Losing face
RID identity crisis

The applied theory to accept all interpreting credentials (RID-NAD-EIPA) that increased membership and invited chaos into the RID organization has resulted in a convaluted Strategic Challenges Bylaws Review Task Force (SCBRTF) that plays on the words of the VIEWS Winter 2010 article aptly titled in declaring "who are we? " instead of "who we are!"

The SCBRTF lists three "working concepts" to address the RID identity crisis issue that was first introduced for remedy 2 1/2 years ago at the National Confernce in SF,CA. A real timely process in this day of hi-speed internet and a "new" interactive RID web-site.
Now lets add newcomer BEI from Texas and Michigan to the national scene, as if the ASL interpreting profession needed any more "alphabet soup" acronyms to clear up any "mistaken identity" issues.

And what about the new kid-on-the-block VIU (Video Interpreters United) who is now crowding in on this piece of the pie called "who are you". In looking ahead, could they be the first to create and/or establish an exclusive video interpreter credential that is both lacking and long-overdue in the most popular yet neglected VRS Industry ? Why not ? Door's open...and membership is FREE ! How about a VIU-VI-Master ? or VIva la King/Queen ?

Surely the FCC will never be monitoring ANY "qualified" interpreter credentials while chasing down criminals and being pre-occupied with "reforming" the VRS industry. Or will they ....Sorenson ?

Pay-to-Play
BEI v NIC

In todays economic climate of personal and state budget challenges, its a no brainer on where one will go to satisfy any mandated objectives that one must meet to continue operating in a solvent manner...the pocket book. The question of "what do you get for your money" in light of "what can you afford" has played itself to no end in Michigan and elsewhere. To shine light of the SERIOUS financial strains now reflected of the state, the ONLY ASL teaching university in the state (Michigan State University_MSU) is threatening to DISCONTINUE its Deaf Ed. program due to budget constraints.
On APRIL 16, plans are in-the-works to hold a RALLY before, during, and after the next Board meeting. I'm certain ANYONE who would like to support this "call to arms" on this development can contact Katie Hosmer through the FaceBook group," Keep Deaf-Ed major at MSU!"

As for the RID credentials, lackluster membership perks don't register very high on the list of priorities at this time nor does the total membership number.
What does matter are costs in saving an interpreter 1/2 to 2/3 on testing out in the written and performance componets depending on how you figure membership costs for the RID/NIC testing.
The BEI gets the passing grade on these costs and for testing prep material as well.

RID/NIC written & performance = $ 565 w/mbr_$ 765 w/o mbr v. BEI $ 250

The hidden costs associated with test leasing for the state is not to be over-looked as well.

What is EXTREMELY critical in this "pay to play" arrangement of interpreter credentials is how they influence the exclusive VRS/RID arena. Credentialing plays a MAJOR role in VRS pay scales. Things get unsettling when an "independent/state" credentialing system replaces what once was considered the "norm." ALOT more at stake than what meets the eye. Change in this venue of revenue is not to be taken lightly.

Kickin' the tires
Content & Compatibility

Here's one key area that caught the RID by surprise and wish they had back. With a significant RID presence on the Michigan Rules & Regulations Committee (MRRC), the BEI salesteam must have made a pitch that the RID/NIC players didn't address, failed to move upon or simply ignored during the year of selection for a testing paradigm. Aside from the already mentioned cost factors, questions of which is a "better test" had to of come about SOMETIME during that year ! Where were the "facts" presented in January letter to MI-DODHH during this selection period ?
Due to its presence on the MRRC, did the RID consider itself an automatic "shoo-in" ? Or simply asleep at the wheel....?

BEIs' presentation whether in sales strategy, content, compatability or that the largest state of Texas implements this testing credential is literally giving the RID a "run for the money".

As for common goals/objectives in testing this excerpted "scripture" from the RID is relevant;

"Goals in implementing EIPA-RID Agreement"(fall 2006) fMoving forward, confident in the fact that acceptance of separate testinginstruments will have no diluting effect on our products and services - the NADRID NIC, CMP and EPS.
ALSO-
Knowing that various testing products merely provide a benchmark – a starting point. Acknowledging that what is crucial is continuing a life long learning commitment that all interpreters need.

Contrary to the RIDs' January letter of pleas(e) to the Director, MRRC members and reps from the state of Michigan, its appropriate to mention here of the Food Network show that considers presentation as a quality element to a food dish or a contestants demise is certain. To conclude, a show ending decision has been rendered.
In this case....RID, you've been CHOPPED.

Do as I say- not as I do
RID / EIPA transparency mud puddle

In the letter to the MI-DODHH Director, Rules Committee, and state dept. officials the RID states,

"members shared their belief that the DODHH process was very closed and that selected interpreters had information that was not shared with all stakeholders. With nearly 400 RID members living within the state of Michigan, we would urge a more open process for information distribution, feedbackcollection and transparency in the development of the new classification system."

Now who's calling the "kettle black" here on the transparency subject ?

A member of RID need not go too far back, say the fall of 2006, that the RID under the "cover of darkness" allowed the EIPA into the membership fold without members (stakeholders) acknowledgement or prior approval. This clandestine move by the RID infuriated some (most?) members and remains fresh in their minds when the word "transparency" appears from the RID.

The RID cries of "no transparency" to the DODHH/state of Michigan regarding the selection of the BEI credential stands mute compared with its "closed door" approach to its invitation of the EIPA membership into the RID organization.
Are these hollow accusations that the DODHH violated some "ethics" that were somehow created and honored by the RID ?
C'mon.

And what about throwing stones at the BEI test itself ? Reference again to the above "Goals in implementing EIPA-RID Agreement" to clarify any misconception of test inferiority and/or transparency issues.

In time, transparency matters regarding either the BEI or RID to the state of Michigan will be discovered and revealed.
Trust me.

Tail wagging the dog
IL licensure scam or sham ?

This last minute maneuvering by the RID to the MI-DODHH Director Ms. Emory and the cc to state agency reps is reminiscent of Sorenson coercing the Illinois Deaf and Hard of Hearing Commission (IDHHC) in Nov.'08 in establishing Proficiency Levels to designate interpreter areas of practice for licensure in that state.
You know, the "qualified" part.

This abrupt "wait,wait" from the RID looks peculiar, if not suspicious, while the DODHH sought input from the RID "heavy-handed" MRRC in this selection process that went on over a period of time.

Lets compare Michigan events to what transpired in Illinois. Don't blink...

In July '08, the IDHHC created the Proposed Licensure levels listing Video Relay Service (VRS) as "Advanced".

This made perfect sense due to the calls that come up in the "calling queue". Especially with the FCC mandating E911 response that the Deaf had lobbied for and received from the FCC.
As all VIs or emergency dispatchers know, an E911 call is to"expect the unexpected" from a prank, to the simple "cat in the tree" or to an ABSOLUTE CRISIS involving HUMAN LIVES! Certainly from a VI perspective, who could argue with the "Advanced" licensure placement ?

The Deaf/HoH community in Illinois was excited that a licensure bill for interpreters was to PROTECT them and be presented to their senate for approval and become LAW.
Until...

Sorenson, through their legal advisors and management, approached the IDHHC in Springfield, IL on Nov. 14 right before the Proposed Licensure Bill was to be submitted to the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules (JCAR) for the FINAL draft to be introduced to the IL Senate for approval. Sorenson objected and sought exemption to the proposed rules and wanted to meet about the potential new law. It seems non-compliance of the law provides strict penalties that threatened Sorensons operation as a VRS provider in Illinois.

Uproar from the Deaf community ensued through June Prusak, a reputable CDI from Chicago (Don't let VRS stomp on your rights)/scroll to bottom for this blog

Her criticism targeted this exemption plea from Sorenson that threatened to de-rail ALL efforts to PROTECT the Deaf from sleazy individuals/corporations who "interpret" under misrepresentation, exploiting and undermining the Deaf. In June's web posted statement she said,
" Sorenson VRS wants their interpreters to be excluded/exempt/removed from the law. This means, Sorenson VRS wants the freedom to hire anyone who can sign to work as a video relay interpreter especially in the state of Illinois."

We, the consumers of interpreting services in the State of Illinois, wish to increase the standard and qualification requirements of our interpreters in all aspects, including Video Relay Services.
A question has been asked to Sorenson VRS team –where have they been the last 2 years with this process? "

In response to this outrage, and as a "credentialed" state registered interpreter who has practiced in IL a few years, I questioned Tonia R. Bogener (IDHHC Legal Counsel) via e-mail about who attended and what transpired during the meeting with Sorenson and their purpose of exemption of the proposed Licensure Rules.

In a delayed response, she explained that "the primary concern expressed by Sorenson is that the qualifications of VRS interpreters are covered by the FCC and the state had no jurisdiction to further regulate."
Say again....? This is one for the books and applies EVERYWHERE ! Illinois,Texas, Michigan...

Excuse me, but I'M TOTALLY UNAWARE OF ANY INTERPRETER QUALIFICATIONS REGULATED BY THE FCC !

What does exist is the ADA definition of a "qualified" interpreter, but qualifications specific to and enforced by the FCC ??... and these ARE LAWYERS ?

So, JCAR was "convinced" or "manipulated" (pick one) into transforming the water into wine, I mean the Advanced into Intermediate Profiecency Level for VRS terps regarding the Illinois Interpreter Licensure Law from Sorensons "meeting". On Nov. 24 '08 the IDHHC adopted a NEW set of Licensure Rules reflecting this significant change. If ever there was a transparency issue....!

For all their apparent ties, I think Sorenson and the RID need to work together on these newfound FCC qualifications revealed in Illinos when approaching states regarding licensure matters !
Unfortunately, they contradict each other.

And you thought as a Video Interpreter (VI) you represented the TOP OF YOUR PROFESSION ...

A slippery slope
Michigan sizes up with Texas

These two states do represent some concern for the RID in losing their grip of terps and in the interpreter profession overall.
is the THREAT real ?
Well...why else would the RID knock on the Michigan state door of terp testing/qualifications with this after-the-fact "train go sorry" letter ? The BIG state of Texas might have been viewed as a "wash"...but now Michigan?

Lost revenue not only impacts state and personal status but for organizational operations as well.
Are membership/testing fees on the way UP to counter any lost monies that impact negatively on the RID balance sheet from future RID abandonment ? What about the reputation ? This declining membership ? The NAME ?

Truth be told, IF any other states bypass the RID for interpreter credentials in favor of the BEI or
even the VIU and then throw-in any potential FCC-VRS reform of Sorensons mandate that the "FCC regulates VRS" as demonstrated from the Illinois licensure saga, the RID could have a REAL problem on their hands (pun intended)!

Wisconsin is seeking an interpreter licensure law with Senate Bill (SB) 389.
Could the future 9 member Sign Language Interpreter Council in Wisconsin adopt the BEI as its interpreter credential "authority" as designated by the states "Department of Regulation and Licensing"(DRL) and be the next BEI partner ? What state may be next for the BEI ?

If this continues, possibly the WHOLE system will be in danger of imploding if not to experience further membership erosion. Could the RID could be relegated to the days of past in publishing a newsletter or monthly e-mail announcements about OTHER interpreting entities ?

I think we all can agree, interpreter credentials ARE NECESSARY but how to get them and who's in the drivers seat of choice has now shifted into first gear in the Lone Star state and now in Michigan.
Will others follow ?
More states, higher gears, faster speeds.

Bottom line; Bigger doesn't always mean better.Not even in Texas.