Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Disability Interpreter Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances bill to study regulation of sign-language interpreters
Summary
The House Finance Committee advanced HB 11-09, which would fund a study by Disability Law Colorado and state enterprise programs into consumer protections and licensing for sign-language interpreters; sponsors said data are needed after repeated failed "sunrise" reviews.
House Bill 11-09, which would require the Division for the Deaf, Hard of Hearing and DeafBlind and the Communication Services for People with Disabilities enterprise to contract a study of consumer protections related to sign-language interpreters, was advanced by the Colorado House Finance Committee on a paper recommendation to the Committee on Appropriations.
Representative Joseph, a prime sponsor, told the committee the measure "requires a division of the deaf, hard of hearing and the deaf blind and the communication services for people with disabilities enterprise to contract for a study regarding consumer protections related to the use of sign language interpreters in the state." Representative Kaye Stewart, the co-sponsor, said the community has sought action "since 1991" and that the study responds to stakeholder requests.
Jack Johnson, an attorney with Disability Law Colorado, testified in support and said prior efforts to secure licensing failed because they lacked evidence of harm. "In order to get a successful license pass, you typically need a Sunrise report," Johnson said, adding that past sunrise requests came back concluding there was "not enough evidence of harm." He told members the landscape has changed since COVID, with virtual remote interpreting creating new market pressures and the potential for out-of-state vendors to undercut local interpreters.
Committee members questioned the need for a study versus adopting licensing now. Representative Hartzook asked why the panel should spend roughly $350,000 on a study "for something that we already know," suggesting direct licensing could be cheaper. Johnson and the sponsors responded that stakeholders recommended a study to collect data needed to design a license that protects consumers without harming service availability.
The bill sponsor noted the study would be funded from an enterprise surcharge and provided line-count estimates for affected telephone lines. After discussion, the committee moved HB 11-09 to the Committee on Appropriations; the motion passed on a recorded vote 8-2 with 1 excused.
The committee did not adopt any sponsor amendments. The next formal step is the Appropriations Committee review, where members will examine any fiscal implications and program details.
