We are sending you this letter to clarify a few misrepresentations you have included in your press release dated June 23, 2015. First of all, we would like to stress that we, “candidates for certification”, are acting in a results-oriented manner with an ultimate goal to protect the public interest and “reform” ATIO so as to make it representative of all professional translators and interpreters in Ontario. This means we are not interested in seeing “cosmetic changes” that will mask the serious shortcomings and flaws of ATIO. We are not blaming anybody personally, but we have a system that is outdated and serving a few privileged members rather than all ATIO members, as well as the public interest. It is a system that is incapable of self-rectifying due to serious conflicts of interest, convenience, bureaucracy, and inertia. Unfortunately, it seems that ATIO’s bylaws were written by people who had their interest in mind rather than that of the translation industry, all of ATIO member translators and the public. Since its inception, faulty governance issues have plagued ATIO. In fact, many of its by-laws and actions contravene Bill Pr36 (Chapter Pr2 Statutes of Ontario, 1989) respecting the Association of Translators and Interpreters of Ontario which in no place mentions that decision-making and committees membership have to be restricted to its certified members (Article 4 (2) stipulates that members of ATIO council shall be “elected from the membership of the Association”). While the Parliament of Ontario wrote ATIO into existence to include ALL the translators and interpreters of Ontario, ATIO made sure that it concentrates all powers in the hands of a few certified members who are elected away from the eyes of its wider membership base (the non-certified lot). In relinquishing to CTTIC its lawfully prescribed duty “to establish standards of competency and certification examinations, and to monitor the quality of the professional services rendered by its members” (1989 Act, Article 3 (e)) ATIO hit two birds with one stone: on the one hand, it made sure to allure unsuspecting aspiring translators and interpreters to become ATIO members, placing them indefinitely - and in contradiction to its very own Bylaw Number 5.04 - in the ‘candidacy” category while profiting from their membership dues (dues ATIO increases without consultation with its candidates for certification)” and, on the other, by claiming that certification is not under its purview, ATIO has hoodwinked these same candidates for certification into thinking that albeit this association is willing to “help”, yet its hands are tied. Hence, candidates for certification membership not only profits ATIO coffers in general, but lends it an iron fist over not granting certification, guaranteeing that translation business would go to a select certified few. In fact, conflicts of interest run at the highest levels in both CTTIC and ATIO as council members of both bodies are certified and working translators. ATIO excels at sending its general membership self-damning proof of this unwavering desire to establish a close-knit monopoly. Case in point: in a press release sent to its member base dated July 6, 2015, and in spite of the numerous letters sent to ATIO by its members urging it to mend its ways and take an honest, long and hard look at the faulty certification process, ATIO seems to be pleased with itself in informing its member base that “after years of lobbying the Ontario Ministry of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade (MCIIT), ATIO is pleased to announce that the latest application guides for the Opportunities Ontario: Provincial Nominee Program (OOPNP), effective June 3, 2015, now officially require that immigration documents be translated by ATIO Certified Translators.” This goes to prove that ATIO wishes to limit the proceeds from the translation business to the hands of its few “certified members” who of course would like to preserve the status quo as they do not have any incentive to change it. Therefore, nothing will change until we change ATIO’s structure where a candidate for certification will eventually - and within the legally predicted period - become a certified translator in line with other professional organizations in Ontario such as the Law Society of Upper Canada. Your press release reads “… concerns raised by a small number of candidates.” Are you trying to discredit us by such a description? If that is the plan, it sure is not working. As you are aware, our petition is garnering enough support from many candidates for certification so as to warrant a change in the manner in which ATIO conducts business. By looking at the comments made on the petition page, anyone can notice some serious issues and recognize that if these issues are not addressed forthwith, they would only complicate things and further damage ATIO’s credibility. Claiming that the examination process is not under ATIO’s purview does not absolve ATIO of its responsibilities. It actually further underlines ATIO’s inability or unwillingness to deal with the issues at hand. Furthermore, as you are aware, CTTIC is just a corporation that does not have any legal links with the federal government. No federal body regulates or oversees what CTTIC does. Thus, CTTIC acts with impunity as there is no regulatory body that oversees its actions. On this score, we find it quite alarming that ATIO has relinquished some of its major responsibilities to this unregulated body. Your carefully worded paragraph about the “several options you offer to clarify and address candidate examination concerns” is misleading. As you are aware, we requested that our exams be reviewed by an independent third party from one of the universities of Ontario. Our request was refused by ATIO/CTTIC. Instead, ATIO/CTTIC “promised” to review one of the previous years, a promise neither ATIO nor CTTIC followed through. Furthermore, all candidates for certification who took and passed the preparatory course failed miserably in the certification exam. As for “on dossier” certification, it has been made impossible by ATIO’s rules that require candidates to get at least the recommendations of three “certified members”. These rules are meant to deter and keep candidates from becoming “certified”, as candidates for certification are finding it next to impossible to attain this sponsorship. In regards to the issue of Candidates not having the same rights and benefits as certified members, you conveniently claim that ATIO’s “structure is similar to most provincial organizations across the country”. This is again very misleading as other associations in Ontario do not keep candidates as candidates indefinitely like ATIO. If you want to compare ATIO to other professional associations in Ontario, you should have similar exam pass rates as these associations. In this instance, we would like to ask our esteemed association to implement procedures that would render the same success results as the Ontario Bar exam administered by the Law Society of Upper Canada. In April 2010, ATIO wholeheartedly supported the move by the Ministry of the Attorney General in Ontario to test the skills of the Ministry’s accredited interpreters. We all know that as a result of that courageous action by MAG, many of its “accredited” interpreters failed the exam. The certification criteria by ATIO/CTTIC have changed over time, creating a schism in the competencies of various certified translators. As such, we requested that ATIO administer a similar test for all of its “certified members”. ATIO refused our request. Thus, it is rather hypocritical of ATIO to support such a move by MAG and stubbornly refuse to do the same when it comes to its own “certified members”. About 8 years ago, ATIO started an entry exam in an effort to filter out any inexperienced translators and increase the dismal certification exam pass rate. YET, EVEN AFTER IMPLEMENTING THIS ENTRY EXAM, CERTIFICATION EXAM PASS RATES DID NOT CHANGE AT ALL. This questions the integrity of the whole certification process. Why are professional translators who have worked all their life as translators, and whose translation skills are at least equal if not superior to those of ATIO’s “certified members”, failing the exam? ATIO’s press release mentions that we have requested an “unspecified” number of reforms. This is a striking fallacy, to say the least. We have already sent our demands to ATIO in October 2014. Nothing has happened since then other than offering lip service “promises” that have never materialized. Thus, as a first step, we ask that ATIO expediently implements the following reforms: 1- Cancel the unfair clause requiring “candidates for certification” to be sponsored by three ATIO “certified members”. This is a clear example of barriers to entry that ATIO has erected to prevent candidates from becoming fully “certified” members. 2- Appoint a neutral, third-party translation studies academic expert/tertiary institution to oversee and carry out the corrections of candidates’ examination papers as well as “on dossier” certification. This academic entity should not include any ATIO/CTTIC certified translators, hence eliminating the vested interest in passing or failing a candidate. The name of the expert/institution handling the corrections and their expertise should be disclosed to the examinees. 3- Review all candidates’ past examination papers in the last 5 years by a neutral and unbiased third-party translation studies academic expert/tertiary institution. 5- Subject all ATIO members, certified or otherwise, to a mandatory proficiency testing. This will OBJECTIVELY settle, once and for all, who is a qualified linguist and who is not. 6- Consult with certified and candidate members on how to restructure ATIO and have a complete overhaul of ATIO’s bylaws striking down clauses that are meant to prevent candidates from becoming fully “certified” members. With our main goal of protecting the public interest, we are more determined than ever to reform our organization (ATIO). We are still willing to work with ATIO’s leadership to reform the system. But what we definitely are not willing to do is accept “cosmetic” changes or “procedures” that are supposed to show that ATIO is “taking action” when in fact it is not doing so. Again, we can only judge by results.