Time is running out. The public comment period ENDS on NOVEMBER 7, 2016. There is an opportunity for public comment regarding the rules of the North Carolina Interpreters and Transliterators Licensing Board (NCITLB) during its required 10-year review. The public comment period closes SOON on November 7th. Please see this link. http://www.ncitlb.org/required-periodic-review-existing-rules/
For my part, I am sending the comment below regarding the in-person CEU requirement I have also attached my letter in PDF and word.docx versions. NCITLB will need to hear from a minimum of 10 people about a rule before they will be expected to consider the comments as substantive input, but definitely the more the merrier, if this is to receive consideration for removal. And no, the NCITLB as an entity is not going away. The State Legislature postponed decisions about sun-setting Occupational Licensing Boards until after the election so at the moment, NCITLB continues to function as usual. I offer my letter attached below as a sample that folks can use to develop their own letter. Feel free to simply copy and paste under your own name with any modifications that you wish to include. It is about numbers and hearing from as many of us as possible. So please help to get this information out to as many interpreters as you know care about this issue. Interpreters can comment about any of the other rules that they think should be changed or deleted. Now is the time to let your voice be heard.
Comments about this, and any other rule should be directed to:
PO Box 20963
Raleigh, NC 27619
Or may be emailed to firstname.lastname@example.org
Re: Public Comment during the Required Periodic Review of Existing Rules of the NCITLB.
Regarding section .05000 – Continuing Education
21 NCAC 25.0501 Continuing Education Requirements (a)
It is recommended that the NCITLB strike the second half of the second sentence as shown below:
21 NCAC 25 .0501 CONTINUING EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS
(a) A licensee shall earn at least two continuing education units ("CEUs") each licensure year. At least 1.0 of those CEUs shall be earned in professional studies and at least 1.0 of those CEUs shall be earned in a setting in which three or more persons come together at the same location at the same time as a group to listen to a lecture, to view a demonstration, to participate in group discussions, or to learn through any combination of these or similar activities.
In 2016, online learning has become a highly effective means of learning and professional development. Online delivery of pedagogy has come a long way since the implementation of licensure and many online programs offer the opportunity for virtual networking and participant interaction via webcams and other technology. For example, it is possible to network and interact virtually face to face with interpreters from all over the globe in virtual learning formats such as FUZE, Go To Meeting, etc. Because of limited numbers of attendees in various regions, a significant amount of high quality, advanced interpreting pedagogy is delivered through online means and applications including specialty legal interpreting and medical interpreting workshops. It is now possible to obtain a Master’s degree in Interpreting through online instruction at a variety of high quality accredited institutions. Requiring in-person attendance for education is not a reasonable way to foster interaction amongst attendees. It is possible for interpreters to attend in-person trainings and not speak to or sign with anyone. Requiring face to face attendance directly assumes that professional interpreters will not interact with colleagues without being required to do so as a condition for licensure maintenance. RID does not have an in-person requirement for their certification renewal. Many interpreters have had to forego better training programs than those offered in-person because of the requirement that at least 10 hours (1 CEU) be conducted in a setting in which three or more persons come together at the same location. It seems reasonable to allow regulated practitioners the professional autonomy to determine which setting will best serve their ongoing professional development, time availability, and learning style.