THE SORENSON COMPANY LIED, LIED, LIED ON MY BLOG POSTING WHICH ONE OF THE SORENSON MANAGEMENT DENIED SUCH EXISTENCE OF TERPS LAY-OFFS LAST TWO MONTHS AGO.
SORENSON RECENTLY LAID OFF TERPS IN CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE AREA ACCORDING TO THE CONCORD LOCAL NEWSPAPER REPORTING. THIS VRS COMPANY EVER DONE THE SALARY CUTS BY 15 PERCENT.
SORENSON LAID OFF MORE THAN 35 TERPS.
SORENSON WILL CLOSE THE CONCORD-BASED REGIONAL HUB OF ITS OWN AND BLAME THE RECENT FCC'S LATEST DECISION FOR LOWER REIMBURSEMENT FROM THE TRS FUND AFTER THE FCC'S OWN RECOMMENDATION FROM READING ALL THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE VRS CONSUMER ADVISORY BOARD.
NOT ABLE TO INCLUDE THE ATTACHED LINK DUE TO COMPUTER ITSELF NOT MAKE IT POSSIBLE. I COULD NOT POST THE FULL NEWSPAPER ARTICLE DUE TO THE REAL STUPID DEAFREAD POLICY.
ASLIZE YOURS,
ROBERT L. MASON (RLM)
RLMDEAF BLOG
RLMDEAF@HOTMAIL.COM
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Friday, August 13, 2010
Founder of the USA Today Said Something About Someone Deaf
The founder of the USA Today newspaper, Al Neuharth, sneered at the idea of the 22nd anniversary of the deaf personality and ridiculed the so-called importance of that personality's message on daily basis. Neuharth urged us to laugh at his show to show the real absurdity of language use. Kinda question Mike McConnell's logical means of his blog and vlog postings along with Mc Connell's favorite deaf personality.
Here is the column and quotes from several individuals regarding the deaf personality -
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-08-06-column06_ST_N.htm
If any of you could not access to the USA Today column. Let's type "al neuharth and
Limbaugh anniversary is a laughing matter" on any ISP search engine. Okay?
ASLize yours,
Robert L. Mason (RLM)
RLMDEAD
Here is the column and quotes from several individuals regarding the deaf personality -
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-08-06-column06_ST_N.htm
If any of you could not access to the USA Today column. Let's type "al neuharth and
Limbaugh anniversary is a laughing matter" on any ISP search engine. Okay?
ASLize yours,
Robert L. Mason (RLM)
RLMDEAD
AUDISM from Hearing Person's Perspective
This enclosed column described the personal experience with A U D I S M from the hearing perspective which he became deaf later in life. Very H E A R T Y piece described his growing up with the family whose had such a prejudice toward deaf people. Ever his deaf uncle and other family members did not S I G N at all.
http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=columnists&sc=life_in_the_slow_lane&id=108758
If this attached link do not work, please type "judah leblang and hearing and the lack of it" on any ISP search engine.
ASLize yours,
Robert L. Mason (RLM)
RLMDEAF blog
http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=columnists&sc=life_in_the_slow_lane&id=108758
If this attached link do not work, please type "judah leblang and hearing and the lack of it" on any ISP search engine.
ASLize yours,
Robert L. Mason (RLM)
RLMDEAF blog
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Transcript from the Latest AB 2072 Bill Senate Hearing
Wednesday, August 11, 2010, 4:39 am Pacific Time
Transcript of California State Senate Appropriations Committee hearing relating to AB2072, August 9, 2010
SENATOR CHRISTINE KEHOE (Chair): And we are going to bring up Mr. Mendoza now to take up AB 2072 on hearing screening. A number of citizens have come to the Capitol to testify on this, and we have sign language interpreters here [gesturing], so we'd like to dispense with that bill. We appreciate Mr. DeVore's courtesy in allowing Mr. Mendoza to come up. So we will go to 2072. Mr. Mendoza, do you open on that?
ASSEMBLYMAN TONY MENDOZA: Yes, Madam Chair. Thank you members. I'm here to present on AB 2072, with the amendments that we've taken, the Senate Health Committee, with the help of our Senator Alquist [motions to Sen. Alquist], this bill will now require the California Department of Education to develop a pamphlet that will--that is comprehensive and provides information to parents on American Sign Language as well as auditory/oral approaches. The California Department of Education will develop this pamphlet with the input of stakeholder--by a stakeholder group that will include representatives from various communication options. The cost of this pamphlet and conducting the stakeholder panel will be covered by non-state funds--and we worked, and the Senator, on making sure we are clear on that. This information will be presented by the audiologist who tells parents that their child has been identified as deaf or hard of hearing. The information will also be given to parents at a second time by their local Early Start provider. And with that, Madam Chair, we have some folks here to speak in favor, starting with one of the parents, Licia King.
SEN. KEHOE: Thank you, Mr. Mendoza. Before we go to the witnesses--that will be momentary--if I could have the audience's attention. How many people are prepared to speak on behalf, or opposed, to this bill, AB 2077 [sic]? Either way, pro or con? [pause] Alrighty, so we will take--we'll take three statements in favor, and then will take the rest of the in-favor witnesses. Then we'll take the three statements opposed, and take the rest of the statements opposed.
MR. MENDOZA: Yes, Madam Chair, do you want to set a time limit for each speaker?
SEN. KEHOE: It doesn't look like there are all that many. You know what? Statements should be on point, on the fiscal matters, and no repetition, and the statements can go on as long as the Chair is listening, so--
MR. MENDOZA: [laughs] Great, thank you.
[Audience laughs]
SEN. KEHOE: --so I'll determine--I'll determine how long they go [laughing]. But we're prepared to hear, of course, people who have come a ways to talk about the bill, so go ahead, miss.
LICIA KING: Good morning, my name is Licia King and I'm the parent of six-year-old deaf twin girls. We first discovered that the girls had their hearing loss when they failed the newborn hearing screening at birth with their confirmed diagnosis. We were given no information about communication alternatives. A teacher of the deaf did come to our home and we began learning sign language, but we quickly found that that was not well suited for us, as there are no other deaf members in our immediate or extended family. It took a friend for us to become aware of the local listening-and-spoken-language program that ultimately was a better choice for us. While attending this program, both of my daughters received cochlear implants, and by their fourth birthday they had age-appropriate speech and language skills. They're now fully mainstreamed in our neighborhood school, sitting beside their hearing peers. They require minimal support services and are meeting or exceeding state standards. [pause] I cannot stress enough that it is my parental right to make decisions for my children, and it is best to do so with complete information. We live in a country that is based on the freedom to choose, and rarely is there a situation where one size fits all. But for all future parents of children born with hearing loss, I ask that you give them the information they need to make an informed decision that is timely and best for their family situation. Thank you.
SEN. KEHOE: Thank you very much. Next please.
LAURA TURNER: Laura Turner representing California Coalition of Option Schools and we're in support of the bill.
SEN. KEHOE: Thank you very much.
JANET CHRISTENSEN: Janet Christensen, also of California Coalition of Option Schools. I'm also a parent and a teacher of the deaf and I'm in favor of this bill.
SEN. KEHOE: Very good. Other testimony in favor of the bill? [pause] Folks? Testimony in favor? Alright then I'll ask you three to vacate those chairs. We'll bring up those opposed to the bill--opposed to AB 2077 [sic]. [pause] Alrighty, if you could come up and give us your name and your statement, please? [pause] Good morning.
SHERI FARINHA: [voice of interpreter] Good morning. My name is Sheri Farinha. I'm here representing the California Deaf Newborn Identification Advocacy Stakeholders [CDNIAS] of parents and the Deaf community members. Senator Polanco is very ill and unable to join me today to express our concerns and why we are opposing this bill in its current form. There were amendments that were made during the Health Committee policy hearing and they're not in its current form of this bill, which is why we still stand opposed. I would like to share our concerns regarding the part of the bill that says, quote: "Provides that the State, audiologists, nor Early Start program providers shall incur any costs for implementing this bill." Who will pay for this bill? That's our question. Also, the new fund to be set up will be empty until the state gets contributions? How much money will be needed to cover this entire bill? If no money [is obtained] then what happens to this bill as required? Regarding the advisory panel, we want to make sure that this committee--that the state is responsible under the Americans with Disabilities Act to understand that it absorbs the responsibility to pay for all of the accommodations--whether sign language interpreters, oral interpreters, real time captioning--the state is responsible to pay for that and it's not contingent on any contributions to the fund. We hope that the staff analysis has asked the California Department of Education costs related to everything involved in this bill and whether they were going to absorb the costs. It's really important to have enforcement of the funds, and who will monitor and make sure that the contributions are not in conflict, from any big-time industry with those who are represented on the panel, to make sure that there's no conflict of interest--who is going to monitor that? If the bill is amended, will the Committee be looking at those changes in the amendments? The costs associated with the shipping of the current pamphlet is roughly fourteen hundred audiologists in the State of California that are California licensed. While this bill creates a new professional activity in which the degree, the certification, licensing, does not require audiologists to be knowledgeable in the educational aspect of sign language development, therefore they would be asked to present information to new parents, and that would require an additional training, so I hope that the training costs are included. The Chair of the Health Committee, Senator Alquist, did ask for restrictions on the audiologists, and that's not in the current form of the bill, so we have concerns there. What would that mean? Audiologists, [only] registration, not license required [to practice] in the State of California, not including [knowledge of] aspects related to American Sign Language, and it's really critical that they have training before they are allowed to pass out any kind of materials or information, to be able to intelligently answer questions related to American Sign Language. Also, the bill talks about the pamphlet and collecting information from the advisory panel, as well as collecting written information. We want to make sure that the California Department of Education has a survey and that that information is available in American Sign Language on video on the CDE website. [pause] The bill itself also says that the Department will be able to, or needs to include travel costs--you know that there's automatically some travel costs that affect some panel members. We hope that the Appropriations Committee takes a hard look at all of the different areas of concern and makes sure that the funds themselves--that someone is able to monitor and make sure that it's impartial, and neutral. So thank you for your attention to our concerns.
SEN. KEHOE: Thank you. We appreciate your comments.
MS. FARINHA: --I'm here to answer any questions.
SEN. KEHOE: Thank you. Is there--I'm going to go to Senator Alquist, the chair of our Senate Health Committee, after the testimony is finished, but first let me see. Is there any additional testimony opposed to AB 2077 [sic]? Please come on up? Any other testimony opposed, you should be coming up now. [pause] Alright, sir, tell us your name and your statement?
BOYCE HINMAN: Yes, thank you. Yes, I'm Boyce Hinman. I'm with California Communities United Institute and sadly, we must oppose this bill. We do not believe that referring the parents to an audiologist will result in a fair and accurate description of all of the options available for the parents and for their children, and we think the legislation needs to be amended to make sure that that happens, and so, as I said, regretfully we oppose the bill.
SEN. KEHOE: Thank you.
MR. HINMAN. Thank you.
SEN. KEHOE: Thank you. Any additional testimony for, or against, AB 2077 [sic]? Seeing none.
MR. HINMAN: 2072.
SEN. KEHOE: Beg your pardon. I'm looking at the wrong line--2072. Thank you very much. Senator Alquist, you have some comments?
SENATOR ELAINE ALQUIST: I do have some comments.
SEN. KEHOE: And we do appreciate your work on this bill in the Health Committee.
SEN. ALQUIST: Thank you, and I do appreciate Assemblyman Mendoza's work on this bill. I and my staff have spent hundreds of hours on this one bill. In fact, somebody even said to me, you know, are you--why did you even take on this issue? I took it on because I care about these children and because once a week, for all of my four years in college, I volunteered at the Illinois School for the Blind in Jacksonville, Illinois where MacMurray College is. And I worked with children who had multiple handicaps. So I really care about the children, and we here are doing something to make something better for children, and this really has become a really good bill. One thing I'd like to--well, several things. One, the opposition keeps talking about the Department of Education. Well, the opposition really wanted the Department of Education to house this bill, should it become law, and now they're bringing up some other issues which I'm sure the Appropriations staff can deal with. Assemblyman Mendoza, for his part, took every single amendment that we asked, except one, which he agreed to but just time-wise it did not work out for him to take it till now, and we're hoping--and I will say exactly what the amendment does, and I'm hoping that this can be done while the bill is on suspense here in Appropriations. I asked the author to incorporate language in the next committee to prohibit audiologists from steering parents toward a particular option and from influencing the parents' decision beyond their scope of practice. [pause] That is fair. The assemblyman agreed to it. I hope that it will be taken here in Appropriations. I've not seen any language from the opposition--any compromise language on this issue and I believe that this particular amendment will truly see to it that the audiologists are not doing anything inappropriate, which is the opposition's main concern, and I understand that, I get that, and this amendment will take care of that issue. I really hope that this bill will make it out of both houses [and] be signed into law, because it is time that parents who have babies who cannot hear have options presented to them in a timely fashion, and that means all options so that parents can decide what they want for their child, and that is what this bill does. So I really ask for your support.
[Senator Kehoe speaking with microphone turned off.]
SEN. ALQUIST: Will you take the amendment?
[Senator Kehoe continuing to speak with microphone turned off.]
SEN. ALQUIST: I would love to make the motion, but I believe it's in the bill's best interests and the children's best interests to hold the bill on suspense and take the amendment that I just addressed.
SEN. KEHOE: Thank you Senator Alquist, and I will just explain the process a little bit, because Senator Alquist's remarks, I think, uh, I agree with. The bill meets the requirement for--the criteria for suspense because there are costs of about a hundred and twenty-six thousand dollars in coming years. The amendments that will be author's amendments that Senator Alquist referred to are policy amendments with no fiscal impacts, so taking care of those on suspense will not change the fiscal status of the bill. We will--unless there's further comments from members, I'll take Finance and then we'll close this.
(Department of Finance staff member:) The potential costs of convening the panel and preparing the pamphlet are unknown at this time. Preliminary estimates from the Department of Education range between three hundred thousand and four hundred thousand dollars for travel and printing costs. However we do know that the bill stipulates that no state funds will be used, and the provisions of this bill are dependent upon the determination by the Department of Finance, that sufficient funds have been collected and deposited into the special fund created for this purpose. We do continue to note that there could be potential cost pressures as a result of this measure should private funding not become available.
SEN. KEHOE: Thank you. Then without further comment and without objection, the bill goes to the suspense file and we'll work with the author on the amendments between now and Thursday.
MR. MENDOZA: Yes, we will be working--actually we started working with your staff already as far as how we could reduce the costs [of the bill]. Hopefully the bill will get out of suspense.
SEN. KEHOE: Thank you.
MR. MENDOZA: Thank you, Madam Chair--
SEN. KEHOE: Thank you, Mr. Mendoza. We will continue now with file order. Let's see we have Mr. Beall--Colonel Cook, I think you're up now with two items, AB 308 and AB 2784.
[End excerpt]
[Transcript is unofficial.]
LINK TO VIDEO (00:09:35 to 00:26:04):
https://www.calchannel.com/channel/viewVideo/1631
Transcript of California State Senate Appropriations Committee hearing relating to AB2072, August 9, 2010
SENATOR CHRISTINE KEHOE (Chair): And we are going to bring up Mr. Mendoza now to take up AB 2072 on hearing screening. A number of citizens have come to the Capitol to testify on this, and we have sign language interpreters here [gesturing], so we'd like to dispense with that bill. We appreciate Mr. DeVore's courtesy in allowing Mr. Mendoza to come up. So we will go to 2072. Mr. Mendoza, do you open on that?
ASSEMBLYMAN TONY MENDOZA: Yes, Madam Chair. Thank you members. I'm here to present on AB 2072, with the amendments that we've taken, the Senate Health Committee, with the help of our Senator Alquist [motions to Sen. Alquist], this bill will now require the California Department of Education to develop a pamphlet that will--that is comprehensive and provides information to parents on American Sign Language as well as auditory/oral approaches. The California Department of Education will develop this pamphlet with the input of stakeholder--by a stakeholder group that will include representatives from various communication options. The cost of this pamphlet and conducting the stakeholder panel will be covered by non-state funds--and we worked, and the Senator, on making sure we are clear on that. This information will be presented by the audiologist who tells parents that their child has been identified as deaf or hard of hearing. The information will also be given to parents at a second time by their local Early Start provider. And with that, Madam Chair, we have some folks here to speak in favor, starting with one of the parents, Licia King.
SEN. KEHOE: Thank you, Mr. Mendoza. Before we go to the witnesses--that will be momentary--if I could have the audience's attention. How many people are prepared to speak on behalf, or opposed, to this bill, AB 2077 [sic]? Either way, pro or con? [pause] Alrighty, so we will take--we'll take three statements in favor, and then will take the rest of the in-favor witnesses. Then we'll take the three statements opposed, and take the rest of the statements opposed.
MR. MENDOZA: Yes, Madam Chair, do you want to set a time limit for each speaker?
SEN. KEHOE: It doesn't look like there are all that many. You know what? Statements should be on point, on the fiscal matters, and no repetition, and the statements can go on as long as the Chair is listening, so--
MR. MENDOZA: [laughs] Great, thank you.
[Audience laughs]
SEN. KEHOE: --so I'll determine--I'll determine how long they go [laughing]. But we're prepared to hear, of course, people who have come a ways to talk about the bill, so go ahead, miss.
LICIA KING: Good morning, my name is Licia King and I'm the parent of six-year-old deaf twin girls. We first discovered that the girls had their hearing loss when they failed the newborn hearing screening at birth with their confirmed diagnosis. We were given no information about communication alternatives. A teacher of the deaf did come to our home and we began learning sign language, but we quickly found that that was not well suited for us, as there are no other deaf members in our immediate or extended family. It took a friend for us to become aware of the local listening-and-spoken-language program that ultimately was a better choice for us. While attending this program, both of my daughters received cochlear implants, and by their fourth birthday they had age-appropriate speech and language skills. They're now fully mainstreamed in our neighborhood school, sitting beside their hearing peers. They require minimal support services and are meeting or exceeding state standards. [pause] I cannot stress enough that it is my parental right to make decisions for my children, and it is best to do so with complete information. We live in a country that is based on the freedom to choose, and rarely is there a situation where one size fits all. But for all future parents of children born with hearing loss, I ask that you give them the information they need to make an informed decision that is timely and best for their family situation. Thank you.
SEN. KEHOE: Thank you very much. Next please.
LAURA TURNER: Laura Turner representing California Coalition of Option Schools and we're in support of the bill.
SEN. KEHOE: Thank you very much.
JANET CHRISTENSEN: Janet Christensen, also of California Coalition of Option Schools. I'm also a parent and a teacher of the deaf and I'm in favor of this bill.
SEN. KEHOE: Very good. Other testimony in favor of the bill? [pause] Folks? Testimony in favor? Alright then I'll ask you three to vacate those chairs. We'll bring up those opposed to the bill--opposed to AB 2077 [sic]. [pause] Alrighty, if you could come up and give us your name and your statement, please? [pause] Good morning.
SHERI FARINHA: [voice of interpreter] Good morning. My name is Sheri Farinha. I'm here representing the California Deaf Newborn Identification Advocacy Stakeholders [CDNIAS] of parents and the Deaf community members. Senator Polanco is very ill and unable to join me today to express our concerns and why we are opposing this bill in its current form. There were amendments that were made during the Health Committee policy hearing and they're not in its current form of this bill, which is why we still stand opposed. I would like to share our concerns regarding the part of the bill that says, quote: "Provides that the State, audiologists, nor Early Start program providers shall incur any costs for implementing this bill." Who will pay for this bill? That's our question. Also, the new fund to be set up will be empty until the state gets contributions? How much money will be needed to cover this entire bill? If no money [is obtained] then what happens to this bill as required? Regarding the advisory panel, we want to make sure that this committee--that the state is responsible under the Americans with Disabilities Act to understand that it absorbs the responsibility to pay for all of the accommodations--whether sign language interpreters, oral interpreters, real time captioning--the state is responsible to pay for that and it's not contingent on any contributions to the fund. We hope that the staff analysis has asked the California Department of Education costs related to everything involved in this bill and whether they were going to absorb the costs. It's really important to have enforcement of the funds, and who will monitor and make sure that the contributions are not in conflict, from any big-time industry with those who are represented on the panel, to make sure that there's no conflict of interest--who is going to monitor that? If the bill is amended, will the Committee be looking at those changes in the amendments? The costs associated with the shipping of the current pamphlet is roughly fourteen hundred audiologists in the State of California that are California licensed. While this bill creates a new professional activity in which the degree, the certification, licensing, does not require audiologists to be knowledgeable in the educational aspect of sign language development, therefore they would be asked to present information to new parents, and that would require an additional training, so I hope that the training costs are included. The Chair of the Health Committee, Senator Alquist, did ask for restrictions on the audiologists, and that's not in the current form of the bill, so we have concerns there. What would that mean? Audiologists, [only] registration, not license required [to practice] in the State of California, not including [knowledge of] aspects related to American Sign Language, and it's really critical that they have training before they are allowed to pass out any kind of materials or information, to be able to intelligently answer questions related to American Sign Language. Also, the bill talks about the pamphlet and collecting information from the advisory panel, as well as collecting written information. We want to make sure that the California Department of Education has a survey and that that information is available in American Sign Language on video on the CDE website. [pause] The bill itself also says that the Department will be able to, or needs to include travel costs--you know that there's automatically some travel costs that affect some panel members. We hope that the Appropriations Committee takes a hard look at all of the different areas of concern and makes sure that the funds themselves--that someone is able to monitor and make sure that it's impartial, and neutral. So thank you for your attention to our concerns.
SEN. KEHOE: Thank you. We appreciate your comments.
MS. FARINHA: --I'm here to answer any questions.
SEN. KEHOE: Thank you. Is there--I'm going to go to Senator Alquist, the chair of our Senate Health Committee, after the testimony is finished, but first let me see. Is there any additional testimony opposed to AB 2077 [sic]? Please come on up? Any other testimony opposed, you should be coming up now. [pause] Alright, sir, tell us your name and your statement?
BOYCE HINMAN: Yes, thank you. Yes, I'm Boyce Hinman. I'm with California Communities United Institute and sadly, we must oppose this bill. We do not believe that referring the parents to an audiologist will result in a fair and accurate description of all of the options available for the parents and for their children, and we think the legislation needs to be amended to make sure that that happens, and so, as I said, regretfully we oppose the bill.
SEN. KEHOE: Thank you.
MR. HINMAN. Thank you.
SEN. KEHOE: Thank you. Any additional testimony for, or against, AB 2077 [sic]? Seeing none.
MR. HINMAN: 2072.
SEN. KEHOE: Beg your pardon. I'm looking at the wrong line--2072. Thank you very much. Senator Alquist, you have some comments?
SENATOR ELAINE ALQUIST: I do have some comments.
SEN. KEHOE: And we do appreciate your work on this bill in the Health Committee.
SEN. ALQUIST: Thank you, and I do appreciate Assemblyman Mendoza's work on this bill. I and my staff have spent hundreds of hours on this one bill. In fact, somebody even said to me, you know, are you--why did you even take on this issue? I took it on because I care about these children and because once a week, for all of my four years in college, I volunteered at the Illinois School for the Blind in Jacksonville, Illinois where MacMurray College is. And I worked with children who had multiple handicaps. So I really care about the children, and we here are doing something to make something better for children, and this really has become a really good bill. One thing I'd like to--well, several things. One, the opposition keeps talking about the Department of Education. Well, the opposition really wanted the Department of Education to house this bill, should it become law, and now they're bringing up some other issues which I'm sure the Appropriations staff can deal with. Assemblyman Mendoza, for his part, took every single amendment that we asked, except one, which he agreed to but just time-wise it did not work out for him to take it till now, and we're hoping--and I will say exactly what the amendment does, and I'm hoping that this can be done while the bill is on suspense here in Appropriations. I asked the author to incorporate language in the next committee to prohibit audiologists from steering parents toward a particular option and from influencing the parents' decision beyond their scope of practice. [pause] That is fair. The assemblyman agreed to it. I hope that it will be taken here in Appropriations. I've not seen any language from the opposition--any compromise language on this issue and I believe that this particular amendment will truly see to it that the audiologists are not doing anything inappropriate, which is the opposition's main concern, and I understand that, I get that, and this amendment will take care of that issue. I really hope that this bill will make it out of both houses [and] be signed into law, because it is time that parents who have babies who cannot hear have options presented to them in a timely fashion, and that means all options so that parents can decide what they want for their child, and that is what this bill does. So I really ask for your support.
[Senator Kehoe speaking with microphone turned off.]
SEN. ALQUIST: Will you take the amendment?
[Senator Kehoe continuing to speak with microphone turned off.]
SEN. ALQUIST: I would love to make the motion, but I believe it's in the bill's best interests and the children's best interests to hold the bill on suspense and take the amendment that I just addressed.
SEN. KEHOE: Thank you Senator Alquist, and I will just explain the process a little bit, because Senator Alquist's remarks, I think, uh, I agree with. The bill meets the requirement for--the criteria for suspense because there are costs of about a hundred and twenty-six thousand dollars in coming years. The amendments that will be author's amendments that Senator Alquist referred to are policy amendments with no fiscal impacts, so taking care of those on suspense will not change the fiscal status of the bill. We will--unless there's further comments from members, I'll take Finance and then we'll close this.
(Department of Finance staff member:) The potential costs of convening the panel and preparing the pamphlet are unknown at this time. Preliminary estimates from the Department of Education range between three hundred thousand and four hundred thousand dollars for travel and printing costs. However we do know that the bill stipulates that no state funds will be used, and the provisions of this bill are dependent upon the determination by the Department of Finance, that sufficient funds have been collected and deposited into the special fund created for this purpose. We do continue to note that there could be potential cost pressures as a result of this measure should private funding not become available.
SEN. KEHOE: Thank you. Then without further comment and without objection, the bill goes to the suspense file and we'll work with the author on the amendments between now and Thursday.
MR. MENDOZA: Yes, we will be working--actually we started working with your staff already as far as how we could reduce the costs [of the bill]. Hopefully the bill will get out of suspense.
SEN. KEHOE: Thank you.
MR. MENDOZA: Thank you, Madam Chair--
SEN. KEHOE: Thank you, Mr. Mendoza. We will continue now with file order. Let's see we have Mr. Beall--Colonel Cook, I think you're up now with two items, AB 308 and AB 2784.
[End excerpt]
[Transcript is unofficial.]
LINK TO VIDEO (00:09:35 to 00:26:04):
https://www.calchannel.com/channel/viewVideo/1631
CORRECTION OF INCORRECT INFORMATION
Correction: Several individuals' factual correction come to the attention of the RLMDEAF blogger that a number of statements in this "VERY POWERFUL LETTER TO THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT" were slightly incorrect.
Here is the corrected information from the Deaf Canadian reader -
RLM, One small correction: Gary Malkowski wrote to one provincial government in Canada. (Newfoundland government). The responsibility for controlling education falls to the provincial government rather than the federal government. Hope this helps. :) Shel
RLMDEAF's reply - "RLM said... Shel,
Yes, I have to make a correction about some factual errors within my blog posting.
Many thanks for pointing out such an error. I truly appreciate it very much.
RLM
--B
Robert, Check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newfoundland_and_Labrador Gary is talking about one school closing (not two). The name "Newfoundland and Labrador" is a single province. B
RLMDEAF's reply - "Oh I see! I will make a correction. Thanks for bringing up this subject to my attention"
Enclosed letter from the former DEAF Canadian elected representative from Ontario Province (region) to the Canadian Ministry of Education regarding several Canadian Schools for the Deaf closings in violation of the United Nations Statement of Human Rights. Canada did sign the agreement with the United Nations -
August 7, 2010
Hon. Darin King
Minister of Education
Department of Education
3rd Floor, West Block
Confederation Building
100 Prince Philip Drive
St. John's, NL A1B 4J6
education@gov.nl.ca
DarinKing@gov.nl.ca
Dear Hon. Dr. Darin King, Minister of Education
Re: Newfoundland and Labrador’s Provincial School for the Deaf Closure
As former Ontario Member of Provincial Parliament (MPP) for York East and Parliamentary Assistant to Minister of Education, 1990-1995, I am taking this moral duty to write this letter of concerns and recommendations to reserve the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador’s decision regarding Provincial School for the Deaf in St. John’s in the light of the Government of Canada’s ratification of United Nations Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities (March 11, 2010), 21st International Congress on The Education of the Deaf 2010 Vancouver New Era Accord, (July 19, 2010) and Charter of Rights and Freedom (i.e., Supreme Court of Canada’s Eaton decision regarding the need of continuum of educational placements, including provincial school). See details at http://www.queensu.ca/humanrights/hreb/disabilities/mainpages/Grismer_opp.htm for your background information.
I wish to express grave concerns of the decision of Newfoundland and Labrador’s Provincial School for the Deaf closure and its serious implications without having proper consultation with Deaf community, parents of deaf and hard of hearing children in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and external experts on Deaf Education issues. Furthermore, you may not get full accurate and professional information provided by your own civil servants, Minister’s office, Premier Office, and groups who may engage in the practices of ideology of Education of the Deaf (i.e., downsizing, discouraging, eliminating or depriving sign language and Deaf school without knowing its serious implications; many new parents of deaf children are not aware of potential risks/side effects of Auditory Verbal Therapy (AVT) educational programs in school boards until their children experience mental health and language problems in their later life. There is no checklist for teachers of deaf and parents of deaf children to identify mismatched communication and acting-out behaviours).
Provincial Court of Saskatchewan (August 19, 2005) Judge Orr recognized that physicians and medical personnel, audiologists, educators, child protection workers and others are undoubtedly caring and capable professionals. It was clear that, throughout, as they should, these people acted in strict accordance with the policies, directives and mandates of the governmental or other bodies for which they work. Unfortunately, the best efforts of these fine people failed to avert a terrible disaster in the life of a little deaf boy.
The judge ruled that American Sign Language (ASL) must be offered to Deaf children as a communication option in the early years. This the clear message contained in a landmark Saskatchewan court decision. At issue in this court is the philosophy of Saskatchewan Pediatric Auditory Rehabilitation Centre (SPARC), the publicly funded pre-school program offered to deaf children in the province. SPARC follows the the restrictive “auditory-verbal” approach which focuses only on restoration and remediation of hearing and speech.
You may not realize or may not be aware of that your Ministry of Education is promoting a one-sided system – auditory-verbal supports and education that do not make ASL resources and services available to Deaf children available in School Boards across the province of Newfoundland and Labrador while Provincial School for the Deaf in St. John’s is only ASL resources and services available to Deaf children in the province.
In Ontario, Akamatsu, Musselman and Zweibel, 2000, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto research studies have showed that there were 93% of Deaf children are initially enrolled in auditory oral programs. By preschool, down to 67% are educated orally; by elementary, down to 58% are educated orally;
By adolescence only 31% are educated orally; and 62% shift from oral to signing programs for Deaf children between the early preschool years and adolescence.
The Canadian Hearing Society (CHS), a social service agency, serving deaf and hard of hearing consumers reported that there is growing higher number of demands of that deaf and hard of hearing students and youth received CONNECT Mental Health Services, General Support Services, Employment Services and Literacy Programs as a result of inappropriate educational placements (i.e., without appropriate sign language supports in school boards and lacking of “first” language mastery has life-long negative effects). This translates into the high cost of inappropriate educational placement including the educational costs, employability costs, emotional costs and financial costs for social support services (i.e., prison, mental health services, underemployment, unemployment, and social assistance).
Deaf school and natural sign language are clearly a human right and educational right of Deaf children. See the World Federation of the Deaf’s Policy Statement on Education Rights for Deaf Children at http://www.wfdeaf.org/pdf/policy_child_ed.pdf
For your latest background information, please refer to read International Congress on the Education of the Deaf (ICED)’s press release at http://www.iced2010.com/pdf/Press%20Release.pdf and ICED Vancouver 2010 Accord on New Era: Deaf Participation and Collaboration and its Statement of Principle at http://www.iced2010.com/pdf/Statement%20of%20Principle%20and%20Accord%20for%20the%20Future(1).pdf
In response to the Government of Canada and Newfoundland’s ratification of United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, ICED Vancouver 2010 Accord and Charter of Rights and Freedoms, may I make a recommendation for Newfoundland and Labrador Ministry of Education to reserve the decision of Provincial School for the Deaf closure and establish Advisory Committee to Minister of Education on Future Direction of Provincial School for the Deaf, including appropriate representatives of Newfoundland and Labrador’s Deaf Community, external experts on Deaf Education issues, and Parents of Deaf Children group who wish to send their children to Provincial School for the Deaf to ensure that the continuum of educational placements including Provincial School for the Deaf are available to meet the actual needs of all Deaf and hard of hearing children and students in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador ?
I look forward to receiving a prompt response from you soon. Thank you for your time and serious consideration to reconsider your decision,
Sincerely
cc: Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General, United Nations
Markku Jokinen, President, World Federation of the Deaf
Rt. Hon, Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada
Hon. Michael Ignatieff, Federal Liberal Leader of Official Opposition
Jack Layton, Federal Leader of Canada’s NDP and M.P. Toronto-Danforth
Premier Danny Williams, Newfoundland and Labrador
Yvonne Jones, Liberal Leader of Official Opposition, Newfoundland and Labrador
Lorraine Michael, NDP Leader, Newfoundland and Labrador
Hon. Diane McGifford, The Council of Ministers of Education, Canada
Dr. Andrew Parkin, Director General, The Council of Ministers of Education, Canada
Jim Roots, Executive Director, Canadian Association of the Deaf
Chris Kenopic, President & CEO, The Canadian Hearing Society
Jennifer Sooley, President, Newfoundland and Labrador Association of the Deaf
[End open letter]
SOURCE: Save Our Deaf Schools e-distribution (SODS)
ASlize yours,
Robert L. Mason (RLM)
RLMDEAF blog
Here is the corrected information from the Deaf Canadian reader -
RLM, One small correction: Gary Malkowski wrote to one provincial government in Canada. (Newfoundland government). The responsibility for controlling education falls to the provincial government rather than the federal government. Hope this helps. :) Shel
RLMDEAF's reply - "RLM said... Shel,
Yes, I have to make a correction about some factual errors within my blog posting.
Many thanks for pointing out such an error. I truly appreciate it very much.
RLM
Do you want to change that word "several" in your post? ("..regarding several Canadian Schools for the Deaf closings..."). He is only writing about one closing, not several.
Robert, Check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newfoundland_and_Labrador Gary is talking about one school closing (not two). The name "Newfoundland and Labrador" is a single province. B
RLMDEAF's reply - "Oh I see! I will make a correction. Thanks for bringing up this subject to my attention"
Enclosed letter from the former DEAF Canadian elected representative from Ontario Province (region) to the Canadian Ministry of Education regarding several Canadian Schools for the Deaf closings in violation of the United Nations Statement of Human Rights. Canada did sign the agreement with the United Nations -
Wednesday, August 11, 2010, 7:58 am Eastern Time
(Attachment)
Open Letter from Gary Malkowski to Darin King, Minister of Education, re pending closure of the Newfoundland and Labrador’s Provincial School for the Deaf
OPEN LETTER
August 7, 2010
Hon. Darin King
Minister of Education
Department of Education
3rd Floor, West Block
Confederation Building
100 Prince Philip Drive
St. John's, NL A1B 4J6
education@gov.nl.ca
DarinKing@gov.nl.ca
Dear Hon. Dr. Darin King, Minister of Education
Re: Newfoundland and Labrador’s Provincial School for the Deaf Closure
As former Ontario Member of Provincial Parliament (MPP) for York East and Parliamentary Assistant to Minister of Education, 1990-1995, I am taking this moral duty to write this letter of concerns and recommendations to reserve the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador’s decision regarding Provincial School for the Deaf in St. John’s in the light of the Government of Canada’s ratification of United Nations Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities (March 11, 2010), 21st International Congress on The Education of the Deaf 2010 Vancouver New Era Accord, (July 19, 2010) and Charter of Rights and Freedom (i.e., Supreme Court of Canada’s Eaton decision regarding the need of continuum of educational placements, including provincial school). See details at http://www.queensu.ca/humanrights/hreb/disabilities/mainpages/Grismer_opp.htm for your background information.
I wish to express grave concerns of the decision of Newfoundland and Labrador’s Provincial School for the Deaf closure and its serious implications without having proper consultation with Deaf community, parents of deaf and hard of hearing children in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and external experts on Deaf Education issues. Furthermore, you may not get full accurate and professional information provided by your own civil servants, Minister’s office, Premier Office, and groups who may engage in the practices of ideology of Education of the Deaf (i.e., downsizing, discouraging, eliminating or depriving sign language and Deaf school without knowing its serious implications; many new parents of deaf children are not aware of potential risks/side effects of Auditory Verbal Therapy (AVT) educational programs in school boards until their children experience mental health and language problems in their later life. There is no checklist for teachers of deaf and parents of deaf children to identify mismatched communication and acting-out behaviours).
Provincial Court of Saskatchewan (August 19, 2005) Judge Orr recognized that physicians and medical personnel, audiologists, educators, child protection workers and others are undoubtedly caring and capable professionals. It was clear that, throughout, as they should, these people acted in strict accordance with the policies, directives and mandates of the governmental or other bodies for which they work. Unfortunately, the best efforts of these fine people failed to avert a terrible disaster in the life of a little deaf boy.
The judge ruled that American Sign Language (ASL) must be offered to Deaf children as a communication option in the early years. This the clear message contained in a landmark Saskatchewan court decision. At issue in this court is the philosophy of Saskatchewan Pediatric Auditory Rehabilitation Centre (SPARC), the publicly funded pre-school program offered to deaf children in the province. SPARC follows the the restrictive “auditory-verbal” approach which focuses only on restoration and remediation of hearing and speech.
You may not realize or may not be aware of that your Ministry of Education is promoting a one-sided system – auditory-verbal supports and education that do not make ASL resources and services available to Deaf children available in School Boards across the province of Newfoundland and Labrador while Provincial School for the Deaf in St. John’s is only ASL resources and services available to Deaf children in the province.
In Ontario, Akamatsu, Musselman and Zweibel, 2000, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto research studies have showed that there were 93% of Deaf children are initially enrolled in auditory oral programs. By preschool, down to 67% are educated orally; by elementary, down to 58% are educated orally;
By adolescence only 31% are educated orally; and 62% shift from oral to signing programs for Deaf children between the early preschool years and adolescence.
The Canadian Hearing Society (CHS), a social service agency, serving deaf and hard of hearing consumers reported that there is growing higher number of demands of that deaf and hard of hearing students and youth received CONNECT Mental Health Services, General Support Services, Employment Services and Literacy Programs as a result of inappropriate educational placements (i.e., without appropriate sign language supports in school boards and lacking of “first” language mastery has life-long negative effects). This translates into the high cost of inappropriate educational placement including the educational costs, employability costs, emotional costs and financial costs for social support services (i.e., prison, mental health services, underemployment, unemployment, and social assistance).
CHS documented information that many parents of deaf and hard of hearing children, deaf and hard of hearing youth and teachers of deaf reported their experiences of reported inaccessible communications and attitudinal barriers in the classroom in school boards in several provinces across Canada. The examples of students’ experiences include mismatch communications between student and his/her parents and family, inaccessible communications between student and his/her teachers, low expectations, mislabeling, social isolation, cyber bulling, bullying, harassment and discrimination (i.e., denial of communication access services such as sign language interpreters, captioning services, lack of captioning in any media format).
Deaf school and natural sign language are clearly a human right and educational right of Deaf children. See the World Federation of the Deaf’s Policy Statement on Education Rights for Deaf Children at http://www.wfdeaf.org/pdf/policy_child_ed.pdf
For your latest background information, please refer to read International Congress on the Education of the Deaf (ICED)’s press release at http://www.iced2010.com/pdf/Press%20Release.pdf and ICED Vancouver 2010 Accord on New Era: Deaf Participation and Collaboration and its Statement of Principle at http://www.iced2010.com/pdf/Statement%20of%20Principle%20and%20Accord%20for%20the%20Future(1).pdf
In response to the Government of Canada and Newfoundland’s ratification of United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, ICED Vancouver 2010 Accord and Charter of Rights and Freedoms, may I make a recommendation for Newfoundland and Labrador Ministry of Education to reserve the decision of Provincial School for the Deaf closure and establish Advisory Committee to Minister of Education on Future Direction of Provincial School for the Deaf, including appropriate representatives of Newfoundland and Labrador’s Deaf Community, external experts on Deaf Education issues, and Parents of Deaf Children group who wish to send their children to Provincial School for the Deaf to ensure that the continuum of educational placements including Provincial School for the Deaf are available to meet the actual needs of all Deaf and hard of hearing children and students in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador ?
I look forward to receiving a prompt response from you soon. Thank you for your time and serious consideration to reconsider your decision,
Sincerely
cc: Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General, United Nations
Markku Jokinen, President, World Federation of the Deaf
Rt. Hon, Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada
Hon. Michael Ignatieff, Federal Liberal Leader of Official Opposition
Jack Layton, Federal Leader of Canada’s NDP and M.P. Toronto-Danforth
Premier Danny Williams, Newfoundland and Labrador
Yvonne Jones, Liberal Leader of Official Opposition, Newfoundland and Labrador
Lorraine Michael, NDP Leader, Newfoundland and Labrador
Hon. Diane McGifford, The Council of Ministers of Education, Canada
Dr. Andrew Parkin, Director General, The Council of Ministers of Education, Canada
Jim Roots, Executive Director, Canadian Association of the Deaf
Chris Kenopic, President & CEO, The Canadian Hearing Society
Jennifer Sooley, President, Newfoundland and Labrador Association of the Deaf
[End open letter]
SOURCE: Save Our Deaf Schools e-distribution (SODS)
ASlize yours,
Robert L. Mason (RLM)
RLMDEAF blog
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Let Me Simplify 'Audism' For You
J.D. is a real godsend to the Deaf America what he simply define
"A U D I S M". His video ought to be the mandatory requirement for all DEAF and HEARING pre-college classrooms to view and understand what "audism" really stands for.
The title of enclosed "YouTube" video is "Let Me Simplify 'Audism" For You!
I dearly worship J.D. for his "punch in the face" ASL. Hope to see more of J.D. in near future. I seen this video before, but still want to show his video to hearing ASL students about the real beauty of ASL.
"A U D I S M". His video ought to be the mandatory requirement for all DEAF and HEARING pre-college classrooms to view and understand what "audism" really stands for.
The title of enclosed "YouTube" video is "Let Me Simplify 'Audism" For You!
I dearly worship J.D. for his "punch in the face" ASL. Hope to see more of J.D. in near future. I seen this video before, but still want to show his video to hearing ASL students about the real beauty of ASL.
Monday, August 9, 2010
Joseph Kennedy and AB 2072
The story of Joseph Kennedy, JFK's father and Hollywood major actress Gloria Swanson back to the early Hollywood years (1900s-1920s) surely remind us much of such a similar parallel between Kennedy/Swanson and parents of deaf babies/youngsters with the AB 2072. How come??
Actress Gloria Swanson desperately asked Joseph Kennedy for his help with the financial troubles. Kennedy had a well-known reputation for being very successful businessman and financier for Hollywood. Kennedy agreed to re-organize Swanson's finances, then had endless sexual liaisons with the major Hollywood actress.
In the end, Joseph Kennedy made himself very R I C H and left Swanson extremely POOR at her own expense.
What is the point of story about Joseph Kennedy and Gloria Swanson with the AB 2072?
The California Coalition consisted of the cochlear implant makers and schools specialized in AVT are doing the same thing to parents of deaf babies and youngsters whose really desperately seek for the true miracles of turning their own kids into fully functional beings.
In the end, deaf kids get shortchanged from the deficiency of educational foundations if the kids are really deprived from using the natural language of the deaf to lead very productive life.
Although, Arnold Schwarzenegger (Arnie) married to Joseph Kennedy's family. Arnie and the rest of California State Legislature ought to remind themselves about the shameful past of the Kennedys especially what Joseph Kennedy done to Rosemary Kennedy, the eldest daughter of the Kennedy Dynasty.
Joseph Kennedy was a well-educated person with a lot of money and power, but he ended screwing up his own eldest daughter with the option of lobotomy (the enclosed source below from the PBS website on the documentary of lobotomies in America) -
From the 1930s through the 1950s, lobotomies were all the rage. It took an American, Dr. Walter Freeman, to revolutionize the procedure by making it quick and easy.
Actress Gloria Swanson desperately asked Joseph Kennedy for his help with the financial troubles. Kennedy had a well-known reputation for being very successful businessman and financier for Hollywood. Kennedy agreed to re-organize Swanson's finances, then had endless sexual liaisons with the major Hollywood actress.
In the end, Joseph Kennedy made himself very R I C H and left Swanson extremely POOR at her own expense.
What is the point of story about Joseph Kennedy and Gloria Swanson with the AB 2072?
The California Coalition consisted of the cochlear implant makers and schools specialized in AVT are doing the same thing to parents of deaf babies and youngsters whose really desperately seek for the true miracles of turning their own kids into fully functional beings.
In the end, deaf kids get shortchanged from the deficiency of educational foundations if the kids are really deprived from using the natural language of the deaf to lead very productive life.
Although, Arnold Schwarzenegger (Arnie) married to Joseph Kennedy's family. Arnie and the rest of California State Legislature ought to remind themselves about the shameful past of the Kennedys especially what Joseph Kennedy done to Rosemary Kennedy, the eldest daughter of the Kennedy Dynasty.
Joseph Kennedy was a well-educated person with a lot of money and power, but he ended screwing up his own eldest daughter with the option of lobotomy (the enclosed source below from the PBS website on the documentary of lobotomies in America) -
From the 1930s through the 1950s, lobotomies were all the rage. It took an American, Dr. Walter Freeman, to revolutionize the procedure by making it quick and easy.
You may have heard reference to someone performing a lobotomy with an ice pick and assumed it was a joke. Unfortunately, it was not. Freeman's technique was to stick an icepick into the brain through the eye socket, then hacking the frontal lobe free by swirling it around in there.
World War II caused a huge surge in psychiatric patients, and the easy fix had never looked better. Additionally, a growing body of psychiatrists believed lobotomy might be an effective way to treat such "psychiatric disorders" as Communism, homosexuality, nymphomania and general godlessness.
In 1949, about 5,000 lobotomies were performed in the U.S. Some estimates place the total number of lobotomies performed in the U.S. from the 1930s through the 1950s as high as 50,000.
Kennedy's sister Rosemary received one of Freeman's ice-pick lobotomies, resulting in a severe mental impairment that left her paralysed, incoherent, and incontinent. According to some accounts, Rosemary had suffered from a mild mental retardation, which the lobotomy was supposed to fix.
Another of Freeman's patients was up-and-coming young actress Frances Farmer, considered by many to be "the next Garbo". After being arrested for disorderly conduct and subsequently stigmatized as a Communist sympathizer, Farmer was involuntarily institutionalized and progressively treated with every failed snake-oil psychiatric technique known to science in the 1940s.
During a decade spent in and out of institutions, Farmer was subjected to barbarous treatment, some medical and some simply abusive. Finally, Freeman came calling with his ice pick in hand. (There is some controversy about whether or not Freeman actually used the ice pick on Farmer, but she was definitely one of his patients, and he was a bit of a one-trick pony.) Farmer fared better than Rosemary Kennedy... arguably. She didn't end up a vegetable.
Instead, she had the "good fortune" to remember her torturous asylum ordeals, even as she spent the rest of her short life battling psychiatric traumas far, far worse than the run-of-the-mill neuroses that landed her in the asylum to begin with.
Most U.S. states have today totally banned involuntary lobotomies, but there is no federal statute on the topic, so check your jurisdiction if you want to be certain there isn't an ice pick out there with your name on it.
So the California State Legislature and Arnie should be solidly reminded of what Joseph Kennedy done to actress Gloria Swanson and Rosemary Kennedy with the so-called miracle of human intervention and correction.
PLEASE DRAFT THE REVISED AB 2072 BILL TO MAKE REAL FAIR FOR PARENTS OF DEAF KID/INFANT AND DEAF CHILDREN THEMSELVES. NO TRICKS UP INTO SLEEVES. THANKS.
ASLize yours,
Robert L. Mason (RLM)
RLMDEAF blog
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
