Category Archives: Communication

MI Interpreter Proposed Rules and Regs

Posted on by

The Michigan Division on Deaf and Hard of Hearing last month finally released their proposed rules and regulations for the PA 204 Act, or known as the Deaf Persons’ Interpreters Act.

Unfortunately, many K-12 interpreters are opposing the proposed rules and regulations because they will be required to obtain a 4.0 (Advanced Intermediate) on the EIPA test, which I fully support. We need interpreters who sign and voice well, and I’m very disappointed with these interpreters who oppose the EIPA standard. The EIPA standard of 4.0 should stay! The Michigan Deaf Community should inform DODHH and the interpreters that the EIPA 4.0 needs to remain.

With that in mind, I have copied and pasted my public comment that I submitted to DODHH on March 8, 2013, listing my concerns with these proposed rules and regulations. There is far more to this than just the EIPA matter, and these issues deserve just as much attention as the EIPA. And these concerns are shared by many, hence the fierce backlash from many interpreters, unfortunately. (Here’s my DODHH Public Comment_redacted in PDF format, if you don’t want to read the copy and paste below).

—

Dear Director Emery:

My name is Jeannette K. Johnson and I am a Deaf Michigan citizen who’s proficient in American Sign Language. I have a Bachelor of Science degree in Public Administration from Grand Valley State University and this document is my public comment on the PA 204 2007 amendments’ proposed rules and regulations, pursuant to the PA 206 Michigan Administrative Procedures Act. As a consumer of interpreters for the deaf, while I overall support the PA 204 amendments, I have numerous concerns with the rules and regulations. They are the following:

Issue One:

Under the definitions section (R 393.5003 Definitions) it states the following:

  • (x) “Quality assurance certification” or “QA” means an interpreter certificate granted under the division’s quality assurance certification interpreter testing system, which will phase out.
  • (s) “Michigan BEI” or “MI-BEI” means the Michigan board for evaluation of interpreters test which this state leases from the state of Texas to evaluate interpreters in this state.

The definition of the Quality assurance certification, especially the portion about being phased out, seems to conflict with the PA 204 law, since it does not give any provisions for the QA certification to be phased out or even be replaced. A direct quote from the PA 204 regarding this matter:

393.508d Possession of Michigan quality assurance certification; expiration; renewal.

Sec. 8d. Any person possessing a Michigan quality assurance certification at the level of I, II, or III, on the effective date of the amendatory act that added this section, shall be considered a qualified interpreter for purposes of this act until that certification status expires.

Thus, resolution is needed. Furthermore, it should be noted that the Division has already phased out the QA prior to the promulgation of these rules, without any input from the public and stakeholders. A comprehensive investigation should be held and corrective action should be taken against these individuals whom (whether they’re still employed by the State or not) are responsible for this egregious conduct, and the QA reinstated with input from stakeholders. 

Issue Two:

The definition of the MI-BEI makes it explicit that it is leased from the State of Texas. However, in the PA 204 law, it does not make provisions for the State to use or recognize another State’s interpreting certification as its own. The PA 204 law appears to give the Division authority to recognize Michigan and national certifications only – not other states. Therefore, all mentions of the MI-BEI should be stricken, and all mentions of the QA being phased out should be stricken as well.

Issue Three:

Under the R 393.5021, it states the following:

  • (b) A certification from another state which has a reciprocal agreement with this state.

Again, the PA 204 law does not appear to give the Division authority to have a reciprocal agreement with another state. Furthermore, in my opinion, this is akin to Michigan having a reciprocal agreement with Texas for attorneys’ bar exams and licensure, which does not happen for a good reason. Each state is different, thus their certification and its procedures must reflect such reality. Therefore, I believe the Division is evading its duty in this matter, and R 393.5021 (b) should be stricken.

Issue Four:

Under the R 393.5032, it discusses the matter of reciprocity and states the following:

An applicant for certification by reciprocity shall do all of the following: …

(c) Hold a current, valid license or certificate in good standing to practice interpreting in a state with which this state has a reciprocal agreement.

(d) Have no report of disciplinary action pending in another state, …

The same issue arises as in Issue Three. The PA 204 law does not appear to give the Division authority to recognize other states’ certifications – only its own and national certifications. Thus the R 393.5032 in its entirety needs significant editing, (c) needs to be stricken and (d) needs to be edited.

Issue Five:

Under R 393.5022, it states the following:

  • (c) Endorsements are required to interpret for a proceeding involving a deaf-blind person, medical, and legal situations. Endorsement requirements shall be required 2 years from the effective date of these rules.

Endorsements are not defined in the Definitions section. Who provides the endorsements, and how will it be provided? This needs to be defined and clarified then R 393.5022 and R 393.5028 edited to accurately reflect the endorsements definition.

Issue Six:

The matter of R 393.5054, covers the matter of the interpreter practicum experience.

I do not believe that the student interpreter practicum should be regulated by the Division. Rather, I believe that student practicums should be regulated and monitored by the Michigan Department of Education. Thus, R 393.5054 should be stricken. If not stricken, then have the supervising interpreter hold either a state or national certification, and a minimum of a Bachelor’s degree along with a year of professional interpreting experience.

Issue Seven:

Under the R 393.5026, it states the following:

  • (3) Interpreters meeting the certification requirements of subrule (1) of this rule may interpret for a proceeding for children and youth only in the following settings, if effective communication is achieved: ….

I believe this exceeds the Division’s authority and should be instead regulated and monitored by the Michigan Department of Education. Thus, R 393.5026 (3) and its subsections should be stricken.

Issue Eight:

Under the R 393.5058, it states the following:

  • (4) A written waiver shall be initiated only by a D/DB/HH person and retained by the appointing authority with a copy sent to the division. ….
  • (5) All waivers must be completed on a division created waiver form.

This rule makes it clear that only a Deaf, Deaf-Blind or a Hard of Hearing person can fill out the waiver (which I’m fine with). However, is there a reason for the (5) regulation? Why cannot a D/DB/HH adult create their own waiver? These rules and regulations should only regulate interpreters, not us D/DB/HH. I believe this exceeds the Division’s authority, thus R 393.5058 (5) should be stricken.

Issue Nine:

I believe that the R 393.5094 conflicts with the PA 204 law, since the PA 204 law already outlines fees and does not give provisions for the Division to impose additional fees. Therefore, I believe that R 393.5094 should be entirely stricken.

Issue Ten:

Under the R 393.5052, it states the following:

  • (1) … NAD-RID “Code of Professional Conduct,” effective July 1, 2005 is adopted by reference. …

I recommend changing that line to: “Interpreters shall follow the most recent official version of the NAD-RID Code of Professional Conduct.”

Issue Eleven:

The R 393.5023, R 393.5024 and R 393.5025 discuss the minimum for each level. I have many, many concerns with these rules. I do not see how it is possible for anyone, deaf or hearing, to remember these extraordinarily nuanced restrictions for each level. This reeks of micromanagement. Furthermore, interpreters must be allowed to exercise their own independent judgment, so there should be a provision somewhere in this section regarding that. (It also should be noted that even in Texas these restrictions are only recommended, not codified). Instead, I would have the following in the respective section of the rules and regulations (phased in within 6 years of these rules and regulations taking effect):

  • A Level I interpreter must hold a minimum of an Associate’s degree from an accredited institution and interpret at the most, in non-complex, low risk environments. They may interpret in moderate and high risk environments only if partnering with a Level II, III or national certified interpreter, respectively.
  • A Level II interpreter must hold a minimum of a Bachelor’s degree from an accredited institution and interpret, at the most, in moderately complex environments such as government; employment; or finance. They may interpret in a high risk environment if partnering with a Level III or national certified interpreter or if they have obtained legal/medical interpreting endorsements from the State or NAD-RID.
  • A Level III interpreter must hold a minimum of a Master’s degree from an accredited institution, may interpret in all environments, including high risk environments such as medical or legal situations.
  • Nationally certified interpreters, with prudent judgment and compliance with the most recent, official version of the NAD-RID Code of Professional Conduct, may interpret in any environment.

I would also add definitions of low, moderate and high risk environments in the Definitions section (R 393.5003).

Issue Twelve: 

I question whether R 393.5026 (3) and its subsections fall under the authority and scope of the Division. I believe that rather, these detailed regulations on what educational interpreters may and may not interpret, falls under the domain of the Michigan Department of Education.

Issue Thirteen:

In the Part 4. Procedures for Testing section, I strongly feel that there should be a regulation stating that the Division shall establish a permanent QA committee that will be composed of, at the minimum, interpreter trainers and Deaf individuals who are fluent in both ASL and English, to monitor and review the QA certification process. This will ensure that the stakeholders are included in the process on an equitable basis. In the best case scenario, a NCCA* expert should be on the QA committee as well, or at the least, be a consultant with the DODHH and its QA committee.

*National Commission for Certifying Agencies.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Jeannette K. Johnson

cc: Mary McLellan, Michigan Civil Rights Department
Michigan Representative MacGregor
Michigan Senator Jansen

Karl White & My FOIA Request

Posted on by

On March 23, 2012, I mailed out two FOIA requests, one under federal FOIA, and another under Utah’s, to the National Center of Hearing Assessment and Management at Utah State University. This was my letter below (without the letterhead containing my contact information). The only difference between the two letters were the citations of the applicable law that my requests were based upon.

National Center for Hearing Assessment and Management
Utah State University
2615 Old Main Hill,
Logan, Utah 84322

FOIA REQUEST

Dear FOIA Officer:

Please send me a copy of the following public records:

  • The titles and abstracts of submitted proposals that were rejected by any authority working with and/or for the 2012 Early Hearing Detection and Intervention [EHDI] Annual Meeting;
  • The list of the 2012 Abstract Review Committee members and whom the individual Abstract Review Committee members were representing;
  • The list of places, publications, media, etc., in which EHDI placed advertisements for the 2012 EHDI Annual Meeting;
  • The list of places, publications, media, etc., in which EHDI placed notices about call for papers to the 2012 EHDI Annual Meeting.

This request for information is made pursuant to the Utah Government Records Access and Management Act, UCA §§63-2-101 to -207, which requires you to respond in writing within ten (10) business days. Please advise me in writing of the estimated cost of this FOIA request, prior to filling this request, if it is estimated to be $20.00 or more.

If my request is denied in whole or part, I ask that you provide me with your written rationale for all deletions and/or exclusions, by reference to specific exemptions of the act. Please communicate with me by email, if you have questions regarding this request.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Jeannette Johnson

On April 6, 2012, Dr. Karl White emailed me, and responded with the following:

Dear Jeannette Johnson

In your letters of March 23, 2012 you requested information about how proposals for presentations and posters that were presented at the 2012 National EHDI Meeting in St. Louis were solicited, reviewed and selected. In those requests you cited the Freedom of Information Act and the Utah Government Records Access and Management Act. I don’t believe any of the information you requested is subject to the provisions of those statutes, but I am happy to provide you with answers to most of your questions anyway because we want the procedures associated with the National EHDI Meeting to be open and transparent. We are always interested in finding ways to improve the EHDI Meeting and invite your suggestions.

Attached is information about the process for soliciting, reviewing and selecting presentations and posters at the EHDI Meeting that is based on a recent response to someone who made a similar request.

You also requested information about the the titles and abstracts of rejected proposals and the names of people who reviewed the abstracts. In the attached material I have indicated where you can find the names and affiliations of the members of the Planning Committee for the 2012 National EHDI Meeting (which is a different group of people from those who reviewed proposals). The names of the people who reviewed the proposals have not been published since this is a “blind” review process and I think it would be inappropriate for me to publish those names. If people who were on the review committee want to disclose their own names, they are certainly free to do that.

I am providing you with the titles of the rejected proposals because I believe this information was sent to you by CDC in response to your FOIA request to them. I hope you will not publish this information because it may be embarrassing to people whose proposals were rejected.

Please let me know if you have additional questions or suggestions.

Karl

I quickly responded to him with the following:

Dear Dr. White:

Are you the FOIA officer for Utah State University?  From my experience with prior FOIA requests to a variety of public institutions across the country, it is my understanding that if you are not, you are obligated to forward my FOIA request to the Utah State University’s FOIA officer.

However, given your response, particularly your refusal to quote the applicable part of the statue on why this is being denied, please provide me with the name of the FOIA officer so I can send my request to the officer directly.  Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

Jeannette

Dr. White replied shortly after this with the following:

Dear Ms Johnson

I am not the FOIA Officer at Utah State University. A far as I know, Utah State University has not designated an FOIA Officer. I suggest you contact the University’s legal office or the office of the Utah State Attorney General if you would like additional information . Because your initial letter was sent to me, I did my best to answer your questions.

At that point, I decided do several things, and among one was to contact the Utah State University’s Provost and ask for the FOIA officer’s contact information. The Provost, after inquiring with the university’s attorney, replied within several hours with the information. And so, I sent Craig Simper, the university’s FOIA officer, my request. Since it was sent on April 6, the results of that FOIA request is still pending.

I have to point out several things here regarding Dr. White’s responses.  I did not address the FOIA request to Dr. Karl White. If you read my letter carefully (and it was on the envelope as well), it was addressed to ‘FOIA officer’.

And it appears to me that Dr. White did not forward my FOIA letter to the appropriate officials, or even inquire with his employers whether there was a FOIA officer. Otherwise, why would he claim that to his knowledge, there was no FOIA officer at Utah State University? Given all of this, I find this to be quite a bit unusual, especially when one considers the seriousness of FOIA requests.

Furthermore, one should note that despite Dr. White’s claims of cooperation and willingness to answer questions in his initial email, I had to contact the provost in order to obtain the FOIA officer’s contact information, after his refusal to to my request for said information.

I  also find it very interesting that that except for one item which I FOIA’ed both him and the CDC for (which I might add, haven’t gotten yet from the CDC. And nor is it the only thing I asked the CDC about), Dr. White gave me information that I did not ask for. So, why did Dr. White do this? This makes me wonder whether Dr. White would have been as “helpful” to every single person who made a similar request.

Then one has to contend with how Dr. White’s response to my FOIA was done. I have had my requests both approved and denied elsewhere in the past, and his email is not how you respond to a FOIA request in any shape or form. Why was the response done in this manner? Would have he responded in a similar manner to a hearing person?

(Edited to add: If you’re curious to see one of the 3 typical response to a FOIA request is, check out http://www.ita.doc.gov/ooms/FOIASampleLtr3.pdf and compare that to Dr. White’s response to me).

And last of all, what I find to be the most intriguing is Dr. White’s second to last line in his initial email. “I hope you will not publish this information because it may be embarrassing to people whose proposals were rejected.”

Would he make this kind of statement to a hearing person making a similar request? Would he even dream of making this kind of statement to a hearing blogger or reporter?

Given Dr. White’s overall conduct, I suspect that at the very least, he has something to hide. Especially when one notes that he’s essentially filibustering by giving me what I did not ask for. I wonder what the people at the CDC, the Health Resources Service Administration and our Congresspersons has to say about all of this, if they knew. Perhaps we all should go and find out, hmm?

At any rate, we should see within a few weeks, whether my suspicions are accurate.

To be continued…

Note: I’m not publishing the rejected titles until I get an official response (either a denial or approval with applicable information) from NCHAM and/or CDC on the entire content of my FOIA requests. 

Social Media A Must For Deaf

Posted on by

Yesterday afternoon, incredible events unfolded in my city, Grand Rapids, Michigan. A man went on an unprecedented murderous rampage, shooting and killing 7 people. After murdering these 7 individuals, he fled by car and at one point, had over 20 police cars and a helicopter pursuing him on the major highways. After his car was no longer drivable, (after his tires were blown and crashing into several police cars), the gunman ended up fleeing on foot and broke into a home. He subsequently took 3 individuals inside, hostage. One hostage was freed during negotiations. The standoff ended several hours later, near midnight, where he committed suicide. All of the remaining hostages were able to safely evacuate afterwards.

I was first alerted by this when I was emailed by the local television station with the headline, “Breaking News!” … I turned on the television to watch this situation, but captions were spotty in the beginning, and the media was being kept at a distance throughout the crisis. So there wasn’t very much information being shared, and this was all happening just over a couple of miles away from me.

Hoping to get more information on this unfolding situation, I hopped on Twitter and Facebook. One friend on Facebook both had a police scanner and lived a couple of houses over from where the gunman was holding the 3 hostages. Another friend on Twitter was retweeting one of his friend’s police scanner updates.

As a Deaf person, I was not able to follow the police scanner and keep closely apprised on this situation. I deeply appreciated the fact that Twitter and Facebook were there for me because if not for these two sites, I would not have been able to also keep my local Deaf friends and I updated as quickly on the situation. Not only were the captions spotty in the beginning, but throughout the entire crisis, the media was approximately 5-10 minutes behind. This could have been dangerous in some instances because multiple roads, highways, and even some businesses were shut down and barricaded.

Twitter (and Facebook to some extent),  in emergency situations such as this, truly served as a radio for us Deaf. In my opinion, every deaf person should get a Twitter account for one reason – to keep abreast as much as possible when emergency situations arise. The only drawback to this scenario is that you have to be following the right people on Twitter in order to keep updated, which can be sometimes difficult to predict in advance.

But it worked out well in my case. Not only was I able to keep my local Deaf friends apprised, but also for several hours I was being the central news source on this crisis, for my entire network on Twitter. Social media for the win!