| # | First Name | Last Name | State | Country | Comments |
|---|
| 151 | Vicky | Rodríguez | | PR | |
| 152 | Gilberto | García | | PR | |
| 153 | Alysse | Rasmussen | FL | US | I understand the financial considerations. They could prove to be considerable.
I understand the concern for a precident that might allow for other linguistic minorities to also request (or be denied membership to RID) because of the potential expense involved (i.e. we might deny Canada for fear of the need to accomodate French).
But there are 3 very strong reasons for repealing this prejudicial ruling.
1st: PR-RID has member status and thus should have full access to communication.
2nd: even if PR-RID did not have member status, efforts to accomodate the needs of individuals with a sincere interest in interpreting but with limited access to professional development should be of paramount value to an organization that supports quality communication and respect for diversity.
3rd: it is simply the right thing to do.
What kind of message are we sending if we say "your money's good, but we really don't want to accomodate you cause it will cost us". How can we look at a doctor or a lawyer or a businessman and advocate for EXTERNAL Deaf interests when we won't advocate for INTERNAL Deaf interests.
Besides, if we don't encourage bi-lingual Spanish-ASL interprters what would make the Deaf think that we would continue to encourage CDI's? |
| 154 | Bram | Weiser | | | |
| 155 | Marina | McIntire | OR | US | This is positively shocking! I appreciate the PRRID chapter informing us about this (non-)development. How can we behave in such an exclusive manner when we expect and demand the general population to understand the need for interpreters for Deaf people? The law aside, this behavior is discriminatory and unworthy of us as a profession. I'm ashamed of this decision on the part of our Board. |
| 156 | Gilberto | Garcia | | | |
| 157 | Idalmis | Nazario | | | |
| 158 | Karen | Pacheco | | | |
| 159 | Mary Darragh | MacLean | | | |
| 160 | Nancy | Sullivan | NJ | US | |
| 161 | Wendy | Watson | MA | US | |
| 162 | Lynn | Hou | | | |
| 163 | Sherry | Hicks | MD | US | |
| 164 | sarah | rauber | MD | US | I think it's ironic that the number of partcicipants would even be considered pertinant (as an ASL interpreter, how many times have I had to explain to a company that it doesn't matter if there are 50 Deaf participants, or only one; the need for ASL interpreting would still be great). |
| 165 | Tom | Makko | | | |
| 166 | Christina | Trunzo-Mosleh | | | |
| 167 | Amada | McKay | TX | US | |
| 168 | Gerardo | Castillo | DC | US | |
| 169 | Antoinette | Pineau | CA | US | |
| 170 | Melva | Rodriguez | IL | US | |
| 171 | Tanya | Thomas | MD | US | With the 2005 Conference being held in San Antonio, which itself has a large Latino population and therefore makes use of trilingual interpreters more than most states, I am shocked to think that this "access" would not be provided. Is this not what our whole organization is about? |
| 172 | audrey | cooper | DC | US | |
| 173 | Susanne | Morgan | NY | US | Equal access for all participants, no matter the number. |
| 174 | Dana | Yohner | | | |
| 175 | Jeffrey | Jaech | NY | US | |
| 176 | Betty | Colonomos | MD | US | This policy is counterproductive to our attempts to reach out to minorities and non-English speaking colleagues and consumers. It is a disgrace! |
| 177 | Jeanie | Salyer | CA | US | |
| 178 | Alicia | Rondeau | MI | US | I worked a cruise this year with 5 Puerto Rican interpreters who were desperately in need of training/mentoring opportunities in Spanish. They haven't come to the RID conferences because there's no Spanish interpretation provided. They feel alienated and far behind the U.S. interpreters. |
| 179 | Marilyn | Pimentel | | PR | We need the spanish interpreters in the RID's conference. (latin people support RID why not RID support latin people? |
| 180 | Patricia | Dash | NY | US | |
| 181 | debbie | sicard | | PR | yes i would like the conference in spanish. |
| 182 | Jason | Hurdich | KY | | |
| 183 | Amber | Fox-Young | KY | US | |
| 184 | Rhoda | Perez | | | Count me in to help! |
| 185 | Ruth | Lehrer | MA | US | |
| 186 | Lisa | Schaefermeyer | FL | US | |
| 187 | Rachel | Payne | KY | US | |
| 188 | Cheryl | Willis | AL | US | This RID requirement is uncalled for. Let's not reqress.
|
| 189 | Robert | Loeffler | | | |
| 190 | Richard | Hall | | | The decision to limit access for our Spanish speaking colleagues lacks forethought and compassion. Please reconsider this decision. |
| 191 | Sharin | Nakayama | CA | US | |
| 192 | Jonathan | Hopkins | | | |
| 193 | Lauren | Hurdich | KY | | |
| 194 | Rafael | Guzman | MD | US | I support Spanish
interpreting services for latinos |
| 195 | Kalen | Beck | VA | US | |
| 196 | Maria | Emma | MA | US | There are spanish deafs/hearings who need interpreting services for their loved ones. It's really worth it. |
| 197 | LeWana | Clark | CO | US | If we stand for access, we should practice what we preach. |
| 198 | Maria | Fernandez | FL | US | |
| 199 | Sheila | Brager-Hall | CA | US | If we advocate that interpreting be provided to Deaf clients and members, we cannot in good conscience discriminate against our Spanish speaking members. |
| 200 | Patty | Gordon | MN | US | Imagine how this would look if you talked about the historically low numbers of Deaf members in attendance in the same way - what a mistake this policy is! |
