I believe in less government. Always have.
But there are times when you want someone to make sure that the people holding themselves out to the public are licensed professionals who have the proper education and training. Doctors. Lawyers. Yes, Real Estate Agents. And there are others.
That list of others includes those people who many of us think are just waving their hands.. but they are actually communicating to a large segment of the public who are unable to communicate via the spoken word, and must rely on American Sign Language for information. Which is why removing the licensure requirements for interpreters via Senate Bill 109 is an AWFUL idea.
Because this is what you’ll end up with:
A safety agency is trying to coordinate a response to Hurricane Irma, and their interpreter is signing things like “pizza” and “need be bear monster.”
We wouldn’t like it if official documents contained random gibberish. We shouldn’t expect that tax-paying South Dakotans who can’t hear appreciate it in their communications either.
I would anticipate if this makes it anywhere near the Governor’s desk, he’ll veto it without a second glance. But it should not even make it close to that point. It’s just that awful of an idea.
Does this mean that we will have interpreter-gestapo to make sure every interpreter is signing the proper verbage?
There is no doubt that we need integrity in society, but will the requirement of a license or certificate to sign for those with hearing disabilities stop anyone who really wants to sign jibberish?
I could look on this as the same law of ‘no texting while driving’. I doubt it has stopped much.
There would be nothing stopping the government utilizing an interpreter from making sure that they are properly trained. That is on the customer to demand or request, not the government.
If the interpreter is working in a courtroom for the benefit of a deaf witness, plaintiff or defendant, damn right he or she should be certified or licensed.
Would it be foolish of one attorney to allow the opposing attorney have a ‘signer’ without having one of your own?
Any attorneys in here?
After all, don’t attorneys bring opposing expert witnesses?
You didn’t build that, Washington did!
Sorry, I don’t accept your blanket acceptance of everything that comes out of the federal government, but then, I believe in self-reliance, not reliance to the State.
Being credentialed in a professional occupation is generally a good thing for the health and well-being of the general public. If we can require all drivers to pass a driving test we should follow suit with other occupations, yes, even sign language interpreters.
The level of stupidity coming out of Pierre at such an early stages of the legislature hopefully isn’t a harbinger of what is to come. In particular, west river Wing Nuts need to take a chill pill.
Credentials are earned via a demonstrated competency. What value does a state license have beyond being credentialed ?
And a reminder of ‘the rules’ – No proxy servers. When I catch it, they’re gone.
I dislike employment licensing generally, but I must agree with Pat.
I’m not sure how the system works today but if I wrote the law it would:
Establish a board to issue and renew ASL interpreter licenses. To obtain a license, a citizen must live in S.D., pass a state-administered skills test, and pay a license fee. Ideally, the board is revenue-neutral & 100% member-fee supported.
Require anyone selling ASL service to disclose current licensure status (or the lack thereof) to customers.
Make it criminal to claim licensure without holding a valid license.
Require the state, counties, cities, courts, and public school districts to hire licensed interpreters only.
Allow unlicensed SD citizens to sell ASL services if and only if: (1) the citizen discloses his or her unlicensed status to all prospective customers beforehand, and (2) the citizen obtains a written waiver from each customer explicitly accepting unlicensed interpreter services. Caveat emptor.
And it reminds me of the sad situation with Nelson Mandela’s funeral and the fake interpreter there. Very disrespectful to his family and to the world to have had a situation like that.
THAT’S NOT THE GOVERNMENT’S JOB
Mandela was given a State funeral…
My wife taught deaf ed for years and has a masters in deaf ed. She says vote no on this bill.
Sodbuster,
Most of us are unable to evaluate the credentials/skills of a person who signs. While not exhaustive and be all to end all, a license at least assures those of us obligated to provide sign services that the person has minimal credentials/skills.
Plus, licensing has the effect of taking bad signers off the street.
Whether one is deaf or not, both parties (deaf and hearing) have an interest in knowing the person interpreting between the parties is at least minimally competent which is accomplished by licensure.
This bill needs to die.
David,
As I’m inclined to eliminate licensure across a wide spectrum of disciplines, I agree with everything you say with one exception- revenue neutral and 100% member supported.
ASL providers too often provide services where the beneficiary/user can’t afford to pay full cost of the services as they have significant barriers to earning an income.
I am often considered hard-hearted with regard to subsidies for able bodied Americans but I am willing to be generous for those not able-bodied. Being deaf is a significant handicap.
Troy,
That’s a good point. Ideally, the board would require no money from the general budget but — in reality — that arrangement may not suffice. Revise & insert *mostly* fee supported where needed.
Look at the fellows bringing forth this law bill. Insaner than most. I bet they don’t care a whit, they are just trying to get the Governor’s goat.
This bill is DOA in any Committee. As it should die.