Sunday, June 19, 2011

RID Business Meeting Motions

In preparation for the National Conference next month, RID is trying something new.  The National Office has posted the proposed motions for the business meeting on their Facebook page's discussion board.  Below, I have posted my response to the motions.  As you can see, I feel very strongly about Motion E (unfortunately I was unable to attend the Region II conference when they proposed this motion, so I have know about it for the past year).
Motion E.

That a new position on the RID Board of Directors be created as the CODA Member-At-Large.
From: Region II

Rationale: Children of Deaf Adults (CODAs) have exhibited unique skill, cultural understanding, and advocacy for citizens who use American Sign Language. Notwithstanding the countless interpreters who learned the skill through education and exposure later in life, CODAs have been in Deaf culture from birth. Therefore, in honor of the late Lillian Beard, Lou Fant, and so many others who have dedicated their personal and professional lives to this profession and to RID, we move that this new board position be created. Such a voice on the board would insure that tradition and dual cultural perspectives remain in the decision making processes of the board of directors.

Cost per member/fiscal impact: Significant. Increased costs for interpreting for conference calls and costs for travel, per diem and hotel.

Board comments: TBD
National office comments: TBD
Committee position: TBD
Member comments: TBD
Sense of the membership: TBD
My response:
While I do appreciate the experience and perspective of CODAs, I do not support this motion. Unfortunately, the interpreting community continually finds ways to divide itself, rather than present a united front. The "us versus them" mentality is very discouraging, particularly for newer interpreters. As addressed in previous posts, any one of the unique viewpoints can be represented in current board positions. All perspectives are valuable for our profession. Currently, many of these groups and perspectives are being represented by Special Interests Groups. Rather than establishing a new board seat, perhaps RID should be looking for ways to be more inclusive of all special interest groups, rather than singling out a specific group for inclusion on the Board.

Respectfully,

Amanda Kennon, NIC
Motion H.

That the RID national office maintains continuing education transcripts for all certified interpreters for a period not less than 35 years.
From: Jennifer Moyer and Charlene Lavine

Rationale: Currently, the RID national office maintains continuing education transcripts for five years, after which time, records are purged from the system. This period is inadequate, especially for interpreters who must produce documentation for previous training; likewise, maintaining personal paper files is cumbersome and not failsafe. By keeping transcripts on file electronically, RID can provide a centralized means for interpreters to access these records and provide documentation as needed for a period of time of not less than 35 years which is approximately the length of one’s employment career.

Board comments: TBD
National office comments: TBD
Committee position: TBD
Member comments: TBD
Sense of the membership: TBD
 My Response:
I agree with Cat [previous post]. Personally, I was unaware that transcripts were only maintained for 5 years. While I do believe transcripts should be accessible longer (and the current limit should be better publicized), 35 years puts a lot of responsibility when RID members should have personalized accountability as well. I think maintaining records for 2-3 cycles should be sufficient. Granted, I am a fairly new certified interpreter, but how many employers request your entire professional development history (if you're hitting that 35 year mark)?

To offset cost, one option could be for RID to maintain records and charge a minimal fee when an "official" copy is required- similar to requesting your official transcript from a college. This way, individuals using the service would be charged instead of increasing everyone's membership dues.
Motion L.

That RID work, in collaboration with appropriate stakeholders, on the development of a standard practice paper for Trilingual (Spanish-English-ASL) Interpreting.
From: David Quinto-Pozos and Yolanda Chavira

Rationale: Trilingual (Spanish-English-ASL) interpreting occurs regularly throughout the United States. Such services are supported by various VRS providers, and multiple communities throughout the country utilize trilingual interpreters regularly across multiple domains (e.g., community, educational, social service, and legal settings). As one example, trilingual interpreters appear often in Individual Education Plan (IEP) Conference meetings throughout the K-12 educational system (e.g., to interpret amongst the deaf/hard of hearing signing children, the Spanish-speaking parents, and the English-speaking school personnel). Additionally, the Gallaudet Research Institute (GRI) reported that, in 2008, nearly 22% of deaf and hard of hearing children in K-12 programs throughout the country come from households where Spanish is the dominant language. These facts provide evidence that trilingual interpreting is growing, and it will likely continue to increase in demand over the next several years.

Currently, an RID standard practice paper does not exist for Trilingual (Spanish-English-ASL) Interpreting. Yet, we feel that the need for such a document is imminent. We suggest that various aspects of trilingual interpreting should be considered for inclusion in the document (e.g., protocol for team support, need for appropriate remuneration for services rendered, trilingual certification as available, and guidelines for using trilingual interpreters).

Board comments: TBD
National office comments: TBD
Committee position: TBD
Member comments: TBD
Sense of the membership: TBD
 My response: 
I support this motion! This is certainly one of the fastest growing segments of our profession and should be address proactively, rather than re-actively. I am thrilled to see RID cultivate their relationship with Mano a Mano and provide more exposure for their members who currently do not work as trilingual interpreters.

2 comments:

  1. I am also against Motion E. I am a CODA but I have had a hard time with that label because I grew up with an oral/SEE mother and a Deaf (ASL using) father. When my parents divorced I went to live with my mother and as such grew up mostly using SEE/PSE. It was only when I went into an ITP that I started learning true ASL. I think many people have misconceptions what CODA means and that is why I do not wish for a CODA-at-large member because I feel it perpetuates a stereotype that many CODAs do not fit.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Tracey-
    Thank you for your comment! I think you raise an excellent point and it is a good reminder that we should not stereotype people or box them into our definitions or pre-conceived notions.

    ReplyDelete