged during the preceding seven years, thus elevating the charges to felonies. He filed a motion to strike the priors, claiming they were constitutionally invalid, which he had to do, and prove by preponderance of the evidence, under section 41403 of the Vehicle Code.

In his motion to strike, Almaraz claimed the priors were constitutionally invalid because "the record in those cases did not reflect a voluntary and intelligent waiver of his 'constitutional right' to interpretation by a certified court interpreter," and that "he was not made to understand that the conviction would reflect separate convictions, which would enhance any future incidents." At the hearing, the defendant did not dispute the competency of the interpreter, but claimed it was a due process issue, since the trial court did not enter the requisite findings before using the noncertified interpreter. The court granted his motion to strike, and the People filed the writ that led to the appeal.

Additional Legal Background

The court pointed out that the California Constitution provides the right to "an interpreter," with no further specification. Then, following a report by the Judicial Council in 1992, greater attention was given to the profession, resulting in the adoption of sections 68561 and 68562 of the Government Code, requiring that interpreters must be certified, unless a good cause is shown for using a noncertified interpreter. The Judicial Council was further charged with adopting procedures for implementing these and other relevant sections of the Government Code. The Judicial Council thus enacted rule 984.2, regarding use of
noncertified interpreters, effective January 1, 1996.

What the appellate court then states is significant:

"When we see that more than 20 years lapsed between adoption of the constitutional right to an interpreter, generally, and the adoption of the detailed procedures in the Rules of Court for the use of noncertified (but nevertheless competent) interpreters, we consider it unlikely that the right encompassed in article I, section 14, includes the right to appointment of a noncertified interpreter only if that appointment is accomplished pursuant to the procedures established in rule 984.2."

The court then cited a number of legal cases that discussed irregularities in the use of interpreters, but all of those cases were decided before rule 984.2, and none of them dealt with the specific issue raised in this case. It is significant, though, that some of those cases held that a defendant has a right to a competent interpreter, not necessarily a certified one.

What the Court Decided

The court held that, although it did not intend to minimize the importance of rule 984.2, its procedural requirements "are not an integral part" of the right outlined in the Constitution, and that, "The failure to follow those requirements alone does not give rise to a constitutional violation." Also, Almaraz did not claim the interpreter he used was not competent, but rather, was competent. Thus, he could not show his constitutional right to an interpreter was infringed. The court said a defendant's rights could be abridged if no interpreter is provided, but that failure to follow rule 984.2 alone did not deprive the defendant of his ability to understand the proceedings and violate "fundamental fairness." The justices concluded:

"Improper procedures in the use of an interpreter do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation unless they result in prejudice demonstrating defendant was denied his right to a fair trial."

They then granted the prosecutions writ of mandate, and ordered the trial court to vacate its order striking the priors.

What Does This Mean?

The decision of the justices, and the law they cited in their opinion, speak for themselves. Every interpreter will probably be disappointed to learn of this decision, but it is not surprising. Were they intentionally placing limits on the importance of our credentials in assuring due process? Probably not. But it is doubtful that in the near future we can expect any interpretation of the law making it a constitutional mandate that only a certified/registered interpreter be used.

Department of Hispanic Studies

Assistant Professor of Spanish
Tenure-track position to begin in Fall 2001.

Ph.D. in Spanish with substantial experience in interpreting, or M.A. in Translation and Interpretation with experience in court interpreting.

Native or near-native fluency in Spanish and English, and evidence of effective teaching.
Responsibilities include teaching in the graduate program in Bilingual Legal Interpreting, and some administrative duties in the program. Successful candidate will also be required to teach undergraduate language courses in the Department of Hispanic Studies.

Interested candidates should send a letter of application, curriculum vita, transcripts and three letters of recommendation to Dr. Andrew Sobiesuo, Chair.

All materials must be postmarked no later than November 30, 2001.

MLA interviews.

Position pending final budgetary approval. Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer.

To learn more about the College of Charleston, and the Bilingual Legal Interpreting program visit our web-sites at http://www.cofc.edu and http://www.cofc.edu/~legalint.
Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer.

CSU Chancellor Gives Final Approval to New BA Program

The Chancellor of the twenty-three California State Universities notified California State University, Long Beach on August 3, 2001 that the B.A. Degree in Translation and Interpretation English/Spanish, Spanish/English had just been approved. The B.A. in Translation and Interpretation, the first program of its kind in the United States, starts at the end of August within this academic year 2001-2002. Congratulations to Carlos Cerecedo, President of CCIA, Professor Alexander Rainof from CSULB, Mr. Richard Weatherby from the Judicial Council Court Interpreters Advisory Panel and Mr. Joseph Wong from the Judicial Council Interpreters Program, for their teamwork in the formation and development of the B.A. Also a heartfelt thanks to Dean Dorothy Abrahamse and Associate Dean Frank Fata of the College of Liberal Arts, and Professor Claire Martin, Chair of the Romance, German, Russian Languages and Literatures Department, CSULB for their unflagging encouragement, support and help.

A gala reception was held at CSULB on Wednesday, August 22 for the inaugural class of twenty-five students and their parents along with the LBUSD,CSULB faculty and staff, the CCIA Board of Directors, some members and staff of the JCIAP, and specially-invited guests.

Robert Maxon, who has given this program his total support and encouragement, attended this event which was co-hosted by CCIA. Evelyn Daliwan, the CSULB staff member who arranged the reception, also deserves our sincere thanks.

Santa Barbara and Ventura Colleges of Law
Debut of Class for Law Students on How to Work with Interpreters
by Richard Weatherby

This summer the Santa Barbara Ventura College of Law instituted an elective class in which their students are taught not only how to work with interpreters but also receive instruction on the laws of the state of California that apply when an interpreter is needed. In depth information is furnished as to how to determine if an interpreter is needed, what languages are certified and which are registered, good cause, -and what California court certification entails.

This course is the first one of its kind in the United States to be included in a law school curriculum. It was developed by the school at the suggestion of CCIA President, Carlos Cerecedo, who formed a curriculum development committee in 1999. His committee included Lourdes Campbell, CCIA Vice President, Dr. Alexander Rainof, Professor of Interpretation and Translation at CSULB and Mr. Richard Goldman, Dean of the Santa Barbara College of Law. All these committee members have been involved in teaching the first class of twenty-six students, which met over five Saturdays this summer. Also lecturing was the Hon. Lance Ito of the Los Angeles Superior Court who, for the past decade has been actively involved with interpreter matters, both in his capacity as Chair of the Judicial Council Interpreters Advisory Committee and in his work with interpreter matters in Los Angeles.

It was a wonderful experience to visit this class on a recent Saturday on which Mr. Goldman and Judge Ito lectured. Mr. Goldman spoke on the right of each defendant to have his or her own interpreter during hearings, motions and trials and pointed out that sharing interpreters interrupts communication between lawyers and their clients. Judge Ito brought a generous handout, which included a page he prepared for use in Los Angeles as part of all judges' bench books. This page lists the certified and registered languages and states what the law requires of judges in order to establish on the record each interpreter's certification or legal authority to interpret in a given proceeding. He also spoke on the necessity of timeliness in cases where an interpreter's ability or interpretation on the record is impugned. Included in his handout were maps containing all the counties of California with the number of certified interpreters available in each: copies of good-cause regulations and the forms for establishing it on record: a list of the Vienna Convention signatory countries and the pertinent contacts when a foreign national insists on the right, per this convention, to have his or her government's representative notified of the defendant's detention under criminal charges.

In the class of 26 there were approximately nine or ten bilingual students, most of whom interpret Spanish, although there were also interpreters of Cantonese, Hungarian and Tagalog. The whole class was highly motivated and participated with great enthusiasm and thoughtful questions, answers and comments.

The inauguration of this class is indeed a first. The Santa Barbara and Ventura Colleges of Law, CCIA, and the interpreters and lawyers of California should consider this a turning point in our profession.

BACK TO POLYGLOT NEWSLETTER MAIN PAGE