FCC at the RID conference...

Having the benefit of wearing various hats over the years ranging from founding the first certified provider, a career certified interpreter and consumer of VRS from the hearing user perspective. This is a slippery slope that really worries me. It is one thing to have a press release encouraging people to come forward with information on a specific scheme that is internal to the provider's operations. It is a completely different scenario when you have a regulatory body setting up confidential meetings at a professional training conference to find out "about any other types of activities on the part of a VRS provider that you [the RID conference attendee] feel may be fraudulent."

Will everyone understand what "fraudulent activities" actually means?

Will there be a certain sense of overpowering influence to do your "civic duty" causing an interpreter to report something which under normal circumstances they would not?

If a person is not a registered conference attendee can that person still participate in the forums?

What does this say to the everyday VRS user hearing or deaf that the federal government is proactively seeking out information in a forum never intended for that purpose and holding private confidential meetings with interpreters about any activity the interpreter feels may be fraudulent? The announcement says "on the part of a VRS provider"; will that reminder be continually made? Will people lose that focus and feel they must report any perceived fraudulent activity?

Personally, I don't believe there is any preconceived Orwellian plan the Inspector General's staff intends to carry out. However, there are a lot of factors that come into play when it appears from the average observer there are multiple meetings being held in a private forum intended to be a training conference.

Applying the Code of Professional Conduct
http://www.rid.org/UserFiles/File/pdfs/codeofethics.pdf

"It is the obligation of every interpreter to exercise judgment, employ critical thinking, apply the benefits of practical experience, and reflect on past actions in the practice of their profession. The guiding principles in this document represent the concepts of confidentiality, linguistic and professional competence, impartiality, professional growth and development, ethical business practices, and the rights of participants in interpreted situations to informed choice. The driving force behind the guiding principles is the notion that the interpreter will do no harm."

"Tenet: Interpreters adhere to standards of confidential communication."

"Guiding Principle: Interpreters hold a position of trust in their role as linguistic and cultural facilitators of communication. Confidentiality is highly valued by consumers and is essential to protecting all involved. "

"Each interpreting situation (e.g., elementary, secondary, and post-secondary education, legal, medical, mental health) has a standard of confidentiality. Under the reasonable interpreter standard, professional interpreters are expected to know the general requirements and applicability of various levels of confidentiality. Exceptions to confidentiality include, for example, federal and state laws requiring mandatory reporting of abuse or threats of suicide, or responding to subpoenas."

Is there a law requiring mandatory reporting of suspected fraudulent activity? Is it more of a good thing to do or is it mandatory?

Have subpoenas been issued for every attendee at the conference?

This goes back to the fine line distinction between reporting suspected internal provider fraudulent activity and suspected fraudulent activity in general. There was no communication occurring during the reported calls identified in the warrants.

The meetings are described as seeking information on the issue of manufactured minutes or "run calls." The extent and breadth of inquiry is the black cloud over the whole thing.

RID should never have allowed the FCC or for that matter any government agency to muscle their way into the conference. It is an event for RID business and training of interpreters. If the FCC wanted to educate interpreters on the reimbursement methodology, that would be a great way to educate. It appears from the onlooker this is nothing more than a fishing expedition on their part with the side benefit of intimidating interpreters.

I'm guessing there was some indication that they were/are going to indict a couple interpreters, but could not say who or why. That being said they may believe that interpreters will be more forthcoming about other situations in the future. Put enough specter of fear around it and people react. Remember, evidence of a crime is excluded from trial on a constitutional basis if the government acted improperly. If a private citizen reports that evidence will likely be admitted.

Suppose a Deaf financial planner uses VRS often to transfer money from various trading and client accounts. Given the right circumstances it could take on the appearance of money laundering. While it would be a perfect world to think with all the ethics training this would not be a problem. Are the glasses so rose colored we believe that in the day to day operations no one will fear they may be indicted for interpreting that call? Especially given the overpowering sentiment left on the conference attendees.

I believe everyone universally agrees that manufactured minutes and fraudulent schema such as the one that began this are wrong and should be dealt with. To the extent that interpreters are simply reporting illegal business practices of their employer the role seems to be acceptable. I defer to the Deaf community to give their yea or nay on that as true.



The divide is now

1) how to properly address it and
2) head off future fraudulent activity while
3) maintaining the telephone users right to privacy in conjunction with
4) interpreters commitment to a professional code of ethical conduct.

Addressing the problem at hand

There are a number of alternatives available to gather information they wanted. The providers know which interpreters were scheduled to work during what shifts. Subpoenas could be issued for those individuals. The interpreters could request corporate legal counsel during the interview. The interview would be documented. If later used at trial may become part of the public record. Everyone would know exactly what was asked, etc...

Instead, undocumented unrepresented forum and private interviews occurred. The public does not know what transpired, who was interviewed, how long they were interviewed, etc.

Zero transparency.


Heading off future fraudulent activity

A team of Deaf investigators could be assigned to act as watch dogs for the fund, including service levels, interoperability, etc. Over the years I've met several Deaf individuals interested in law enforcement. Becoming a police officer is not an option for most Deaf individuals because of physical hearing requirements. This opens the door to careers in law enforcement. Accomplishes the goal while creating job opportunities in a field historically closed to the Deaf community.

There are indications that Deaf people were hired to make these "run calls". It is proven fact Deaf individuals are underemployed because of attitudinal barriers to employment. Instead of making these few out to be criminals, the system could have acted in a positive manner earlier on. The opportunity to rectify that is now.

Instead, several individuals are facing trial, if found guilty they will probably face long jail sentences and loss of other rights.

The cost to society and person overshadows the fiscal amount of the run calls.