 |
|
Sen. Martha Escutia, teases Gov. Gray Davis during a bill-signing ceremony at the Capitol in 2000. AP file photo.
|
SB 987 Quashed, But Interpreters Still Needed
By Ji Hyun Lim
AsianWeek Staff Writer
To the disappointment of lawmakers and bill author Sen. Martha Escutia, D-Montebello, Gov. Gray Davis did not pass Senate Bill 987, which would have provided provisions for language access and required government agencies to make their programs and services accessible to the 30.6 percent of the Asian Pacific American population in California, some 300,000, who are monolingual.
Though budget problems prevented this bill from passing, programs like the UCLA court interpreter-training program are doing what they can to make sure translation services are available in times of need.
Back in 1993, a comprehensive language access law, the Dymally-Alatorre Bilingual Service Act, was passed in California. This act required state agencies to provide bilingual staffing and services when 5 percent or more of their constituents are Limited English Proficient and share a common native language. SB 987 was an attempt to expand the State Personnel Board to ensure compliance to the 1993 Act by having state agencies provide a detailed assessment of what they can do to comply with the law better. This came as a response to a report released in November 1999 in which lawmakers discovered that only two out of 10 state departments were aware of their responsibility to translate materials. Then in December 2001, the State Personnel Board released a draft report that concluded that 20 state departments were noncompliant.
SB 987 recommended the development of a long-term plan to bring state agencies into compliance with the Dymally-Alatorre Act and to prioritize critical agencies, by tightening up standards and clarifying all the vital documents that affect the legal rights of monolingual constituents.
Because there were no means to ensure that many Californians would receive the services they needed, Ted Wang — policy director of San Francisco-based civil rights organization Chinese for Affirmative Action — argues that the constituency is “invisible and powerless” to ask for such services, and this causes a Catch-22 situation.
“If you don’t have a bilingual staff, and services are not accessible,” Wang said, “it’s likely that they’re not going [to agencies] in numbers to meet the criteria for getting bilingual services.”
Sen. Escutia made a compromise with Gov. Gray Davis that established a unit within the California State Personnel Board that is responsible for monitoring and providing technical assistance.
SB 987, though quashed, may have brought hope to lawmakers by encouraging Davis to take corrective action on subsequent bills such as AB 3000, a budget trailer bill and AB 3035, a disability rights bill with an amendment that prohibits government-funded programs from discriminating based on language barriers or national origin. Wang points out that Davis can administratively implement these bills without budgeting restrictions.
Conceded Davis, “I support the intent of this legislation. I cannot ask state agencies to absorb the implementation costs of this bill at this time. However, I believe that government has an obligation to meet the changing needs of its citizenship. Our state offices must be able to serve Californians whose primary language is not English. With that in mind, I am directing the state agencies to phase in policies as time and resources permit, that contain the spirit and intent of this legislation.”
Wang argues that such laws are a wake-up call to all departments that have ignored a large segment of the population.
Without equal access, many linguistically isolated residents cannot get justice — especially in the courts. In Los Angeles, there are more than 40 cases a day that are dropped by the Superior Court because of a lack of an interpreter.
However, a program in the UCLA Extension has been working to provide interpreter training since 1981. This program graduates an average of 39 translators a year in Spanish, Chinese and Korean.
The program includes simultaneous interpreter depositions for legal and business disputes that train people for specific terminology that will be used in the courts. Shiru Hong, a Chinese interpreter instructor, points out that the demand for interpreters is enormous.
“[A defendant or plaintiff] has the constitutional protection to have access to a language interpreter,” Hong said. “The students are really serving a large portion of the population who will be handicapped and won’t have equal access to justice without these services.”
Though the program costs between $2000 to $3000 for a 14-week course, meeting weeknights and Saturdays, the need for fluent bilingual services is immeasurable.
Currently, a court interpreter can earn $147 for a half day of work, or 3-1/2 hours or $265 for a full day. The private sector does not place a cap on the amount paid for such services.
“I would encourage anyone who is interested to find out what it is,” Hong advised. “The demand is huge in Asian languages and will grow significantly in five years.”
For more information about UCLA’s interpreter program, go to www.uclaextension.org.
Reach Ji Hyun Lim at jlim@asianweek.com.
|
