Dear Colleagues:
I was retained to do an assignment in a university some months ago. The conference was in-person with the first speaker of the second day talking remotely from a different country. Everything went fine during the weeks leading to the event: we received all materials and information, event organizers and venue management were doing their job as expected, and all speakers were cooperative and receptive to my suggestions, including the person to speak remotely from abroad. We got notice this individual had the required USB microphone and headset for the remote simultaneous interpretation, and we learned that the speaker had experience using remote platforms during monolingual meetings and conferences.
Because the first day of the event was scheduled to start at noon, we decided to have a dry run with the remote speaker that morning. That would work perfectly because we, the interpreters were traveling to the conference site, and the speaker was available that morning.
This was a bilingual, bidirectional event, so there was one booth only. My colleague and I arrived early, checked the booth, consoles, sound system, etc.; Everything looked fine until I asked for the access code to the RSI call for the dry run so we could get online with the speaker and tech support. I was told there was none, that the speaker would speak using a platform without interpretation functions, and we would have to move next to one of the auditorium wall speakers, with tour-guide type of equipment, listen to the speech with our bare ears, and simultaneously interpret using the portable device. I was shocked.
I took a few seconds to regain my composure before I told the organizer this arrangement was unacceptable, that we needed a platform with interpretation functions so we could do our job using the computers in the booth, simultaneously, without having to struggle to hear, and surely miss, some of what the speaker would say, and avoid the confusing and unpleasant situation of having the audience simultaneously listening to the speaker and the interpreters outside the booth and with portable equipment that would create feedback. I also explained the health risk this represented to the interpreters, which we were not willing to accept.
I asked the event organizer, who had been very cooperative and accommodating until then, why the change of heart. What had happened that they switched from a previously agreed set up for the remote interpretation to a “MacGyver style” unprofessional set up. The answer left me speechless and very upset. He claimed that after we discussed the RSI set up about a month before the event, they had a similar conference at the university using the same auditorium. He went on to say that they had a speaker in that event who spoke from abroad, and when presented with this development, the university’s tech support person suggested walkie-talkies and chairs next to the wall speaker. After this was explained to the interpreters they said yes and agreed to do it that way. He also told me he believed we were a little too strict with our complains on the conditions, because the other interpreters never complained. After I looked at my boothmate, who was as livid as I was, I asked if the quality of the rendition with such system had been good. He said it had not, that the interpreters had to ask for several repetitions, but that everyone understood this happens when someone speaking from abroad is interpreted, and they accepted the lower standard. I then dared to ask who were the interpreters on that occasion, and he told me some names I was not familiar with; he also conveyed the language pair: It included a language very common in courthouses and hospitals, but rarely used in conference settings. He agreed, and informed me these interpreters did little conference work, but they were the only ones the university could find.
With all this information, I explained to the organizers and university tech team that what they were asking us to do the following day did not comply with the minimum requirements to do conference interpreting in person or remotely, that there were risks to our auditive health, our professional reputation, and more important for them: This would turn into a mediocre conference where people who did not speak the speaker’s language would not get all the information they wanted to share, and the sad part was that it was within their power, and very little money, to upgrade their system and add the interpretation function to their platform. I emphasized they had all day since the speech was scheduled for over twenty four hours later to upgrade, have a dry run, and deliver a quality conference. I also told them that unless they acted, we would only interpret in-person speakers, and would not even attempt to interpret the remote speech as the conditions they were offering so far breached our contract. We worked that first day and left the auditorium.
That night I was having dinner with my boothmate when I received a message informing us the platform had been upgraded and asking us to come in early the following morning to do the dry run. We did and there was a happy ending. Unfortunately, this small victory was bitter, because all this confusion was created by other interpreters who had gladly settled for the offered substandard conditions. They never even questioned them, or informed the client there were other ways to do a better job. I believe this was a case where the client hired interpreters who were not conference interpreters, perhaps because of their language pair, or their geographical location, who were so happy to get a job, especially a conference assignment, that they would accept anything they offered to them, maybe even a very low fee for their services. The lesson learned, or reaffirmed, is that we should caution our clients and make them see the risk of hiring non-conference interpreters, and we should explain to these interpreters that by accepting conference assignments, and lowering the bar, they hurt us all, and especially they hurt themselves. It is very difficult to get quality assignments in the future once an interpreter worked under such conditions.
By Tony Rosado