Regional Conference PDC Forum Report

///Regional Conference PDC Forum Report

Regional Conference PDC Forum Report


Note: This report is provided in ASL and in English. Neither is represented as a translation from one language to another, but both narratives cover the same information with each having slight differences in the quantity or specificity of details included.


The Professional Development Committee sponsored Member Forums during each of the five regional conferences.  We greatly appreciate all the members who were able to join us and participate in these events! We would like to share with you some of the information that was discussed in the forums.  Nathan Fowler and Mary Darragh MacLean hosted the Region I event while Richard Laurion was fortunate to participate in four of the regional conferences. He was joined by Lisa Weems of Region II, Shalene Germani of Region III, Lisa Bolding-Ballenger of Region IV and Dawn Duran of Region V. It was a goal of the committee to meet with members face to face and this year’s regional conferences provided perfect venues for that effort. The attendance ranged from fifteen to seventy members.  Each forum also had a mix of Sponsors, interpreter educators, and mentors, and of course our members. The PDC would like to extend our appreciation to each of the host Regional Program Committees for including us on the program. Thank you to everyone who made it possible.

As you know, RID assigns the PDC its various duties, known as the Scope of Work.  In the PowerPoint presentation, you can see that the list of tasks assigned to the PDC is lengthy, but we have been making steady progress!  

The tasks the committee has been focusing on most recently have included:

  • A complete review of the Standards and Criteria.  The last version was written in 2007;  they have now been updated to 2016 practices.  A new revision is planned to take place this Fall.
  • Sponsorship had been placed on hold for the past six years but the Sponsor application packet has been revised.  15 new sponsor applications are in process and 9 have been approved and added.
  • Restarted a stalled audit process;  designed and implemented a new audit process to improve consistency, efficiency and integrity and completed full or partial audits of all Sponsors.
  • Initiated recruitment of Educational Auditors — please contact the PDC if you would like more information.
  • Enhanced training has recently been completed and will soon be available online for RID Approved Sponsors, administrators and auditors.  


We opened the floor to questions and comments from the membership:

Question:  Can you give us an update on the Motions passed by membership in 2015 to require 1.0 CEUs in Power and Privilege training per cycle as well as the Ad Hoc committee proposed to discuss CEUs being given for Pro Bono work?


Answer:  There are work groups in place currently meeting with the RID Board. Discussions are ongoing and we will keep the membership informed as a system takes shape.

Q:  Must the evaluation forms collected at the conclusion of an educational event include names?

A:  No, and a completed evaluation form is not a requirement to earn CEUs.

Q:  Why has the Certified:Retired category changed to so that the member is no longer considered certified and does not hold valid credentials?

A:  It was found that many interpreters in this category were actually still working.

Q: Will the topic of Power, Privilege, and Oppression include interpreters oppressing other interpreters, as in teamed situations?

A: We do not know but can refer that suggestion to the Ad Hoc committee looking into this.

Q:  Could interpreters also be encouraged or required to get training in disaster planning, a critically important area for our consumers?

A:  We can pass that information along to the full committee for discussion.

There was also discussion on the following topics:

Most members were satisfied to keep the number of CEUs to 8 in a given cycle.

Some want to see a continuation of credit for college courses, since interpreters seem to be interested and want to keep learning via that approach.

Perhaps the number of CEUs for college course credit should be reduced. Could also limit the number of ceus in this area for interpreters starting their second cycle and beyond while encouraging liberal arts education in their first cycle.

Ethics education should be required for all but perhaps more strongly so in the interpreter’s first cycle. Similarly for pro-bono work, it should be encouraged or required in the interpreter’s first cycle.  

Thank you again to the Regional Program Committees for giving us the time to meet and to the members who attended and participated in the discussions!

2018-04-24T06:14:52-05:00August 24th, 2016|Categories: Committees Councils and Task Forces, From the Board|0 Comments