Hello, RID has announced their Spanish language interpreting policy for the 2005 “Bridging Cultures” conference in San Antonio, TX.  The policy proposes to reverse a precedence and not provide Spanish language interpreting for conference participants.  There is a petition posted at: http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/SpanishPolicyRID/ Please check out the site and pass it on to your colleagues. Tony Barraza Cell Phone: 202.390.8706 Fax: 301.362.0682 Pager: page@tonybarraza.net E-mail: tony@tonybarraza.net website: www.tonybarraza.net
			Letters from RID Members in response Mano a Mano NAOBI Persis Bristol-Dodson Suzanne Garica-Lightborn Emilia Lorenti
	December 13, 2004 Dear President Jones, I am writing on behalf of the Mano a Mano Executive Board. Mano a Mano is a national association of interpreters working in Spanish culturally influenced communities throughout the United States and its territories. The majority of our members are also members of RID. As such, we are responding to the RID Board's decision and rationale as announced in the November 2004 issue of the official newsletter, VIEWS on Spanish Language Interpreting at the 2005 national convention and President Jones' December 5, 2004 response to Ms. Peach, Ms. Swamback, Mr. Barraza, Ms. Garcia-Lightbourn, and Ms.Congo. The purpose of our response is to open a positive channel of communication with RID and to create a dialogue about how to address this issue. While we pose some very specific and pointed questions, our intent is to create some discussion and reflection within the RID Board and subsequently encourage collaboration with Mano a Mano and the other entities that have brought forth similar concerns. To begin, there are a number of questions that we have about the financial figures that were quoted to us. -First, how was the financial figure of $50,000 calculated and minimum 25 registrants determined? -If RID Board mandated that this year the conference must operate in neutral or better, why were the services to Spanish speaking interpreters one of the services that Board felt was expendable? -Since this was not a new cost item, why were effort not made to insure appropriate funding was secured for interpreters and conference interpreting coordinators with multilingual skills and backgrounds? In addition to our questions about financial matters, there are concerns about various other aspects of your decision. For instance, -Who determined that Spanish speaking Sign language interpreters can understand English influenced ASL that most hearing interpreters provide, since we have anecdotal evidence that this is not the case? -In the discussions leading up to the decision, what priority was given to providing access to Spanish Speaking members (and potential members) of RID? -If a conference determined that there must be 25 registrants prior to supplying Sign language interpreters, what would RID's position be? Mano a Mano was never contacted despite working with the National Office and Board at every convention since the 1999 convention in Boston. Since that convention, we have held pre-conference meetings and encouraged membership in RID and attendance at the national convention. Essentially, we are wondering effort was made to reach the Spanish speaking community for input? Just as RID would consult with organizations such as NAOBI, NBDA, NAD, CIT as resources for developing policy, who was consulted prior to making these decisions and how much effort was made to ensure it was a broad spectrum? If the effort was minimal, then why was that the case? We want RID to be in every way the association that "encourages the growth of the profession, educates the public about the vital role of and transliterators, and works to ensure equal opportunity and access for all individuals". Mano a Mano recognizes, as does the other community organization and leaders, that there are fiscal implications in the decisions RID reaches, not only with the Spanish speaking members, but far reaching impact on how tri-lingual interpreting and potentially other language groups' request services. We are also cognizant that the policy established for 2005 should be one that we all support, and we hope that it is based on membership driven priorities and research. We also recognize that we must develop logical strategies for maintaining fiscal responsibility and vibrantly diverse membership growth. Among those that have expressed their concerns there is a rich cadre of experienced interpreters that have been involved with RID on national,regional and local levels in various capacities, as well as other public and private entities, national and internationally as well. To that end, we urgently recommend that the Board reserve any final decisions but rather work with us in order to assist the Board in addressing the issues. We suggest that this be accomplished by immediately establishing a coalition tasked with providing united community recommendations on policy and strategies for RID to consider and review. We would recommend that the coalition include (not necessarily limited to): Organizational representatives (Mano a Mano, ITOC, CDLIC, PRID) Community Leaders (i.e. Tony Barraza, Emilia Lorenti, Suzanne Lightbourn, Lisandra Gold) Boston, Orlando, and Chicago Conference Interpreter Coordinators, CDI and Deaf consumers and organizational representatives from Spanish influenced communities that are ultimately impacted by RID policy. It is our earnest desire that the communication be open and that the best interest of the members and consumers we serve be our primary concern. By working together we can provide a clear understanding of the needs and assist the board in determining a logical way to approach this issue. We feel that at the heart of this is the need to establish with RID an understanding and enhanced sensitivity to working with culturally and linguistically diverse populations. We look forward to your reply. Respectfully, Angela Roth Mano a Mano Board President December 12, 2004 Angela Jones, President Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf Dear Ms. Jones: The Executive Board of the National Alliance of Black Interpreters, Inc. (NAOBI, Inc.) wish to publicly state their disappointment in the decision of the RID conference committee regarding Spanish Interpreting at the national conferences. As we are a national organization who serves the interpreting community, we are keenly aware of the financial challenges involved in hosting a national conference. However, we believe that the access to communication is critical to ANY organization and we therefore, disavow any proposition to limit or hinder that process. We find it disheartening to learn that the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, an organization that serves a community that has historically to date been denied access, would implement a policy that perpetuates the denial of access to communication. This policy has very negative connotations. Also, as a national organization that represents a minority group in the interpreting field, we feel compelled to speak out to the image that RID is presenting. Historically, minority interpreter attendance and participation at RID conferences is low, however it does not equate to our needs as members who have joined RID with the anticipation and expectation of receiving support. By shutting out only a few, the repercussions in terms of morale, decency, and trust are compromised in a fashion that may never be restored. NAOBI, Inc. recognizes the efforts the national RID board have made to eradicate the infliction's of the past; whether they be intentional or out of ignorance. We applaud your success and hope that you will see the larger impact of your current policy on the interpreting community. We live in an age where we still struggle as humans to be honorable. We encourage your organization to stand by the words stated in your self description: [Our] association encourages the growth of the profession, educates the public about the vital role of interpreters and transliterators, and works to ensure equal opportunity and access for all individuals. Sincerely, The NAOBI, Inc. Executive Board Leandra Williams, President Persis Bristol-Dodson, Vice President Barbara M. Hunt, Recording Secretary Dr. Pamela Furline, Corresponding Secretary Rodney Smith, Treasurer Eric Toland, Assistant Treasurer Karen DeSandies, Eastern Regional Representative Carl Robinson, Midwestern Regional Representative Sandra Gillespie, Southern Regional Representative Brenda Terry, Western Regional Representative _______________________________________________ Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf C/o Angela Jones, President Board of Directors I would like to comment on the Spanish Interpreting Policy established by RID for the 2005 conference.  I do not accept financial difficulty as an allowance to jeopardize years of effort in building a bridge of unity. Puerto Rico is a chapter of RID. Their primary language is Spanish. Whether it's one member or fifty members, they have paid their monies and deserve the right to equal access to the conference. RID has provided trilingual services for the past three conferences regardless of the number of participants. As a result, the numbers of Spanish speaking interpreters with support in their profession have increased. They may not be able to attend every conference, but they pay their dues nonetheless. For RID to now deny access to these members with an arbitrary number is to show a grave disregard for the work and effort that many members Spanish AND English speaking have put in to ensure ALL individuals are able to fully participate. It makes no sense to me for an organization that came about due to the lack of sympathy for communication needs to turn around and inflict the same injustice on it's own members. How can an interpreting organization deny interpreting requests? If there is but one Deaf person (I assume they need not even be a member) who requests services, the ENTIRE conference is made accessible. If a wheelchair user attends, the building must be accessible.  If there is to be no restriction on them, how and why do we restrict our own members? As a minority interpreter, I feel it is very important to stand up with my Latino brothers and sisters and voice my disappointment. I believe standing by and letting this happen without commenting would be the same as saying, "sure we don't care about the rights of those who are different from us". Latino interpreters for the Deaf are no different from us. Actually, they are worse off than us. They struggle everyday for education and ways to improve their skill and they have an additional barrier of language. They have turned to RID for acceptance. How dare the national board accept their membership and conference fees, but add, "Oh if you can't show us some numbers we're not going to make accommodations for you". DARE!  If this were a Deaf person, the walls of Jericho would fall from the outcry. Why are Spanish speaking interpreters WHO SERVE the DEAF less than these? This is not a simple issue of money. It is about access to information. INFORMATION is POWER. By limiting that information, control is being imposed.  We cannot turn our heads to this. It is WRONG. I ask the Board to find a different solution to the budget mandates that does not involve this form of discrimination. Respectfully, Persis Bristol-Dodson, dual certified interpreter and member RID ______________________________________________________________ Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, Inc. C/o Angela Jones Board of directors This letter is to comment against RIDs policy to stop providing Spanish Translation services unless 25 people or more request the services. According to the 2005 RID conference Information heading of Spanish Language Interpreting it states: The official languages of the RID conferences are English and ASL. We have determined that these are the languages that are integral to the philosophy and mission of RID. Therefore, it is our responsibility to provide these services and we are happy to do so. Conversely, the number of persons employing Spanish language interpretation has been historically small to date. Arranging these services causes additional work and is not really in the interpreting/transliterating coordinators area of expertise. RID must use its resources wisely. So, if 25 or more conference registrants requiring Spanish interpretation register and inform us of their need for Spanish language interpreting by May 1,2005, RID will provide Spanish language interpretation for the 2005 RID conference. With the publishing of the â policy,â RID puts forth a dangerous precedent which only serves to exclude certain groups of people of color and require them to jump through hoops before allowing them access to the conferences in which they are members. This is a hypocritical stance to the conference theme of âBridging Cultures.â An explanation would be needed to justify this action as it flies against the purported conference theme. In actuality, this policy states we wish to bridge English only interpreters and ASL users only.   This backwards and potentially dangerous direction only serves to go against the alleged diversification intent of RID. Via the publication of said policy in November 2004 Views, RID perpetuates, in this action, oppressive implications to Spanish speaking interpreters. RID does not consider the population the Trilingual interpreters serve nor acknowledge their right to full access or their contribution to the community/ies. Additionally, this statement sends an implied message that RID does not consider their civil rights, sends a message that they are not welcome, they don't warrant full access and essentially, unless they can assimilate in the English language only, they should just stay home. This is unacceptable as well as intolerable. If one or two Spanish speaking interpreters make the decision to come to the conference, as full paying members, they deserve to be given as much access as possible in order that all information is accurate. This clear information insures these interpreters return to their communities and communicate their professional learning and encourage others to join a professional organization. Unfortunately, not all interpreters from our organization can afford to attend the conference nor do all interpreters possess fluency in written English. The informal poll taken in Puerto Rico did not represent all Spanish speaking interpreters nor was it conducted in their native language. Was the questioning performed in Spanish? Were all of the pros and cons of this policy outlined clearly? Were the respondents given an opportunity to offer their opinions?  If minimal outreach was performed, such an informal survey cannot satisfy the requisite for such a drastic and discriminatory action. This was a decision based solely on the budget. This was not even discussed with RID Special Interest Group, Interpreters and Transliterators of Color. It was a decision not based on the inclusive nature of the membership but a monetary without exploring how this decision would affect the total portrayal of how RID views the members in a hierarchal caste system. From the macro level perspective, RID has decided to limit a linguistic minority to attempt to access recent information, professional development and continued education/training, entertainment and all aspects of the conference atmosphere in a different language. This decision was made after an informal and potentially inappropriate, questioning at one regional conference without adequate survey and research instrumentation. Rather than excluding cultures and languages, RID should be including and actively recruiting people of color in their native language and not only in one region at one regional conference. Active recruitment is especially vital in the border regions of California, Texas, Arizona and New Mexico, not to mention other cities that have previously dealt with Deaf people who are working with Spanish signing or speaking communities: New York, Chicago, North Carolina and Miami just to name a few. This action certainly cannot be limited to just Spanish speaking interpreters. Does RID intend to unfold a blanket limitation upon all interpreters whose languages are not English? Please outline how RID is reaching out and recruiting Interpreters of Color if that has been an intention or a priority at all. At this point in time, given the recent implementation of the policy it appears that this crucial recruitment is neither an intention nor a priority. On a micro level, an individual interpreter who speaks Spanish and can attend a conference with the expenses of travel, conference fee and hotel, should access the information easily and fully in his or her own language. The Interpreter, who has paid dues, maintained certification, contributed to both the interpreting community as well as the Deaf community, should be welcomed, accommodated, and provided customer services just as any interpreter without fear or repercussions. Such fear or thought would not exist for the English only ASL interpreter. Interpreters of Color should not be singled out to be oppressed in this or any future conference that is purported to be themed Bridging Cultures. It was not long ago when the hearing community told the Deaf community that a minimum number was required before accommodations would be required.RID would certainly never impose such restriction on the Deaf community. Then why is it acceptable for RID to impose the same restriction on Spanish speaking interpreters? It then follows that the same restrictions would apply for any interpreter who works with any language other than written English or ASL. Does this establish the premise that RID only serves an elite and privileged community of interpreters? Does Puerto Rico have an official recognition within RID as a member? If so, why are the residents being denied the access to professional training? Are they (and vis-Ã -vis their clients) less deserving of such professional training? Not only Puerto Rico but other border towns where written English or ASL are not the official language of the interpreters and their Deaf clients- are they less worthy? I want to see RID publish a statement retracting the policy and provide Spanish speaking interpreters with Carmen Garcia and/or Emilia Lorenti consulting with the Conference coordinators to provide quality services. RID has the resources; use them. Failing such action, I will then be forced to boycott the 2005 conference. Additional repercussions may also include other Interpreters doing the same. As a Trilingual interpreter, a paying and contributing RID member, a Spanish speaking individual, I hope you will direct the conference chairs, committees and National office to prepare for the necessary services of all our members. Suzanne Garcia-Lightbourn, Ci CT _______________________________________________________________________________________ November 22, 2004 Angela Jones CI and CT Dear Angela, I hope this email finds you well. I first want to thank you for your time at the NORCRID party. As I mentioned there, my colleagues and I share grave concerns about the planned approach to Spanish language interpreting services for the "Bridging Cultures" conference in San Antonio 2005. The Spanish language interpreting policy stated in the November 2004 Views ironically conflicts with the very theme of the conference. Services for Spanish-dominant Latino (a) interpreters have expanded from nothing to full access—with this one exclusionary decision, the professional growth of our community has been crushed. Here is the history of Spanish interpretation at RID conferences. 1997 The President of Puerto Rico RID came to Long Beach and no interpreting service was provided. Daniel Burch, RID president at that time, told me this was due to inadequate notice. At that point Angela Roth and I volunteered to interpret for him. Luckily I was President of Georgia RID at that time and I was able to interpret because were in the same presidents' track. 1999 Only plenary sessions were scheduled to be provided into Spanish. Concerns were brought to the interpreter coordinators Mark Morrison and Jo Linda Greenfield who tried but were unable to address them. The interpreters hired were Marvin Mollinedo, Carmen Garcia and I (I was ITOC Chair). The consumer raised concerns to ITOC that RID was accepting Puerto Rico as a Chapter but not giving the President access to the conference content. The issue was brought to me as ITOC Chair and the conference coordinators. We had a meeting and agreed services should be provided. The conference coordinators had to scramble and provide Spanish interpreting services. 2001 This year was a huge improvement. The Interpreter coordinators hired a Spanish language consultant (Carmen Garcia). RID hired one full time trilingual interpreter and several part-timers. 2003 Persis Bristol and I served as interpreter coordinators. I contributed my experience; therefore a consultant was not needed. We provided trilingual services for the entire program. 2005 The current plan erases the progress of the last four conferences, and we cannot be expected to say NOTHING. Historically, members of PRRID are only able to access professional development content through the biennial conferences. They receive the Views, but it is available only in English. Certification exam materials are only available in English and ASL. With this 2005 conference interpreting policy, we are sending a message that Latino (a) Sign Language interpreters may not continue to have access to the only outlet afforded them by the very organization into which they pay dues. The minimum requirement of 25 requests is not justified. The current policy states "arranging these services causes additional work and is not really in the interpreter/transliterating coordinators area of expertise". However, in the past there have been volunteers, experienced trilingual practitioners and paid consultants. If we follow this line of reasoning, and we had 25 Spanish-dominant participants, how would the coordinators meet their needs? They would not, because it is outside of their "area of expertise". This is setting the coordinators up for failure. The published policy also claims "the number of persons employing Spanish language interpretation has been historically small to date. RID must use its resources wisely." This implies that a Latino (a) attendee is not worth RID's resources. You reported that at the recent Region II conference in San Juan, an RID representative "polled" the local interpreters about their intended participation in San Antonio and whether they needed Spanish language services. To whom was this question posed and which of the five Spanish speakers on the interpreting team were used to ask it? The interpreter coordinator, Hilda Colondres, was unaware of interpreters were used to communicate with participants who do not speak Spanish. Limiting access to RID conferences completely contradicts the RID philosophy of inclusion and accommodation to all linguistic needs. Without Spanish language interpreting our communities will not benefit from trilingual services—for basic access to content, or exposure to techniques they can model in their own work. Interpreters working between ASL, Spanish, and English meet the needs of a growing population of Deaf and Hearing consumers in the United States. This type of setting may be an exception for the leadership of RID, but for many interpreters, it is a regular reality. If carried out, this policy will undermine years of progress among Latino interpreters and our allies to promote professional development and acceptance within RID for all. We urge you to continue to bolster the "Bridges Between Cultures" and not burning ones built together. Cordially, Emilia Lorenti