Courts and Interpreters Gear Up for SB371 Implementation
by Mary Ann Hurst

Although it seems nothing has changed since SB 371 was signed into law, a lot is happening, and happening quickly. Soon after Governor Davis signed SB 371, the Judicial Council (JC) formed an administrative working group to hash out the details of implementing the new law. Originally, no member of the California Federation of Interpreters (CFI) or the Bay Area Court Interpreters (BACI) was invited to participate in the committee. Senator Martha Escutia’s office expressed to the JC the concern that the working group include members of the interpreter organizations that brought SB 371 to the Legislature and were most familiar with the bill’s provisions and intent. As a result, the working group was expanded to include representatives from CFI and BACI.

When CFI President Silvia Barden asked me if she could submit my name for possible appointment to the SB 371 Administrative working group, I said yes with mixed emotions. I did want to do as much as I could to make court interpreting the professional career it should be. However, I wasn’t sure what expertise I could lend to the administrative implementation of SB 371, especially since I am busy working full time in court. In any event, I was appointed to the working group, and was soon downloading materials for the December teleconference meeting. Among the documents sent to me was a list of members of the working group--well over twenty individuals, most of whom I’d never met. Many were also members of the Court Interpreters Advisory Panel (CIAP). There were a few other interpreters and interpreter coordinators. The rest of the committee was made up of administrators from around the state, including Greg Drapac and Paul Runyon from Los Angeles County, human resources staff from the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), financial and legal advisors from the AOC, and one bench officer.

I’d never participated in a conference call before, let alone one with over 20 participants. It was quite a challenge keeping the players straight. The topic for the day was interpreter recruitment– how to make the trial courts the employer
of choice for interpreters. I certainly liked the sound of “employer of choice.” I did add, along with my BACI counterpart Mary Lou Aranguren, that the existing interpreter work force was apprehensive about the coming changes, and that the JC and the AOC could allay interpreters’ fears and make it attractive for interpreters to continue working in the courts simply by maintaining existing conditions pending negotiations.

In January, the working group had a face-to-face meeting in Costa Mesa, California. We were brought up to date on the progress made on compiling data on interpreter usage statewide for the last five years, and potential data collection improvements for the future. We also discussed Rules of Court that were drafted in order to implement provisions of SB 371. Those Rules of Court dealt with the formation of the regional bargaining committees (which will negotiate a contract with the interpreters’ bargaining representative), cross assignment of interpreters between counties, and conflict of interest policies. One point that I found encouraging was that the AOC has prior experience dealing with legislative changes to the judicial system. The Trial Court Employment and the Court Unification Acts were implemented successfully in recent years, and both were more far-reaching than SB 371. AOC representatives felt they could draw on experience gleaned from implementing those laws and apply it to SB 371.

During the February teleconference we discussed the comments that had been made to the proposed Rules of Court, which would go next to the JC for review (they have since been approved). The Rule of Court that sparked the most discussion dealt with cross assignments between counties, and both administrators and interpreters wanted a policy that would allow effective use of a scarce resource. The cross assignment Rule of Court in its final form provides flexibility for interpreters and the courts to achieve optimum staffing.

Draft Job Description
Just prior to the February phone conference, the working group received a draft of the job description for the Pro Tempore position. The initial job description appears at least in part to be a cut and paste from other boilerplate job definitions. This draft, which we expect to be significantly modified, includes duties that interpreters do not perform, such as "providing general information at an information counter to the non-English speaking public" and “filing documents related to interpretation,” as well as physical requirements that are unrelated to interpreting, such as “[...] frequently walk, bend, stoop, lift and stretch.” Of course, none of these things is within the scope of a professional interpreters' current work and the physical requirements are inappropriate as they would eliminate disabled candidates.

On the positive side, the draft job description accurately describes the level of skill and knowledge required for the job. It clearly excludes written translations, and includes adherence to ethical codes, knowledge of statutes and rules, as well as responsibility to research and understand legal processes and terminology.

Mary Lou and I are strongly advocating on the committee against including duties that do not reflect interpreters' current work responsibilities. CFI/BACI sent a compilation of suggested revisions to the AOC in time for the March teleconference. The comments we heard from some of the other committee members echoed our thoughts. We are hopeful that the job description will be improved and revised before it goes to the regional committees. The committees will then adapt it and include it in the job application packets due out in early May.

My work in the Administrative working group has been challenging and it has been constant. What is clear to me, though, is that it is of utmost importance for interpreters to unite and choose a bargaining representative so that we can finally have more than appointments on advisory committees and we can have a real say in defining our jobs and our profession.