The ATA Chronicle - January/February 2020 - 13

delivered a report to ATA's Board. In
that report, he mentioned the possibility
of separating ATA's credential from
a membership requirement. He also
mentioned that the most well-respected
credentials are administered by an
independent body, not a membership
association.
In the end, he made nine specific
recommendations designated "A" through
"I." Not one of those recommendations
specifically mentions decoupling
certification from membership.
Recommendations "A" and "B," however,
are significant. They refer to first
conducting a strategic planning process
(which never occurred), and second,
establishing a formal body to govern "all
credentials offered by the Association."1
(This independent body was never
created.) Neither the independent body
nor a strategic planning process were
even mentioned in the summary ATA
prepared and posted on its website in
2001, entitled "Executive Summary."2
For many years (apparently until early
2018, when former ATA Director and
Treasurer Gabe Bokor made it available
on his website), the report was deemed
confidential, and that highly edited
"summary" was what was available to
the membership. The full Hamm report
seems to have only been made available
on ATA's website in mid-2019.

CREDIBILITY OF OUR CREDENTIAL
The prime justification that ATA has
stated for decoupling certification is
to "enhance the credibility" of our
credential. Unfortunately, there is no
current, specific, or validated evidence
that decoupling would serve this
purpose. Yes, Michael Hamm says that
membership-based credentials "typically
have less credibility and impact in an
industry/profession... than freestanding
national professional certifications," but
he goes on to say that "some freestanding
national professional certifications have
easier testing requirements" than ATA's
credential at the time of his report, 20
years ago, in 1999-2000.3 Hamm did not
qualify ATA certification (then referred
to as "accreditation") in a negative light.
In fact, it was then-ATA President Ann
Macfarlane who, in reference to ATA's
www.atanet.org

credential, stated that "in the world of
voluntary certifications, a member-based
credential may be perceived as a secondrate credential"4 (emphasis added). Hamm
made no such assertion.
There is no logical link between
separating our credential from
Association membership and enhancing
its stature. Nonmember certified
translators would not have any vested
interest in promoting ATA, attending its
functions, or contributing as speakers,
writers, or mentors. The difficulty of
verifying fulfillment of continuing
education requirements would
certainly increase, and that would
most definitely not enhance the
credibility of our credential.

If the overall aim of ATA's Board
is to enhance the recognition of
our credential, then there are
various concrete steps that can
be taken to do so.

In a nonmember certified translator
scenario, the enforcement of ethics matters,
once adjudicated, would have no "teeth,"
and an individual would be free to claim
ATA certification without fear of sanctions
being levied, other than removal from
ATA's list of certified members. Even now,
with the available sanction of suspending
membership, it's difficult and timeconsuming for ATA Headquarters staff to
pursue individuals who fraudulently claim
ATA certified status.
The bottom line with regard to
credibility is this: ATA certification is
already one of the top translator credentials
in the world. It's well-respected by
professionals, educators, and clients,
and even by Michael Hamm. There is no
evidence of other credentials that have
soared in stature simply because of removal
of an association membership requirement.

FINANCES
The Bylaws amendment to be presented to
the membership later this year, as passed

by the Board at the 2019 ATA Annual
Conference in Palm Springs, states in part:
[...] Whereas allowing nonmembers
to take the ATA certification exam is
expected to increase market demand for
the exam, resulting in additional revenue
to the Association [...]
This statement cannot be supported.
ATA has not determined the nonmember
pricing for the exam or for maintaining
certification. Additionally, ATA's Board
has stated that there is only "anecdotal"
evidence of nonmembers wanting to
take the exam. No market research has
been done. No survey of the membership
asking how many certified translators
would remain if they did not have to
maintain ATA membership. With stated
per-exam expenses of $500 to $600
and a current member exam fee of
$525, any claimed additional revenue
would be minimal. The net result would
even likely be negative, based on the
increase in administrative work at ATA
Headquarters required by any substantial
increase in exam numbers, and any
decline in membership dues revenue
from members who choose to leave while
maintaining their certification.
Additionally, in ATA's fiscal year ending
June 30, 2019, a loss of approximately
$170K was recorded.5 Although it has
been stated that the Association is still
financially healthy, this is not the time
to upset our financial apple cart with
all of these unknowns, and the claim of
"additional revenue" is aspirational at
best. In fact, if the Association were to
record a loss in the current fiscal year,
as is predicted to happen, that would
violate the pre-conditions for decoupling
established by ATA's Board.6

IS RESTRICTION OF TRADE AN ISSUE?
One rationale proposed by ATA
for decoupling is the concern that
nonmembers may file lawsuits, claiming
that they are restricted from working
as a translator by the requirement to
join ATA to sit for our exam. There
are two aspects of this argument that
discredit this rationale. First, ATA
certification is a voluntary credential,
not a license to practice a profession.
As such, no barrier to entry can be
American Translators Association

13
http://www.atanet.org
The ATA Chronicle - January/February 2020

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of The ATA Chronicle - January/February 2020
