Letters

The Wisconsin Lawyer welcomes letters to the editor on any law-related subject, whether that subject has been a topic of a Wisconsin Lawyer article. The magazine publishes as many letters in each issue as space permits. Please limit letters to 500 words; letters may need to be edited for length and clarity.

Letters responding to previously published letters and to others' views should address the issues and not be a personal attack on others. Letters endorsing political candidates cannot be accepted.

Please mail letters to "Letters to the Editor," Wisconsin Lawyer, P.O. Box 7158, Madison, WI 53707-7158, fax them to (608) 257-5502, or email them.

Changes needed to develop
a corps of forensic interpreters

As one of approximately five full-time, professional Spanish forensic interpreters in Wisconsin, I read Francisco Araiza's "Se Habla Everything" in the September issue with great interest.

I agree completely that Wisconsin urgently needs to enact a program of training, testing and certification for forensic interpreters. However, the article failed to deal with the central economic reality facing current and potential court interpreters in Wisconsin: the extremely low pay scales. State statutes limit the amount of reimbursement a clerk of circuit court may obtain from the state to $35 per half day! In some counties, the clerk of courts tells potential interpreters that they cannot legally pay anything above that figure. While that's not true, it is true that anything a county pays above $35 per half day comes out of the county's own pocket. That's a difficult sell in many financially strapped counties. The financial reality has led to a situation in which the clerk of courts may not inform judges of the availability of professional interpreters, who inevitably will charge more than $35 per half day.

Given all that, why would an interpreter with the high skills called for in Mr. Araiza's article continue in the field, at least in Wisconsin? In Chicago and other large cities, conference interpreters are paid a minimum of $400 per day.

Mr. Araiza also wrote "the federal certification process is the most thorough and well-regarded." The first time I took the written half of that exam, I'd only been working as a forensic interpreter for a few years. So when I found myself confronted by dozens of words that I'd never seen before, I wrote it off to my own inexperience. However, I was puzzled by one of the (Spanish) reading-comprehension essays. It was a historical overview of the agricultural development of Peru from a Marxist perspective. The next time I took the exam, that essay did not appear. Instead there were reading-comprehension essays on the development of new "miracle" drugs from sea invertebrates, the historic role of individualism in American philosophy and the avoidance of inbreeding problems in the artificial propagation of endangered species.

Yes, the Wisconsin judicial system desperately needs to develop a corps of experienced and competent forensic interpreters. Accomplishing that, I believe, will require at least three key changes: 1) creating a program of training, testing and a certification exam based directly on the work; 2) requiring clerks of court to give preference in hiring to certified interpreters; and 3) paying professional- level wages to attract and maintain professional-level services. All three will require a greater state role (financial and administrative) in the circuit courts.

Rick Kissell
Milwaukee

Bar should stay out of political arena

As a Wisconsin attorney, I am appalled at the handgun proposals advocated by the Board of Governors and share Mr. Arenz's well-founded concern that the State Bar may be advocating a political agenda (August Wisconsin Lawyer). Mr. Saichek's response only supports this hypothesis. Mr. Saichek takes the opportunity in his letter to support the "findings" of the Commission on Violence and the Justice System, rather than show where these findings and the proposed gun regulations directly affect courthouse security.

I agree with Mr. Saichek that some issues relating to law reform may have "political components." Gun control, however, is not a "component" of law reform. It is an electric, complex and highly politically partisan issue unto itself. Call it what you will, the State Bar's blatantly political agenda is to be decried.

In the meantime, while we await the State Bar's position on abortion, I encourage all Wisconsin lawyers, pro-gun or anti-gun, who oppose the State Bar's foray into the political arena to challenge the State Bar's abuse of its members' dues and the public trust.

Daniel B. Baskin
Germantown

I am a Wisconsin Bar member responding to the Commission on Violence and the Justice System and Mr. Saichek's reply to Mr. Arenz (August Wisconsin Lawyer).

Causes of societal violence were beyond the commission's charge. Yet, its survey solicited, as multiple choices, contributions to violence in the justice system that are several of the same causes in society. The results showed other contributions, drug/alcohol use and gangs, to be individually greater contributions to violence than access to guns. The commission specifically stated that those other contributions were beyond its scope. It cited studies finding that increased arrests and prosecutions decreased recidivism in domestic violence cases but made no recommendations using those findings. Its recommendations were limited mostly to the justice system environment (security, various programs) and did not emphasize those who commit violent acts. The commission cited statistics on violence involving handguns and recommended "safety measures" outside the justice system affecting the rights of law-abiding citizens.

Employing the logic it did, the commission could have recommended the death penalty as one of its solutions to violence. Does that strike a political chord?

If these gun control recommendations are politically neutral, the Bar can take a position on anything under SCR 10.02. Many things affect the justice system. The Bar is neither a forum for advocating a populist agenda nor a mouthpiece for the visions of the anointed, or any other faction. It is supposed to avoid politics. Saying that these recommendations are politically neutral shows disrespect for the majority of members who leave their politics at the gate. Those who urge the Bar to take political positions display elitism. Adopting these recommendations indicates that political positions by the Bar are permissible.

A primary function of the Bar is to assist the politically neutral judiciary, so we must remain neutral. We also advise the other branches. Our influence is certainly not derived from winning any popularity contests but from credibility and respect due to our knowledge, reasoning abilities and legal expertise. We have no real authority to enact any of our recommendations. Politics too often generates knee-jerk reactions based on emotional appeal along ideological lines with little regard for practicality. If we engage in politics, especially under a guise, we become another pawn in the political arena, losing our respect, credibility and independence. Avoiding politically charged issues is not "ducking responsibility" but is abstention based upon sound discretion.

The Bar should be a leader in the true sense. Since we are not a political party, we avoid the usual partisanship and economics that prevent most politicians from being true leaders. If the Bar descends into politics, it abdicates its leadership role for that of an interest group role. The solution here is a voluntary Bar. That would eliminate politics. It also would allow us to establish a true leadership role by example, independent of government, and out of commitment rather than mandate. Besides being another issue, should we expect, or aspire, to be any different from the rest of the society?

Michael J. Ulisse
Huntington Beach, Calif.

Mr. Ulisse offers a well-expressed argument that deserves respect. He should know from our publications that our State Bar is officially on record in opposition to the death penalty. It has been clearly demonstrated that the high courts of those states with the death penalty spend a disproportionate amount of time on death cases, adversely affecting the ordinary administration of justice in those states. This is not a "guise" for the expression of political views. Proliferation of cheap and unduly dangerous handguns has definitely affected our courts and the investment of judicial resources.

David A. Saichek
Past-president
Milwaukee