Is being a capable, good individual enough to lead a professional association?

September 4, 2017 § 3 Comments

Dear Colleagues:

I have written about the benefits of belonging to professional interpreter and translator associations in the past. Sometimes I have praised and criticized some, but I have never questioned the need to have them around, ready to defend and advance the profession through professional development of their members, advocacy, lobbying, education, forging alliances, and so on.

Today we need them more than ever before. In a globalized economy, where we are the constant target of greedy agencies, ignorant government officials, shrinking budgets and growing intolerance, solid professional associations are essential to our profession. Because we are not all equal nor we live in the same environment, in my opinion, interpreters and translators should belong to at least one international, one regional, one local, and one specialized association.

Unlike other posts, today I will not question the intentions of some associations’ disturbing agenda centered on corporate memberships, I will not talk about the good or bad practices of some others regarding public relations, advocacy, or the planning of a conference. My concern in such matters remains unchanged.

My motivation behind this post comes from deep concern and historically supported fear about the immediate future of one of the largest and most popular professional association in the United States. Even though this entry centers on issues that happened in America, many of this association’s members live in other countries, and this situation could easily happen somewhere else.   I encourage all readers to continue to the end, even if you live somewhere else.

After many years of struggle, and a long fight for its survival, this association reestablished itself. It grew and the quality of its membership improved. For the past two years it has grown tremendously and has held its two most successful conferences in history, not just because of the people attending the events, but due to the quality of its content.  As a veteran member of the association who experienced the good old days, the horrible years of decay, and this rebirth, I can confidently say this historical recovery happened because of the experience, prestige, knowledge, honesty and vision of two of its Board members, the hard work of all five people part of the Board, and the professionalism, skills, and work of the two individuals who have been in charge of the administration for the last couple of years.  Sadly, the members of the association learned last week these two Board members resigned to their positions.

By looking at the composition of the Board, anybody interested in joining the organization, learning about the profession, or denouncing a professional or ethical transgression, would see a well-respected professor from one of the more renowned interpreting and translation institutions worldwide, a pioneer and innovator on a note-taking technique for consecutive interpreting, a trainer and conference presenter in all continents, a United States Department of State interpreter, one of the most respected (beloved by the interpreters who worked with him) and capable managing interpreter for one of the busiest federal district courts in the United States, including courthouses in four cities, and perhaps the one of the few districts to have staff certified interpreters in a language other than Spanish, one very experienced federally certified court interpreter from the state with the largest non-English speaking population in the United States, one very experienced federally certified court interpreter from one of the busiest federal judicial districts in the country due to its proximity to Mexico, a well-known and widely respected authority on legal transcriptions and translations, a promising somewhat recently federally certified court interpreter from a small city in the Midwest, one of the newest trainers of interpreters and conference presenter, a State-level certified court interpreter for one local court in the New York City metropolitan area, and a PhD in Linguistics, experienced university professor who does not live in the United States.  These credentials explain the reason many of the most capable and better known court interpreters who left the association during the dark era came back. It also gave many of us an important tool to promote the association and encourage new interpreters to join.

Unfortunately, after last week’s resignations, anybody interested in joining the organization, learning about the profession, or denouncing a professional or ethical transgression, will see a promising somewhat recently federally certified court interpreter from a small city in the Midwest, one of the newest trainers of interpreters and conference presenter, a State-level certified court interpreter for one local court in the New York City metropolitan area, and a PhD in Linguistics, experienced university professor who does not live in the United States.

I have no intention to criticize, offend, or disrespect the colleagues who remain as Board members. I have no reason to doubt their skills and dedication; I am not questioning their honesty or integrity either. They appear to be capable, and many of you trusted them when you voted for them.

I think it is important for me to mention that the two Board members who resigned, and the two individuals in charge of the administration, are all good friends of mine whom I have known for many years. I have had very limited contact with the current directors. I have dealt with one of them more than the others because of the conference in the Washington, D.C. area, but we have no relationship beyond saying hi at the conferences or being Facebook friends.

This post is not about those directors who stayed, but about the ones who left; the missed opportunities due to their absence, the uncertain future of the organization, and my concerns about the reasons that pushed courageous, capable veterans of the profession, full of ideas and plans for the association’s future, to resign.  Every time that a non-quitter quits we must worry and find out what happened.

Dear friends and colleagues, for a professional association to thrive it must gain access to many places, many inaccessible to the common folk. Effectively arguing for the interests of the profession before government authorities, establishing professional practice positions before clients, and protecting our profession from the predators of the “industry”, are difficult. Many of those we must talk to will only listen when the voice addressing them has the credibility backed by name recognition, reputation, professional trajectory, and personal network that the now missing directors have.

Many of you reading this post, members of this association or not, are too new to remember the dark years.  They started with a Board lacking experienced federally certified court interpreters, world-renowned freelance practitioners admired and respected by other veterans who trusted them, and could be role models to the new interpreters.  The Board of those years had good intentions, I think they wanted to make the association better, but a Board of university professors and non-certified interpreters shrank the organization. For years our conferences were poorly attended, made no money, and could make no decisions because with so few members attending the conferences we did not have quorum to vote for or against anything.  On that occasion, just like today, capable, experienced, well-known and respected Board members left; some just came back in the last couple of years when they recognized a Board like the ones in the past. Many of our most valuable members never came back. Many of my colleagues and I do not want to go back to the dark years.

I understand that many of you are friends of the current members of the Board, I get that many of you voted for them. Nothing is wrong with that. What troubles me is the emotional part. There is no reason to be offended or angry when people question the credentials of the current Board compared to the ones of the Board we just lost last week. I have seen how some of you are wishing good luck to the remaining Board. I wish them a long and happy life, but I am not on the well-wisher column. I prefer to remain on the skeptical, scrutinizing every move and decision.  I want to know what caused the two resignations. Not the light version or the excuses. I know the ones who resign and they could not possibly resign over one decision. It had to include other issues, perhaps even the way the Board members interacted.

I have also read how many of you are demanding an audit of the performance by the company retained to manage the financial and day-to-day operations. I think that should not be necessary as I trust the professionalism of the two individuals who run said company (and as I said, they are my friends) but I welcome the suggestion as a needed step to erase the uneasiness of many members. I know the administrators will not like this, I know it will hurt their feelings, but I also know that they have nothing to hide and will understand the need for this audit which should be expanded to go beyond a mere examination of the books. Like I said, the real cause of the resignations came not from the accounting books, it came from some repeated interaction among Board members.

I also believe that to avoid going back to the failed years of the past, we must let people speak up. If the members want to vent their frustration with the way things turned starting last week, they should be allowed to post anything on the Facebook group (as far as I know there are no complains about censoring it so far) and also to use the List Serve. At this point it is irrelevant what the guidelines say about who or what can be expressed there. It is absurd to defend a decision splitting hairs because somebody was censored, banned, moderated of whatever. These are extraordinary times and they require of flexibility and total freedom of expression to all members. We all know that everybody will say what they must say, if not through the association’s official outlets, then through another social media vehicle.

This is a time to listen to the members, have an independent auditor and perhaps a committee to investigate what happened so we can have transparent and complete information we can trust. Self-serving statements by Board members, and providing some financial and corporate information on line will not be enough.

Finally, we all must understand that it will be difficult to fill the two vacancies on the Board with colleagues of similar caliber to the ones who left. Serving in any professional association is not an easy task, it takes a lot of time, requires of many personal and professional sacrifices, and it does not make you any money.  Getting anybody to serve is hard, I for one would not do it, but getting somebody with the same characteristics as the ones of our two dear colleagues who quit will be a titanic effort.  Hints by the current Board indicating that they will move fast worry me.  It will take some time to get people that can take the Board’s collective resume back to where it was last week. Other decisions can be postponed if needed, there are no contracts or deadlines that justify a rushed decision. Many of us are serious about it. We will be watching closely this nomination process, because this time it will be even more complicated to get the ideal people on the Board. These two new members must have another characteristic: They must be independent, they must be of a different persuasion from the one of the three members left. You may think this does not matter, that regardless of their ideology they will be in the minority 3-2. This is true, but having such diversity of ideas and opinions will assure us as members that even in losing a vote, they will let us know why the majority voted the way they did.  As you can clearly see, we will need two extraordinary professionals who can play the role of the extraordinary professionals who just left, people not close friends of the current Board members so we can be sure the Board is not marching in lockstep without anyone questioning their decisions.

As those of you who assiduously read my blog know, my only interest is the betterment of the profession and protecting my colleagues; I contribute to the profession as much as I can, and I do it all over the world. I have many ideas and projects in mind; I have recently discussed many with one colleague who left the Board. I am not a teenager anymore and I will not sit and wait to see how a Board that looks different from what I proposed above turns out. I will take my projects somewhere else, and work with others who think like me, perhaps even the Board members who quit. I want to be clear: I am not quitting the association at this time. I am going to be vigilant and question every move and decision by this and future Boards; I will continue to demand transparency and diversity of opinions in Boards that are not elected by the membership (like in this case) and I withhold judgement until I am satisfied one way or another. In the meantime I will behave just like I did during the dark years: I will not praise or attack the association and I will not encourage anybody to leave or join the organization until I see what the Board does.  I now ask you to please share your thoughts on the composition of the Board, be brief and concise, and please do not write emotional comments attacking or defending past or present Board members.

Who are those “top-level” interpreters many agencies refer to?

March 26, 2015 § 16 Comments

Dear colleagues:

I am sure that what I am about to describe has happened to many of you: You get an email from an agency either telling you that they are new to your market and they are looking for “top-level” interpreters in your area, or they address you directly by email to let you know that they have an upcoming project and they would like to have you on board for the event. Both emails end by asking for your resume, fee schedule, and sometimes even references.  I have basically received this email, or similar ones, innumerable times during my career.  I do not know what you do when you get such a request, but I usually respond to the communication by email. I attach the most recent version of my resume, a boilerplate letter that details my fee schedule, accepted payment options, cancellation fees, and travel expenses requirements; and when the agency asks for references, I just state, in the body of the email, that I will only ask my clients for references when the assignment offer is firm, and in the meantime I suggest they google me under: “Tony Rosado Interpreter” and they will find many pages that talk about me, including professional achievements, publications, interviews, and testimonials. I have found that in most cases, this strategy works. It is common for prospective clients to waive the references requirement after they have googled my name.  To me, this is standard practice because I do not like to bother my regular clients unless it is absolutely necessary, and I value my time too much to be happy about spending time collecting reference letters for agencies who have not even extended a solid offer.

Now, what happens after I send the information can be classified in three categories: The exceptionally rare, the exceptionally common, and the deafening silence.

Every once in a while the agency contacts me after I emailed all the information and offers me the job.  This is not a common occurrence and sometimes I have to work a little harder to get the fee I command. Things like an explanation of the work I do, sharing my professional experience, and bringing up potential problems that the client had not thought about, will get me the fee requested on my fee schedule.  Usually, these agencies turn into regular clients after the first assignment as they are serious about customer service and quality interpreting. Of course, most of our work comes from agencies that already know us, or from those who were referred to us by another client or colleague, but we should never discard unknown agencies who reach us by email, unless the communication sounds like a scam, a pipe dream, or we hear about their bad reputation.

The overwhelming majority of these agencies contact me back to thank me for my quick response, and to tell me that my fee schedule is way above their means. Some of them end the communication after this revelation, and some others let me know that they will keep my information, and when they get an interpreter request for an event that “…requires of someone with my experience and credentials… (they)… will contact me”. That is usually the last I hear from the agency.

The rest of the agencies never get back to me. They simple apply the “silent treatment”.  I imagine that their reasons for totally ignoring me have to do with my fee, payment policy, or my travel requirements, but I will never know for sure.

Now, if you are like me, before answering the original email, you do a little research on the agency. I run a search on the web, and when they have a website (it is a bad start when they do not even have one, or the one they have is one of those free websites full of commercial advertisement) I read it very carefully. Although the wording changes from one website to another, all of them promise top-notch, professional and experienced interpreters. This is what gets me thinking. When the agency does not answer back after I send them my resume and fee schedule, or when they respond to let me know I am too expensive for them, I cannot help it but wonder who are they hiring for these assignments?  I know many interpreters and I believe that, at least by name, I am aware of practically all of the top-level interpreters in my language combination. Certainly, I know every name in my region; I have to: this is my market and I am trying to provide a professional service.  Sometimes I ask around, sometimes the information comes to me without doing a thing, you all know how it is in this profession: information gets around.

For this reason, it puzzles me how these agencies can claim that they provide top-notch, experienced interpreters when, as interpreters, you know all those who would fit the description, and many times even the ones one tier below, and none of them was retained to provide the service. Are these agencies being honest with their customers when they promise the best of the best? I do not know for sure, and I am not accusing anybody. I just wonder who these “top-level, experienced” interpreters are, and where are they finding them. I would love to meet them, get to know them, and ask them how they can make a comfortable living when they provide their services for such lower fees. I just do not understand; even if I were to assume that they are all brand new interpreters just out of school and therefore (although erroneously, as I have discussed it many times before) willing to work for a lower fee, how would they meet the “experienced” part of the offer?

I am extremely confused, but maybe you are not, and for that reason I invite you to tell me who are these top-level, experienced interpreters these agencies are offering to their customers. In the meantime, I will share this post with clients and prospective clients to see if they can help me solve the mystery, and in the process, I will inform them that the “top-level, experienced” interpreters I know are not been retained by these agencies.

Should the good interpreter take any assignment offered to him or her?

February 11, 2013 § 24 Comments

Dear colleagues:

I recently worked an event for the Tea Party of Iowa. It was my first experience working with this organization, and I found it interesting, challenging, and important for my professional development and resume. Many of you congratulated me when I posted about this assignment on my Twitter and Facebook accounts, but a smaller number told me not to take the assignment, they told me that they would never accept work from this organization, and a few were truly angry.

From the time I started my career I have always worked understanding that we are professionals and as such we should provide our services as long as we feel capable of doing the job and the pay is what we asked for.  My answer to many of these colleagues was a second question. I asked them how they interpret in the courts for serial killers, rapists and child molesters.  When we work as interpreters we are messengers between two parties. We let them borrow our voice and skill, not our beliefs.

The other argument , and in my opinion a valid one, is that sometimes an interpreter cannot interpret a topic that he or she is uncomfortable with; thus some colleagues refuse to work in a court or a hospital setting.  I find both positions valid. In the real world I have chosen to interpret any subject to any audience as long as I feel prepared to do it and the pay is good.  For this reason I have interpreted death penalty trials, Pro-choice and Pro-life gatherings, NRA conventions, child molester trials, and political conventions.

I know many distinguished colleagues who systematically decline assignments that go against their political views or personal values and I respect that position.  My question to you is: When offered an out of the ordinary assignment, do you have my attitude to take the job as long as it is interesting, you are capable of doing it, and the pay is good, or you take the position of our colleagues who pick and choose based on content?

Where Am I?

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