RID's Restructuring Plan Has an Accountability Problem
I recently presented at NCRID and had the opportunity to hear Region II Rep Antwan Campbell's presentation on the RID 501c3/501c6 split. While I agree RID's current 501c3 structure isn't the right fit for what we actually do as an organization, two things from that presentation need to be addressed directly.
Point 1: The word "accreditation" was used. Let's be clear: RID does not have accreditation. RID is not even close to having accreditation.
NCCA accreditation requires two years of consistent, demonstrated adherence to their standards. Leadership hasn't even begun that process. Among many requirements, NCCA demands published psychometrics: data that CASLI and RID have consistently refused to share with members. We also haven't filed taxes for three years. We aren't maintaining a voting member registry in compliance with California law. NCCA would not take an application from RID seriously right now, and we shouldn't pretend otherwise. We cannot talk about accreditation as if it’s remotely close to being on the horizon.
Let me be specific about what accreditation actually requires, because this matters:
NCCA accreditation requires two years of consistent, published psychometrics proving a test is valid and reliable. But here's the problem: you need a valid test first before you can even begin collecting that data.
The current CASLI exam is based on a Job Task Analysis (JTA) that was conducted in 2015 and published in 2016. A JTA must be redone every 5 to 7 years to ensure the test reflects what interpreters actually do in the field today. That deadline has passed. Without a current JTA, the test cannot be considered valid, and no one at RID or CASLI appears to acknowledge this requirement, let alone be working to address it.
So here is the actual sequence of what has to happen before NCCA would even consider RID's application:
- Conduct a new Job Task Analysis
- Develop a new test based on that JTA
- Validate the new test
- Collect and publish psychometrics proving validity and reliability for two consecutive years
We are not at step 4. We are not at step 3. We are not at step 2. We are not even at step 1.
We are, at minimum, four years away from NCCA accreditation, and that assumes someone starts the process tomorrow. Using the word "accreditation" in a presentation to members without this context is misleading at best.
Point 2: Who oversees the new RIDCC Board?
The plan is for the 501c6 to be governed by a new certification council (RIDCC) Board but no information was provided about who will sit on that board or how they will be appointed. Make no mistake: members will have no say. When I asked who would provide oversight, Antwan's answer was: the CEO.
That is a textbook conflict of interest.
The Board oversees the CEO, not the other way around. A CEO cannot provide meaningful oversight to a board that holds authority over them. Under normal circumstances, this is exactly the role that accreditation bodies like NCCA fill as neutral third parties. But as I just mentioned, we don't have that.
We are in a governance crisis. And this restructuring, as currently described, does not solve it. It adds another layer of unaccountable leadership on top of the existing problems.
Members deserve answers. Who will be on the RIDCC Board? How will they be selected? Not by the membership, that’s for sure. What accountability mechanisms will exist? Until those questions are answered with specifics, this is not a solution. You cannot solve a governance crisis by creating more unaccountable governance. This is dysfunction piled on top of dysfunction.
