MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Subcommittee on Commerce and Labor
Seventy-First Session
May 11, 2001
The Subcommittee on Commerce and Labor was called to order at 12:08 p.m. on Friday, May 11, 2001. Chairman David Parks presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Lynn Hettrick
Ms. Sheila Leslie
Mr. David Parks
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Vance Hughey, Committee Policy Analyst
Dawn Lee, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Danell Fanning, Certified Interpreter, Vital Signs Interpreting Service, Carson City, Nevada
Marci A. Wilson, private citizen, Carson City, Nevada
Dr. Dotty Merrill, Legislative Representative, Washoe County School District, Reno, Nevada
Ann Drendel-Haas, Coordinator of Student Support Services, Carson City School District, Carson City, Nevada
Jim Parry, Superintendent, Carson City School District, Carson City, Nevada
Janice Pine, Legislative Representative, Saint Mary’s Health Network, Reno, Nevada
Beth Mammen, Management Analyst, Administrative Office of the Courts, Carson City, Nevada
Dean Swaim, Secretary, National Association for the Deaf in Nevada
Chairman Parks opened the hearing on S.B. 245, noting the subcommittee did not want to take the same testimony provided in the full committee hearing on the bill, and asked Ms. Fanning for a summary of the major concerns.
Senate Bill 245: Provides for regulation of interpreters for persons who are deaf or whose hearing is impaired. (BDR 54-231)
Danell Fanning, Certified Interpreter, Vital Signs Interpreting Service, provided her testimony outline (Exhibit C), a chart on certification requirements by state (Exhibit D), and information on the Educational Interpreters Performance Assessment (EIPA) (Exhibit E) for the record. She stated S.B. 245 met with opposition from the school districts and a grandfather clause—exemption or additional time in order to certify interpreters—was requested due to financial cost, training, and the lack of ability to procure certified interpreters. Ms. Fanning indicated concern was expressed by court administrators, who stated they did not feel they could follow a mandate of this magnitude, and requested latitude within the legal system or an exemption of the legal system from the bill. She noted there was considerable discussion on the shortage of interpreters, training and educational opportunities, current laws governing interpreters, the trend toward certification and the various assessments and certifications identified in the bill.
Mr. Hettrick asked Ms. Fanning whether she had any suggestions as to how to address the concerns presented. Ms. Fanning noted S.B. 245 did not require an academic degree and she stated her understanding that classification for employment within school districts was based upon educational degrees. She stated certification of interpreters was merely a validating tool to ascertain whether individuals indeed had the skill they purported to possess. Ms. Fanning believed contracts for interpreters could be established by school districts and would not require interpreters to be reclassified within the schools, and would allow interpreters to continue to earn at their current level.
As to the grandfather clause proposed by the school districts, Ms. Fanning noted grandfathering was an exemption based on a condition that previously existed. Because there was no previous certification within the schools, she did not feel that a grandfather clause was appropriate.
Ms. Fanning stated the implementation date of 2003 was determined by the Senate and not by the involved parties.
As to the cost of training, Ms. Fanning advised it was standard practice for each interpreter to pay for their own testing, and noted she calculated the cost for the EIPA to be only $250. Additionally, Ms. Fanning believed school districts had some latitude on the actual cost of testing because they could contract for a certain number of tests each year on a reduced cost basis. Ms. Fanning noted 11 states currently used the EIPA and Nevada was the only surrounding state not progressing towards certification. She stated the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID) identified 45 states that provided training opportunities, and she commented that her own Internet search for education opportunities for sign language interpreters returned 9,800 hits.
As to the concern expressed by the courts, Ms. Fanning noted there was currently a mandate in place regarding the use of interpreters, the Americans With Disabilities Act, Title II. She stated S.B. 245 would merely provided more guidance and structure to the courts in complying with existing federal and state law. Ms. Fanning noted almost every state required some kind of legal documentation as to court interpreters.
As to the shortage of interpreters, Ms. Fanning indicated the shortage existed nationwide and referred to an article from the RID Views, which asserted the shortage was a two-fold problem, being a scarcity in number of available interpreters and a scarcity in quality of the interpreting delivered.
Ms. Leslie noted the concern expressed regarding the rural areas and sufficient training opportunities in rural Nevada, and asked Ms. Fanning to comment on the issue. Ms. Fanning stated RID identified 11 different distance learning sites for education ranging anywhere from an associates to a bachelors degree program and some community colleges have “Do It” centers, which had grant money available to people who wished to use electronic technology to provide interpreting services and for the advancement of interpreter training.
Ms. Leslie wondered whether person-to-person interaction was necessary in order to learn, practice and evaluate interpreting skills. Ms. Fanning stated person-to-person interaction was not necessary and told the subcommittee of a one-to-one mentoring program in which individuals could enroll and receive assistance in improving their interpreting skill to the point of passing a certification. Ms. Leslie asked whether any Nevada universities or community colleges offered such a program. Ms. Fanning indicated there currently were no Nevada universities or community colleges that offered such a program although the Community College of Southern Nevada was starting an interpreter training program this fall.
Mr. Hettrick sought confirmation that Ms. Fanning’s position was there was enough opportunity to address each concern so that the bill did not need to be amended in any way. Ms. Fanning indicated Mr. Hettrick was correct to an extent. She felt the grandfathering clause was not a possibility; however, she felt the implementation date was flexible, and until a certification standard was established it was not possible to refine all of the potential issues.
Ms. Leslie asked whether there were specific workshops available which were sufficient in content in order to obtain certification. Ms. Fanning stated workshops were presented all over the United States and individuals could achieve the skill level required for certification without ever participating in a degree program. She commented that groups had volunteered to conduct workshops in Nevada to assist in meeting certification requirements.
Marci A. Wilson, private citizen, told the subcommittee she was a teacher for the deaf and provided a written statement for the record (Exhibit F). Ms. Wilson felt the bill should be supportive, not punitive, and should allow for sufficient time to develop and implement a good program. Ms. Wilson noted her statement included guidelines from the National Association for the Deaf (NAD) for developing state legislation on certifying and licensing interpreters, which suggested the inclusion of a provisional/transitional license. Ms. Wilson suggested a grandfather clause be added to the bill or the effective date be extended.
Mr. Hettrick inquired whether extending the effective date to 2005 in order to provide sufficient time to develop and participate in mentoring programs would work. He noted there would be time to monitor the progress of the program and reevaluate certification requirements in the next legislative session. However, he felt a deadline should be put into place in order to get the process started. Ms. Wilson thought Mr. Hettrick’s suggestions would work very well and noted her only lingering concern was the availability of interpreters in the long term. She suggested a two-year provisional/transitional status be included in the bill beyond the 2005 deadline in order to allow individuals to intern as interpreters before becoming certified, and indicated the issue could be considered in a future legislative session if such a provision could not be included in the current bill. Mr. Hettrick noted there currently was no need for a provisional/transitional status because the mandate would not be effective until 2005. He reiterated that the issue could be addressed in a future legislative session if it became evident over the next two or four years that there was going to be trouble certifying enough interpreters to meet demands. Mr. Hettrick believed the best solution was to extend the effective date and get the process started and begin certifying interpreters. Ms. Wilson felt Mr. Hettrick’s suggestions were very fair and acceptable.
Ms. Leslie indicated her agreement with Mr. Hettrick’s suggestions but noted she did not want to send a message that a permanent transitional provision would ever be included the certification law. She felt it should be very clear that in the future interpreters would be required to become certified. She did not have a problem with extending the effective date, but she did not want people to delay their certification process. Ms. Leslie wanted to send a strong message that interpreters in Nevada must be certified.
Dr. Dotty Merrill, Legislative Representative, Washoe County School District, provided the subcommittee with a written statement regarding compliance issues for students with individualized education programs (IEP) and teacher certification (Exhibit G). Dr. Merrill indicated the previous discussion regarding extension of the effective date would satisfy the concerns regarding compliance issues and directed her attention to the issue of teacher certification. She stated the school district used teachers to interpret in various settings outside the classroom because teachers were generally the most readily available resource. Dr. Merrill believed that because teachers of students with disabilities were already licensed by the Department of Education it was unnecessary for those teachers to go through the certification process, and accordingly requested a new subsection 4 be added to Section 8 in order to exclude from the bill persons employed by a school district as a licensed teacher of students with disabilities. Dr. Merrill stated those teachers had already taken classes, received training, and been certified to teach disabled students in accordance with the requirements established by the Department of Education and the Commission on Professional Standards.
Mr. Hettrick sought confirmation that a teacher teaching a student that required an interpreter was already certified or licensed or had a degree of some kind in interpretation skills. Dr. Merrill indicated the teacher would not have a degree, but would have taken some courses that satisfied the requirements established by the Department of Education. Mr. Hettrick inquired whether the requirements established by the Department of Education were adequate to interpret for a deaf student. Dr. Merrill indicated it had been the experience of the special education director that the requirements established by the Department of Education were adequate to interpret for a deaf student, and noted she did not want to establish another layer of certification for teachers who were already licensed simply to allow those teachers to perform supplement or subsidiary functions outside the classrooms which benefited deaf students, their parents, and the school district.
Mr. Hettrick asked how children who required interpreters were handled in the classroom, and wondered whether the instructor was certified to teach a deaf child. Dr. Merrill indicated the interpreter in the classroom was an instructional aide who worked with the student to sign for the student the material being taught in the classroom. She indicated the school district was in full agreement that the instructional aide should be a certified interpreter, but she did not feel the licensed teacher should be required to be certified in order to assist in settings outside of the classroom.
Mr. Hettrick indicated he was bothered a bit by the fact that a deaf student could be subject to a disciplinary action, because a disciplinary action would be conducted in a setting outside of the classroom, without the benefit of a certified interpreter. Dr. Merrill responded that as the certification process progressed and certified interpreters became more available, teachers would no longer be called upon to interpret. She indicated she was referring to occasions when Parole and Probation or a police officer came to a school campus and because of issues of confidentiality a full-time employee of the school district in a professional capacity was needed to function in the role of an interpreter. Mr. Hettrick suggested including Dr. Merrill’s amendment for a new subsection 4 in Section 8, but limited the provision until July 1, 2005. Dr. Merrill was in full agreement with Mr. Hettrick’s suggestion. She indicated the amendment would address the school district’s concern, and further indicated that if a problem became evident as the process progressed, the problem could be addressed in a future legislative session.
Mr. Hettrick repeated his suggestion that Dr. Merrill’s new subsection 4 be included with a sunset provision.
Ann Drendel-Haas, Coordinator of Student Support Services, Carson City School District (CCSD), requested the subcommittee to consider language that directly and specifically addressed personnel shortages and she provided a copy of Title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations, (CFR) §300.136 (Exhibit H). Ms. Drendel-Haas noted that as a larger rural district, Carson City was able to retain more experienced staff and help out neighboring districts to a significant degree, and she pointed out the CCSD was assisting deaf students in other districts. She noted there currently were 17 qualified, but not certified, interpreters working in the district and expressed concern that regardless of the language of the bill and the support for the highest qualified applicants, the reality was there would continue to be times when students in rural district would not have interpreters available. She did not believe videoconferencing was reasonable or realistic for educational purposes and felt the necessary technology would create significant fiscal issues.
Ms. Drendel-Haas directed the subcommittee’s attention to the regulations generated by the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) relative to personnel shortages in order to determine whether there was something contained within those regulations that all parties could agree upon. She noted the regulations covered situations in which personnel who performed related services, such as interpreters, who did not meet the required standards could be hired with a commitment from the individual to meet necessary standards within three years.
Mr. Hettrick indicated his understanding that federal law superceded state law, and wondered by the issue needed to be addressed in the bill if the option was contained in federal law. Ms. Drendel-Haas noted the standard contemplated in the bill was higher than the federal standard and wanted to ensure that the option contained in federal law would be an option available under the bill. Mr. Hettrick believed a legal opinion on the issue was in order, but he indicated his opinion that the federal option would be available.
Ms. Leslie agreed with Mr. Hettrick’s opinion and believed the option under federal law should be shared with the full committee because it alleviated many of the concerns expressed.
Mr. Hettrick believed a legal opinion should be obtained prior to the bill going to work session before the full committee. He noted if the federal option superceded the provisions of the bill when no certified interpreters were available, all the school districts would be satisfied.
Ms. Drendel-Haas indicated she also presumed the federal option superceded state law, and indicated the federal option resolved the issue for school districts, but it might not resolve the issue for other public entities in rural communities which relied on interpreters.
Mr. Hettrick agreed the federal option applied only to school districts and indicated his belief that other public entities would be given enough time to address the problem and comply with the provisions of the bill.
Jim Parry, Superintendent, Carson City School District, told the subcommittee he appreciated their consideration, noting the school district had 17 loyal people that it wished to invest in and the window of opportunity provided would allow them to do so.
Janice Pine, Legislative Representative, Saint Mary’s Health Network, indicated there were often emergencies in the hospital setting in which someone who worked at the hospital and interpreted as a hobby, but who was not a certified interpreter, could assist by interpreting during the emergency. She indicated hospitals made their best effort to provide the best services but there was also a national shortage of health care workers. Ms. Pine suggested it would be appropriate to exclude emergency situations from the provision that made it unlawful for a person who was not certified to engage in the practice of interpreting. She noted hospitals could wait for a future legislative session to address the issue of emergency situations since the effective date was going to be extended, but she felt that the issue should be considered at some point.
Ms. Leslie felt Ms. Pine raised a good point and noted that Section 10, subsections (b) and (c), would not apply to emergency situations. As to Section 10, subsection (a), Ms. Leslie did not believe that a person who assisted in an emergency situation could be considered to be engaging in the practice of interpreting in the state of Nevada and indicated the subcommittee clearly did not want to preclude assistance in an emergency situation.
Ms. Pine agreed with Ms. Leslie and stated she felt compelled to address the issue given the shortage of certified interpreters and the great number of emergency situations.
Beth Mammen, Management Analyst, Administrative Office of the Courts, noted her appreciation for the window of time the subcommittee was considering because it was in the interest of the courts to use not only qualified people, but certified people in every instance. Ms. Mammen noted the courts just completed development of a certification program for foreign languages and she suggested consideration be given to the enforcement issue should S.B. 245 pass. She stated the court’s certification program did not exclude interpreters for the deaf and indicated certain criteria was used for different levels of interpreting, which allowed the courts to use discretion to determine what level of interpreting would be used given the resources available. As the bill was currently written, Ms. Mammen wondered what rural courts would do if interpreters simply were not available and the judge had no discretion to use a noncertified interpreter. She wondered whether the judge should delay the proceeding and detain the deaf defendant and, if so, she wondered how the judge would communicate to the deaf defendant that he was being detained until a certified interpreter arrived.
Mr. Hettrick indicated he understood Ms. Mammen’s concern, but noted a deaf person who was able to drive and was being detained on a traffic violation was almost certainly able to write or he could not read stop signs. Mr. Hettrick felt there would be a way to communicate with such a defendant, and believed the bill applied to situations of a more serious nature where an interpreter was needed because the communication went far beyond someone’s ability to sit and write out the communication. Mr. Hettrick did not think there would be any problem with the judge communicating with the defendant in writing on simple matters.
Ms. Mammen indicated Mr. Hettrick made her point, and stated she had not received an interpretation of the bill as currently written, until Mr. Hettrick gave his, that gave judges any discretion. Ms. Mammen noted the expectation that lower level offenses would be handled in the manner described by Mr. Hettrick and she wished to ensure that such handling would be in compliance with the law.
Dean Swaim, Secretary, National Association for the Deaf in Nevada, provided the subcommittee with a handout of information from the National Association of the Deaf (Exhibit I), and indicated he could communicate on paper if the subcommittee wished, or he could communicate through the use of the interpreter present.
Chairman Parks requested Mr. Swaim to use the interpreter.
Based on Chairman Parks’ request, Mr. Swaim indicated the subcommittee needed an interpreter and not Mr. Swaim. Mr. Swaim believed certification for interpreters was a mandate for every deaf person and indicated deaf people were often shorted in life if they did not use an interpreter. He relayed to the committee an experience he had with an interpreter who kept stopping Mr. Swaim in the middle of a presentation Mr. Swaim was giving because the interpreter did not understand what was being said. Mr. Swaim indicated he had a master’s degree but cut his presentation short because he was embarrassed and believed the interpreter was making him look bad. Mr. Swaim believed interpreters were necessary to clarify even the simplest of facts and urged the subcommittee to pass S.B. 245.
Ms. Fanning indicated she was relieved that the school districts found 2005 to be an acceptable implementation date; however, as to the exemption for teachers of the deaf because of confidentiality issues, she felt it was important to note that most interpreters had a code of ethics that required all interpreting assignments to be confidential. Ms. Fanning felt the sunset provision for teachers of the deaf was a good idea, but she believed that if teachers of the deaf were not expected to be certified and were expected to supervise teachers aides who were required to be certified, a double standard was being set.
As to the issue of the federal option set forth in IDEA, Ms. Fanning believed S.B. 245 simply clarified the state’s standard and, as to the need for interpreters in emergency situations, Ms. Fanning indicated she could help to develop Saint Mary’s Hospital’s policies and she stated people who had sign skills could be used in the interim. She indicated a book of signs was available that showed the common sentences used in hospital settings with the corresponding series of signs. Ms. Fanning volunteered to assist the courts to implement the provisions of S.B. 245 should the bill pass.
Mr. Hettrick commented the issue of allowing teachers of the deaf to be used in limited interpreting capacities was more of a liability issue and the compromise of a sunset provision was a workable solution. As to the hospital setting, Mr. Hettrick noted that while hospital policy allowed for uncertified interpreters to assist in emergency situations, if state law prohibited such assistance hospital policy would not apply and he felt a clear exemption should be included in the bill either at the present time or in a future legislative session. He suggested the words “except in an emergency” together with language including casual settings be included in the bill in order to cover emergency situations and some court settings.
Ms. Fanning indicated Title II of the ADA specifically addressed the emergency situation. Mr. Hettrick asked the legal department to confirm the information provided by Ms. Fanning.
Vance Hughey, Committee Policy Analyst, asked Ms. Fanning to explain the corrections she referenced earlier. Ms. Fanning responded the bill as currently written provided that an educational interpreter would only be allowed to take an EIPA, which would preclude RID or NAD certified interpreters from working in the schools. Ms. Fanning requested the language be amended to provide that an interpreter working in the schools could have any of the valid certifications as listed in the bill.
Mr. Hettrick indicated he agreed with the last amendment and felt, depending on the opinion by the legal department regarding the ADA and federal laws, the language at Section 10 should be changed to read “except as provided in federal law it is unlawful for . . .” He believed such wording would make the intent behind those provisions very clear.
Dr. Merrill asked for clarification of the amendment previously discussed by Ms. Fanning and Ms. Fanning showed Dr. Merrill the amendment.
Mr. Hettrick requested Mr. Hughey to review the amendments the subcommittee would recommend to the full committee.
Mr. Hughey indicated the amendments to be recommended to the full committee were as follows:
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE FULL COMMITTEE AMEND AND DO PASS WITH THE AMENDMENTS IDENTIFIED ABOVE.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE SECONDED THE MOTION.
Dr. Merrill confirmed the effective date of the bill would be amended to 2005.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
There being no further business to come before the subcommittee, Chairman Parks adjourned the meeting at 1:26 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Rebekah Langhoff
Transcribing Secretary
Dawn Lee
Recording Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman David Parks, Chairman
DATE: