Changes to the EPS system -

[Laurie S]

Dear All,

Yesterday I saw the following on FB.

Changes to the EPS system are drastic.

Concerns it raises are first that this change seems to be a done conclusion? I may be wrong about this - Is this up for discussion at the national conference?

# 1 outside of the interpreting assignment. Are there any boundaries to this? Concern about issues that would infringe on personal space.

# 2 I assume there will be further description of "prohibited behaviors and practices"?

# 3 EPS is moving to being a disciplinary entity - thoughts?

# 4 This seems to imply consequences - bystanders would be held accountable for lack of action.

# 5 "Require RID members to self-disclose any criminal offenses or history for the organization to determine how to respond to each individual circumstance." Given the American legal system for disproportionally targeting Black, Brown and Indigenous people - this seems beyond the scope of RID to know and use as a variable for EPS actions.

# 7 "Puts all ASL interpreters on notice that their behavior, even prior to applying for the test, subjects them to the CPC". Does this imply that RID will accept grievances against interpreters holding state credentials? EIPA?

The past practice of mediation was flawed - the process of filing was complex and not user-friendly for ASL users. The consequences were mostly in the form of remediation - classes, counseling etc. Should there be more penalty? Suspensions - revocations? I have mixed feelings and would like to see discussion here on this large change.

The Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, Inc. announced a seismic shift in the enforcement of its Code of Professional Conduct (CPC) through its Ethical Practices System (EPS).

As a person who has been involved with the Deaf and ASL interpreting communities, this is among the most important decisions that RID has made in its 58+ year history.

At a high level the EPS system changes achieves the following changes:

1. Expands the boundaries where the CPC can be applied, beyond interpreting on the job

2. Moves from subjective analysis of the CPC to specific descriptions of prohibited behaviors and practices

3. Transforms EPS from a mediative process to a decisive, enforcement body

4. Creates accountability on RID members to enforce the rules and reduce system abuse

5. Require RID members to self-disclose any criminal offenses or history for the organization to determine how to respond to each individual circumstance

6. Prohibits discrimination during the interpreter assignment

7. Puts all ASL interpreters on notice that their behavior, even prior to applying for the test, subjects them to the CPC

These significant changes will go a long way toward enhancing the integrity of the ASL interpreting profession and building greater trust between the ASL interpreter and Deaf communities.

I commend the RID Leadership team, including its staff and board, for taking this brave, bold step toward pursuing its purpose and values.

[Laurie S]

Note that from "The Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf Inc...." to the end of my post "pursuing its purpose and values" is a copy of what was posted on FB by Shane Feldman

[Dwight Godwin]

Good day,

I do not have a lot to say about this, but a few "notes"

Laurie - you have an excellent point.  The RID #1 "1. Expands the boundaries where the CPC can be applied, beyond interpreting on the job" Does seem to be very "iffy" related to concerns about personal space and privacy. I would think that if this new EPS system is already written in stone that a motion could be made at National requiring specific and inclusive examples of what is meant by this. If I am seen picking my nose at a restaurant, can someone file an EPS complaint against me? If an interpreter were to post a diatribe against an agency, can the agency or another interpreter file an EPS complaint?

And #5 Requiring RID members to self-disclose criminal offenses? I would hope that any Attorneys in this group would speak to the legality of this requirement. I can see it being germain if the EPS complaint is related to sexual or physical abuse, but wouldn't it be the responsibility of RID to learn of a criminal action IF the complaint is related to something like that?

I am so dismayed at what RID seems to have become. I am all for accountability and corrective action while carrying out our services as an interpreter. But this is sounding like it is going way beyond that.

*sigh*

Dwight

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "National Interpreter Discussion Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to NIDG+uns...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/NIDG/d4d8e62b-ea13-4826-bc93-6ca12eebfefcn%40googlegroups.com.

[Betty Colonomos]

Hello,

I would need to have more specifics and examples to decide if I support these new guidelines/policies.  I do think that there needs to be more serious consequences for ethical violations, because there is a steady increase in unacceptable behaviors happening in our field. So many interpreters have put their own interests ahead of the interests of our clients and consumers. People accepting jobs that are way beyond their capabilities have caused harm. As for criminal offenses, we need to be judicious about what kinds of offenses may impact their ability to function as an ethical interpreter. When it comes to "outside the job" beaviors, we see instances of social media posts that are destructive and harmful to our communities. Again, I want to see more to have a clearer idea of the purpose and intent of these changes, but the need to monitor our profession is critical. Those of us who are dedicated to quality services, growth, and integrity should be outraged at some of the people who are creating distrust and inflicting harm on the consumers we serve. The demand for interpreters far exceeds the supply, which means that anyone can work, regardless of skill and professional judgment. This has created a huge mess and it's up to us to  clean house.

For those attending the conference, I would love to see respectful and rational discussions about what is happening with EPS.

Betty Colonomos

[Betty Colonomos]

There was/is (not active) a committee that was not able to produce any meaninful framework for an EPS that considered all perspectives. As a result, the Board basically came up with their vision. Given the lens of the Board majority, I am not surprised by some of the changes that were brought forward.  If I were Deaf and/or not a privileged member of society, I might have wanted the same things.  We need, as usual, a tough conversation with rational people about how to get most people on board with an effective system that safegaurds consumers and interpreters who share a common vision of what constitutes an ethical interpreter.  Like so many other aspects of our field and our society, these conversations are not happening.  Perhaps we can find a way at Conference.

There needs to be a nuanced system that identifies those violations leading to punitive action, those violations that require mediation or other corrective actions, and those violations that involve legal/constitutional rights which supercede our desires. Hopefully we can go beyond debates over who gets to make the rules and focus on what rules are apppropriate and enforceable.

Betty Colonomos

[saddle1up]

Betty, what do you mean when you say, "Given the lens of the Board majority?"

[Betty Colonomos]

The RID BoD has seven Deaf members out of eleven people serving. That is about 70%.

[Laurie S]

I do understand that the EPS has proven mostly ineffective - leaving Deaf people continuing to experience sub-par services and acts of oppression, marginalization, disregard.   Most of my concerns are about the lack of definition of the scope of some of the statements. There are large areas of ambiguity that could be abused.  And, I remain firm in my opinion that  the following is way out of the 'jurisdiction' of RID: "Require RID members to self-disclose any criminal offenses or history for the organization to determine how to respond to each individual circumstance."

On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 11:14:04 AM UTC-4 Betty Colonomos wrote:

[Stephanie Feyne]

Laurie,

I completely agree. Since now, previously private behavior is criminalized. 

It was true when they started suggesting this years ago (I recall at a Regional RID conf at least 7 years ago) - as Laurie stated (and her entire post of April 24 below is worth a re-read):

5 "Require RID members to self-disclose any criminal offenses or history for the organization to determine how to respond to each individual circumstance." Given the American legal system for disproportionally targeting Black, Brown and Indigenous people - this seems beyond the scope of RID to know and use as a variable for EPS actions.

And it's true now when the policing of bodies has included even more of us being arrested for exercising First Amendment rights by participating in a demonstration, protesting environmental change, going to a drag club, suggesting a banned book, and even by being the "wrong" gender or class or political party or seeing the medical professional of their choice, in addition to old standards such as "driving while Black," etc. 

Most crimes are state decisions - and what is legal in one state is not in another - as we have seen with the recent spate of laws. So how is this equal protection in a national association? 

If I get arrested for something in one state where it is illegal but my colleague does the same thing in another state where there is no law against it and does not get arrested, what will the organization do to me? And is it any of their business? 

Or say I made one bad decision, was punished for it, and never made it again, how is that RID's business?

Not to mention the fact that a criminal record is also largely determined by the financial resources of the accused - rich people get acquitted a lot more often than the rest of us. So how is that equal protection?

 

To be forced to disclose these often unconstitutional attacks on our freedoms to our professional association is retraumatizing. To then rely on the undefined or tacit assumptions, political leanings (whims?) held by members who suddenly are judge and jury for organizational "standards" feels arbitrary and vindictive. 

Why are we allowing such an ill-defined proposition into our EPS? 
That, in and of itself, is unethical. And prejudicial. And a tacit endorsement of the policing of people's bodies. 
If they want to be explicit - e.g., convictions for extortion - then we would know what the goal is. But not some vague reference to criminal activities.  

This suggested change would lead to RID needing to know about:

Statutory Crimes (do they really want to know that I was noisy one night and my neighbor complained?)

Financial and Other Crimes

Crimes Against a Person

Crimes Against Property

Inchoate Crimes

And what will RID do when they get a person's record? How will RID decide how to handle each record it gets?  There is no mention of the standards that will be instituted for these decisions - nor of how those decisions will be made, nor who will be empowered to make them or what training must be given prior to making those decisions.

I get that there are bad actors who have committed acts that harmed individuals. I understand this is an attempt to protect community members from potential harm. And in recent history, RID has protected interpreters more than Deaf community members. But how does policing already policed bodies protect the communities we serve?

Also - this doesn't seem doable. 
It is likely that RID doesn't have the time and human power to evaluate the hundreds of criminal records that will certainly be demanded. We don't have the membership willingness to sit on committees as it is. We don't have the finances for training. 

And on another note -  "Members must report violations. Members are now required to report unethical behavior by other members or risk sanction themselves." (Joshua Pennise, RID Views Spring 2023)

Does this mean every one of the 15,000 members of RID must be trained to observe and report unethical behavior? Again, since it is subjective, what will happen? And will the organization have the capacity to respond to the influx of reports? Or will it be its usually overtaxed self and how long will these reports languish in limbo?

And if a decision is made and someone sues RID, do we have the resources to fight back in court? And when we lose (because we will) then what happens? 

And until that inevitable court case -

We already have a membership problem. Good luck when potential members won't join because they feel the police's records carry more weight than the caliber of their work. 

Stephanie Feyne

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/NIDG/9d548278-7b47-4911-95ac-7b66658ed53bn%40googlegroups.com.

[Betty Colonomos]

I appreciate the thoughts and comments brought forward by Laurie and Stephanie.  The bottom line is that bad actors will continue to work and not join RID. The demand for interpreters far outweighs the supply, and there is no way for RID to have any impact on non-members. I do want to bring up another group who is harmed by unethical interpreters. Those people are professional, competent, ethical, and dedicated interpreters who are suffering the stress and trauma of working with people who do not care enough to accept only the jobs they can handle, who are toxic to their colleagues and consumers, who do not attempt to work collaboratively with team members, and who show little interest in developing their skills.  They do not honor our noble profession. They put us in the difficult position of witnessing harmful behavior while trying to preserve the integrity of the assignment and minimize the damage done to consumers.  We need to clean house. We need to find a way to help consumers differentiate between interpreters who care and do good work and the thousands of those who are not making any effort to earn the trust and respect from the people we serve.  Perhaps we need to re-think our focus only on RID members.  Educating service providers that a warm body may look like access, but "equitable access" is what is needed to comply with the intent of the law.  We need to help Deaf consumers with resources and advocacy efforts to remove inappropriate and unqualified interpreters. Every other profession has their own monitoring and reporting systems because they want to maintain integrity and publc trust.  Our field has done little beyond protecting interpreters who continue to harm consumers. I cannot in good conscience continue to frame us as a profession. The bar to allow us to work is so far below any acceptable minimum standard. People who have the skill set commensurate with an LPN are earning the same amount of money as a person who is a competent neurosurgeon. We are complicit in this fraud and until we care enough to clean house, these deplorable conditions will continue with disasterous consequences.