Conflicted about Conflicts of Interest?

Conflicted about Conflicts of Interest?

ASL Video: https://youtu.be/Epx2VAi-SL0

By Roger Williams LISW-CP/S, RID CT, NAD 5, QMHI-S

Mr. Williams is the owner of Hands On Interpreting, LLC, a private practice specializing in consulting and training related to the needs of deaf adults in the mental health system. Until his retirement in 2023, he was employed as the Executive Director of the Spartanburg Area Mental Health Center with the South Carolina Department of Mental Health. He received his B.S.W. from the Rochester Institute of Technology, his M.S.W., specializing in community mental health, from the University of Illinois and completed coursework towards a doctorate at the University of South Carolina, College of Social Work. Mr. Williams is licensed in Florida and South Carolina as a Licensed Independent Social Worker – Clinical Practice/Supervisor and holds an RID Certificate of Transliteration and an SCAD/NAD IAP Level 5 and has been recognized at the state and national level for his leadership in mental health services within the Deaf community.

---

For many non-profit organization discussions and decisions about conflicts of interest are both frequent and complicated. RID is no different. In the recent past, concerns about conflicts of interest, both real and perceived, have led to resignations and recriminations. The nature of non-profit groups like RID, which aim to serve the greater good, means that it is common for these conflicts to arise. But not all such conflicts are cause for concern, although they should be examined and evaluated. They are part of professional life, and the key is how they are identified, disclosed, and managed.

There is a conflict of interest when personal interests (financial, relational, or professional) have the potential to influence professional decisions. As a working interpreter, a workshop presenter, the spouse of a deaf adult, and the parent of four deaf adults, I have a personal and professional interest in the actions of RID. I benefit when RID has standards for certification and my family benefits when those standards demand competence and quality. But the presence of such a conflict would not automatically mean it would be inappropriate for me to serve in a leadership capacity, as I have in the past. Such conflicts arise far more often than we might think, and most are manageable with the right strategies.

These can run the gamut from hiring or mentoring someone you already know, accepting a gift from a client, or serving on multiple boards that sometimes overlap in purpose. These are all situations that can happen to any professional. None of them inherently mean corruption or unethical behavior. What matters is how openly and responsibly they are addressed.

Example 1: We Work in a Small World

Suppose there was a situation where an interpreter applies to work on an educational contract where their sibling is a teacher. The potential for favoritism is real, but the solution is not to automatically bar the interpreter from the assignment. Instead, the interpreter should disclose the relationship, and the agency can assign a neutral reviewer to monitor evaluations. By providing transparency and oversight, a potential conflict is avoided, and concerns can be managed.

Example 2: Vendor Relationships

Suppose an interpreter has a long-standing friendship with the owner of a local interpreting agency and is part of a decision-making group selecting vendors for a conference. Without disclosure, this could look like favoritism. But by openly declaring the relationship and recusing themselves from the vendor selection vote, the interpreter avoids bias while still contributing their expertise in other areas of the project. The conflict is not erased, but it is ethically managed.

Example 3: Dual Roles and Commitments

Imagine an interpreter who both teaches in an Interpreter Training Program and also serves on a credentialing task force. At first glance, it might appear that this is a direct conflict that disqualifies them from participation. But this would exclude individuals who have vital experience and knowledge. Mitigation might involve ensuring that the interpreter does not grade or recruit their own students for the credentialing pilot program, while allowing their broader expertise to benefit the task force. Separation of duties protects integrity while preserving valuable contributions.

Organizations in other fields recognize this reality. They rely on disclosure policies, independent reviews, and structured safeguards like compartmentalization of privileged knowledge and segregation of duties. These tools do not eliminate conflicts; they make sure conflicts do not erode trust or integrity. Interpreting is no different. Instead of assuming that a colleague with a potential conflict is acting in bad faith, we should ask: Has it been disclosed? Are appropriate mitigation steps in place? Is there transparency in decision-making?

This shift in mindset is crucial for our field. Interpreting already faces challenges of trust, credibility, and accountability. If we treat every conflict as a disqualification, we risk losing experienced professionals and discouraging open dialogue. Worse, we create a culture of suspicion instead of collaboration. By contrast, when we acknowledge that conflicts exist everywhere, and emphasize management over punishment, we foster an environment of honesty and integrity.

Leaders set the tone, but every interpreter contributes to this culture. The goal is not to shame colleagues for having conflicts, but to hold one another accountable for handling them responsibly. That means encouraging disclosure, respecting established policies, listening to concerns about conflicts, and supporting one another in navigating gray areas with professionalism, and choosing recusal or alternatives when appropriate. Being conscious of how a potential conflict might be perceived places an additional responsibility on those in leadership positions to be mindful even when outside of formal settings, ensuring that privileged information is not inadvertently disclosed in social settings.

Conflicts of interest are inevitable. How we respond to them is a choice. Let us take a page from Brené Brown and her call for us to assume a positive intent from all, supporters and critics. Let us choose transparency over secrecy, education over condemnation, mitigation over vilification, and accountability over accusation. Our profession will be stronger for it.

5 Mitigation Strategies Every Interpreter Should Know

• Full Disclosure – Be upfront about any relationship or interest that could appear to affect your work. Transparency is the first step to trust.

• Recusal – Step back from decisions where your objectivity could reasonably be questioned. Let others handle that piece.

• Separation of Duties – Divide responsibilities so no one person controls every step of a process, especially in hiring, evaluation, or credentialing.

• Independent Oversight – Involve neutral reviewers or committees to provide an extra layer of accountability.

• Documentation – Keep a record of disclosed conflicts and the steps taken to manage them. It demonstrates accountability and builds confidence in the process.