SYSTEMS CHANGE UPDATE

2008-12-01T10:19:00.000-08:00

Take Action and Protect Your Services · Did You Know that… California is facing a nearly 30 Billion dollar shortfall in its budget & Governor Schwarzenegger is proposing cuts that will negatively impact people with disabilities? · Did you know that Proposed State Budget Cuts Will Affect YOU… v If you are on SSI/SSP? If you are on SSI you will get $40 less per month if you are an individual and $117 less per month if you are a couple. v If you are on Medi-Cal? Certain Medi-Cal services are considered optional services and will be cut. These include: dental, optometry, psychology, audiology and speech-language services, as well as podiatry, optical, incontinence creams, chiropractic and acupuncture services. v If you are on IHSS? If your disability is not considered significant by your IHSS Social Worker, you may lose IHSS domestic services, including meal preparation, cleaning the house and shopping. Even if you get to keep your all of your IHSS benefits, the current proposal will reduce wages for your IHSS worker to minimum wage and reduce their health care benefits. This will make it more difficult to find IHSS workers and to keep them. · Did you know that your actions right now can help you keep those services you need? v What Can YOU do? Contact the Governor and the Big Six (who are the leaders in the California State Assembly and Senate). Click on the name to get the links to their websites. You can write your own comments in the forms on the websites about how these cuts will negatively affect you. Governor Schwarzenegger Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata Senate President Pro Tem-Elect Darrell Steinberg Senate Minority Leader Dave Cogdill Assembly Speaker Karen Bass Assembly Minority Leader Mike Villines v You may also contact your local legislators by clicking on their name Rick Keene- Assembly Member, California Assembly District 03 (Chico, Paradise, Truckee, Susanville, Oroville, Marysville, Grass Valley, Gridley, Nevada City, Wheatland, Portola, Quincy, Colfax, and Loyalton Counties) Dave Cox- Senator, California Senate District 01 (Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, El Dorado, Lassen, Modoc, Mono, Plumas and Sierra Counties, as well as portions of Nevada, Placer and Sacramento Counties) Sam Aanestad- Senator, California Senate District 04 (Butte, Colusa, Del Norte, Glenn, Nevada, Placer, Shasta, Siskiyou, Sutter, Tehama, Trinity and Yuba Counties) Doug LaMalfa-Assembly Member, California Assembly District 02 (Alturas, Anderson, Biggs, Colusa, Corning, Chico, Cottonwood, Dorris, Dunsmuir, Durham, Etna, Fort Jones, Gridley, Live Oak, Montague, Mount Shasta, Orland, Red Bluff, Redding, Shasta Lake, Tehama, Tulelake, Weed, Williams, Willows, Woodland, Yreka Counties) OR The following are letters on SSI/SSP, Medi-Cal and IHSS proposed budget cuts. You can use all or part of the letters provided and copy and paste those comments into the forms at the web sites. Please personalize the letter if you can. It is better if the letters are all at least a little bit different. If you want more information or would like to take further actions on these cuts you can contact FREED at (530) 265-4444 or visit the websites of: California Foundation for Independent Living Centers (CFILC) Disability Rights California (PAI) A more in-depth fact sheet, detailing the proposed cuts, follows the letters SSI/SSP: If you are on Social Security (SSI) and you are worried about having your income reduced, you may use all or part of the following letter: Dear Legislator: I am a person with a disability who is on SSI/SSP. I am very concerned with the budget proposal to reduce my SSI amount by $40. I know that $40 does not seem like a lot of money, but my current rent in nearly exceeds my SSI amount. If you take $40 a month from me, I may not be able to buy groceries for the whole month, purchase my over-the-counter medications or get transportation to my medical appointments. In fact, I may lose my housing, as well. It is important for me to be able to live in the community. It seems that taking money directly from people who are living in poverty is simply bad policy. Sincerely, Medi-Cal: If you are on Medi-Cal, you can use all or part of the letter below to describe how the proposed cuts may negatively impact you. Dear Legislator, I am a person with a disability who is worried about the proposed budget in relation to Medi-Cal optional benefits. These “optional services” are not truly optional- every single service is preventative. If you cut dental services, I will not be able to go to the dentist. Every cavity will have the potential to become an abscessed tooth. Teeth are very important to my overall health. In addition, optometry services and optical services are crucial to everyone, particular as our society ages. I need to know that when I need glasses in order to see, they will be available. If I am unable to see, I become more dependent on others—to read me my mail, to assist with my banking and to help me write my bills. Becoming dependent on others with my private information also puts me at risk for financial abuse. Podiatry is critical to people who are diabetic, speech therapy assists people who have had strokes in returning to their lives. When services like this are neglected or unfunded, chronic conditions may become more costly emergencies which can only be handled by surgery or extended hospital stays. Preventative health care is critical to maintaining costs and keeping people from enduring adverse health conditions. I urge you to reject the current budget proposal in relation to Medi-Cal optional benefits. Sincerely, IHSS: If you are on IHSS, you can use part or this entire letter to help explain how the proposed cuts may affect you. Dear Legislator, I am a person with a disability who is concerned about the proposed budget cuts for In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS). I use IHSS to help me live safely in the community. The services I receive assist me in staying in my home, rather than an institution. My care in an institution would cost more money and I would be living somewhere I don’t want to live. Living in the community is very important to me. If you cut domestic services, I will not be able to eat nutritious meals on a regular basis, my house will not be clean enough to be healthy and I may not even be able to get the food I need because my worker does all these things for me. If you cut my IHSS worker’s wages to minimum wage and reduce their benefits, it will be harder, maybe even impossible, to find people willing to work for me. I know that everyone is telling you how important programs are and why you should not cut education, or transportation services, for instance. I know that every program is important, but the IHSS program is all about saving people’s lives and health and keeping them in the community. If we all work together, we might be able to get through this without sacrificing the programs that keep people free and independent. Sincerely, Facts about SSI/SSP, Medi-Cal, & IHSS and the impact of the Governor’s proposed cuts: § There are approximately 429,200 seniors and people with disabilities who receive care through the In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) program (September 2008 CMIPS data). IHSS is a statewide public program funded by a combination of federal, state and county funds that provides essential personal care and domestic services to aged, blind or disabled Californians who are unable to remain safely in their own homes without such assistance. § There are approximately 407,000 IHSS providers (September 2008 CMIPS data). § There are approximately 1,263,000 SSI/SSP recipients who are elderly, blind, or have disabilities, and who depend on SSI/SSP grants for their subsistence. (September 2008, CDSS data). § Currently, the State has 3.9 million people over the age of 65 - the largest older adult population in the nation numerically. This figure is projected to increase by 172% over the next 40 years with most of the growth occurring in the next 20 years (Source: Dept of Aging). § IHSS is a budget solution – not a budget problem; alternative forms of care such as nursing homes cost six to eight times more than IHSS. California cannot afford the costs that would be associated with undermining this critical program. The annual cost of IHSS is under $10,000 per consumer vs. $60,000-$80,000 to pay for care in a nursing facility. § These IHSS budget proposals are in direct conflict with the 1999 United States Supreme Court Olmstead decision, which affirmed that unnecessary institutionalization is illegal. The IHSS program is, by the state’s admission, the foundation of California’s Olmstead efforts (which to this date fall far short of implementation of the decision). Thus, any erosion of the IHSS program is an erosion of California’s legal obligations to comply with Olmstead. It is likely that IHSS reductions would be challenged. Litigating Olmstead-related lawsuits would bring extra costs for the state. § “Domestic and related services” include preparing food, doing laundry, cleaning, dusting, changing linens, taking out garbage, grocery shopping, planning menus, setting a table and washing and putting dishes away. The Governor’s proposal would permanently eliminate domestic and related services for consumers with functional index rankings below 4. This proposal would cut $23.1 million in FY 08-09 and $71.4 million in FY 09-10. The message from the Governor is this: we know you need the services to be safe in your home but you are not going to receive them. § The Governor’s proposal would cut $12.3 million in FY 08-09 and $37 million in FY 09-10 by requiring individuals with a functional index score below four to pay their own Medi-Cal share of cost, if they have one. Approximately 7,100 IHSS recipients would be required to pay a new monthly share of cost, averaging $427, out of their own pockets. This proposal will jeopardize services to consumers, all of whom are poor and either elderly or disabled. The share of cost buy-out was intended to protect consumers who would otherwise have a much higher cost obligation under Medi-Cal rules. If these IHSS consumers can’t afford the cost, they could lose home care services. § The Governor’s proposal would reduce state funding for IHSS providers to the minimum wage of $8.00 per hour and reduce program funding by $82.9 million in FY 08-09 and $248.8 million in FY 09-10. The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that 98% of all home care workers now make more than the minimum wage. That would mean that approximately 398,000 IHSS providers could have their hourly wage cut to $8.00. The average hourly wage for IHSS providers is currently $9.98 (Source: Legislative Analyst’s Office). Many IHSS providers already live in poverty and are eligible for food stamps, and few have access now to health insurance. Because of the loss of income, many IHSS providers may seek work elsewhere. § The Governor’s proposal would slash the SSI/SSP payment to the federal minimum effective March 1, 2009, reducing the grant for an aged/blind individual by $40 and for a couple by $117. The current SSI/SSP grant is only $870 for an individual and $1,524 for a couple. People who depend on SSI/SSP are supposed to pay for all their needs – food, shelter, utilities, and transportation – out of this amount. This proposed cut would reduce state funds for SSI/SSP by $348.9 million in FY 08-09 and $1.1 billion in FY 09-10. This cut follows cuts that total $3.75 billion to SSI/SSP since FY 05-06. For more information contact Melissa Richard, Systems Change Advocate FREED Center for Independent Living 117 New Mohawk Rd., Ste. A Nevada City, CA 95959 530-265-4444 Voice 530-265-4944 TTY 530-265-4644 Fax

2008-08-21T15:32:00.000-07:00

MORE HARM THAN LAUGHS

Don't buy into Hollywood's endorsement of this harmful portrayal of PEOPLE with developmental disabilities!! This was written by a fellow Systems Change Advocate: Hello, my name is Daniel Garcia, and I am a Systems Change Advocate from Community Rehabilitation Services in East L.A. On Monday, August 11th 2008, I rallied against the movie, " Tropic Thunder" at the Premier in Westwood. It was a great success. I made a sign that said, "I would rather watch Forest Gump fifty times than to see "Tropic Thunder" once. Since I was the first person to arrive there, these two cops were staring at me like "we can take care of him, he just one person making trouble." Reinforcement came from the Special Olympics and Arc. It was a great time for anybody to network and support the people in the developmental disability community. Even, Kecia Weller, the President of the Los Angeles County Commission on Disability was there. I was very glad to see people with Developmental Disabilities in action and to be part of their awesome rally. The movie fans were against being against the movie. Some of them were hitting below the belt when they said they would like to use the word "retard" to describe the people with developmental disabilities that were there. Some people were holding signs against the rally because they were there for the actors. It made me wonder what if it was the "n"-word, instead of the "R"-word, would people still come and see it? Probably not, because those who do watch the movie would be labeled racist. This is how low movie fans can they go? I bet you anything that fans like those could go much lower against people with disabilities. The general public's acceptance of the "R-word" worries me a lot because, just like the African American community are worried about the reappearance of the noose in the south, we are also worried about going back to dark ages of pre civil right movements. These negative words and symbols that represent inequality is a regression to all that we fought against for so long. I would rather move forward to the day that these words and symbols of inequality get buried so deep into the earth that heat of the magna consumes them. People with developmental disabilities are being hurt by the R-word all over the country as well as all over the world because movies made in Hollywood are also shown overseas. Here are two excerpt of the movie where Actors Ben Stiller and Robert Downey Jr. used the r-word in such a distasteful way that no wonder why the community is very concern and alarm. Ben Stiller's character: "There were times when I was doing Jack when I actually felt retarded. Like really retarded." Robert Downey Jr.'s character: "Oh yeah. Damn." Stiller: "In a weird way, I had to sort of just free myself up to believe that it was okay to be stupid or dumb." Downey: "To be a moron." Stiller: "Yeah." At another point, about acting like a person with intellectual disabilities, they say: Stiller: "It's what we do, right?" Downey: "Everybody knows you never do a full retard." Stiller: "What do you mean?" Downey: "Check it out. Dustin Hoffman, 'Rain Man,' look retarded, act retarded, not retarded. Count toothpicks to your cards. Autistic, sure. Not retarded. You know Tom Hanks, 'Forrest Gump.' Slow, yes. Retarded, maybe. Braces on his legs. But he charmed the pants off Nixon and won a ping-pong competition. That ain't retarded. You went full retard, man. Never go full retard." These two examples made people with developmental disabilities to feel like they need to take action because like "Snell" who has autism, has been repetitively called the R-word and was quoted in the Chicago Tribune by saying, "I hear the word retarded, it's basically like putting people down," Snell said. "I've felt that way when I was called retarded. I just wasn't motivated ... It hurts my feelings very deeply." Brita Segerhammer from California post a comment at the online site the "r-word.org" say that she felt hurt when she was in junior high school and kids called her by the "R-word" and other words. She had one person who stood up for her. History tells us that people who don't know history are allowing it to repeat itself. And those who know history must stand and deliver. For example, according to the book, "Beyond Ramp" by Marta Russell, she discovered that before The Holocaust ever started the elimination of the Jews, the Nazi Germans decided that the high costs of taking care of people with disabilities was what contributed to the country's poor economy, therefore, people with disabilities needed to be eliminated. There were two mathematical problems that were given to high school students from 1935-1936 to convince the public that people with disabilities were the cause of their economic failure. (problems 94 & 95) Problem 94 In one region of the German Reich, there are 4,400 mentally ill in state institution, 4,500 receiving state support, 1,600 in local hospitals 200 in homes for the epileptic, and 1,500 in welfare homes. The state pays a minimum of 10 million RM/dollars per year for these institutions. I. What is the average cost to the state per inhabitant per year? II. Using the result calculated from I, how much does it cost the state if A. 868 patients stay longer than 10 years? B. 216 patients stay longer than 20 years? C. 112 patients stay longer than 25 years? Problem 95 The Construction of an insane Asylum requires 6 million RM. How many housing units @ 15,000 RM/dollars could be built for the amount spent on insane asylums? (using your answer from problem 94) I would like to add here that in California, in our own state, we have a similar crisis. The public needs the attention to put on the people who participated in the "R-word" rally. Make no mistake, legislators are playing with the R-word on the hope that people with developmental disabilities don't care about the state budget. As bad as the movie, Tropic Thunder negatively portrays people with developmental disabilities; the thing that will have more of painful effect is the lack of the respect from our legislators. Organizations like The Special Olympics, ARC, Regional Centers, independent living centers, Eastern Seals, the L.A. County Commission on Disability and professionals in the field of the disabilities must come together and empower their community to advocate strongly for a responsible budget that allow people with disabilities to live in their own home by not cutting in home supported living and cost of living arrangement. These programs, shamefully but rightfully might benefit the wealthy people in California as well, but they are the essential factors that a lot of people with disabilities need to get on day by day basis.

2008-07-11T16:57:00.000-07:00

Action Alert: Convince Obama & McCain to Attend Ohio Presidential Candidates Forum on the Anniversary of the ADA! Voters with Disabilities – We are three weeks away from the Presidential Candidates Forum on July 26th in Columbus, Ohio, of which NCIL is a sponsor. The American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD) has been talking to both Senator Obama’s and Senator McCain’s schedulers but they do not have a firm commitment from either candidate. This is not acceptable! It is time to turn on the pressure. With just a few clicks of your mouse, you can urge the Senators to attend this crucial forum! Please feel free to edit the sample text message provided, especially to elaborate about an issue that is important to you. Fill in the boxes with your contact information. When done, click the “Send Message” button. Yes, it’s that easy! Please take a moment to click on the provided link (Center for Disability Rights' website ) that'll lead you to an easy-to-fill-out form! It takes less than FIVE minutes. The form's already made out. Just add: DEAR SENATOR in the salutation. If appropriate, you might know other voters with disabilities to forward the alert to who are most likely to take action in your working network.

2008-07-11T16:54:00.000-07:00

California State Budget Update

SACRAMENTO – The Budget Conference Committee last night finished reconciling differences between versions of the 2008-09 state fiscal plan drafted by the Assembly and Senate. “In every poll we've seen and every conversation I've had Californians are telling us don't decimate education, don't shred the safety net, don't close parks and provide healthcare for kids – don’t close clinics,”Assembly Speaker Karen Bass (D-Los Angeles) said. “The straight truth is that takes revenue. And the straight truth is we can help solve this budget deficit by closing tax loopholes and rolling back overly generous tax breaks that were given to big corporations and the wealthiest Californians – rolling them back to levels they were under other Republican governors.” “It's time to fix the state's fiscal problem, and we're not going to do that on the backs of the middle class," Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata (D-Oakland) said. "We are not going to make deep cuts that increase class sizes, lay off thousands of teachers and severely restrict access to California's state colleges and universities. We will not turn California into a second-class state.” The joint plan rejects the Governor’s deep cuts in education and health care, and includes $9.7 billion in new revenue, which is $1.8 billion lower than the Senate recommended and $1.7 billion more than the Governor proposed. During the last three budget cycles, the state has cut $12.3 billion.Now, the Governor’s plan called for cuts in education that would force thousands of teacher layoffs, reduced spending in Medi-Cal and health care that would jeopardize medical service for all Californians and slashing in-home assistance for the elderly and disabled. The Governor’s plan would eliminate thousands of jobs at the worst possible time, when the economy is struggling. The Conference Committee budget is a balanced approach. It closes tax loopholes, rolls back tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy and cracks down on tax cheats. The Conference Committee budget restores money to education, health care and public safety thereby providing California the services it needs to bolster the economy and remain strong, livable and competitive in the 21st century. On the expenditure side, the committee’s plan: •Provides $2.3 billion more for K-12 education than the Governorrecommended. •Restores $1.5 billion in health and human services the Governorcut. This includes restoring nearly $200 million in health care services to some of the state’s most vulnerable residents, the reimbursement rate for Medi-Cal providers and federal pass-through funds for the aged, blind and disabled. •Restores $57 million in financial assistance for college students. •Reduces corrections spending by $300 million with a reform packagethat helps reduce the prison population. On the revenue side, the committee’s plan: •It reinstates the tax brackets on the wealthiest Californians byreinstating the 10% and 11% tax brackets. Revenue generated: $5.6 billion. California’s personal income tax rates ranges from 1 to 9.3 percent (for taxable income above about $93,000 for joint returns). An additional 1 percent rate applies to incomes about $1 million (that money supporters mental health programs under Prop 63). Under this budget, this proposal imposes a new rate of 10 percent for taxpayers filing joint returns with taxable income above $321,000 and 11 percent for those with incomes above $642,000. This is similar to what Republican Gov. Pete Wilson did in the 1990s. •It closes a corporate tax loophole for large corporations. Revenuegenerated: $1.1 billion. California allows companies to carry forward a portion of losses (called Net Operating Losses, or NOL) incurred in one year and use them as a deduction against earnings in subsequent years.These tax breaks are used primarily by large corporations, many of them in the manufacturing and finance area. Companies with more than $5 million in gross receipts account for just 13% of total businesses but 80% of the NOL deduction. During an earlier fiscal crisis, this loophole was suspended. When the law was reinstated, the percentage of losses eligible to be carried forward was increased from 50 percent to 100 percent. The carry-forward period was also expanded to 10 years. The FTB estimates the value of NOL carried forward exceeded $260 billion as of 2006. The budget suspends the NOL for three years. •It suspends a tax adjustment for upper-income Californians.Revenue generated: $815 million. In a year where the poor, elderly, and disabled aren’t getting cost-of-living increases for SSI/SSP and CalWORKS, the state shouldn’t be adjusting all of the tax tables for everyone else. Suspension of “indexing” would result in a proportional increase for taxpayers with incomes of up to $97,000 (joint returns), and a flat increase thereafter. As an example, a taxpayer with taxable income of $50,000 would pay about $34 more while a taxpayer with income exceeding $97,000 would pay about $180 more. •It rolls back a tax loophole for upper-income Californians.Revenue generated: $215 million. Since 1997, taxpayers have received a nonrefundable income tax exemption credit for each dependent – regardless of their income. In 2007 this credit was $294. The LAO recommended making the dependent tax credit the same dollar amount as the personal exemption credit for all taxpayers. That credit was $94 for single taxpayers and$188 for couples. The Conference Committee proposal is a variation of the LAO recommendation. It would roll back the dependent credit for taxpayers with adjusted gross income (AGI) that exceeds $150,000. As a result, it would protect the credit for lower and middle-income households. •It restores the franchise tax. Revenue generated: $470 million.Virtually all companies are required to pay some amount of corporation tax. The top rate is now 8.84 percent. Prior to 1997, it was 9.3 percent.The Conference Committee proposal rolls back the 1997 tax cut, and restores the 9.3 percent rate. •It steps up tax enforcement. Revenue generated: $1.5 billion.Modeled after successful tax amnesty efforts in the past, this proposal will collect taxes already owed to the State. Part of this revenue has been owed for years. Part will be an acceleration of revenues that would be paid in the future. This is one-time revenue. Without revenue increases, the state would have to cut an additional $9.7 billion – about the amount it takes to run the state’s 33 prisons and more than the cost of the entire UC system.

2008-07-07T16:11:00.000-07:00

Having A Disability Is A Part of Normal Life

2008-07-03T15:01:00.000-07:00

Everyone should have access to quality, affordable health care! It isn't difficult to recognize the health care problems facing Americans. The 47 million Americans without health care coverage are not the only ones who confront tremendous barriers to health in this country. Businesses, families, workers and people of all ages are finding U.S. health care too expensive and unresponsive to their needs. Why is this happening? Modern medicine has morphed from a healing profession into a business where the primacy of profit takes precedence over greater human needs. Trusting relationships with medical professionals have taken a back seat to efficiency standards as patients are rushed through doctors' offices. With just enough time to peer into a few orifices and change a prescription or two, doctors race to keep up with market demands. Market-driven medicine tears at our moral fabric as people are seen as commodities -- mere bodies to insure rather than complex individuals with diverse human needs. Sharp market strategies, though suitable when shopping for goods, will always fall short in defining the value of health, or the value of life, for that matter. With the resources and ingenuity of the American people, we certainly can do better. Yet, we are fooled into believing that more expensive means better care. The truth is that we spend twice the cost per capita compared with other developed nations, yet are ranked 37th in overall quality, according to the World Health Organization. Americans face higher infant and maternal mortality rates and a shorter life span than our counterparts in other industrialized nations that offer comprehensive health coverage for all their residents. Why do we tolerate this unstable and unjust situation? The unfortunate answer is that there are still profits to be made maintaining the status quo. However dismal the health care situation has become for individuals and families, the for-profit health care industry still churns out billions in profits. In a democratic nation founded on principles of "liberty and justice for all," the health and well-being of the many should not come second to the financial benefit for the few. It is incumbent upon us all to demonstrate the political will to fundamentally challenge the system in which administrative waste and profiteering are allowed to stand in the way of human health and well-being. Single-payer publicly funded health insurance with privately delivered health care may just be the solution we are looking for.

2008-07-02T16:51:00.000-07:00

WORLDWIDE DISABILITY

Have you ever wondered what life is like for people with disabilities in other countries? While you may feel that you have a pretty good sense of what disability experience is like in the United States, conditions are vastly different in countries worldwide. Before we can examine this issue, we must first understand how disability is defined. There are several different ways that disability has been defined over time. Historical definitions see disability as abnormality or the inability of people to fit into society in a particular way and fulfill particular roles. Modernist definitions of disability, however, focus on personal experiences and the effects of the physical, cultural, and social environment on the individual. Professional and governmental definitions are assigned by doctors and policymakers and center around an individual's disability status for government disability programs. These definitions tend to focus on an individual's ability to perform certain functions. Recently, academic have been advancing a scholarly definition of disability, which views disability as the gap between personal ability and environmental demands, making it hard for an individual to do a particular activity. Depending on how disability is measured, about 12-15% of the world's population is disabled. Awareness of disability is growing in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East. Disability is often associated with powerlessness and poverty. The way different societies treat people with disabilities depends on the social, cultural, political, and economic conditions of that country. For example, in the Western world, where risky or high impact sports and recreation are common, disability might occur due to mountain climbing, car racing, and skiing injuries. In Kenya, however, individuals have been more likely to be injured by elephants and other wild animals than by automobile accidents. Similarly, problems resulting from malaria (a disease carried in mosquitoes in tropical environments) were less likely to be counted as disabilities because they were so commonplace. Furthermore, Kenya does not have a health care system that is accessible to all and can consistently treat such conditions. Landmine accidents and civil wars have become a significant source of disability for people in such places as Afghanistan, Vietnam, Cambodia, Iran, and Iraq. Societies and their participants shape disability in three powerful ways: social inclusion, social distancing, and the physical environment. In most countries, some disabilities are more acceptable than others. In France, individuals with disabilities often have adequate social welfare benefits, but still feel treated as something other than full members of their society. This may be the result of the historical institutionalization of individuals with disabilities in the 18th century due to the influence of the French Catholic Church. In Italy, however, research has shown that people give money to the poor and disabled to avoid the "evil eye," a cultural belief that individuals can be cursed by a look from a bewitched person. Some Italians also believe that these donations will help them from developing a disability themselves. Finally, public architecture has a powerful influence on how persons with disabilities live because it determines where they can go in their community.

2008-07-01T17:02:00.000-07:00

Happy Fiscal New Year California! Today we ring in the first day of the 2008-09 fiscal year, and once again the state doesn't have a budget in place. With the state facing an estimated $17.2 billion deficit, hammering out a deal between Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the legislature hasn't been an easy fix. The budget needs two-thirds support, which means some will have to vote for the spending plan (even if it doesn’t fit their political agenda). Not having a budget on time has become almost tradition for California. In the past 20 years, the Legislature and the governor were able to have a budget in place only four times before ringing in the new fiscal year only (1993, 1999, 2000 and 2006). Those years were usually good economic times for the state, which always creates a ''happy problem'' of having too much money. But not this year. The housing market meltdown that continues to drag the state's economy has resulted in a $17.2 billion budget gap. The tardiness of this year's budget will have some immediate impacts, such as Medi-Cal reimbursement rates being slashed by 10 percent starting today. The state also faces prospects of running out of cash later this summer if a spending plan isn't in place by then. That means the state would need to take out expensive loans with high interest rates to ease the immediate cash crunch. Of course, everyone has their own ideas about helping to close the massive deficit: one side says spending cuts; the opposing view says new taxes and Gov. Schwarzenegger wants to borrow against future state lottery sales. So far, budget negotiations have been occurring mostly between the four legislative leaders -- Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, D-Baldwin Vista (Los Angeles County); Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, D-Oakland; Assembly Republican leader Mike Villines from Fresno County; and Senate Republican leader Dave Cogdill from Modesto. The inside word is that while the four have had detailed discussions about the budget, they are still far from having substantive agreements on how to close the gap.

2008-06-25T10:17:00.000-07:00

Seniors in Nevada County!!

Your Opinion Matters

WHAT: The County Board of Supervisors Chambers WHERE: The Rood Center, Nevada City WHEN: Tuesday July 22, 2008 10AM-11:30AM HOW: To Register, Call Helpline at: 273-2273

SPEAK OUT about what will help you stay independent well into your 80s, 90s and beyond? Many things can help older people live safe and well. What matters most to you?

♦ Good Transportation Options ♦ Better Access to Health Care ♦ Home Repairs and Maintenance ♦ Getting Help in the Home ♦ Something Else? {Light refreshments will be provided.} AREA 4 AGENCY ON AGING

Nevada County Adult and Family Services Commission

2008-06-23T11:32:00.000-07:00

Facilitating Assisted Suicide Is Not The Way to Go (Appeared in Capitol Weekly, Sacramento, California, May 22, 2008) Marilyn Golden Policy Analyst, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF) From the title of Assemblymember Patty Berg’s piece in the May 15th issue of Capitol Weekly, A little honest talk isn’t going to hurt anyone — really, you would think the article would reflect some truth in advertising. Unfortunately, readers had no such luck. The real “honest talk” about AB 2747 is that it has very little to do with improving care. For this bill, the devil is really in the details. Close inspection reveals it to be a vehicle for Compassion and Choices’ long-term agenda: facilitating assisted suicide. Let’s not forget that this is the organization formerly known as the Hemlock Society and one of the primary sponsors of this legislation. The bill includes many elements that would significantly undermine end-of-life care in service of this goal. This bill represents a change in strategy by Compassion and Choices after three years of defeat. Every year since 2005, the group tried to legalize assisted suicide in California. Each year, strong bi-partisan opposition defeated that legislation. On a new tack, this bill would pave the way for their hoped-for future legalization of assisted suicide. AB 2747 would mandate that doctors discuss with patients still a year from death, unusual end-of-life courses of action including voluntarily starving and dehydrating themselves, which is not even a medical treatment. Opposition by the doctors who are most experienced with end-of-life care, such as the Association of Northern California Oncologists, illustrates how medically inappropriate these mandates are. This heavy-handed bill would damage doctor/patient relationships by mandating a discussion of ways a patient can end her life at the very time when physicians are pursuing valuable treatment efforts, such as surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy. Patients will be confused about physicians’ true motivations and whether they are doing all they can for patients’ health and well-being. Moreover, mandating a discussion on ways a patient can end his life by forcing a doctor to discuss the same life-ending options with every terminal patient is risky and inappropriate. It is risky because it can sound like the doctor is endorsing or encouraging the patient to end his life. It is inappropriate because intimate, personal discussions during emotional times should not be mandated by law. To mandate this discussion a year in advance of death is shockingly early. It is not unusual for a “terminal” patient to dramatically outlive her terminal prognosis by many years. To force such a discussion on a patient at that time is not fair to the patient. One must ask what end is served by this timing. Moreover, many cancer patients who see a doctor with a late diagnosis are in the final stages of their disease, and are uninsured or under-insured. Such patients may feel the economic pressures are too great, and submit to the physicians’ mandated directions on ways to end their lives, in order to save their families the burden of health care costs. The option of ending their lives prematurely should not be the solution to the economic problems associated with health care. AB 2747 also suggests patient referrals to the very groups promoting assisted suicide, such as Compassion and Choices, to provide information and counsel patients on their eventual end-of-life care options at this very early one-year prognosis point. Again, one must ask why. Despite recent minor amendments, the problems with the bill remain significant and numerous. It should be opposed unless significantly amended, to bring the bill into line with the ostensible, harmless goals being touted as AB 2747’s true aims.

2008-06-23T11:29:00.000-07:00

As many of you know, AB 2747 (Berg) has been double-referred to both Senate Health and Judiciary Committees. The hearing of the bill in Senate Health will be June 25th and the bill has not yet been calendared for a hearing in Judiciary. Most likely the bill would be heard in Judiciary on June 24th. Please send your letters of opposition as soon as possible to both the committees and committee members if you haven’t already done so. You can direct your letters of opposition to the committee and legislator fax numbers listed below. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. 916.324.0384 – Senate Health Committee 916.324.4283 – Sen. Sheila Kuehl (Chair) – West Los Angeles, Santa Monica 916.445.7750 – Sen. Sam Aanestad (Vice Chair) – Redding, Shasta, Tehama, Chico 916.324.0283 – Sen. Elaine Alquist – San Jose 916.327.8817 – Sen. Gil Cedillo – Los Angeles 916.324.2680 – Sen. Dave Cox – Sacramento, Placer, Amador 916.445.8081 – Sen. Abel Maldonado – Central Coast 916.445.0128 – Sen. Gloria Negrete-McCleod – San Bernardino 916.445.8899 – Sen. Mark Ridley-Thomas – Los Angeles 916.446.7382 – Sen. Mark Wyland – North San Diego 916.327.2186 – Sen. Leland Yee PhD – San Francisco 916.445.8390 - Senate Judiciary Committee 916.327.2483 – Sen. Ellen Corbett (Chair) – San Leandro, Fremont, Newark, Hayward 916.445.9263 – Sen. Tom Harman (Vice-Chair) – Huntington Beach, Orange County 916.445.9754 – Sen. Dick Ackerman – Tustin, Orange County 916.324.4283 – Sen. Sheila Kuehl – West Los Angeles, Santa Monica 916.323.2263 – Sen. Darrell Steinberg – Sacramento

2006-08-23T16:57:00.000-07:00

Support Universal Health Care SB 840 (KUEHL) IS ON THE MOVE!! PLEASE JOIN STATE SENATOR KUEHL, THE CALIFORNIA NURSES ASSOCIATION (CNA) AND OTHER HEALTH CARE ADVOCATES TO RALLY FOR ENACTMENT OF SB 840! SB 840 (KUEHL) RALLY WHERE: SOUTH SIDE OF THE STATE CAPITOL, SACRAMENTO DATE: WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 30TH TIME: 12:00 NOON SB 840 (Kuehl), the California Health Insurance Reliability Act, (CHIRA), would provide fiscally sound, affordable health insurance coverage to all Californians, provide every Californian the right to choose his or her own physician and control health cost inflation. After SB 840 passes the legislature in the next week, it will go to Governor Schwarzenegger. No doubt it will be greeted by his gatekeepers in the insurance industry and the Chamber of Commerce. Let’s send a message of our own: its time for single payer! For additional information, please contact Sara Rogers, Senator Kuehl’s office, at (916) 445-1353 OR, Elizabeth Ecks, California Nurses Association, at (916) 491-3217.

2006-06-30T11:48:00.000-07:00

MEDICARE RECIPIENTS:Do You Have the Wheelchair You Need? If Not, We Need to Know Outdated policies prevent many Medicare recipients from getting thewheelchair they need to live independent and productive lives. Currently,Medicare will only pay for a wheelchair if you need it for use in yourhome. If you can function at home with a manual chair, but need a powerchair to go to work, your doctor, or the local grocery store, Medicare willonly pay for a manual chair. United Spinal is embarking on a major legislative campaign to ensure thatevery Medicare recipient with a disability has access to the “RightWheelchair.” If you don’t have the right wheelchair because Medicare refuses to pay forit, we need to hear from you. Personal stories from members affected bythis disastrous rule are the most powerful tool we have to make Congressunderstand why legislation is urgently needed. This policy affects you if: • You are a Medicare recipient, AND • Medicare is not providing you with the type of wheelchair you need to fully access your community. If this describes you, please contact Dan Anderson, legislative analyst,Public Policy, and help us convince Congress that it’s time to fix thisirrational policy. Contact Dan at 1-800-404-2898, extension 294, or e-maildanderson@unitedspinal.org

2006-05-11T14:28:00.000-07:00

Election Day Hotline for Voters with Disabilities Californians with disabilities who plan to vote in the upcoming election on June 6, 2006 have a new ally in assuring full and equal access to the voting process. With funding from the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), Protection and Advocacy, Inc. (PAI) is sponsoring a toll-free hotline for voters with disabilities who have difficulty accessing polling places or casting ballots. People with disabilities who have general questions about the voting process are also welcome to call the hotline. The hotline is equipped to receive voice and TDD calls. The toll-free number is: 800-776-5746. Individuals who speak languages other than English should state their language and an interpreter will be connected to the call. Callers who wish to use the California Relay Service may call 800-735-2929 (English) or 800-855-3000 (Spanish) or 866-327-8877 (Video Relay). PAI is a non-profit organization mandated to advance the human and legal rights of people with disabilites.

2006-05-02T12:14:00.000-07:00

Get involved: Join us for... DISABILITY CAPITOL ACTION DAY 2006 Access Equals Choices! People of all disabilities, family members, and supporters UNITE to PUSH BACK the budget cuts and protect our freedom and way of life Thursday, June 1, 2006 Do you need a ride? FREED has chartered an accessible bus for Capitol Action Day! Pick Up at FREED - 8:30am Return to FREED - 5:00pm Lunch will be provided If you want a ride or want more information contact Ana at FREED at 530.272.1732 (voice), 530.272.1764 (tty), 530.272.7793 (fax) or ana@freed.org Disability Capitol Action Day Thursday, June 1, 2006 Agenda Educational Forum 10:00 to 11:30 amThe Grand 1215 J Street (between 12th & 13th streets) Sacramento 95814 March to the Capitol 11:30 am (starting at the Sacramento convention center) Rally on Capitol's West Steps Noon to 1:00 pm Visits with Your Legislators: 1:00 to 4:00 pm For more information call: FREED at 530.272.1732 (voice), 530.272.1764 (tty), 530.272.7793 (fax) or ana@freed.org

2006-04-21T09:38:00.000-07:00

ATTENTION YUBA COUNTY VOTERS!!! What: Touchcreen Voting Equipment Open House Where: Yuba County Board of Supervisors' Chamber Government Center 915 8th Street, Marysville, California When: Saturday, April 29, 2006 - 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. The Yuba County Division will host an Open House to provide the public with an opportunity to use the new DRE (Direct Recording Election) equipment which will be in use for the June 6, 2005 Primary Election in Yuba County. The public will be able to actually vote a demonstration ballot and take as much time as they wish to feel comfortable with the new voting equipment. Staff will be available to assist, if necessary, and answer questions as they arise. New residents, or residents who need to re-register, will be able to register to vote at the same time

2006-04-19T11:27:00.000-07:00

FREED has Audio & Large Print California Voter Information Guides for the June 6, 2006 Primary Election!

Come by our offices to pick one up!

2006-03-30T14:56:00.000-08:00

Secretary of State Bruce McPherson Marks His One-Year Anniversary as Secretary of State and Launches April “Voter Education and Participation Month” SACRAMENTO, CA - Today Secretary of State Bruce McPherson commemorated the one-year anniversary of being sworn in as Secretary of State, by announcing that he and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger have declared the month of April “Voter Education and Participation Month” for California. Joining Secretary McPherson at his announcement were partners of Voter Education and Participation Month, which include: Steve Weir, representing California Association of Clerks and Elections Officials; Dawn Abrahamson, President of the City Clerks Association of California; Jennifer Reimer, Chairwoman of the Board of Directors of the California State Student Association; and Rick Pratt, Associate Director of the California State School Boards Association. With these partners, the Secretary unveiled a number of voter education programs aimed at educating voters about new changes at polling places in 2006, as well as encouraging all eligible Californians to exercise their right to vote. “I am pleased to announce a month long, statewide effort to educate voters about new federal and state laws affecting voters in 2006, and to encourage all eligible Californians to register to vote,” said Secretary McPherson. “It is my hope for every eligible Californian to exercise their precious right to vote, and to be fully educated before heading to the polls on Election Day in June and November.” Activities for Voter Education and Participation Month will include: a statewide, coordinated campaign to educate voters about how new federal and state election laws will impact them; outreach to local schools throughout the state in partnership with the California State School Boards Association and California State Student Association; introduction of a new, user-friendly overseas military voting ballot for 2006; partnership with the elections officials and members of the disabled community to ensure that they have access to polling places and new voting machines; a voter registration table in front of the Secretary of State’s Office every Monday during the month of April; and a vigorous voter registration effort throughout the state of California. Secretary McPherson also highlighted key accomplishments during his first year in office, including convincing the federal government to release over $169 million in federal funds for the State of California, the establishment of a statewide voter registration database, the enforcement of the strictest standards in the nation for voting systems, and visits with Registrars of Voters in all 58 California counties - a milestone that has not been achieve in nearly 30 years, since 1977. For more information about Voter Education and Participation Month activities, visit the Secretary of State’s website at: <http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/voter_ed.htm>

2006-03-13T09:54:00.000-08:00

Attitude, Not Cost, Barrier to Disabled Workers by Catherine Komp >From The New Standard, at: http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/2909 Recent data shows employers who make an effort to accommodate employees with disabilities can do so at little cost and great benefit, exposing deeper discrimination behind dismal employment numbers. Mar. 9 Impressing a potential employer during an interview and getting a good job offer is difficult for many. But for those with disabilities who must prove they are as qualified as non-disabled candidates finding any job has its own challenges. When Congress enacted the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) fifteen years ago, supporters hoped the equity legislation would increase disabled peoples' opportunities for employment. But, according to researchers at Cornell University, the employment rate for people with disabilities peaked around 25 percent in the 1990s before dropping below 20 percent by 2004. The Department of Labor attributes this low employment rate, in part, to the misconception that accommodating people with disabilities in the workplace is prohibitively costly. In fact, research indicates that the opposite is true. The Labor Department's Job Accommodation Network (JAN), which helps employers hire, retain, and promote people with disabilities, has found that most workplace accommodations can be implemented at little or no cost. Since cost is not the main barrier, say disability advocates, more needs to change than simply architecture and ergonomics. "Most disabled people would tell you that the bigger concerns they have around the workplace are not around physical accessibility," said Andrew Imparato, president of the American Association of People with Disabilities. "They're more around attitudes. I think it's easier to legislate and see change around bricks and mortar than it is around attitudes." Low-cost, High-impact --------------------- The JAN survey, which will continue through September 2007, released preliminary findings last month based on feedback from 778 employers that had contacted the agency for information about employing people with disabilities. The vast majority of the employers surveyed had called because they were interested in learning how to retain their employees, who on average had been employed for seven years and were paid about $13 per hour. About half reported that implementing workplace adjustments came at no expense, and about 43 percent reported a one-time cost that averaged around $600. "Many employers tell us it's as simple as making a flexible schedule [for an employee]," said Anne Hirsch, director of services for JAN and co-author of the study. She told The NewStandard that many accommodations are similar to those commonly purchased to make it easier for non-disabled employees to do their jobs, like telephone headsets or specialized computer software that can aid people with vision or range of motion impairments. Cassie James, self-services coordinator at Liberty Resources, a Philadelphia-based advocacy group for people with disabilities, said many employers wrongly assume that adaptive improvements will be pricey. James, who uses a wheelchair comfortably at her office, said there are many obstacles that need simple fixes rather than state-of-the art solutions. She gave the scenario of needing to adjust desk height for someone in a taller wheelchair. "If I went out and thought about how can we make this, I might be able to get one of those long working tables and put it on a couple of bricks and it's just as good," James said. The law firm Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman is one company that found cost-effective ways to create a better work environment for disabled employees. The internationally-based firm, which employs over 1,000 people, discovered that minor adjustments like using instant messaging for some office communications and moving desks so that employees' backs were not facing the door could help accommodate two employees with hearing loss. "With the deaf employees, that was something new for us, and we actually went to them and asked, 'What can we do to make life easier and help you communicate with us and help us communicate with you?'" explained Britta Stromeyer, human-resources manager at the firm. Pillsbury law has joined other large companies, including Cingular, Embassy Suites Hotels and IBM, in working with the Employer Assistance & Recruiting Network (EARN), a federally funded accessible-technology company that helps connect businesses to people with disabilities who are looking for work. Stromeyer said she initially used EARN's services because of problems finding quality candidates through traditional labor recruiting sources, but discovered added benefits beyond simply attracting qualified employees. "It makes a difference in teamwork in general when you really have a diverse pool of opinions and ideas," Stromeyer told TNS. The JAN report found that of the employers surveyed, nearly 9 in 10 reported retaining a valued employee through better workplace accommodations. In addition, three-quarters cited increased productivity, and over half said they eliminated the costs of hiring and training a new employee. Employers also reported indirect benefits like improved interactions with co-workers and customers, increased company morale and improved workplace safety. Report co-author Hirsch said that all of these results are nothing more than the product of good management skills. "Employers who are proactive look at [workplace accommodations] as how can we use this to improve work for everyone," she said. Attitudes Must Follow --------------------- While the results of JAN's survey indicated that many employers of people with disabilities found little cost and great benefit, survey respondents were limited to companies that had sought out the agency to help them accommodate employees. Advocates for people with disabilities interviewed by TNS shared a common concern that in the larger market, stereotypes and discrimination present greater hurdles. "The biggest barriers are still attitudinal," said Linda Richman, deputy executive director of Liberty Resources. In her view, many employers mistakenly believe that hiring a person with a disability means that "you're automatically compromising somehow on the quality or volume of work." "That means that workers that really want to work [might not] have the right exposure to the business world," she explained, "and it also means employers are still carrying around a lot of misconceptions about what it would really be like to work with a person with a disability every day." Richman, who runs an intensive 18-month job-training course for people with disabilities, added that in today's economic climate, they are lucky if one student per month is hired. "We really have the decks stacked against us a lot of the time," Richman said. "[The economy] makes it hard because our folks are all entry level, and most companies these days have a glut of really experienced people that are taking entry level jobs because they don't have anything else." In addition to a tight job market and employer misconceptions, people with disabilities are sometimes hindered by their own apprehensions about the employment process, according to Kristen Stern, an employment consultant at the Milwaukee-based education, advocacy and independent-living-services organization Independence First. "A lot people that have disabilities may be afraid to go back to work. If it's a [newly acquired] disability, they might not know if they can do the job, or they might not have the confidence needed to do the job," Stern told TNS. Imparato, of the American Association for People with Disabilities, stressed the need for more fundamental change to increase employment rates and financial independence for people with disabilities. "The ADA is an equal-opportunity law," Imparato said, "so it works well for people with disabilities who have skills and who are qualified for jobs that are open." But, he added, "we still have a lot of barriers in terms of our education system, our rehabilitation system, where there are a lot of people with disabilities who are not competitive in the modern labor market, and the ADA is not going to change that." The possibility of losing Social Security benefits and access to reliable transportation has also prevented some from venturing into the job market, Imparto noted. Imparato is currently serving on a federal advisory panel to develop recommendations to reform Social Security benefits that would permit people with disabilities to both work and receive federal assistance for medical bills and other supportive needs. "I believe we've defined eligibility for that program based on outdated attitudes about what people with significant disabilities are capable of doing in the workplace," said Imparato. He advocated revising eligibility requirements to give more weight to the degree of functional impairment, which would allow more opportunities for people to both work and receive benefits. For Babs Johnson, national spokesperson for American Disabled for Attendant Programs Today (ADAPT), one of the organizations that pushed for passage of the ADA, the issue of employment rates among people with disabilities relates directly to the organization's mission of fighting against the institutionalization of people with disabilities and enabling them to attain greater independence. "I believe that it's healthy for everybody to [work]," said Johnson. "We all need to feel like we are contributing to society, and employment is one of the main ways that people do that." ) 2006 The NewStandard. All rights reserved. The NewStandard is a non-profit publisher that encourages noncommercial reproduction of its content. Reprints must prominently attribute the author and The NewStandard, hyperlink to http://newstandardnews.net (online) or display newstandardnews.net (print), and carry this notice. For more information or commercial reprint rights, please see the TNS reprint policy. ______________________________________________________________ For more Employment News issues, go to: http://www.aapd.com/employment/indexemploy.php # # #

2005-10-20T11:40:00.000-07:00

VOTERS WITH DISABILITIES On Election Day November 8, 2005 7:00 a.m. – 8:00 p.m. Protection and Advocacy, Inc. (PAI) will have attorneys and advocates available by telephone to answer your questions about any disability related voting problem you might experience. Call us at: 1-800-776-5746 Voice/TDD Languages Other than English 1-800-776-5746 Please state your language, stay on the line and an interpreter will be connected. California Relay 1-800-735-2929 (English) / 1-800-855-3000 (Spanish) Video Relay 1-866-327-8877 PAI is a non-profit organization mandated to advance the human and legal rights of people with disabilities.

2005-10-18T09:54:00.000-07:00

2005 Special Election Proposition Analysis PROPOSITION 73 - PARENTAL NOTIFICATION AND ABORTION OVERVIEW: Proposition 73, if enacted, would make changes to California’s constitution that would require physicians performing abortions on minors to notify at least one of the minor’s parents no less than 48 hours prior to performing the abortion, with certain exceptions. Legal action could be taken against physicians who fail to provide the required notification. ARGUMENTS FOR:

Allows parents to be informed about their child’s decisions.
Allows parents to counsel or seek counseling for their child, if necessary.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST:

Vulnerable, scared teenagers, some from abusive homes, who can’t communicate with their parent/guardian, cannot easily go to court for a waiver of notification.
Illegal abortions among minors could increase.
Allows for more potentially costly lawsuits against physicians.

IMPLICATIONS: Proposition 73 allows parents more of an ability to be involved in the decision making process of minors who are considering having an abortion. The potential for a decrease in abortions among minors exists because of this parental involvement. However, the possibility also exists that minors in this situation would resort to illegal abortions to avoid involvement of their parent(s). This proposition also places an added burden on physicians to comply with notification requirements and creates an increase in potential litigation for the medical community. Minors who choose to go to court to have the notification requirement waved would cause an additional burden on the juvenile court system, both physically and financially (since minors choosing this option would bear no financial responsibility for court fees, etc.). PROPOSITION 74 PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS – WAITING PERIOD FOR PERMENANT STATUS AND DISMISSAL PROCESS OVERVIEW: Proposition 74, if enacted, would mean the probationary period for new teachers would be extended from two to five years, and school districts could dismiss permanent teachers who received two consecutive unsatisfactory performance evaluations using a modified dismissal process. ARGUMENTS FOR:

Makes it easier to remove tenured teacher after two consecutive unsatisfactory evaluations.
Requires teachers to perform well for five years instead of just two before they become eligible for permanent “guaranteed” employment.
With a five-year waiting period, teachers have more opportunity to demonstrate expertise and that they deserve tenure. Principals have more time to evaluate teachers.
Improves the quality of our teachers by rewarding the best teachers and weeding out problem teachers.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST:

Could reduce the supply of teachers because the longer probationary period and modified dismissal process might be perceived as reducing job security.
Won’t improve student achievement, punishes hardworking teachers and ignores our schools’ real problems.
Will force school districts to divert tens of millions of dollars out of the classroom for administrative expenses.
Does absolutely nothing to “reward high quality teachers”.

IMPLICATIONS: Proposition 74 would increase the length of time required before a teacher may become a permanent employee from two complete consecutive school years to five complete consecutive school years. This measure would apply to teachers whose probationary period commenced during or after the 2003-2004 fiscal year. Proposition 74 would also modify the process by which school boards can dismiss a permanent teaching employee who receives two consecutive unsatisfactory performance evaluations. PROPOSITION 75: GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE UNION DUES OVERVIEW: Proposition 75, if enacted, would require the consent of public employee union members (and non-members) anytime fees or dues paid to the union are used for political purposes. Currently, public employee unions may use dues paid by members for political purposes without prior consent; dues paid by non-members cannot be used for political purposes. ARGUMENTS FOR:

Public employee union members would no longer be required to allow their union dues to be used for political purposes.
Public employee union members would be given more control over how their dues are used.
Only a small group of public union leaders make decisions about how union dues are spent; prop 75 would change this.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST:

Requiring consent from public employee union members would tie up funds in a lengthy bureaucratic process, hindering the union’s ability to take political action when necessary to protect their members (be they union members or not).
Public employee unions would be placed at a disadvantage compared to private corporations who can use shareholder dollars for political purposes without consent.
Public employees’ privacy concerning their political views could be violated because of a required disclosure form, mandated by prop. 75.

IMPLICATIONS: Proposition 75 could give private corporations an unfair advantage in influencing political decisions because shareholder funds can be used immediately to support or oppose initiatives. Conversely, public employee unions would have to secure prior written consent from all of their members (and non-members, whose dues already cannot be used for political purposes without consent) to take similar political action. This could adversely affect public employees because their unions will not be able to advocate on their behalf without going through a lengthy and time-consuming process. Public employees serve the public so anything that affects them will eventually affect all Californians. If policies are enacted that are unfavorable to healthcare workers, for example, people with disabilities could be negatively affected along with the workers themselves. Unions which represent the rights of home-care workers could also be hampered in their efforts to improve programs and services that benefit both the workers and the consumers. While proposition 75 would allow members of public employee unions to give their consent when union dues are to be used for political purposes, it would severely limit the unions’ ability to take effective political action. This means that private corporations could be given an opportunity to influence policy, while similar public union efforts will be restricted. PROPOSITION 76 - STATE BUDGET AND SCHOOL FUNDING. THE “LIVE WITHIN OUR MEANS ACT” OVERVIEW: Proposition 76, if enacted, would give the Governor new authority to single-handedly reduce state spending during certain fiscal situations. Budgets for future years would be based on the prior year’s spending and an average of revenues from the 3 previous years. Proposition 76 would also make changes to education spending by altering minimum funding guarantees established by Proposition 98. ARGUMENTS FOR:

Revenues gained in excess of spending limits can be set aside in a “rainy day” account to be used in case of future revenue shortfalls.
Prohibits the State from overspending.
Requires that taxes dedicated for highways and roads are spent on those projects and prohibits “borrowing” from these funds to balance the budget.
When budget is delayed, State spending would continue at prior year’s rates; currently, spending is reduced or eliminated until budget is passed.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST:

Revenues gained in excess of spending limits cannot be used to restore funding to programs from which they were originally cut.
Gives Governor unchecked power over budget and reduces system of checks and balances.
Spending for vital programs could be gradually reduced over time, even if revenues increase.
Gradually lowers minimum funding guarantee for k-14 school spending.

IMPLICATIONS: Proposition 76 allows the Governor, and all future Governors, to reduce spending by making cuts to any state-funded program or service, without the consent or agreement of the legislature. This could be dangerous because it eliminates the Governor’s ability to consider diverse perspectives when making budgetary decisions; the Governor will be relying solely on his or her own judgment. People with disabilities, as well as any population that relies on state-funded programs, could be adversely affected if severe cuts are made to the programs that serve them. Because Proposition 76 uses the previous year’s spending rates to determine current budget spending, budgets will be made using the reduced spending rate for programs that experienced cuts the previous year. This means that funding for vital programs could be slowly, but continuously decreased over time. This will be especially apparent within all social service programs, including those that affect the disability community. Proposition 76 will also restrict spending, even when revenues increase. New, reduced spending limits will be written into the budget based on spending cuts made the previous year. Because of this, an increase in revenues will not put money back into the programs that experienced cuts. Instead, this money will be divided up in the following way: 25% will go into a reserve fund – the so-called “rainy day” account. 50% will go toward repayment of bonds, loans, and other state debt. 25% will go toward road, highway, and school construction projects. While these are all valuable and important causes, the revenue funding them is not truly “extra” revenue. It is money that was originally taken from vital, essential programs and services that will not be restored. Federally funded entitlement programs, such as those that support nursing homes, cannot be altered under this law. However services such as IHSS (In Home Supportive Services), MSSP (Multipurpose Senior Services Program), and almost all other state-funded, community service based programs will be eligible for spending cuts. If funding is reduced to these programs, they will become inoperable over time because funding will never be able to be restored, even when State revenues increase. There is a very real possibility that nursing homes will become the only option for the elderly and those with disabilities, even though this would actually be more costly for the State.

PROPOSITION 77 - REDISTRICTING OVERVIEW: Proposition 77, if enacted, would change California’s constitution by removing the ability of the legislature to redraw congressional and legislative district boundaries and instead, give this authority to a 3-member panel of retired judges. The new redistricting plan would then be used in the next statewide election and be placed on the general election ballot for voter approval. ARGUMENTS FOR:

The legislature would no longer be able to redraw its own districts.
Voters would be able to approve redistricting plan via the General Election ballot.
Spending to create future redistricting plans would be limited to ½ the amount used in 2001 (adjusted for inflation).

ARGUMENTS AGAINST:

The panel is selected, at random, from a list of candidates with few qualifications other than a desire to serve, chosen by members of the legislature from political parties ‘other than their own.’ Bipartisanship is guaranteed but may not fairly represent California voters and the parties they choose.
Redistricting plan would govern the next statewide elections, before voters have a chance to approve the plan.
If a redistricting plan is rejected by voters, additional taxpayer funds will be required in formulating a new plan.

IMPLICATIONS: It is unlikely that Proposition 77 will make the redrawing of districts more fair or representative due to the limited scope and number of those who will be constructing the redistricting plan. There will be a total of three people deciding how to redraw district boundaries. With so few people deciding how to redistrict the state, there is a risk that California’s diverse socio-economic, racial, and ethnic diversity might not be fairly considered or represented during this process. This 3-member panel is further unlikely to have experience related to people with disabilities or have a disability perspective. This means that districts could still be drawn that are not representative of the entire population. The creation of the 3-member panel of judges that would be designing the new redistricting plan is also flawed. Retired judges volunteer to serve on the panel and there is no quality assurance requirements of these volunteers. Members of the legislature then nominate a number of these volunteers from a party other than their own to be placed in a pool. Three names are randomly drawn from this pool to form the panel. This could be dangerous because there is no guarantee that the resulting 3-member panel will fairly represent the political parties and its breakdown in California. With only three members serving on the panel, the process of random drawing further reduces the ability of the panel to completely consider all of California’s diverse population. Voters will be able to approve any redistricting plan developed by the 3-member panel, but they will only be able to do so after the plan is used in the first statewide elections. If the plan is rejected, those elected while the plan was in use will continue to serve full terms. This could negatively affect minority populations, including the disability community if those that are elected do not fairly represent the views of these groups. PROPOSITION 78 - DISCOUNT ON PRESCRIPTIONS DRUGS OVERVIEW: Proposition 78 (Cal Rx) is an initiative sponsored by The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA). The measure, if enacted, would offer prescription drug companies the option to voluntarily reduce prescription drug prices to the “lowest commercial price” for qualifying consumers. Consumers participating in the program must meet income restrictions and pay an annual fee of $15.00. ARGUMENTS FOR:

Cal Rx can begin immediately because participation by drug companies is voluntary.
Guarantees lowest “commercial” price for prescription drugs for consumers.
Some pharmacies and drug manufacturers have already agreed to participate in the Cal Rx program.
The ability of drug companies to place their name on outreach materials serves as an incentive for voluntary participation.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST:

Commercial price does not include prices given to federal Medicaid programs, wholesale or retail pharmacies, or HMOs.
There are no penalties to drug manufacturers and pharmacies for refusal to participate in the Cal Rx program.
Income restrictions are too narrow and exclusionary.
There are no options for small businesses to participate.
The program can be easily terminated.

IMPLICATIONS: Proposition 78 could reduce out-of-pocket prescription drug costs for Californians who qualify to participate in the program. However, if drug companies do not volunteer to participate, the program can and will be terminated. The “lowest commercial price” does not guarantee that consumers will receive the lowest possible price for prescription drugs. Commercial pricing excludes prices given to wholesalers and to the Federal Medicare/Medicaid programs. Because of this, it is not clear how much money will actually be saved by consumers who participate in this program. Eligibility for consumers to participate in this program is exclusionary to a large number of Californians. Income restrictions are the only guideline used to determine eligibility, but factors such as money spent on medical expenses as a whole are not considered. This could be troublesome for people with disabilities who often spend thousands of dollars on things like medical equipment and supplies, even before budgeting for prescription drugs. If people in this situation earn more money than is allowed by the program, they are ineligible to participate, even if they must spend a great portion of that income on medical expenses. There is also no guarantee that drug companies will voluntarily participate. This means that it is possible that proposition 78 will cause no change whatsoever in the cost of prescription drugs for consumers. In fact, the program could be discontinued completely. PROPOSITION 79 - PRESCRIPTION DRUG DISCOUNTS AND STATE-NEGOTIATED REBATES OVERVIEW: Proposition 79 (Cal Rx Plus) is an initiative sponsored by Health Access that was placed on the ballot in response to proposition 78 (Cal Rx). This measure, if enacted, would offer prescription drug companies the option to voluntarily reduce prescription drug prices to rates comparable to Medicaid drug pricing for qualifying consumers. Drug companies who fail to volunteer could be dropped from Medi-Cal purchasing program, a costly penalty for refusal to participate. Consumers participating in the program must meet income restrictions and pay an annual fee of $10.00. ARGUMENTS FOR:

There are penalties for drug manufacturers who refuse to participate.
Drug prices could be reduced beyond the lowest “commercial” price because pricing will be based on current Medi-Cal rates.
Eligibility for consumer participation in Cal Rx Plus in highly inclusive.
There are provisions for businesses to receive assistance through Cal Rx Plus.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST:

Access to some prescription medications could require prior authorization for current Medi-Cal recipients.'
Consumers who do not qualify for Cal Rx Plus could see prescription drug costs rise.
California’s share of Medicaid rebates could be adversely affected if drug manufacturers (who supply the rebates) are dropped from the Medi-Cal drug purchasing program.

IMPLICATIONS: Cal Rx Plus could reduce out-of-pocket costs of prescription drugs for a greater number of Californians. Income restrictions are wide-ranging and include people who spend more than 5% of their income on unreimbursed medical expenses. This is particularly important for people with disabilities who have a need for costly DME (Durable Medical Equipment). This program requests the voluntary participation of drug companies, but it also includes penalties for companies who refuse to participate. This makes it more likely that the program will actually reduce prescription drug prices for Californians. Drug companies must also agree to reduce prescription drug costs to rates at or below current Medicaid pricing. This means that consumers who participate in the program will truly receive the lowest price possible on their prescription drugs. There is some concern about the penalties imposed on drug companies who refuse to participate in the program. Because these companies would lose their current Medicaid contracts with the state, potential problems exist for current MediCal recipients. Prescription drugs that are only manufactured by companies who are dropped from the state’s contract may become more difficult for MediCal recipients to obtain. Prior authorization for these medications will then be required. People with disabilities and those with lower incomes who utilize MediCal services for their prescription medications could be inconvenienced if this occurs, but no prescription medications currently available through the MediCal program will be restricted.

PROPOSITION 80 - REGULATION OF ELECTRIC SERVICE PROVIDERS OVERVIEW: Proposition 80, if enacted, would place California’s Electric Service Providers (ESP) under regulation of the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC). Currently, ESP’s are in a process of deregulation that has been halted due to the energy crises of 2000/2001. This measure also puts into law several practices currently employed by the PUC, but not required by law and would require ESP’s to abide by these new laws. ARGUMENTS FOR:

Likelihood of another “energy crisis” and potential for blackouts significantly decreased.
Required percentage of renewable energy resources secured 7 years earlier than currently required by law.
Best practices currently used by PUC become actual law.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST:

Reduces consumer choice in electric service providers.
Required percentage of renewable energy resources would become more difficult to increase.
Potentially substantial administrative costs for the PUC.

IMPLICATIONS: Proposition 80 would require a more aggressive pursuit of renewable energy resources. Electric service providers, regulated by the PUC, would be required to make sure they have enough resources to provide adequate energy supply to consumers, thus eliminating potential blackout problems. This is especially important for people with disabilities who rely on electricity to operate necessary equipment and/or assistive technology. A resource planning process would be implemented to facilitate these requirements.

2005-10-06T13:23:00.000-07:00

October 6, 2005 TERESA FAVUZZI NAMED NEW DIRECTOR OF CFILC SACRAMENTO – The California Foundation for Independent Living Centers has chosen Teresa Favuzzi as its new Executive Director. Ms. Favuzzi, has served as the organization’s Statewide Community Organizer for the last three years. “I am honored and excited to have the opportunity to lead this organization,” said Ms. Favuzzi. “As a person with a disability, and a community organizer, I am fueled by a vision that can be summed up in a few words, Organizing, Advocacy Diversity, Inclusion, and Integration”. Ms. Favuzzi was chosen by the organization’s Executive Committee during a nationwide search. “In Teresa, we found a grass-roots community organizer who has played a tremendous role in increasing our visibility on statewide disability issues. We are pleased to have her lead us in this next stage of our push toward inclusion and equal rights for people with disabilities,” said CFILC Board Chair Mary Ann Jones. Over 140,000 Californians live more independently as a result of the 25 Independent Living Centers represented by the California Foundation for Independent Living Centers. CFILC’s mission is to support independent living centers in their local communities through advocating for systems change and promoting access and integration for people with disabilities. Over the last three years, Ms. Favuzzi has worked with Systems Change Advocates across California planning successful campaigns to save Rancho Los Amigos Rehabilitation Center; opposing budget cuts to Medi-Cal that included Durable Medical Equipment and Medical Supplies, opposing budget cuts to In Home Supportive Services and worker wages. Ms. Favuzzi has also led efforts to increase voter registration and Get-Out-The Vote efforts in the Disability Community in California. She has been the lead organizer of Disability Capitol Action Day, an annual advocacy event that brings people with all types of disabilities, ages, and ethnicities together to learn about, advocate for, and celebrate disability rights. Ms. Favuzzi earned an MSW at San Francisco State University. She focused her studies on the commonalities of Disability identity and Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender identity development and community. Ms. Favuzzi fills the vacancy left by CFILC’s Executive Director of 8 years, Patricia Yeager, who is leaving CFILC to pursue her doctorate in Rehabilitation from the University of Northern Colorado. “Patricia built this organization with a wealth of creativity and innovation,” said Favuzzi. “The success of the Assistive Technology Network, Community Research for Assistive Technology Project, and the Systems Change Network are tributes to her legacy.”

2005-09-16T13:23:00.000-07:00

Feeling uncertain about the November Special Election and how it might impact you?

FREED Center for Independent Living Presents

November 2005 Special Election Ballot Initiative Discussion Friday, October 14, 2005

2:30 pm – 4:00 pm Madelyn Helling County Library Community Room

980 Helling Way, Nevada City

RSVP (530) 272-1732 Voice, (530) 272-1764 TTY

and

Monday, October 17, 2005

10:30 am – 12:00 pm FREED Center for Independent Living 508 J Street Marysville, CA 95901 RSVP (530) 742-4474 Voice/TTY

ATTEND TO GET YOUR VOTER EDUCATION MATERIALS: · Special Election Initiative Analysis for people with disabilities · Easy Voter Guides · Audio Recorded Voter Guides · The Deadline to Register to Vote for the November Special Election is October 24th, 2005! · Do You Need to Register to Vote? FREED Has Everything You Need! * Materials Available in Alternative Formats Upon Request

2005-09-09T09:00:00.000-07:00

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/12599389.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp Election paper-trail bill should be vetoed ANY BALLOT-VERIFICATION SYSTEM MUST INCLUDE THE DISABLED By Bruce McPherson As California's secretary of state, I see my top priority as ensuring voter confidence and the integrity of each vote. State law requires that after an election, officials randomly select and manually recount 1 percent of the ballots cast, as a check against voting machine malfunction and fraud. At issue is how to gather the voting records used for verification. A Mercury News editorial Aug. 31 endorsed a bill, SB 370, that would require the sample recounts to use the paper printouts generated by electronic voting machines. This bill is flawed and should be vetoed by the governor. It creates major technical and legal flaws that must be resolved before becoming law. My biggest objection in using the paper trail to check voting machine performance is that it denies many in the disabled community the ability to have the same level of confidence in the process that all other voters enjoy. Current technology only provides an audible method of verifying votes for visually disadvantaged voters who cast ballots on a computer screen. I have heard from several members of the disabled community who are very troubled because there is no such review for the paper trail, leaving this community out of the process. Before we hastily start treating the paper trail as a secondary ballot, we need to explore other, more inclusive avenues to reach the goal of voting verification. I am working with other states' election officials on a national research and development effort to develop voting technology that assures independence and secrecy of the vote for disabled citizens. Using paper receipts as secondary ballots at this point is too risky. They are designed for the voter's review and are not printed on ballot-quality paper and might not retain their quality during the often-lengthy recount and legal challenge periods. Additionally, to ensure voter confidence in California's elections, manual recounts and paper audit trails should not be the only ways of verifying the accuracy of vote tallies. Therefore, I have directed my staff to conduct parallel monitoring programs on Election Day in which we randomly select ``live'' voting machines, take them out of production, cast predetermined voting scripts on them, and check them against the totals produced by the machines. Consistent with this view, I am urging the governor to sign AB 1636, because it would increase voting system security and improve the integrity of the vote in this new age of electronic voting. I will work with the Legislature, county registrars, the disabled community, and other interested persons to identify a more comprehensive solution for electronic voting system verification. We should adopt performance standards for this accessible, voter-verified paper audit trail before attempting to use it as the tool for building trust and proving accuracy of electronic voting systems. We have the opportunity now, for the first time, to develop standards that provide county election officials the best, most consistent methods for conducting the audits of voting required by law. My primary goal is to ensure that California's elections include all voters, and to demonstrate that the votes are accurately and efficiently counted in a way that ensures privacy. In this 40th anniversary year of the Voting Rights Act, I am dedicated to upholding these basic voting tenets. BRUCE MCPHERSON is California's secretary of state.

2005-09-02T10:40:00.000-07:00

ACTION ALERT - Oppose SB 370 Paper Ballot = Official Record = Lack of Access Legislation: SB 370 (Bowen) This bill will make the Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail the OFFICAL BALLOT for recount purposes. SO WHAT’S THE BIG DEAL? It’s in the PAPER! People who are blind or have low vision will not be able to VERIFY their vote on a paper ballot—whereas they could verify their vote electronically. If the OFFICIAL BALLOT is the paper ballot—then people with visual impairments will be denied equal access. Where is the bill now? This bill has passed the senate and the assembly; it is now on its way to the Governor. What Can We DO NOW? · Write a letter of opposition to the Governor—see sample letters below. · Call the Governor’s Office and tell him that you oppose SB 370 · Send the Governor an email telling him you oppose SB 370 · Make a visit to one of the Governor’s District Offices When does this need to happen? As soon as possible! No later than September 10th Send letters to: Honorable Arnold Schwarzenegger Attn: Richard Costigan, Secretary of Legislative Affairs State Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814 To send an Electronic Mail please visit:http://www.govmail.ca.gov/ To make a call or visit: Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger State Capitol Building Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: 916-445-2841 Fax: 916-445-4633 San Francisco Office 455 Golden Gate Avenue Suite 14000 San Francisco, CA 94102 Phone: 415-703-2218 Fax: 415-703-2803 Sample Letter from FREED: September 1, 2005 Honorable Arnold Schwarzenegger State Capitol Sacramento CA, 95814 Re: Opposition for SB 370 (Bowen) Dear Governor Schwarzenegger, FREED Center for Independent Living provides a variety of independent living services for people with disabilities in Nevada, Yuba, Sutter, Sierra, and Colusa Counties. At FREED, we are deeply concerned about the rights of people with disabilities to be able to vote privately and independently, as non-disabled voters do. SB 370 designates the California-mandated paper audit trail as the official ballot in the event of recounts. By doing so this bill infringes on the civil rights of individuals who are blind or have low vision. When the paper trail becomes the ballot, even when that ballot is used for recounts only; people who are blind or have low vision are unable to verify their vote. Californians with vision disabilities count on the State to protect their rights to equal access. This bill is likely to put California out of compliance with the Help America Vote Act, as there is no technology yet that provides for a fully accessible paper audit trail. More importantly, SB 370 would deny equal access to people with vision disabilities. We urge you to reject this bill and keep California working towards equal access for all Californians in all aspects of the voting process. Sincerely, Ann Guerra Executive Director Sample Letter from CFILC: September 1, 2005 Honorable Arnold Schwarzenegger State Capitol Sacramento, California 95814 Re: Opposition for SB 370 (Bowen) as Enrolled Dear Governor Schwarzenegger: Over 140,000 Californians live more independently as a result of the 25 Independent Living Centers represented by the California Foundation for Independent Living Centers (CFILC). Our organization is concerned that by designating the paper audit trail as the official ballot in the event of recounts, this bill infringes on the civil rights of individuals who are blind or visually impaired. When the official ballot is the electronic ballot then the issue of being able to review the paper trail becomes less of an issue. The minute the paper trail becomes the ballot, even when that ballot is used for recounts only; the State has crossed the line and violated the civil rights of voters who are blind or visually impaired and unable to verify their vote. California must treat all voters the same; if voters are to be able to verify their paper trail vote that means ALL voters. To treat one group differently is the essence of discrimination and is not acceptable. Although the bill attempts to respond to the needs of individuals with disabilities in relation to the electronic equipment and the accessible voter verified audit trail, in fact, the Federal government is struggling to come to terms with what an accessible voter verified audit looks like and how those systems can be certified in a timely manner. This bill is untimely until those standards are defined and may place at risk our Help America Vote Act (HAVA) funds if California is out of compliance with Federal standards. CFILC also believes this bill may put the state at increased liability for access related suits in relation to voting. Please consider this legislation from a broader perspective and veto this bill that is so damaging to civil rights. CFILC remains vigorously opposed to SB 370. Sincerely, Patricia Yeager Executive Director For additional question contact: Ana Acton Systems Change Advocate FREED Center for Independent Living 154 Hughes Rd. Suite 1 Grass Valley, CA 95945 Voice (530)272-1732 TTY (530)272-1764 Fax (530)272-7793 Email ana@freed.org

2005-08-18T09:43:00.000-07:00

The Union Secretary of state speaks with disabled County's voting system a concern By Brittany Retherford August 18, 2005 Kate Reichert wants to be able to cast her vote by herself and in private, just like everybody else.Reichert, a visually impaired resident who works at the FREED Center for Independent Living, lives in a rural part of Nevada County and dutifully votes in each election by absentee ballot. She was one of many members of the county's disabled community who spoke with California Secretary of State Bruce McPherson during his visit to the area Wednesday. Several who spoke to McPherson voiced concerns about the accessibility of the county's voting systems."Filling out the bubbles is hard for me," Reichert said. She said she relies on her parents to help her cast her vote, but wondered "what would happen if I moved out?"Reichert said she'd prefer to be able to vote in a polling booth and offered suggestions on how to make them more accessible to those with a similar disability. Screens with greater contrast, better lighting, larger print, and maybe even an audio option would all be helpful, she said. McPherson, a Santa Cruz native and a Republican, was appointed to the position just four months ago by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to replace Kevin Shelley, who resigned earlier this year. His visit to the FREED center is part his efforts to gather input from state residents about the best way to manage the $169 million that was recently received from the federal government as part of the Help America Vote Act of 2002. Along with the additional money, the federal government has raised the bar for what it requires counties to provide to residents to vote in a safe, secure and private environment."We have to see how to do that best; it's different from county to county," he said, adding that "we want to do it quickly, but more importantly, we want to do it correctly." The visit drew a small crowd to Grass Valley's FREED Center, including representatives from the California Foundation for Independent Living Centers and several counties' registrars of voters. Kathleen Smith, Nevada County's clerk-recorder, said changes are already under way here that include giving more residents the option to vote either by mail or at polling places and providing more training and incentives for poll workers to be respectful and knowledgeable about the various needs of the voters. Some of the efforts to create more accessible voting places are limited by the types of technology offered by the few vendors that make election equipment, McPherson said. To make vendors more responsive, the state is putting the burden on vendors to be in compliance with the federal requirements, rather than the counties, he said. California's disabled population typically has a low voter turnout, said Ann Guerra, FREED's executive director, citing a recent survey that showed that 17 percent of Californians have a disability and only 25 percent of them vote. Nevada County's statistics mimic these state numbers, which came as a bit of a surprise, Guerra said."FREED has really had our eyes opened and are now really looking to raise those numbers."

2005-08-18T09:40:00.000-07:00

Secretary of State Bruce McPherson Insists on User-Friendly Voting Machines For Disability Community Grass Valley, CA – In his first trip to the FREED Center for Independent Living as Secretary of State, Bruce McPherson met with members of the disability community to discuss his vision to make voting user-friendly for all Californians. Secretary McPherson listened to the community’s concerns and recommendations for making voting more accessible for those with special needs. “Securing full access to the polling place is a top priority for my administration. I will do my best to assure that voters are able to vote privately, securely and independently,” said Secretary Bruce McPherson. “All voters need to be able to verify that their votes have been cast accurately.” According to U.S. Census figures, 20% of Americans with disabilities are of voting age, yet the voting rate is only 35%. Members of this community face barriers to voting that include inaccessible polling places, inaccessible voting systems, lack of voter registration opportunities, and lack of voter education and get-out-the vote activities. “Secretary McPherson’s visit is a great thing for people with disabilities,” said Gary Engelking, a member of FREED who was injured in 1976 as a result of a car accident. “He is showing us that he cares and genuinely wants to engage members of the disability community in the voting process. Voting accessibility will allow me to vote independently after 29 years of being injured.” FREED Center for Independent Living serves people of any age, with all kinds of disabilities, including people fully participating as community members, as well as those wishing to transition to the community from institutional settings. Established in 1985, FREED currently assist over 800 consumers in Nevada, Sierra, Yuba and Colusa Counties.

2005-04-13T11:12:00.000-07:00

DISABILITY CAPITOL ACTION DAY FREED will be providing accessible transportation to Capitol Action Day 2005. Seats will fill up early, so make sure to call FREED to reserve your seat. Join people of all disabilities, family members, and supporters to protect our freedom and way of live MAY 24, 2005 By the disability communityFor the disability community Shedule of Events 10:00 - 11:30 Forum: at the Sacramento Convention Center, 1400 J Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 (Corner of 13th and J streets) 11:30 - 12:00 March: Gather at the Sacramento Convention Center. The march will start at the corner of 13th and J streets, go west on 13th, turn right on L street and contiue west on L street to the west side of the capitol 12:00 - 1:100 Rally: Gather at the end of the march on the west steps of the Capitol to hear speaker talk about the budget and other issues affecting the disability community 1:00 - 4:00 Visit Your Legislators - For assistance making appointments contact FREED at (530)272-1732. For more information contact Ana at (530)272-1732 Voice, (530)272-1764 TTY, or ana@freed.org Capitol Action Day is sponsored by the Disability Action Coalition: AT Network California Alliance for Inclusive Communities California Coalition for Mental Health California Disability Community Action Network California Foundation for Independent Living Centers California Network of Mental Health Clients Community Resource for Independent Living, Hayward Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund Independent Living Resource Center, San Francisco Independent Living Services of Northern California Protection& Advocacy Inc. Resources for Independent Living, Sacramento Service Employee International Union Western Law Center for Disability Rights Quality Homecare Coalition

2005-03-28T09:42:00.000-08:00

California Assembly Public Hearing on In-Home Supportive Services Wage Cuts Date: Wednesday April 6th, 2005 Time: Legislative Visits 10:00AM-1:00PM Public Hearing 1:30-4:30 PM Place: Sacramento State Capitol Room 4203 FREED will be providing accessible transportation to the event! Contact Ana at 530-272-1732 V, 530-272-1764 TTY, or ana@freed.org for more information.

The Governor has proposed slashing state funding for in-home care worker pay to the minimum wage, undermining the state's commitment to seniors and people with disabilities.

IHSS consumers are better able to hire and retain their home care workers when sufficient wages and access to health care benefits are available.
In-home care allows people to make choices to improve their quality of life by promoting independence and the ability to live at home.
Better wages and health benefits have meant less turnover and better quality in-home care services.
Lower wages and a lack of benefits means consumers will have a more limited supply of home care workers, making it difficult to remain safely in their homes and possibly forcing them into institutions such as nursing homes.
Anything weakening IHSS weakens the state’s compliance with the Supreme Court Olmstead decision. IHSS and its community-based services are cornerstones of the civil rights struggle for community integration by people with disabilities, including seniors.

2005-03-25T09:54:00.000-08:00

"SHOW UP & EXPRESS YOUR CONCERNS FOR THE PRIVATIZATION OF SOCIAL SECURITY!" United States Representative John Doolittle will be in Grass Valley speaking in support of the Privatization of Social Security. March 29th, 3:30 pm to 4:30 pm Grass Valley Elks Lodge 109 S. School Street Grass Valley, CA This event is an opportunity for you to express your concerns regarding the privatization of Social Security. There is great concern that people with disabilities have not been considered under this proposed plan. Disability benefits could be put in jeopardy! Join FREED and others concerned with Bush’s plan. FREED will be at the event with stickers to show opposition to the Privatization of Social Security. Senator Barbara Boxer Social Security Privatization Forum April 1st at 2:00pm Truckee Tahoe Senior Council 10040 Estates Drive Truckee, CA Senator Boxer has been an outspoken critic of Bush’s proposed plan to Privatize Social Security. This event is an opportunity for you to express your concerns regarding the privatization of Social Security.

2005-03-23T11:17:00.000-08:00

FREED Center for Independent Living Presents a Self Advocacy Workshop "Ramping Up for Barrier-Free Housing"

Facilitated by Lee Pliscou, Directing Attorney of California Legal Assistance

April 14th, 10:00 am - 12:00 pm

508 J Street, Marysville, CA

WHAT MAKES AN EFFECTIVE ADVOCATE?

Panel Discussion

Learn how to "tell your story" to policymakers, write effective letters and emails, give effective testimony, and organize with others to address important issues that effect people with disabilities.

Meet and learn from our local policymakers and media.

Christina Billeci, Vice Mayor of Marysville
Karen Cartoscelli, Mayor of yuba County
Larry Montna, Supervisor 1st District Sutter County
Mary Jane Griego, Supervisor 3rd District Yuba County
Joe Calderon, Editor Appeal Democrat
Bob Harlan, General Manager KUBA 1600
Richard Teagarden, Superintendent Yuba County Department of Education

This is workshop Session Three of a three part training workshop. Topics will include: What is the Brown Act? How to request accomodations for meetings. How to write an effective letter to the editor or opinion editorial and what to say during a radio interview. How to request to be on a public meeting agenda. Where to find dates and times for public meetings. How to organize with others to advocate for affordable and accessible housing.

Please register by April 7th by calling 530-742-4474 V/TTY

or email: angiep@freed.org

If you require accomodations, such as Braille, large print, sign language interpreter or other alternative format, please notify FREED at the time of registration.

Please refrain from using fragrances.

2005-01-31T14:19:00.000-08:00

ALERT! ALERT! ALERT!

Assisted Suicide in California PLEASE ATTEND... a Hearing in Sacramento on Friday, February 4 on a proposal to legalize Assisted Suicide in California **We need these California legislators to see our opposition** California Assemblymembers Patty Berg and Lloyd Levine have announced they will soon introduce a bill to legalize assisted suicide. Ensuring this bill is defeated is a high priority for many disability advocates and disability rights organizations.We hope you can attend a joint hearing of the Assembly Committee on Aging and Long-Term Care and the Assembly Judiciary Committee that will be held on Friday, February 4 in Sacramento. It is important that disability advocates and other opponents of the legalization of assisted suicide come out in force! Also, there will be opportunity for brief public comments - please come AS EARLY AS YOU CAN and sign up AS SOON AS you arrive. State clearly when you speak, that you are opposed. Here is the information on the hearing, and below is other information for those attending. Perspectives on Physician Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill: Competency Issues Joint Informational Hearing of the Assembly Committee on Aging and Long-Term Care and Assembly Judiciary Committee Friday, February 4th, 2005 10:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m. California State Capitol, Sacramento Room 4202 For more information or a ride to the hearing please contact Ana at FREED (530)272-1732 or ana@freed.org ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Come early to the hearing if possible! The earlier you sign up to offer public comment, the more likely it will be that you actually are able to speak before they must close off comments due to time constraints - at the January 21st hearing, they didn't get to everyone. Remember to state in your public comments that you are opposed to the upcoming bill.This hearing, which follows one in the Los Angeles area on January 21 on disability issues, are informational "show" hearings organized by the upcoming bill's sponsors rather than legislative hearings at which the bill will be discussed among the legislators. But it may get significant news coverage, and we need to be sure that our views are recognized. We will have stickers or other ways to identify people in opposition, so look for those of us distributing that. Below is a listing of the California and national organizations we know of so far that have taken a position opposing the legalization of assisted suicide. Here are URL's for articles and websites if you wish to read up: http://dredf.org/assistedsuicide.html [Marilyn Golden's article on assisted suicide; at DREDF web site] http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/p040201b.html [Commentary by Dr. Herbert Hendin] http://www.pccef.org/articles/art32HouseOfLords.htm [Testimony by Dr. Gregg Hamilton] http://internationaltaskforce.org/orrpt6.htm [International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide's analysis of the first six years of Oregon's assisted suicide law] http://www.geocities.com/dhcpolwnk/pid-dn.htm [Page on assisted suicide at Laura Remson Mitchell's personal web site; includes links to her published commentaries as well as other articles and reports] CALIFORNIA AND NATIONAL DISABILITY ORGANIZATIONS THAT OPPOSE LEGALIZATION OF ASSISTED SUICIDE CALIFORNIA DISABILITY ORGANIZATIONS (including national organizations based in California): ADAPT, Northern California ADAPT, Southern California Berkeley Commission on Disability California Chapter of TASH (CalTASH) California Democrats with Disabilities (CDD) California Disability Alliance (CDA) Californians for Disability Rights (CDR) California Foundation for Independent Living Centers (CFILC) Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF) Disability Rights, Enforcement, Education Services (DREES) Not Dead Yet - California chapter Oakland Mayors Commission on Human Relations The Oaks Group World Institute on Disability (WID)NATIONAL DISABILITY ORGANIZATIONS: American Disabled for Attendant Programs Today (ADAPT) American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD) Association of Programs for Rural Independent Living (APRIL) Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF) Justice for All (JFA) National Council on Disability (NCD) National Council on Independent Living (NCIL) National Spinal Cord Injury Association Not Dead Yet (NDY) TASH World Association of Persons with Disabilities (WAPD) World Institute on Disability (WID)Signed,Marilyn Golden, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF) and California Disability Alliance (CDA)Jan Garrett, Center for Independent Living, BerkeleyRuthanne Shpiner, Not Dead Yet-- Marilyn Goldenmgolden@dredf.orgDisability Rights Education and Defense Fund

For additional information plese contact Ana at FREED (530)272-1732 or ana@freed.org