Diane TeKippe - Interpreter at Police Dept.
..
'f'"
/-7~ /5 - ('f
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members:
RE: Required interpreter at Police Dept.
If there are any problems with a report and/or jailer; John Mauss, Police Chief doesn't
accept or agree to get an interpreter for me to talk with the officer about repeated
investigations. I think you will agree with this. In future, some deaf require an
interpreter for any crimes and jailer. It's ADA laws, you know.
Th~nk y,OU for yO~. helP, ,,_
GtP/N V~j~kuJ-n
- ' ~f'J~
Diane TeKippe, ' .
Deaf Community Leader
- 8
.~
--
0 9 :t=S
uJ 0,
~ (f)Q)
~ 4 ~6-
w C" .mE
() N O:::J
W ~ z:-D
a: ., 0
0'
Cf"
.,
, -
. ..
Oi' cn/f~ ~ ( e ~j;Ul
Z Ul q:) ~\+- ~='9Jj1
, OfL-
-J)-tVCh~) / (~!JC{,
G1C'\ ~1'"
---- C:-\. cJ
.~
CITY OF DUBUQUE, IOWA
MEMORANDUM
February 11, 1 999
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Interpreter at Police Department
Diane TeKippe has sent the Mayor and City Council a letter about use of an
interpreter at the Police Department. I have discussed this situation with City
Solicitor Bill Blum. He agrees with Chief of Police John Mauss that their response
to this situation was appropriate.
(
MUlti ~/
ichael C. Van Milligen
MCVM/j
Attachment
cc: Barry Lindahl, Corporation Counsel
Tim Moerman, Assistant City Manager
John Mauss, Police Chief
Bill Blum, City Solicitor
CITY OF DUBUQUE, IOWA
'MEMORANDUM
February 9, 1999
TO
Michael C. Van Milligen
City Manager
John 1. Mauss ~
Chief of Police 1
Interpreter at Police Department
FROM
SUBJECT
INTRODUCTION
This memo is to respond to the memo by Diane T eKippe regarding an interpreter at the
Police Department.
BACKGROUND
Between August 1987 and the present time, we have taken 22 offense or incident reports
from Ms. Tekippe, in addition to numerous other contacts. She is a frequent visitor to the
Police Department, and calls me on the telephone several times per year using the
Answer Iowa service for hearing impaired, which provides translation from a
teletypewriter to a person on the telephone. Most of the reports we have taken and many
other contacts involve writing notes back and forth to her when she is present; on a few
occasions she has had a friend with her who could translate sign language.
On March 27, 1998, she reported vandalism to her vehicle by virtue of the two back tires
having been punctured or slashed. The vandalism was not witnessed and she had no
suspects. The cost to repair the damage was $27.56 by Tandem Tire.
On October 5, 1998, she brought a woman to DLEC to talk to an officer about the March
vandalism. The woman told the officer that her son had told her that she slashed the tires.
The officer then told the woman and Diane that he would be filing charges against the
son, who was a juvenile. After the woman went home, she called back to the officer to
say that the son had never admitted slashing the tires, and that she had been mistaken in
what he had said. The son denied slashing the tires or knowing who did it, and charges
were not filed.
Diane again contacted the officer and his supervisor about the case, and was advised of
the reason why charges were not being filed. She was also advised that if she thought she
could prove that he slashed the tires in a civil action (with a lesser standard of proof than
a criminal charge), she could file a small claim against the person she suspected. She
subsequently wrote him a letter, stating that he owed her $63.48, which was the original
..
cost of the tires when she bought them in August 1997. I believe he did not respond to
the letter; at any rate, he did not pay the damages she was requesting of him.
In December I received a telephone message from her that she had scheduled a sign
interpreter to come in with her to talk to the officer again, and that we would have to pay
the interpreter. I called her number, and she responded by coming to DLEC in person. I
told her I would not pay for an interpreter without knowing the reason. She stated that it
was to talk to the officer further, to get him to file charges in the vandalism case. I told
her that we had already discussed the case and that I would not pay for an interpreter to
discuss it further, but offered the alternative of scheduling a meeting with the officer and
having a meter checker, Lisa Althaus, present to interpret by sign. Lisa is not a certified
interpreter, but does converse with others (including Diane in the past) using sign.
That meeting took place, and following the meeting, Diane again called me using Answer
Iowa. She again expressed anger and frustration at the fact that charges had not been
filed. I again told her that without new or further information, we had no basis for filing
the charge. I do not recall that she asked for a paid interpreter again at that point, but if
she did, I would have refused in the absence of any indication that any further
information would come through use of an interpreter.
DISCUSSION
The ADA requires us to provide services to all citizens, and if a person has a disability, to
make reasonable accommodations to overcome that disability. I believe our record of
communications with Ms. Tekippe over the years has met that obligation. In the case at
hand, she may have felt better equipped to persuade the officer to file the charge if she
had an interpreter, but the case was discussed several times, including with the officer's
supervisor and with me. We did not have enough evidence to file a charge, and there was
no indication that an interpreter would have helped in discovering or providing more
evidence.
As an issue related to the topic, but not to this case, I will add that Section 804.31 of the
Iowa Code requires us to provide a qualified sign interpreter when we arrest a hearing
impaired individual at the earliest opportunity (the section does allow the person to waive
that right). There are currently no qualified interpreters as defined by that statute closer
than 70 miles distant, and there is little or no incentive for any local person who can sign
well to qualify.