Editor’s Note: This article is based on an interview with Dr. Charleen Sculley, president of the Tennessee Association of the Deaf (TAD), together with the publicly available legislative text and history of House Bill 1040 and Senate Bill 942. Statements describing committee discussions, legislative strategy, and conversations with agencies reflect Dr. Charleen Sculley firsthand account as a participant in the process.

When Tennessee’s proposed interpreter licensure legislation failed during the 2026 legislative session, the effort ended quietly in committee. But according to Dr. Sculley, president of the Tennessee Association of the Deaf, the conversation about interpreter quality and accountability is far from over.

In an interview with Beyond Access, Sculley reflected on how the legislation came together, why TAD supported it, what happened during the legislative process, and what she believes must happen before another bill is introduced.

“This bill would benefit both the Deaf community and interpreters,” Sculley said. “We all depend on each other.”

A proposal that did not begin with TAD

Although TAD became one of the bill’s strongest supporters, Sculley emphasized that the organization did not originate the proposal.

“The interpreting bill was not originally from TAD,” she explained. “I personally was part of the committee. TAD was a big supporter.”

According to Sculley, the effort began with a small committee that included one interpreter and one Deaf consumer who recognized a need for stronger oversight of interpreting services in Tennessee.

After developing the proposal, the committee found legislative sponsors, eventually leading to House Bill 1040 and Senate Bill 942.

Legislative Timeline

Initial proposal developed
A committee of community members drafted a proposal to establish state licensure for sign language interpreters.

TAD joins the effort
The Tennessee Association of the Deaf became a major supporter of the proposal, with Sculley serving on the committee.

Legislative sponsors secured
Sen. Becky Massey sponsored SB 942 in the Senate, while Rep. Renea Jones sponsored HB 1040 in the House.

Committee consideration
Both bills advanced through portions of the legislative process, with amendments introduced along the way.

Bill fails
Despite committee hearings and revisions, the legislation did not receive final approval during the 2026 legislative session.

Looking ahead
TAD hopes to revisit interpreter licensure in the future with broader community participation.

What the bill would have done

HB 1040 and SB 942 proposed creating the Tennessee Board of Professional Sign Language Interpreters within the Department of Health.

The board would have been responsible for:

  • Licensing interpreters.
  • Establishing statewide professional standards.
  • Investigating complaints.
  • Taking disciplinary action when appropriate.
  • Maintaining a public registry of licensed interpreters.
  • Adopting administrative rules governing the profession.

The legislation also included pathways for hearing interpreters, Deaf interpreters, provisional license holders, and temporary nonresident interpreters.

While the statute established the framework, many operational details would have been developed later through Tennessee’s administrative rulemaking process after the board was created.

Why supporters believed licensure mattered

For Sculley, the issue extends beyond credentials.

She believes Tennessee needs stronger systems to ensure Deaf people receive qualified interpreting services while also providing interpreters with a clear professional structure.

When asked what concerns she currently sees across Tennessee, her answer was immediate.

“Quality of service.”

She also pointed to recurring ethical concerns.

“The skills of our interpreters need to increase. There are also a lot of ethical issues that are coming up too.”

Sculley described situations where interpreters move beyond their professional role by explaining information rather than interpreting it.

“They need to let Deaf people explain themselves.”

She also questioned whether Tennessee places enough emphasis on formal interpreter education.

“My understanding is that this state does not require school, such as the Interpreter Training Program. The only thing that matters is they can sign.”

Sculley believes interpreter education provides much more than language instruction. She said it helps future interpreters understand Deaf culture, DeafBlind communication, ethics, professional boundaries, and the responsibilities that accompany the work.

What supporters hoped to accomplish

Supporters viewed the legislation as an opportunity to:

  • Create a statewide complaint process.
  • Increase accountability.
  • Establish consistent professional standards.
  • Improve public confidence in interpreter qualifications.
  • Protect both Deaf consumers and interpreters through a structured licensing system.

Sulley believes accountability benefits everyone involved.

“If the interpreter has a complaint filed against them, they need to be able to protect themselves,” she said. “They might be willing to get more training to be more in compliance.”

Resistance during the legislative process

Sculley said committee members attempted to meet with several agencies while the legislation was being considered.

According to Sculley, those meetings revealed confusion about what the legislation was intended to accomplish.

“We tried to meet with several, and it didn’t go well.”

She said she later learned that some agencies feared losing business and did not fully understand the proposal.

Sculley also recalled that amendments were added during the legislative process without the committee’s knowledge in an effort to address concerns raised during negotiations. She said she did not know the exact exemptions that were ultimately included.

Why this matters

For many people, interpreter licensure may sound like a technical policy discussion.

For Deaf Tennesseans, it can directly affect communication during medical appointments, court proceedings, classrooms, employment interviews, mental health counseling, emergency situations, and countless other settings where accurate communication is essential.

Supporters argued that the legislation would have created clearer expectations, greater accountability, and a formal complaint process. Others questioned whether additional regulation might reduce an already limited interpreter workforce or create new barriers to practice.

Those differing viewpoints ultimately became part of the legislative discussion.

Community involvement

Sculley believes one of the biggest lessons learned had little to do with the bill itself.

It was participation.

She estimated that only six or seven people actively worked on the committee behind the proposal.

During one advocacy event at the Capitol, only about twenty people attended.

“We need more advocates to be involved.”

She believes future legislation will require much broader participation from Deaf people, DeafBlind people, interpreters, educators, agencies, and supporters across Tennessee.

“I would like to, but that would require a village.”

Documenting interpreter concerns

Until another bill is introduced, Sculley encourages Deaf consumers to carefully document situations where communication breaks down.

She recommends recording:

  • Date and time.
  • Location.
  • Type of appointment.
  • Interpreter’s name, if known.
  • Agency providing the interpreter.
  • Description of what occurred.

She encourages individuals to submit concerns to the interpreting agency and provide a copy to TAD.

“With more documentation, we can build a case for this bill.”

Documentation can also help identify recurring issues while providing information that may support future policy discussions.

What happens next?

Although HB 1040 and SB 942 did not become law, Sculley says the effort is not over.

She plans to continue meeting with stakeholders, including representatives connected to the Tennessee Council for the Deaf, DeafBlind and Hard of Hearing, while encouraging greater community engagement.

Future legislation remains possible.

Whether another proposal succeeds may depend not only on legislative support but also on whether the Deaf community, interpreters, agencies, educators, and policymakers can build broader consensus around improving interpreter quality and accountability in Tennessee.

For Sculley, the goal remains unchanged.

“We, in Tennessee, need to raise the bar of quality of service being provided.”

Those interested in learning more or supporting future advocacy efforts may contact Dr. Charleen Sculley at presidenttad1897@gmail.com.