Vol. 70, No. 11, November
1997
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
Wisconsin
Lawyer