Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessibility And Licensure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Interpreters, deaf advocates oppose moving interpreter licensure and Deaf services into OPLC
Summary
Dozens of interpreters, deaf advocates and professionals testified against House Bill 525, saying moving interpreter licensure and the Office/Program for Deaf and Hard of Hearing from vocational rehabilitation into the Office of Professional Licensure and Certification would reduce culturally informed oversight and slow recently planned improvements to complaint procedures.
A lengthy public hearing drew interpreters, deaf and hard-of-hearing residents, university faculty, nonprofit leaders and agency staff to oppose House Bill 525. The bill would transfer the New Hampshire Interpreter Licensure Board (NHILB) and the Office/Program for Deaf and Hard of Hearing (ODHHS) from the Department of Education's vocational-rehabilitation structure to the Office of Professional Licensure and Certification (OPLC).
Multiple witnesses said the transfer would subtract critical cultural and linguistic expertise from a process that, they argued, must be led and interpreted by people with lived experience in deaf communities. Testimony stressed that interpreter licensure is a specialized, culturally rooted practice that differs from most other licensed occupations and that locally led grievance and complaint procedures are central to protecting consumers' access to high-quality interpreting.
Speakers described recent work by the licensure board to create a more accessible grievance process, funded in part from a recent, unexpectedly large rise in licensing revenues caused by expanded video-remote interpreting during the COVID-19 era. Several witnesses said those funds were already committed to an improved grievance system and consultant pay, and that moving licensing into OPLC might jeopardize or slow implementation of those local arrangements.
Representatives of the Office of Professional Licensure and Certification said the office would implement legislative direction and had reviewed implementation concerns and a fiscal note. OPLC said it would work with stakeholders to implement statutory changes, and noted some precedent for OPLC handling a licensing function (with another advisory board remaining in a separate department).
Deaf community leaders said ODHHS (within Vocational Rehabilitation) is a better fit for services that prepare deaf, hard-of-hearing and deafblind people for employment and engagement with employers. They argued vocational-rehabilitation placement and training functions differ from OPLC's licensing oversight and that the change could degrade long-standing services, training and advocacy.
After more than four hours of testimony the committee closed the hearing. Witnesses urged lawmakers to retain the NHILB and ODHHS where they currently are or to proceed only with extensive stakeholder consultation on governance and grievance processes.
No formal subcommittee vote or amendment was recorded in the hearing; the bill was left open for drafting and retained for future consideration.
