HOUSE BILL REPORT

SHB 1119

BYHouse Committee on Appropriations (originally sponsored by Representatives Locke, Prentice, Wang, Anderson, Belcher, O'Brien, Winsley and R. King; by request of  Administrator for the Courts)

Requiring testing and certification of English language interpreters in courts.

House Committe on Judiciary

Majority Report:  Do pass.  (12)

      Signed by Representatives Appelwick, Chair; Crane, Vice Chair; Belcher, Brough, Dellwo, Hargrove, Moyer, Patrick, Schmidt, Tate, Van Luven and Wineberry.

House Staff:Regina Jones (786-7191)

Rereferred House Committee on Appropriations

Majority Report:  The substitute bill be substituted therefor and the substitute bill do pass.  (25)

      Signed by Representatives Locke, Chair; Grant, Vice Chair; H. Sommers, Vice Chair; Silver, Ranking Minority Member; Belcher, Bowman, Braddock, Brekke Bristow, Brough, Dorn, Ebersole, Ferguson, Hine, May, McLean, Padden, Peery, Rust, Sayan, Spanel, Sprenkle, Valle, Wang and Wineberry.

House Staff:      Nancy Stevenson (786-7136)

AS PASSED HOUSE MARCH 15, 1989

BACKGROUND:

Washington's population includes a variety of non-English speaking persons and persons for whom English is not a first language. Many of these individuals are native Spanish and Asian language speakers. It is the current statutory policy of the State to secure the constitutional rights of non- English speaking persons in legal proceedings by providing a qualified interpreter to assist them.

The Sunrise Review of foreign language court interpreter regulation stemmed from the work of the Court Interpreter Task Force which was appointed by the Washington State Supreme Court in 1985. The Task Force sought to address the problem of ensuring protection of the rights of all persons, including non-English speaking persons, in legal proceedings.  The Task Force's findings served as the basis for this proposed legislation.

SUMMARY:

When a non-English speaking person is subpoenaed, summoned or compelled to appear in a legal proceeding, the individual presiding over the proceeding must appoint a certified interpreter. The non-English speaking person may waive this right.  If good cause exists for doing so, the individual presiding over the proceeding may appoint an uncertified interpreter.  When a non-English speaking person is a party to a legal proceeding through circumstances other than a subpoena, summons or compelled appearance, an uncertified interpreter may be used.

Interpreters are to be compensated for their services and expenses.  If a proceeding is initiated by a court or other body, the cost of the interpreter is borne by the body hearing the matter. If the proceeding is initiated by the non- English speaking person, he or she must pay the interpreter.  If the non-English speaking person is indigent, the interpreter's fee is an administrative expense of the body hearing the matter.

Subject to the availability of funds, the Administrator of the Courts is to set up testing, certification and education programs for interpreters.  Fees may be charged.

The Office of the Administrator for the Courts (OAC) is directed to work with community colleges and other educational institutions to establish suitable training programs.  Certification and training must be available in both eastern and western Washington. An advisory committee is created to assist the OAC in developing a certification program and to recommend if the OAC should continue as the certifying agency.

All interpreters must abide by a code of ethics established by Supreme Court rule. The substitute bill limits the circumstances where a certified interpreter is provided. A certified interpreter is provided only when a non-English speaking person is subpoenaed, summoned or compelled to be present in a legal proceeding unless there is "good cause." Otherwise, a qualified interpreter is provided.

Fiscal Note:      Available.

House Committee ‑ Testified For:    (Judiciary) Janet McLane, Office of the Administrator for the Courts; Judge Heather Van Nuys, Yakima County Superior Court judge; Charles Smith, Washington State Supreme Court; Hector Gonzalez, Commission on Hispanic Affairs; Patricia Lee, Commission on Asian American Affairs.

(Appropriations) Charles Smith, Washington State Supreme Court; Joanne Moore, Court Interpreter Task Force; Patricia Lee, Commission on Asian Affairs.

House Committee - Testified Against:      (Judiciary) Mike Redman, WAPA; Kurt Sharar, Washington Association of Counties; Andrea Dahl, Association of Washington Cities; Jim Goche, WACO.

(Appropriations) Mike Redman, WAPA; Jim Goche, WACO.

House Committee - Testimony For:    (Judiciary) The task force on court interpreters found that many interpreters are inadequately trained, unwittingly engage in unethical conduct, and misinterpret languages.  Court judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys are unaware of these problems and do not know how to use interpreters. This bill would improve the quality of court interpreters for non-English speaking defendants and witnesses.

(Appropriations) This bill would improve the quality of court interpreters for non-English speaking people.

House Committee - Testimony Against:      (Judiciary) The bill will be very expensive to implement.  The requirement of "certified" interpreters versus "qualified" interpreters sets up appellate issues because "good cause" is undefined.  The current system is adequate.

(Appropriations) The bill will be expensive to implement, especially if court interpreters are required in all legal proceedings. The Administrator for the Courts is not the appropriate agency to administer the certification program.