[blindlaw] Proposal

[Ross Doerr]

I would recommend against pitting disability related organizations against 
each other in a debate.  That approach would serve only to highlight 
differences and keep "us" appearring to be fighting among ourselves.
Such a debate among panelists made up of individuals in, for example, the 
blindness community and nonprofit community - most of whom provide services, 
might be interesting. But I'd only suggest such an action if there is a 
stipulation that remedies to identified problems be instituted within a 
specific time frame.
The same type of forum could be used for the deaf and hard of hearing 
community, etc, etc. to identify change that "we" see as being needed, not 
what nondisabled service providers feel "we" need.
Right now, the required majority of disabled participants on boards for such 
organizations as ILC, SILC etc, etc puts these ideas out on the floor for 
discussion, and nothing ever gets done about them after annual meetings.
I've spoken with many, many individuals with a disability over the past 24 
years who have said the same thing, more or less, in terms of varying 
degrees of publicaly acceptable language.
One gentleman who has been disabled for more than 40  years put it best when 
he said:
"We've heard it all before. From now on, no more talk unless there is a 
promise of action attached to the talk. I've had it with "we'll take it 
under consideration" as a response".
I've been practicing law in the disability field for many years, and I know 
the rules and regulations that atach to the disability field. Truth be told, 
that gentleman has a valid point. Just look at the record of change in 
things.
Speaking strictly for myself, I'd like to see the jobs issue for all 
individuals with a disability addressed in a truly meaningful way with 
accountability for ongoing lack-luster performance by those who earn a 
living being such providers.
If you want a debate that will generate instant publicity, try the jobs 
debate with a promise of jobs linked to it. One for the blindness community 
withy the private sector and governmental HR people involved, another one 
for the Deaf and hard of hearing community, one for those with mobility 
challenges -- that sort of approach.
I promise you, that will highlight the similarities between disability 
related organizations rather than differences.

These opinions are only mine, and are not presented as anything other than 
one man's view.





----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Norman, Gary C. (CMS/OSORA)" <Gary.Norman at cms.hhs.gov>
To: "Charles Crawford" <ccrawford at starpower.net>; "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing 
List" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>; <Mbrunson at acb.org>; "Carrie Griffin Basas" 
<cdgesq at yahoo.com>; "Phelan,William" <William.Phelan at americanbar.org>; 
"Cantos, Ollie (CRT)" <Ollie.Cantos at usdoj.gov>; "Janet Lord" 
<JLord at bluelawinternational.com>; <dmorrissey at usicd.org>; "Day Al-Mohamed" 
<dayalmohamed at gmail.com>; "StevenMendelsohn" <smendel at panix.com>; 
<ostephen at utk.edu>; "Sheehan, Pat" <Pat.Sheehan at va.gov>; <rsvp at aapd.com>; 
"CraigBrieske" <craigbrieske at verizon.net>; "Andrew Levy" 
<adl at browngold.com>; "CarrieGriffin Basas" <cdgesq at yahoo.com>; 
<CMPDL-3D at MAIL.ABANET.ORG>; "Bob Rhudy" <bobrhudy at yahoo.com>; 
<chris at license.state.tx.us>; <craggio at mdod.state.md.us>
Cc: "Caroline Griffin" <cag at carolineagriffin.com>; "Perry,Jason" 
<Jason.Perry at ssa.gov>; "Joshua Friedman" <jterpslaw at gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 9:44 AM
Subject: [blindlaw] Proposal


> Greetings:
>
>
> Providing a missive to spark discussion about a potential on-going forum 
> for the disability rights movement is the purpose of my writing.
>
>
> As my contribution to the disability rights movement, I would propose an 
> annual debate or an annual facilitated                 dialogue, perhaps 
> as part of the annual symposium of the N.F.B., on some issue.
>
>
> I have thought initially it would be interesting to have an annual debate 
> between a leading figure of A.C.B. and the N.F.B.
>
>
> Having an annual debate between the two organizations might still be 
> helpful. I do believe that, having an even broader focus, would be useful.
>
>
> As an alternative approach, having a facilitated dialogue on disability 
> law and policy with panelists being comprised of Disability Rights 
> Organizations (e.g. the N.F.B.) and other stakeholders, such as the 
> business community, would be helpful.
>
>
> This is a kind of event and forum, intended at creating and fostering 
> discussion, that I, a dispute resolution professional, would be willing to 
> lead. Indeed. This year, a focus of the Alternative Dispute Resolution 
> Section and its board on which I am serving of the Maryland State Bar 
> Association is fostering, through facilitation and related tools, public 
> dialogue. I believe that the agenda of the Section is laudable. Fostering 
> dialogue, even among leaders within the disability rights movement and 
> also among the leaders of the disability rights movement and outside 
> stakeholders, is something to be sought. I would welcome any comments or 
> suggestions.
>
>
>                Sincerely,
> Gary C. Norman, L.L.M.
> _______________________________________________
> blindlaw mailing list
> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
> blindlaw:
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rumpole%40roadrunner.com
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1392 / Virus Database: 1520/3852 - Release Date: 08/23/11
>