Employee interpreters, independent contractors and union activists outside the Hall of Justice on Tuesday, Nov. 19—the second day of rallies in the Bay Area by language professionals advocating for a fair contract and meaningful language access. Photo Anabelle Garay

 

Court interpreters are rallying in Northern California after almost a year of unsuccessful contract negotiations with the Administrative Office of the Courts.

Though an estimated surplus of $17 million are allegedly allocated to interpreting services in California, state judges are reportedly denying non-English speakers the use of court interpreters on a regular basis.

Nonetheless, state judges have attributed their behavior to a lack of funds—posing a controversial breach of civil rights.

“A person who speaks a different language was made to proceed on a case without an interpreter present, without being able to understand the proceedings,” said Brandon Scovill, former San Francisco field representative for interpreters at Pacific Media Workers Guild in San Francisco. “It happens very frequently.”

The issue was brought to light in 2010, after a discrimination complaint was filed to the Los Angeles Superior Court by the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles (LAFLA) on behalf of two Korean-speakers who were denied interpreters.

In the letter of complaint filed by LAFLA, the court was further accused of claiming that it was not their duty to make sure she understood the proceedings.

Two years later the case of the two Korean-speakers is still pending, igniting an investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) into the language access practices of the California courts.

For over a year, court interpreters in 15 Northern California Counties have worked without a viable contract. Through protest, they are seeking reasonable wage increases, and demand that Video Remote Interpreting (VRI), a new satellite interpreting technology, not be implemented without proper consultation from Language Access professionals.

Negotiations remain at a standstill and interpreters have taken to the streets with various protests held throughout the Bay Area—on Nov. 22, the CFI plans to negotiate its demands with the Superior Courts at a bargaining table.

Mismanagement of funds
A U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) investigation revealed that since 2009 the California state budget has allocated $92.8 million annually for court interpreters—and each year there is a surplus, now estimated at approximately $17 million.

Funds left unspent could have been used “to cover thousands of hours of interpreter services without cost to [limited English proficient] litigants,” and should be put to use “for any type of proceeding according to the terms of the California Budget Act,” said the DOJ.

DOJ attorneys have chastised the courts for failing to use monies designated specifically for court interpreters. In fact, the DOJ investigation found that “in July 2011, the Judicial Council diverted $3 million of the unused funds to fund trial court operations.”

Contradictory laws play an integral role in the apparent mismanagement of interpreter funds. While the California Budget Act allocates money for interpreters to be provided for all court proceedings, the AOC budget guidance restricts the funds primarily to mandated cases.

Impact on California residents
Many California residents have been directly affected by the courts’ decision to not support litigants with interpretation services.

In cases of civil harassment restraining orders, “the court has required that [survivors of rape] bring their own interpreter and there isn’t always someone available who can competently interpret for them— making the process of obtaining a restraining order much more difficult for the survivor, ” said Julie Baltzley, a San Francisco based rape counselor.

Yet, skilled interpreters are available, said Michael Ferreira, president of the California Federation of Interpreters. Many interpreters are court employees, paid to work from 9 to 5, yet they are discouraged from assisting needy individuals.
Gregoria Lara, a court interpreter once employed in the Stanislaus County Superior Court, was reprimanded when she took the initiative to approach a judge about the lack of interpreters being provided. Lara said she was “told very clearly that [she] was not to approach any of the judges to speak to them on any issue that had to do with scheduling of interpreters or management of interpreters.”

Technology vs. human resources
To comply with the DOJ, administrators presented Video Remote Interpreting (VRI) as a possible tool to improve language access, a tool that could be incorporated throughout California. VRI is a video telecommunication service that uses web-cameras or video phones to provide interpretation services from an offsite location.

While CFI is open to discussing appropriate implementations of VRI, they are concerned that the AOC has not researched the technology enough, in turn having detrimental effects on the civil liberties of litigants should VRI prove to be unsuccessful.

“It’s used in the courtroom without the proper protocols is a train wreck waiting to happen,” said Ferreira.

While the investigation continues, all parties involved hope for a voluntary resolution that will proceed in accordance with recommendations for the use of funds for interpreters to be provided for all types of cases according to the California Budget Act. If a voluntary resolution cannot be reached, it could result in civil litigation or in the termination of federal financial assistance from the DOJ.