Fw: RE: EIPA

[Karen Beth Staller]

OK . . . this is a VERY interesting, cryptic and evasive response from
Clay. My original e-mail is below his response. How could he not know
whether this has been done?

Karen

-----Original Message-----
From: Clay Nettles <CNet...@rid.org>
To: 'Karen Beth Staller' <kbst...@comcast.net>
Subject: RE: EIPA
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 09:51:57 -0400

Ms. Staller;

Thanks for your inquiry. I am pleased to respond.

Your original request was received mid-afternoon last Wednesday. I am
researching the topic in order to give you a comprehensive answer. I
will
respond as quickly as possible.

Clay Nettles

Clay Nettles, MA, MS
Executive Director

Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf
333 Commerce Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
703/838-0030 x200
703/838-0454 fax
www.rid.org
ad...@rid.org

EDUCATION...STANDARDS...EXCELLENCE

"RID Announces Degree Requirement Extension for Hearing Candidates for
Certification: Associate's Degree Requirement Deadline Postponed until
June
30, 2009. Read more at
http://www.rid.org/UserFiles/File/pdfs/News/Degree_Requirement_Extension.pdf
."

-----Original Message-----
From: Karen Beth Staller [mailto:kbst...@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 10:54 PM
To: ad...@rid.org
Subject: EIPA

Mr. Nettles,

I sent this e-mail almost a week ago and still haven't heard anything.
Can you please clarify?

It's my understanding that RID's Board recently voted to recognize those
who receive a 4.0 or above on the EIPA as fully certified members of
RID, i.e. to use the hair-thin semantics of RID, they are RID Certified,
not simply certified members of RID, and they can sit for any Specialist
test, including the SC:L. Is this true?

Karen Beth Staller, B.S.Ed., IC/TC, CI, CT
Certified Sign Language Interpreter
-KBS

[Lynne Wiesman]

I wonder if it would not be a good move if everyone who has an interest in this action (or series of actions) might write a similar note to Clay, to our representative, and to the President/Board - might the sheer numbers of requests help them to see this is a bigger issue - strength in numbers? When we want to move our legislators to do something, we send communications that they may or may not read but they stack up and when the stack is substantial, they feel there is an issue worth addressing?

The one issue I would have is a blanket sort of communication which makes it obvious there was little thought put in and possibly leaning toward group think. But if we all put similar sentiments into our own words, how long can they ignore that there is an issue?

Lynne

Lynne Wiesman, Performance Consultant Ò¿Ò¬

Credentials: MBA, SC:L, CI/CT, Master Mentor
Signs of Development, LLC & LW Squared Performance Consultants

www.signs-of-development.org

(866) ASL Sign - toll free
(928) 395-1878 - fax

MySpace Page: www.myspace.com/signs_of_development

Online résumé: http://www.signs-of-development.org/website/lynne_w.htm

 

Professional Development to Develop Professionals!

 

[Karen Beth Staller]

Mr. Nettles,

Perhaps if I separate my questions, since there are actually two - to
one of which I would think you'd be able to provide an immediate answer,
but the other which you might have to research (though that puzzles me
as well) - it might help speed things along . . .

Did the Board decide to recognize as fully certified those who receive a
4.0 on the EIPA?

Karen Beth Staller, B.S.Ed., IC/TC, CI, CT
Certified Sign Language Interpreter

[Amie Seiberlich]

Karen,

 

I'm glad you approached this as two separate questions, and I'm thrilled to see that we should receive some information directly from Clay.  While some of you have received information on this on your AC President's calls or through the leadership grapevine I think I will feel better to see direct communication from the NO on this. 

 

I also applaud efforts to talk with members about this issue.  Between this direct member communication and communication with the NO I think we will be able to garner a much better two-sided perspective of the issue so that we can move forward in an informed manner. 

 

amie
(Incoming RIV Representative!)

720-221-7896 Office
720-341-9868 Cell

[S Feyne]

I have a feeling it's more an issue of the Board's decisions rather than Clay's.

We also need to realize that there are over 13,000 members of RID -
most of whom are educational interpreters who may or may not be community interpreters, most of whom are in favor of these decisions. Many chapters are led by interpreters who are in alignment with the Board's decisions.

I wonder if we can frame this as a values decision.

Do we value # of members over clear communication of skills and over caliber of service to the Deaf community?
Do we value happy members who are not tested according to our own standards or state legislatures that have written "RID Certified" into laws believing that RID would be the organization to rate and certify interpreters?

Etc.

Remember, the contract has been signed. Interpreters are already given this status.
I think it's unlikely we can undo these decisions. So - We have to move forward in a positive way.
I think we need to be present in the Board and on Committees and in Chapters (like Liz) in order to effect change. 

Stephanie Feyne

[Lynne Wiesman]

Amie - nice to know that our incoming Region IV rep is on top of this and listening to us! Congrats by the way! I hope all other regional reps are as involved and have a pulse of the membership as you!  I am curious, are there other regional reps involved in this group? 

Lynne

Lynne Wiesman, Performance Consultant Ò¿Ò¬

Credentials: MBA, SC:L, CI/CT, Master Mentor
Signs of Development, LLC & LW Squared Performance Consultants

www.signs-of-development.org

(866) ASL Sign - toll free
(928) 395-1878 - fax

MySpace Page: www.myspace.com/signs_of_development

Online résumé: http://www.signs-of-development.org/website/lynne_w.htm

 

Professional Development to Develop Professionals!

 

[Dan Parvaz]

The fact that the contract has been signed should not permanently tie our hands. We could simply breach the contract, and let the chips fall where they may. Yes, we might be in violation of the contract (or we might successfully make the case that the contract was entered into contrary to the wishes of the membership), but the fact is that the Board's current means of honoring this contract is unconscionable.

Or is it? Do we have the text of the contract? Did "we" agree that EIPA interpreters would be considered equal to to generalist certificates?

Finally, and perhaps drastically, the contract only lasts as long as the entities who have entered into it. To sorta-quote Bill Cosby, we interpreters bought RID into the world -- we can take it out.

-Dan.

[Judith A Kroeger]

Hello everyone, I just joined last night and am slowly catching up on what has taken place.  I did call Cheryl Moose last night and had a long discussion of which she clarified one point.  Cheryl stated the the EIPA is being accepted as "RID Certified for the K-12 Setting."  

I expressed my concern with her that this creates confusion as the labeling is too similar.  Aparently that is what a current task force is meeting on to clarify (motions set forth from 2007) on what certified is.  Cheryl mentioned that this task force has its first meeting this weekend and to email them our concerns before they meet.  

(Side note: I have spoken with other interpreters since then that have said this task force already meet so I am emailing to clarify)

Just some more food for thought

Judith

Region V

Sent from my iPhone

[Amie Seiberlich]

Smiling...thanks Lynne.  I have no idea what my role in all of this is yet but know that I am committed to contributing to a positive, forward-thinking solution. 

amie

720-221-7896 Office
720-341-9868 Cell

[Chris Owens]

I'm appalled, officially.  I just sent a message to the Ohio Affiliate Chapter board on which I serve to see if I can get a general sense of how they feel. 

 

This is beyond unexpected.

 

Chris Owens, NAD V, NIC Advanced

ASL-English Interpreter

Columbus, Ohio

[Natalie Atlas]

Slightly off the eipa point, but straight on the point of how the board makes their decisions, here is a letter to Clay and his response to my asking about the decision to add a year to the deadline requiring an associates degree to sit for certification tests:

Dear Mr. Nettles:

I have grave concerns about the way our organization is setting policy of late.

I understand that RID has made a unilateral decision to extend the deadline for requiring an associates degree to sit for certification exams for an additional year.

How does RID justify making this decision, when the policy was put in place via motion at National?  This flies in the face of Robert's Rules of Order (page 465-466), which states:  "...no action of the board can conflict with any action taken by the assembly of the society; and except in matters placed by the bylaws exclusively under the control of the board, the society's assembly can give the board instructions which it must carry out, and can countermand any action of the board if it is not too late."

Please respond at your earliest convenience.

Thank you.

Natalie Atlas, CI/CT

Ms. Atlas;

 

Thanks for your inquiry.  I am pleased to respond.

 

I am absolutely certain that the RID Board of Directors would never desire to deliberately countermand or otherwise contradict the expressed and duly-approved wishes of the membership of the association.  It is my opinion that the board moves cautiously and deliberately in all matters related to the association and only has the best interests of the profession as a whole as well as a desire for the betterment of individual members in mind during the course of their actions and deliberations. 

 

You may recall that the board of directors supported the motion to invoke a degree requirement, not only at the Chicago conference where it was adopted, but also at the earlier Florida convention where it was first introduced.  In fact, the motion, which originated at one of the region conferences, was co-authored and co-managed at the region level by a then-sitting member of the RID Board.  All national boards since the time of the adoption have remained in favor of the initiative.

 

In this matter, the overall situation was seen as compelling enough to justify a delay in effecting the deadline.  It was not a unilateral cancellation of the deadline. 

 

Legal counsel was consulted in this matter prior to the board’s formal consideration of the item and subsequent vote.  Counsel indicated that the board was empowered to act as they ultimately did.

 

I hope this information is helpful.  Thanks again for your interest in this topic and support for the profession.

 

Clay Nettles    

Clay Nettles, MA, MS 
Executive Director 
  
Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf 
333 Commerce Street 
Alexandria, VA 22314 
703/838-0030 x200 

[Bill Moody]

I can see where a question like "recognize as fully certified" would need
some investigation.... "fully certified" is unclear. A question like "Is
the EIPA 4.0 recognized as a generalist certificate on an equal footing and
with equal rights to a CSC, CI, CT, or NIC?" is specific enough to get an
answer. Likewise, a question like "Does the EIPA 4.0 certified status
permit its holder to stand for the specialty certifications like SL:C?" is
also specific enough to answer. I don't remember "fully certified" ever
being defined in the By-Laws....
Bill Moody
bill...@nyc.rr.com

[joann....@verizon.net]

Good point Bill. I don't think any of us can call him/herself "fully" certified. As you say, it's not defined in the by-laws. And it would imply something about potential development in the future.
Jo Ann
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: "Bill Moody" <bill...@nyc.rr.com>

Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:17:29
To:<national...@googlegroups.com>, "Clay Nettles" <CNet...@rid.org>

[Pasch]

I too agree on the wording that Bill is offering.
I know that in Judith's conversation with the RID president yesterday
that it was somewhat clarified that the intent is to refer to the EIPA
as 'a specialist certificate in the educational setting'. This might
be there intent, however, this is not the way it comes across on the
website for one thing. Also, to then say that an EIPA 4.0 or higher
can sit for the SC:L is going back to calling it a 'Generalist'
certification since only a 'Generalist' may sit for the SC:L. So
which is it?

And as many have commented before, we are talking about the EIPA
(Educational Interpreter Performance Assessment) and not the EIPC
(Educational Interpreter Performance Certificate).

While this thing about sitting for the SC:L is alarming -- we must
look at the bigger picture, much of which has been discussed ad
nauseam in the previous posts of this group/site.

Pasch

On Jun 10, 1:17 pm, "Bill Moody" <billmo...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> I can see where a question like "recognize as fully certified" would need
> some investigation.... "fully certified" is unclear.  A question like "Is
> the EIPA 4.0 recognized as a generalist certificate on an equal footing and
> with equal rights to a CSC, CI, CT, or NIC?" is specific enough to get an
> answer.  Likewise, a question like "Does the EIPA 4.0 certified status
> permit its holder to stand for the specialty certifications like SL:C?" is
> also specific enough to answer.  I don't remember "fully certified" ever
> being defined in the By-Laws....
> Bill Moody

> billmo...@nyc.rr.com

> >>http://www.rid.org/UserFiles/File/pdfs/News/Degree_Requirement_Extens...

> >> ."
>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Karen Beth Staller [mailto:kbstal...@comcast.net]
> >> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 10:54 PM
> >> To: ad...@rid.org
> >> Subject: EIPA
>
> >> Mr. Nettles,
>
> >> I sent this e-mail almost a week ago and still haven't heard anything.
> >> Can you please clarify?
>
> >> It's my understanding that RID's Board recently voted to recognize
> >> those
> >> who receive a 4.0 or above on the EIPA as fully certified members of
> >> RID, i.e. to use the hair-thin semantics of RID, they are RID
> >> Certified,
> >> not simply certified members of RID, and they can sit for any
> >> Specialist
> >> test, including the SC:L. Is this true?
>
> >> Karen Beth Staller, B.S.Ed., IC/TC, CI, CT
> >> Certified Sign Language Interpreter

> > -KBS- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Karen Beth Staller]

Steff,

I have to respectfully (_\m/) take issue with some of your statements.

First, I seriously doubt that "most of RID's members" are educational
interpreters. I would be surprised if even 10% are educational
interpreters. Out of the twelve interpreters and one signer in our
district, seven are certified. One of those has an Ed:K-12 plus a CT and
only one of the seven (not the one with the Ed:K-12) doesn't work in
freelance.

I would also doubt that most interpreters are in favor of the Board's
decisions (or at least this one). I'm not sure if your statement is
saying educational interpreters are in favor of the Board's decisions or
community interpreters are, but I would argue that neither is the case.
Unfortunately, I would wager that most educational interpreters are not
members of RID. I'd also bet that many certified interpreters are of the
mindset, "The Board can do what it wants as long as I can earn a
living". Why would this group have only 176 members out of 13,000? Even
if there's 5 groups like this, that's less than 1,000 out of 13,000.

The contract signed with Boystown needs to be made available to the
membership. How do we go about doing that? I imagine invoking the
Freedom of Information Act . . .

To answer your questions (ahem . . . not sure if you meant them to be
rhetorical) . . .

>> Do we value # of members over clear communication of skills and over
>> caliber of service to the Deaf community?

Absolutely not.

>> Do we value happy members who are not tested according to our own
>> standards or state legislatures that have written "RID Certified" into
>> laws believing that RID would be the organization to rate and certify
>> interpreters?

Absolutely not.

And yes . . . it IS the Board's decision, not Clay's, but he's the ED.
Surely he's privy to all the Association's business.

Sigh . . . this can't keep up . . .

Karen

> -KBS

[Lynne Wiesman]

I believe the Freedom of Information Act will apply if there are any governmental funds involved. I know RID receives money from NCIEC which is a federal grant so that might apply but not sure. And I'm sure Boystown receives grants so that also might apply. It might be worth checking!