Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Language Access topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Court holds first reading of ordinance to formalize bilingual interpretation pay and testing

Saline County Quorum Court · March 17, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Quorum Court held a first reading of an ordinance to amend county salary policy to create a procedure, administered by HR, for reviewing and approving bilingual interpretation compensation using a vendor proficiency exam described as an AI-driven test at about $150 per exam.

The Saline County Quorum Court on March 16 held a first reading of an ordinance to amend county salary administration rules and establish a procedure for reviewing and approving bilingual interpretation compensation.

Justice Bellinger, the sponsor, said the county would route interpreter proficiency requests through HR and use a third‑party proficiency test. "The technology that we were able to find is remarkable and it's remarkably affordable... it's $150 if I remember correctly to do a proficiency exam," he said, describing a live‑avatar online test used to assess language proficiency.

Justice Curtis moved to suspend the rules and read by title; Justice Chisum seconded. The court recorded this as a first reading and did not adopt the ordinance at the meeting. Bellinger said pay would be tied to the job: if an employee later moved to a position that did not require interpretation, the additional compensation would cease.

During discussion, Bellinger credited staff research into companies offering testing solutions and noted the procedure was intended to standardize how bilingual pay is awarded. A sponsor‑requested pull of a different item (Exhibit A) occurred earlier in the meeting; Exhibit B proceeded to first reading.

The ordinance was presented as a first reading only; no final vote or appropriation occurred. The court signaled it would return with further consideration and implementation details through HR.