On October 12, 2001, CFI Board members Uri Yaval, Silvia Barden and Monica Giner met with Los Angeles Superior Court (LASC) Interpreter Services Manager Greg Drapac and Litigation Support Director, Paul Runyon. CCIA representatives in attendance were Dr. Alexander Rainof and Carlos Cerecedo. Also present were CFI/BACI legislative committee representatives MaryLou Aranguren and Stephanie Moore, as well as Fernando Becerra, Assistant Manager of Interpreter Services and Hector De La Torre, LASC Intergovernmental Liaison Manager. The meeting was called by Mr. Drapac to discuss the shortage of certified interpreters in LASC and the court's plans to address the shortage. The meeting also dealt with the LASC's official position on SB 371, the collective bargaining bill sponsored by CFI and BACI.

PLANS TO EXPAND "PROVISIONALLY QUALIFIED" INTERPRETER PROGRAM

Mr. Drapac presented statistics related to the use of interpreters to illustrate the shortage. Over half of the certified and registered court interpreters in California live in Los Angeles County, but many do not work for LASC or limit their availability for work. The court experiences daily shortages of certified interpreters and cases are delayed because no interpreters are available. According to Mr. Drapac, the shortage is exacerbated by the following factors:

• higher pay rates in the private sector and federal court
  
  
• standardized rates in state courts led to a loss of interpreters who left LASC to work in other counties
  
  
• many long-term contract interpreters are choosing to retire or work less
  
  
• low pass rates on certification exams
  
  
• growing demand for interpreter services

Mr. Drapac said that to address the shortage, the court must manage certified interpreters more efficiently. According to Mr. Drapac this will make interpreters available where the court is shorthanded, and will also allow the LASC to properly implement team interpreting. The new rotations being imposed by administration throughout the LASC were not mentioned, but appear to be part of the courts' effort to "maximize utilization of certified interpreters".

Additionally, the court is increasing its pool of "provisionally qualified" interpreters in Spanish (currently 15) and plans to use these interpreters more regularly for "off-the-record interview situations only". The court also intends to use a "qualified outside entity" to determine whether those interpreters meet the criteria for provisional qualification. No additional information was available about the process or the entity to be used but Mr. Drapac said a memo on the subject could be expected within a couple of weeks.

The court said that this program is necessary and temporary, and that the court prefers to use only certified interpreters for all court proceedings and out of court matters when enough are available. Nonetheless, a number of issues are of immediate concern:

• provisional qualification in other parts of the state has led to the routine use of non-certified interpreters
  
  
• the "good cause clause" was not intended to provide an excuse for the courts to replace certified interpreters with "provisionally qualified" interpreters simply because LASC has not made enough of an effort to make it attractive for LASC interpreters to increase their availability to the assignment office.
  
  
• "provisionally qualified" interpreters have only passed the written exam and have not demonstrated adequate skills in the critical area of oral interpretation
  
  
• the court intends to have "provisionally qualified" interpreters interpret on all off-the-record proceedings including attorney client interviews that are a component of due process as well as witness interviews and sign-off on waiver forms.
  
  
• no information was available about the duration of the program or procedures to evaluate the efficacy of the program
  
  
• the rotation system that has been implemented despite interpreter concerns, is causing great hardship to interpreters who for many years have built their lives around their workplaces and it is in fact, imposing more supervision and control over interpreters.

Administration will be meeting with judges, court staff, the Public Defender, District Attorney, City Attorney and others to explain their rationale for the "provisionally qualified" interpreter program.

Is the use of "provisionally qualified" interpreters a necessary and unavoidable step due to the shortage of certified interpreters? It may be, but it may also create the first cracks in the foundation laid by Los Angeles interpreters and the court in years past for the highest standards and compliance with certification requirements.

WHERE LASC STANDS ON SB 371

On the subject of SB 371, the court sees the use of employees as a solution to the shortage by "creating a career for court interpreters with the court." Mr. Runyon agreed that interpreters' interest in representation and negotiated benefits is reasonable. LASC meeting participants also agreed that the court would need to use employees on a full time, part time and per diem basis. This is an area where the interests of interpreters and the court are aligned. LASC is interested in local administration of interpreter services and local negotiations and does not support the provisions of SB371 that would allow for statewide or regional negotiations. LASC representatives also expressed concern that the court could lose some interpreters who do not wish to be hired as employees even on a per diem basis. At the same time, it was acknowledged that the LASC reporters were converted to employees across the board due to an IRS mandate.

The reason for the IRS requirement that all court reporters be classified as employees was that services provided under uniform conditions cannot be filled by a mix of employees and contractors. Court reporters who work as per diem employees in Los Angeles can only do so on a full day basis, and Mr. Runyon indicated initially that interpreters could not work half-days as per diem employees. However, after some discussion it was clarified that the full day requirement for court reporters is a function of the contract negotiated with the reporters, and that this would not necessarily be the case if the needs of the court and interpreters made the option of half-day assignments for per diem employees desirable.

MANY ISSUES STILL NEED TO BE ADDRESSED

This meeting offered interpreters a glimpse of some of the plans administration has for the future of interpreters in Los Angeles. We believe it was very useful to discuss the issues that were brought up by Mr. Drapac and Mr. Runyon and to have this exchange. We are very happy that they recognize the importance of dialoguing with interpreters. There are however, many more issues that administration must address in an open and honest way with interpreters in order to establish a true partnership between the courts and interpreters and in order for both to have their needs adequately met.

In light of the important issues that were discussed, we found it troubling that some very important issues were completely absent from the agendum, including the following:

• Absent was any plan to provide interpreters who currently contract with LASC with an incentive to make themselves available more frequently for assignments. A tremendous amount of labor and expense were invested in developing statistics on the shortage in order to justify increasing the size of the "provisionally qualified" program It seems simple by comparison to inquire of already certified interpreters about what incentives would encourage them to increase their availability to the courts.
  
  
• Administration has developed and is now about to implement this plan for "provisionally qualified" interpreters without first obtaining legitimate participation from Los Angeles interpreters. It has been presented as a fait accompli.
  
  
• The implementation of the new rotations was not brought up at all by the administration nor was the fact that judges across the county have been told that these rotations are necessary to avoid another IRS audit. The rationale that these rotations are helping LASC to comply with IRS rules regarding independent contractor status is puzzling given that these rotations in fact, impose more supervision and control over interpreters than ever.
  
  
• Administration brought up the issue of the aging interpreter population, they said about 30% of interpreters are over the age of sixty and are still working regularly in court, some who are in their seventies and eighties are still working regularly in court as well. Interpreters at the meeting expressed that this might be the direct result of having no retirement benefits.

LASC REQUESTS HELP FROM INTERPRETER ORGANIZATIONS TO RECRUIT NEW INTERPRETERS

Interpreters have been asked by administration to participate in the recruitment of new interpreters which is something that everyone agrees is necessary. But as leaders of professional interpreting organizations, we are faced with the dilemma of trying to recruit potential interpreters and telling them honestly what they can realistically expect if they work as interpreters for LASC.

• Prospective interpreters should know that serving the community as a court interpreter can be a tremendously rewarding experience and that certified interpreters are proud of the valuable services they provide the courts. However, they also have the right to know that we are not treated with the respect that most professionals with the level of education required to pass the state exam enjoy, and that we are independent contractors in name only.
  
  
• Interpreters who work for LASC are not permitted as "independent contractors" to set their own hours or rates. They are expected to travel from courthouse to courthouse, even if they were assigned to one court for the day or session. And if they are fortunate enough to get a "permanent assignment" at some point, the assignment office could still call at any given time to reassign them for the day, no matter that they may have children who go to school near their assigned court or if they have an ailing parent that they need to care for or, if they have arranged their life around their workplace, interpreters can simply be sent to another courthouse regardless of the hardship it may cause them.
  
  
• When a possible recruit asks us about benefits we will find ourselves in the position of having to tell them that if they ever experience any significant health problems, they won't have health or disability insurance to cover them in their time of need. If they have to care for a loved one who has a long-term illness they cannot count on having their position when they come back to work after losing that spouse or other loved one. Should they complain to administration about losing their position, they may be told "Oh, you'll love floating", even if they worked in the same courthouse for almost fifteen years. On the positive side, interpreters look out for each other in times of need and have been known to take up collections for colleagues who are suffering from long-term illnesses or injuries. This shows that we can count on our colleagues but it should not be all we can count on.
  
  
• These new recruits will need to know that interpreters who work for LASC will not get vacation time or retirement benefits and they will have to pay a self-employment tax that takes a significant percentage of their per diem salary.
  
  
• Potential interpreters who are too honest or outspoken about their rights should know that if they end up getting a clerk or a bailiff or other court personnel mad at them, they may get thrown out of their court, they will not have the benefit of a grievance procedure and it is entirely possible that administration will refuse to tell them why they were removed from their assignment because independent contractors don't have a right to that information.
  
  
• If as "independent contractors" they should try to exercise their right to refuse assignments they were not contracted to do (for example, they may be ordered to "report to the clerk's office to interpret at the counter", or told they must interpret for civil matters), they run the risk of being called into the administrator's office and threatened with being taken off the interpreter list or told to look for work elsewhere if they don't like it, regardless of their years of service or their excellent qualifications.
  
  
• All potential interpreters can now look forward to the Judicial Council's discipline procedures (which allow virtually anyone to accuse us of a wide array of wrongs), and an "evaluation" process for interpreters that is planned for this fiscal year.
  
  
• Potential interpreters must study and work hard to become certified and when they finally do become certified, they will be working alongside "provisionally qualified" people who are being paid $200 a day for on-the-job training.
  
  
• The biggest benefit for interpreters is that they can take time off, and new recruits will find that they will often need the time off in order to take supplemental higher paying jobs to help them make-up for all the benefits they are not getting through the courts, especially if they have to support a family.

The above statements are all based on actual experiences of interpreters in Los Angeles. They are not exaggerations; they are daily realities for many of our colleagues. At this meeting we heard a lot about statistics that show that interpreters are being driven from the profession. The reasons for this exodus were addressed only on the most superficial level. If the intention of administration is to attract the most qualified and talented people to LASC then they must provide for real interpreter participation before they plan and implement programs that provide for the large scale use of "provisionally qualified" interpreters and not just inform us after the fact.

HOW LASC CAN HELP ALLEVIATE THE CERTIFIED INTERPRETER SHORTAGE

• administration could work with presently certified interpreters to find incentives to make it attractive for them to increase their availability to the assignment office
  
  
• demonstrate good faith by not imposing rotations that cause hardship to interpreters and which show total disregard for their years of service to the courts
  
  
• implement working conditions that provide reasons for new recruits to consider court interpreting as a profession
  
  
• provide a professional and respectful work environment that provides for genuine career opportunities and recognizes the education and work that is needed to become a certified interpreter.

We are willing and open to discussing any and all issues with administration. This meeting is a step in the right direction but genuine participation from interpreters is required if this is to be a true partnership, which it does need to be, not only for the welfare of interpreters but for the integrity of our system of due process.

INTERPRETERS MUST BE VIGILANT

In the meantime we are asking for the support of all interpreters as we negotiate the precarious road we now find ourselves on. These programs will have a profound long-term impact on our working conditions and in order to vigilantly monitor the "provisionally qualified" interpreter program we are asking that all CFI members report to us if a "provisionally qualified" interpreter is being used for any on the record proceedings. Talk to the judges and attorneys you work with, tell them they have the option of refusing the services of "provisionally qualified" interpreters, chances are they won't know they have this option or how to tell the difference. They are entitled to know that they may have appeal issues on their cases if they don't use certified or registered interpreters. We will propose to administration an evaluation which takes into account whether due process is being violated in using provisionally qualified interpreters, we will also propose that we be allowed to evaluate the testing entities to ensure the test is indeed independent.

We want to remind all our colleagues that we want to see these "provisionally qualified" interpreters pass the exam, but at the same time we think they will understand that certified and registered interpreters have the right and the responsibility to guard the standards of the profession and that ultimately, upholding the highest standards will benefit them.

If you have any questions or comments please go to our web site and contact us.

Sincerely,
Your CFI Board