Democracy, or democracy ATA-style?

October 7, 2020 § 8 Comments

Dear colleagues:

We are in a political environment in the United States at this time, in a few days we will vote for president of the United States, and this is also election time at the American Translators Association. I write this post because I deeply care for our association and the direction it follows for the benefit or detriment of our professions. This post is not an attack on anybody for who they are, but an expression of opinions and a means to disseminate information you may find useful before you vote. I also did some fact-checking and bring you the elements you will need to separate fact from fiction.

Election of candidates.

I am not familiar with some candidates and the ones I know are probably the same ones most of you recognize from the slate. I just want you to be aware of two important points all voting members should consider before voting. Please do your homework and vote for practicing interpreters or translators. Do not continue to stack the board with agency owners, even if they attempt to portray themselves as practicing colleagues. That may be half-truth, and remember their interests are not yours. They are not illegal, but they are not yours. The second point you must remember is that do not vote for the maximum number of candidates allowed. If there is only one board candidate you like, vote for that person and leave the others blank. When you do not know the candidate, or you have doubts, it is better to abstain. An abstention is powerful, because it increases the chances of your candidates to win as you do not gift a vote to someone you are not sure about. In my case I already voted, and I only voted for one candidate. The individual I chose has disagreements with me, and this candidate is not an interpreter, but he has my trust because I know this person is smart, honest, and not an agency.

I encourage you to think long and hard before you decide on your candidates, and do not feel bad if you just vote for one individual.

The decoupling question.

How can not decoupling be considered illegal? I understand the issue should be raised if a certification were needed to practice translation and ATA were the only certifying entity officially recognized, but neither is true. Certification may give you a competitive advantage and help you dissipate doubts about your professional level, but it is not a legal requirement to work as a translator. Although well-known as a serious credential, ATA has no official recognition as a certifying agency or office. ATA membership is voluntary and certification is one benefit of membership. Nobody can be forced to join ATA, just like no one can be forced to take the certification exam.

Regarding the ABA remarks, whether intentionally, or due to a lack of basic knowledge, it is puzzling that an allegedly practicing court interpreter in Pennsylvania can make the following statement: “Now, as a world class nonprofit association, certification legal experts have repeatedly advised us that it is unseemly and illegal to force individuals to become members just to take and maintain their certification…the ABA and the AMA have no such requirements for professional lawyers and doctors.” 

There is not such a thing as an “ABA Bar Exam.” I am sorry to hear an ATA Board member making such remarks. Perhaps the reason for this regrettable statement can be understood, nut justified, by visiting the Administrative Office of the State of Pennsylvania’s official website: The Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania’s Court Interpreters classifies Spanish interpreters in three categories. From higher to lower skill level: Master, Certified, and Conditional. Are considered conditional interpreters those who score 50 percent on a simultaneous, consecutive, and bi-directional sight translation exam (a 49 percent score fails the test) testing the bare-bones minimum skills to interpret in court. Because conditional interpreters, like the person who made these comments, are separated from failing candidates by one percentage point, they may interpret during hearings of lesser complexity where freedom or substantial assets are not at risk. They cannot interpret trials unless they are before a lower court and involve small claims, traffic violations, etc.

Attorneys must pass a STATE BAR EXAM to be able to practice law. They must join that State Bar and remain members throughout their professional life in that State. It is the State Bar that grants and runs the continuing legal education program needed to keep a license valid, and the State Bar is the only body to monitor the rules of ethics are observed, and when they are not, only the Bar can sanction attorneys after notice and hearing. The only thing “illegal” is to practice law without a license (State Bar membership) carrying up to 364 days in jail in most states, and very harsh Civil sanctions, which could include compensatory and punitive damages depending on the harm done. Conditional-level court interpreters often work with pro-se individuals, and, have limited exposure to situations where the law license issue is mentioned. As for the American Medical Association’s part of the statement, since 1933, the certification function has been administered by a separate organization known as the American Board of Medical Specialties. No relation to the AMA, administratively or functionally. Interesting that a candidate who lost an election twice and got to the board by appointment both times gives such an eloquent opinion on something he lacks.

I encourage you to put your interests as a member above the associations economic priorities and reject this amendment. Vote No.

An election with multiple candidates.

I am very troubled by the arguments of those who oppose the amendment because they base their opinion on false assumptions, and because they represent the Institutional viewpoint. That two of the former presidents endorsing the opinion were beneficiaries of unopposed “elections” merits mentioning as it goes to the credibility of the opinion. 

An election is a decision between (at least) two options, anything else can be called a ratification, imposition, proclamation, appointment, or coronation, but not an election. 

Nations, corporations, and associations are governed by those who represent the will of the majority of its citizens, shareholders, or members. From its inception by the Greeks, many centuries ago, this has been called democracy. 

History has seen many totalitarian regimes in countries, corporations, and institutions disguised as “democracies.” Often, arguments to justify this aberration include a consensus by an elite in a position of power indicating they, as self-appointed protectors of the masses, are making the tough decisions; that it would be too dangerous to let citizens, shareholders or members decide because they are not “prepared” for it. 

The argument that an outsider who may be elected president-elect, treasurer, or director would jeopardize the institutional continuity of the people in power sends chills through my body. Elections are to change what a majority dislikes, not to guarantee everything will stay the same. Supporting ATA’s official viewpoint reminds me of those attempting to destroy our nation’s democracy at this time.

To say people not screened and blessed by the ones in power will not perform as needed, will not devote the necessary time to fulfill their responsibilities, or will quit their position shortly after the election, is plain insulting. People run for elected positions because they want to do the job. They want to do the job according to the interests of those who elected them, and sometimes these may not be the interests of those already in power. 

The bylaws are to an association what a constitution is to a nation. Their amendment is a serious matter and it should reflect the decision of that association’s membership based on real information, not a manipulated alternative reality. The only place where unopposed “elections” are welcome and considered a good thing is totalitarian structures populated by those too afraid to face the will of a majority without feeding them first manipulated information. That was tried before, caused many hardships and pain, and after many years it fell because it never represented the view of the majority. I don’t want another Soviet Union in my profession.

I encourage you to put democracy and membership above the current leadership’s appetite for control and support this amendment. Vote Yes.

Please vote. Most members never vote and that took us to where we are. Think of your career, the profession, and how a professional association should serve the interests of its human members, not corporations, or personal ambition.

What ever happened to the written federal court interpreter exam?

May 21, 2018 § 16 Comments

Dear colleagues:

With all the noise and frustration surrounding the oral federal court interpreter examination fiasco, we have overlooked a group of colleagues left out in the cold with no updates and plenty of confusion: The candidates studying to take the written federal court interpreter certification exam scheduled for the summer or 2018. The Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AO) has been silent for many months and interpreters are concerned, puzzled, and they do not know what to do.

The AO’s official website redirects you to Paradigm’s webpage which shows this message: “Written examination registration dates will be announced in the spring of 2018, test locations will be announced at that time.”

This message has remained intact for months; no updates, no explanations, no changes.

In the weeks since my last widely read post on the oral exam, and despite all the comments by those who took the test in 2017, many federally certified court interpreters, and colleagues in general, raising serious concerns everywhere in social media about the judgment of those AO officials who hired Paradigm, and the lack of transparency and accountability after the administration of the test, the authorities who oversee the administration of the exam have done nothing to keep those who plan to take the written test during the summer of 2018 informed.

Apparently, silence continues to be the only policy coming from the federal judiciary. Our colleagues who plan to take the written exam do not know what to do. They do not even know if they should stop studying. Because from the lack of information they cannot even tell if there will be a written exam this year.

We do not even know for sure if the AO has severed its ties with Paradigm. There has been no official notice, and their own website continues to redirect all users who want information on the written exam to Paradigm’s website which shows outdated information where it claims that registration dates “…will be announced in the spring of 2018…” If this information is valid as of today, they better hurry up and publish the information before spring is no more.

I cannot help it but feel sorry for those whose lives have been on hold for several weeks while they wait to find out the exam dates and locations in order to make personal and professional arrangements to travel to the test sites.

If the exam has been postponed until further notice, please tell the interpreting community; if Paradigm is no longer the contractor for the written exam, please tell the interpreter community; if no details can be shared at this time because of pending litigation, please tell the interpreter community; If the negligent administration of the oral exam in 2017, and the decision to retest so many people will push the written exam into 2019, and if this will disrupt the regular 2-year cycles of  both oral and written exams, please tell the interpreter community.

This will make you look better and it will be a way to begin the road to recover credibility and trust. Remember, it is about transparency and accountability. Those at the AO must never forget they are the government. Those with the misfortune to take the oral test last year, and the ones suffering the uncertainty of the written test right now are the taxpayers.

We cannot lose sight of this unquestionable reality; dear friends and colleagues, we are protecting the profession, but we are also exercising our rights. To the handful of colleagues who feel intimidated by those who argue that the certification is not an entitlement and try to mask ineptitude and negligence when hiring Paradigm as a “technical difficulty”: Perhaps when you work within the government system for a long time you think that the federal government is some kind of a magnanimous god who favors court interpreters, also U.S. citizens, by granting them a certification. Do not be distracted by comments like the ones above. The real issue is transparency and accountability. The AO should come clean and explain why they hired Paradigm, admit fault, apologize, and communicate the way they plan to remedy this chaos, not only by telling those who took the exam they will now have a chance to retest. They must talk to those who want to take the written exam, and to the professional community.

Threats about pulling the exam are awful, distasteful, and baseless. The government cannot force the professional community into silence by threatening cancellation of the Spanish federal court interpreter certification program. They have not, and will not. These comments never came from an official source and should confuse no one. Navajo and Haitian-Creole certification programs were scratched because of docket and financial reasons. Spanish is used in all U.S. courts more than all other foreign languages combined. There is no rational justification to do something like that, so please ignore these rumors.

It is also important to remember that almost nobody who takes the federal court interpreter exam wants a guarantee to work in court. Sometimes staff court interpreters must be reminded that a federal certification is a means to prove skill and knowledge to many clients. The majority of the high-income earner interpreters I know make the bulk of their fees outside of court and work with a district court, making far less money, when they have no other assignment, or for personal reasons. A candidate who pays a fee to take a test has a right to demand performance in exchange for the fee. It is a service based on contractual obligations.

It is also of concern that people who are involved with voicing NAJIT’s policy or opinions have stated that this association with many members who took the oral test, who are waiting to take the written test, and who are voicing their anger with the way the AO has performed during this crisis, can claim that the Association has “no dog in that fight”. To be fair, this unfortunate comment came not from NAJIT’s Board and it has not been endorsed by the Association either.

Dear friends and colleagues, those of us who did not take the exam because we are already certified, or because our working languages do not include Spanish, or even those who practice our profession in other fields with nothing to do with the court system have a duty to defend and protect the profession, and a right to support our colleagues who were, and continue to be, affected by this negligent and careless actions. Resorting to smoke and mirrors like injecting Seltzer v. Foley is just a diversion tactic that will not work. That case questioned the rating criteria of the written exam; here the question is the ineptitude and negligence of those who hired Paradigm as the contractor in charge of administering the test, and the actions taken after the fact. Nobody has questioned the validity of the exam, nor the integrity of the raters. I have even said that I do not believe there was bad faith or the deliberate intent to cause harm by AO officials. All we are arguing is apparent negligence and ineptitude, and for that we are demanding transparency and accountability.

Implying that I have questioned the validity of the exam or the integrity of the raters only shows those who claim such things, and argue that people are angry because they did not pass the exam (even though no test results were out when these claims circulated in social media) have spread rumors without reading my posts.

Just like in other cases before: accreditation vs. certification of healthcare interpreters, exploitation of immigration court interpreters by a new language contractor, the court interpreter fiasco in the United Kingdom, the contractual and managing problems of the court interpreter program in New Mexico, abandoning the interpreters in conflict zones by Western Nations, the exploitation of telephonic interpreters by unscrupulous VRI service providers, and many others, I have no vested personal interest in these cases; it is nothing personal against government officials, language services agency owners, or professional associations; I just stand up, and will continue to stand up for the profession. I now ask you to share your comments on the written federal court interpreter exam of 2018. Please remember, personal attacks, disqualifications, foul language and surrogate defense of Paradigm, NAJIT, or the AO will not be posted.

Should healthcare interpreters in the U.S. be concerned?

April 9, 2018 § 36 Comments

Dear colleagues:

For several weeks I have been contacted by colleagues who provide their services as interpreters in the health sector of the United States. They have all expressed the same sense of confusion, anguish, anger, and uncertainty many of us have noticed in social media and professional forums on line.

This environment started after the decision by the National Board of Certification for Medical Interpreters (NBCMI) to not renew the accreditation of their Spanish language interpreter certification program by the National Commission for Certifying Agencies (NCCA) effective January 1, 2018, and it ballooned after the video of a speech during the California Healthcare Interpreters Association (CHIA) annual conference in Irvine, California in early March was uploaded to the web and watched by interpreters all over the world. Apparently, most interpreters were upset about four things: (1) The decision to terminate the NCCA accreditation; (2) That many learned of this decision by the NBCMI at this conference; (3) That the NBCMI authorities did not informed those candidates scheduled to take the certification exam that the exam they would be taking in 2018, although the same test taken by interpreters certified in the past, was being offered after the Board had quit their accreditation of their Spanish language interpreter certification program by the NCCA; and (4) That many did not like NBCMI’s decision to change the wording on their website portal to show in a casual way, hidden in the text, or at least not highlighted, that they had not renewed said accreditation, and the unofficial explanations and assurances by apparently some people associated with NBCMI that such change would not impact their certification.

I am a veteran of the profession, but like many of you, even though I have interpreted my share of medical events as a conference interpreter, I have never been a healthcare interpreter. Let me explain the healthcare interpreting scenario in the United States.

Healthcare interpreting is an essential part of the health sector in modern society, but despite this and the need to elevate this service to a professional level, healthcare interpreting had a later start than other community-based fields of interpreting like court interpreting.

The United States was no exception, until finally, a few years ago, two organizations took the lead towards the professionalization of the field. Embracing the basic principles and values of the certification program the National Council on Interpreting in Health Care (NCIHC) had written about, the Certification Commission on Healthcare Interpreters (CCHI) and the National Board of Certification for Medical Interpreters developed and implemented two interpreter certification programs. Both understood the overwhelming need to certify interpreters in the most widely spoken foreign languages in the United States, and they both developed a program for interpreter certification in Spanish (there are other languages now. Please visit their websites to learn about the languages covered by each program).

Unlike court interpreting, which developed certification programs sanctioned by the government at its different levels (federal, state, and initially sometimes local), the healthcare sector had no government authority sanctioning the validity of its certifications; and even though this brought healthcare interpreters a professional freedom enjoyed by other professionals like physicians and lawyers, and denied to court interpreters who have no control over the administration of their certification exams, it also created an uncertainty about the validity of their interpreter certification programs.

Because in a private sector-oriented society like the U.S., the situation healthcare interpreter certification programs were facing is not the exception, but the rule, there is a reputable trustworthy entity that solves this problem: The Institute for Credentialing Excellence (ICE).

The Institute for Credentialing Excellence, or ICE, is a professional membership association that provides education, networking, and other resources for organizations and individuals who work in and serve the credentialing industry. ICE is a leading developer of standards for certification and certificate programs and it is both, a provider of and a clearinghouse for information on trends in certification, test development and delivery, assessment-based certificate programs, and other information relevant to the credentialing community. ICE created the National Commission for Certifying Agencies (NCCA) in 1987.

The NCAA’s Standards for the Accreditation of Certification Programs, which were created in the mid-1970s, were the first standards developed by the credentialing industry for professional certification programs. The NCCA Standards were developed to help ensure the health, welfare, and safety of the public. They highlight the essential elements of a high-quality program.

The NCCA standards follow The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (AERA, APA, & NCME, 1999) and are applicable to all professions and industries. Certification organizations that submit their programs for accreditation are evaluated based on the process and products and not the content; therefore, the Standards are applicable to all professions and industries. Program content validity is demonstrated with a comprehensive job analysis conducted and analyzed by experts, with data gathered from stakeholders in the occupation or industry.

NCCA accredited programs certify individuals in a wide range of professions and occupations including nurses, automotive professionals, respiratory therapists, counselors, emergency technicians, crane operators and more. To date, NCCA has accredited approximately 330 programs from over 130 organizations.

Accreditation for professional or personnel certification programs provides impartial, third-party validation that your program has met recognized national and international credentialing industry standards for development, implementation, and maintenance of certification programs. This solved the problem for both programs and two certification programs were born:

The Certified Healthcare Interpreter credential (CHI) developed by the Certification Commission on Healthcare Interpreters (CCHI) that offers a certification exam in Spanish, Arabic and Mandarin in 2 steps: First, a core exam consisting of 100 multiple-choice questions, to be answered in English, on medical terminology, healthcare scenarios and ethics; and to those who pass the core exam, an interpreting exam that tests the candidate’s skill on sight and written translation, and simultaneous and consecutive interpreting.

The Medical Interpreter credential (CMI) developed by the National Board of Certification for Medical Interpreters (NBCMI) that offers a certification exam in Spanish, Russian, Mandarin, Cantonese, Korean, and Vietnamese to those who pass (with a score of 70 percent, 80 percent in Mandarin) an interpreting exam that tests skills on sight translation and consecutive interpreting (no simultaneous interpreting or written translation).

Besides competing for interpreter candidates in the same market, both programs needed to convince healthcare providers, insurance companies, patients, and attorneys, that their credentials were reliable, trustworthy, and standard. They started an intensive and successful education campaign that used the NCCA accreditation as one of its most valuable resources.

Even today, CCHI’s website proclaims the validity of its program and skill of its certified healthcare interpreters:

“…Just as healthcare interpreters work hard to get credentialed as “certified healthcare interpreters,” certification programs can also “get certified!” The process is called “accreditation” and, today, it is administered by the National Commission for Certifying Agencies (NCCA), the accreditation arm of the Institute for Credentialing Excellence (ICE). Accreditation is the process by which a credentialing or educational program is evaluated against defined standards by a third party and is awarded recognition when found in compliance with these standards. It’s more than just a voluntary membership in an association. Accreditation (and renewal of accreditation) involves a rigorous process that ensures the quality of examinations and certification offered by organizations like CCHI. In fact, NCCA accredited programs certify individuals in a wide range of professions and occupations, including nurses, pharmacists, counselors, EMTs, HR professionals, defense security specialists, and more. CCHI is proud to represent the healthcare interpreter profession as equal among other allied health professions…today, CCHI is proud to offer the only nationally accredited certifications in the interpreting industry. NCCA’s accreditation validates all aspects of CCHI’s certification programs and CCHI as a certifying body…”

To this day NCCA accreditation continues to be a crucial element of the CCHI program.

Apparently, the National Board of Certification for Medical Interpreters (NBCMI) disagrees with this principle, and even though their website lacks detailed explanations or reasons for the decision not to renew accreditation; some colleagues claim they have unofficially argued that continuing NCCA accreditation is unnecessary because their program is now well-established, the accreditation only covered the Spanish certification program, and their exams have not changed from the ones offered during the accreditation era. Several interpreters have indicated that NBCMI claims that a renewal was too expensive; that they had spent fifty thousand dollars on the initial accreditation, and that their Board had directed those financial resources to the development and administration of certification exams in other languages; activity that would be more profitable.

On its official website, NBCMI addresses its decision to end NCCA accreditation:

“…Prior to 2018, the Spanish CMI certificate was subjected to an additional level of NCCA accreditation, but while the National Board remains a member of the Institute of Credentialing Excellence (ICE), each of the National Board programs have been standardized to ensure the CMI certification in each offered language best meets or exceeds nationally accepted standards, including transparency, inclusion, and access…”

It mentions they continue to be members of the Institute for Credentialing Excellence (ICE), the parent entity of NCCA, and adds a self-serving statement where they praise their own CMI certification. They emphasize their continued ICE membership adding this statement to their official website:

“…As a proud member of ICE, we stay informed on best practices in developing and administering quality certification [certificate] programs so that we may better serve you…” 

This could be a simple statement of facts, but unfortunately, it could also be misunderstood by some who may think that continued ICE membership affects their CMI program after January 1, 2018.

ICE clearly tells us what membership means:

“…An organization may join ICE at any time whether or not it has any programs accredited by the National Commission for Certifying Agencies (NCCA).  Membership in ICE does not mean that an organization or any of its credentialing programs have been accredited, approved, or otherwise endorsed by ICE…”

Membership in ICE does not mean that an organization or any of its credentialing programs have been accredited, approved, or otherwise endorsed by ICE. We can see this means more than no more accreditation. According to ICE itself, membership means no approval or any other endorsements.

As I write this post, my only goal is for NBCMI to published a written detailed explanation of the reasons they abandoned the NCCA accreditation, the potential consequences this decision can bring to certified medical interpreters, and why candidates scheduled to take the exam in 2018 were not informed of this important change so they could decide to either pursue the CMI certification or perhaps take the CHI exam instead. Spanish language CMI interpreters have a right to know why a certification exam after the NCCA accreditation ended has the same cost as the one offered when the accreditation was in place. How does a business decision to add more languages to the certification program benefit the Spanish language CMIs whose credentialing program lost NCCA accreditation? So far, NBCMI has limited its answer to a statement posted on their newsletter that repeats what they previously said about the validity of the exam and CMI certification, but the explanation of the reasons to discontinue the accreditation have not been disclosed. Dismissing social media as myths and misinformation does not answer the questions so many interpreters want answered.

Some changes have already been impacting those who hold a CMI certification: Some institutions stopped reimbursing the certification exam fee to certification candidates taking the exam in 2018. It has been reported that some clients are now preferring those interpreters holding a CHI certification over a CMI credential; and, a good possibility is that in the future, CMI credentials will be questioned and tested by attorneys who will cross-examine NBCMI certified medical interpreters in the presence of a jury during a medical malpractice trial.

NBCMI needs to explain why NCCA accreditation went from being something they were proud of a few years ago to something no longer needed:

“…The National Board of Certification for Medical Interpreters (NBCMI) is pleased to announce that its Certified Medical Interpreter (CMI) program has been accredited by the National Commission for Certifying Agencies (NCCA), thus joining an elite group of certifying bodies dedicated to public protection and excellence in certification… NCCA accreditation was one of the objectives the National Board set for itself at the very outset…” (NBCMI press release dated January 18, 2013 at Miami Beach Convention Center)

These are valid questions we hope NBCMI will officially address, and they are all legitimate reasons in a free market economy like the United States’ for any interpreter working on the healthcare sector to think very carefully about which one of the two certifications she or he should hold. Let’s hope that at the end of all the confusion and uncertainty the answer is either one of the certifications, but as of today, we do not know if that will be the case, even if both certifications were equally recognized, because one continues to have an accredited certification program and the other one does not. Many of our colleagues would like to know the reason for the changes that both, NBCMI and its parent organization IMIA experienced just now: a new president for NBCMI (we wish her well) and the resignation of IMIA’s president-elect before he officially took office. Interpreters want to know if these changes at this confusing times are related to the decision to end accreditation, or it is just a coincidence.

I now invite you to share your thoughts on this issue, and please, do not write personal attacks, and unless you are officially commenting on behalf of NBCMI, please abstain from sending surrogate comments defending the Board.

As interpreters we must remain at the table of our largest professional association.

October 19, 2012 § Leave a comment

Dear colleagues:

Next week we will meet in San Diego during the American Translators Association annual conference. We will attend interesting presentations, establish new contacts, greet old friends, buy books, and we will have a lot of fun.  However, we will also gather to do something else that is particularly important for all interpreters: we will vote for three directors to the ATA Board. These new officials will represent our interests before the Board for the next three years.

As a professional association, ATA has thirteen officials that make policy and decide issues that affect us all as an organization. We have a President, a President-elect, a Secretary, a Treasurer, and 9 directors.  Being a board member is a hard job, it requires a lot of time and effort and the reward is usually the satisfaction of a job well-done.  We are very fortunate to have very capable and dedicated people at the top of ATA.

The number of translators and interpreters in the organization’s membership are pretty similar, but only two of these thirteen officials are interpreters.   They all do a magnificent job, but it is these interpreters that really voice our perspective in the boardroom. We are two professions united by the word, written and spoken.  I am writing this piece because those two spaces where we as interpreters are represented in the boardroom are up for reelection.  In other words, if we lose one of those two seats we will end up with nothing as it used to be in the past.  In the pursuit of a more balanced organization we should strive to bring our representation up. To do that we cannot afford to lose these two seats. We just can’t.

Cristina D. Helmerichs is a veteran of our profession. She has a professional and administrative resume better than most. She has been an honest and measured voice for all ATA interpreters during the last three years. She was instrumental in the change of the organization’s tag that for the first time included us, the interpreters, as part of the association’s identity.  She presently chairs the Interpretation Policy Advisory Committee, and a couple of years ago she played a significant role on an effort to understand and include many more of our colleagues who were frankly on the verge of leaving ATA and other professional organizations because they felt excluded and ignored. Cristina was Chair of the NAJIT Board of Directors from 1996 to 2004. During her tenure NAJIT saw unprecedented growth in membership; she is also a founder of the Texas Association of Judiciary Interpreters and Translators (TAJIT) and an active member of the Austin Area Translators and Interpreters Association.

Cristina complements these impressive administrative credentials with her professional trajectory as an interpreter. She has worked in the federal court system nationwide, she has been a pillar to the court interpreter scene in the state of Texas for many years, and she has been a conference interpreter all over the country.  Cristina is a regular interpreter trainer, a workshop instructor, and a rater of the federal court interpreter examination.  I know all these things because I have been a member of these organizations when Cristina has been in charge; I have worked with her all over the country interpreting, teaching, and rating federal exams. I have traveled half way across the world with Cristina. I have pet her dogs at her home, and I have been her classmate when we studied diplomatic conference interpretation in Argentina together.  Cristina has been a great friend and she is a spectacular human being. Anybody in Austin will agree with this statement.  I invite you to vote for her next week because we need her at the table.

I also encourage you to reelect Odile J. Legeay, the other interpreter on the board.  Odile is another great professional and very capable board member. During the last three years she has been instrumental in the development of tools that have come to aide all freelancers, such as the standard agreement she developed. Odile is also a great human being. I know all these things because just as in Cristina’s case, I have seen it first-hand. I have worked with her, attended conferences and activities with her, and I have been to her home in Houston where I have seen how well-liked and loved by her peers she is. Together with Cristina, Odile is a voice that we as interpreters must keep at the top of ATA’s decision-making structure. We need their representation. In fact we cannot afford to do without either one of them.

It is also relevant to mention that Cristina and Odile are two of only three Spanish linguists on the board. This is also important when we think that ATA is the most important professional association in the United States, and the U.S. is the number two country with the most Spanish speakers in the world just behind Mexico.  Voting to reelect Cristina and Odile will continue to allow all ATA interpreters to have a voice on a Board of Directors where an overwhelming majority of the members are translators, and it will also help ATA to be more representative of its community (The United States of America) and its membership (Spanish interpreters and translators) by keeping two of the Spanish linguists as part of the Board. The other Spanish linguist, a translator, is not up for reelection this time.

Finally, because this election day we can vote for three directors, I would like to invite you to also vote for Corinne McKay. She is not an interpreter, she is a French<>English translator (and a very good one) who has been instrumental to our joint profession. I know Corinne as a person and she is a great human being, she is responsible and committed. I had a chance to observe her up-close when she was President of the Colorado Translators Association (CTA). At the time I was living in Colorado and I was Chair of the Colorado Association of Professional Interpreters (CAPI). I have seen Corinne present at professional conferences, I saw the key role she played during the ATA annual conference in Denver two years ago, and I know that although not an interpreter, she has tried to bridge that gap in Colorado organizing events to bring the professions closer. I know this because a few years back she invited me to do a presentation on conference interpretation before CTA.

Dear friends and colleagues. I appreciate all of our colleagues that are running, I am sure they are all honorable and capable professionals and human beings, but this time I invite you to keep our voice at the table by reelecting Cristina Helmerichs and Odile Legeay, and I invite you to cast your third vote for a great translator who has proven to be capable as an administrator and will no doubt be a friend to the interpreter community. Please cast these three votes.

Where Am I?

You are currently browsing entries tagged with candidates at The Professional Interpreter.