[nagdu] Oregon's proposal

Sat Mar 7 17:00:02 UTC 2015

Sitting here in Ohio I have always heard how crazy liberal Oregon is.
This sure doesn't seem liberal to me.  What are they thinking?

On 3/7/15, Tami Jarvis via nagdu <nagdu at nfbnet.org> wrote:
> Ann,
>
> Oh, thank you for this. You've made my morning. Since I live in my fair
> state, I've been Taking This Seriously so that I can Take Action and
> Stand Up For My Rights! Only I finally ended up giggling maniacally. I
> mean, they want service dog users to pay to use their dogs. This is
> serious stuff. Only... They can't be serious! Anyway, thanks for the humor.
>
> I'm waiting to see in-state commentary from some of the guide dog users
> who have been for this sort of thing and pushing it, wondering how
> they'll react when they catch that their school IDs don't mean jack and
> that it will cost them, too. They've been informed of the truth about
> their certification and ID and all, but what would owner-trainers know,
> having not been to school? /lol/ I'm only talking about a specific set
> of folks, not all guide dog users, and for a long time now, I've given
> up trying to educate and shut up and listened. Phrases that come up in
> their discussion involve "certified like our dogs" and the like. Also,
> that owner-trainers should "pay for ID like we do," which is when I gave
> up trying to find a way to insert information or add a different point
> of view. /lol/ Anyway, I don't understand where that set is coming from
> except that they know certification will solve all their problems and
> speak often of how they can't wait for it to happen. So it's happening
> -- or might -- and they will have to pay to have their dogs certified to
> get those special tags that will deal with Fluffy once and for all.
>
> I'm actually thinking of adding the Restaurant Association (or whatever
> it's called to my letter writing list... I mean, when you forget your
> vow to drive around Oregon and stop at Denny's here off I-84 and they
> won't let you in because you don't have an Oregon tag, are you going to
> just shrug and leave Panda outside or in the car? For that matter, are
> working service dog users who don't receive services really going to pay
> this fee to get a special tag? Any restaurant that does decide to insist
> on a Tags Only policy is not going to fare well. This puts them in a
> real bind.
>
> Oh, well. Time to dredge up the drafts and notes and stuff I left when
> last session's version of this died and get serious and activate or
> agitate or something.
>
> Tami
>
> On 03/07/2015 12:19 AM, Ann Edie via nagdu wrote:
>> Hi, Tami,
>>
>> You can relax. You will still be able to shop and enter your local city
>> hall or post office with your guide dog. You may, however, starve to death
>> unless you apply for and display on your assistance animal the required
>> assistance animal tag which will permit you to enter a "food
>> establishment" anywhere in your honorable state. In other words, your
>> legislature is saying, "We will comply with the ADA everywhere except
>> where we don't care to do so." This is the first step to ...?
>>
>> The bill gives responsibility for issueing assistance animal tags to the
>> Department of Human Resources, and it says that the person with a
>> disability has to fill out the application form (annually), pay the fee,
>> and get a letter from his/her health care professional stating that the
>> assistance animal is required to mitigate the person's disability and
>> stating the tasks that the assistance animal performs. I wonder whether
>> this means that the health care professional is prescribing the tasks that
>> would mitigate the disability in general, or whether the health care
>> professional is expected to judge whether the particular individual animal
>> actually performs the tasks needed by the person in a reliable and
>> consistent manner? In either case, I don't believe the health care
>> professional is qualified to judge whether a blind person requires a guide
>> dog (or a cane, or a sighted guide, or a sonic guide, or any other device
>> or method) and I certainly don't see health care professionals as qua
> lified to assess the training or skills of assistance animals. So, on what
> basis is the health care professional supposed to base his/her assertions in
> the letter? Or is there another part of the application which asks for proof
> of the training and performance of the assistance animal, like asking for a
> card from a training program?
>>
>> (By the way, the proposed law, as I read it, doesn't say anything about
>> visitors from other states who are accompanied by assistance animals, so I
>> assume that we would all starve to death if we were to visit Oregon,
>> unless we somehow acquire the state's assistance animal tag for our
>> guides. You might want to remind your legislators of that little issue, as
>> well. I know that I will not be eager to visit your fair state if this
>> bill becomes law.)
>>
>> Better start mustering the forces. Looks like you're in for a fight, or at
>> least another campaign of education!
>>
>> Best,
>> Ann
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: nagdu [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Tami Jarvis via
>> nagdu
>> Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 1:59 PM
>> To: NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users
>> Subject: [nagdu] Oregon's proposal
>>
>> I just got the below information about Oregon's latest proposal. And here
>> I was thinking after the last couple of attempts were dropped, folks had
>> given up for awhile. Silly me!
>>
>> Read away. I haven't yet, except for a brief scan. I'm going to need to
>> find fortitude!
>>
>> Here's the link:
>>
>> https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB3077/Introduced
>>
>> The text is pasted below. I took out some line numbers where there was
>> only whitespace to save annoyance, but otherwise, this is just as I copied
>> it into my text editor:
>>
>> ***
>>
>> 78th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2015 Regular Session House Bill 3077
>> Sponsored by Representatives ESQUIVEL, KRIEGER, WITT; Representatives
>> HACK, HAYDEN, KENNEMER, NEARMAN, POST, SMITH SUMMARY The following summary
>> is not prepared by the sponsors of the measure and is not a part of the
>> body thereof subject to consideration by the Legislative Assembly. It is
>> an editor’s brief statement of the essential features of the measure as
>> introduced.
>> Creates exemption from pet restriction in food establishments for
>> assistance animal with assist- ance animal tag issued by local
>> jurisdiction.
>> Requires Department of Human Services to adopt procedures for issuance of
>> assistance animal certificates.
>> Requires
>> department to make reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities
>> in application process. Requires waiver of application fee for persons
>> with disabilities who receive disability services provided by or paid for
>> by department and who are eligible for medical assistance.
>> Requires local jurisdiction to issue assistance animal tag upon
>> presentation of assistance animal certificate. Makes assistance animal tag
>> valid throughout state.
>> Allows food establishment or restaurant to inquire whether animal present
>> on premises has valid assistance animal tag.
>> A BILL FOR AN ACT
>> Relating to assistance animals; creating new provisions; and amending ORS
>> 616.700 and 659A.143.
>> Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:
>> SECTION 1.
>> (1) As used in this section:
>> (a) “Assistance animal” has the meaning given that term in ORS 659A.143.
>> (b) “Health care practitioner” means a person licensed or certified to
>> provide health care services in this state.
>> (2) The Department of Human Services shall adopt by rule procedures for
>> the issuance and renewal of assistance animal certificates. The department
>> shall issue an assistance ani- mal certificate to any person who:
>> (a) Submits an application in the form and manner prescribed by the
>> department;
>> (b) Pays the application fee prescribed by the department by rule; and
>> (c) Provides a statement signed
>> by the person’s treating health care practitioner, dated within six months
>> preceding the date of application:
>> (A) Stating that the person requires an assistance animal due to a
>> disability; and
>> (B)
>> Briefly
>> summarizing the nature of the work or task that the assistance animal per-
>> forms or the other assistance provided by the animal.
>> (3) The procedures adopted
>> by the department under subsection (2) of this section shall ensure that
>> reasonable accommodations are made for the applicant’s disability,
>> including, but not limited to:
>> (a) Permitting the application and the health care practitioner’s
>> statement to be sub- mitted by mail, in person or electronically; and
>> (b) Providing application assistance, including, if appropriate, assisting
>> the person in ob- taining the statement from the person’s health care
>> practitioner.
>> (4) The department shall waive the application fee for any person with a
>> disability who:
>> (a) Receives disability services provided by or paid for by the
>> department; and
>> NOTE:
>> Matter in
>> boldfaced
>> type in an amended section is new;
>> matter [
>> italic and bracketed
>> ] is existing law to be omitted.
>> New sections are in
>> boldfaced
>> type.
>> LC 178
>> HB
>> 3077
>>
>>
>> (b) Is eligible for medical assistance.
>> SECTION 2.
>> (1) A person who is issued an assistance animal certificate under section
>> 1 of this 2015 Act may present the certificate at a location described in
>> this subsection and obtain an assistance animal tag. Each county shall
>> make assistance animal tags available at the county sheriff’s office. If
>> the county has declared a dog control district, the county shall also make
>> assistance animal tags available at any county office site where a person
>> may obtain a dog license. If a city has a dog licensing and control
>> program, the city shall make assistance animal tags available at any city
>> office site where a person may obtain a dog li- cense.
>> (2) A county or
>> city shall record any information required by Department of Human Services
>> rules regarding a person presenting an assistance animal certificate, the
>> assistance animal serving the person and the issued assistance animal tag.
>> The county or city shall forward a copy of the information to the
>> department. The department, a county or a city may not charge a fee for an
>> assistance animal tag.
>> (3) An assistance
>> animal tag is valid in all areas of this state. An assistance animal tag
>> is valid for a specific assistance animal and, except as provided by
>> department rules, may not be transferred.
>> (4) The department shall provide the assistance animal tags to the issuing
>> counties and cities without charge. The department shall design assistance
>> animal tags to be suitable for wearing by a wide variety of assistance
>> animals. The department may make assistance
>> ani-
>> mal tags available in a form suitable
>> for carrying by a person whose assistance animal is of a type physically
>> incapable of wearing a tag.
>> SECTION 3.
>> ORS 616.700 is amended to read:
>> 616.700. The State Department of Agriculture shall enforce the provisions
>> of ORS 616.695 to
>> 616.755 and adopt rules necessary therefor in accordance with the
>> applicable provisions of ORS chapter 183, to insure and verify that:
>> (1) Food establishments are constructed and maintained in a clean,
>> healthful and sanitary con- dition. This shall include floors, walls,
>> ceilings, doors, windows, lighting and ventilation, toilet and lavatory
>> facilities, water supply, separation or partitioning of rooms, health and
>> cleanliness of
>> per-
>> sonnel, cleanliness and sanitation of surrounding premises, disposal of
>> all waste and sewage mate- rial, insect and rodent control, construction
>> and sanitation of equipment and utensils, and prohibition of pets therein.
>> [ However, ] The department may not prohibit the presence of as- sistance
>> animals that have valid assistance animal tags issued under section 2 of
>> this 2015 Act.
>> ORS 616.695 to 616.755 shall not be applied to prevent licensing and
>> operation of a food es- tablishment solely because such establishment is
>> in an area which is part of and not separate from a domestic kitchen if
>> the establishment is upon investigation by the department found to be con-
>> structed and maintained in a clean, healthful and sanitary condition.
>> (2) Food establishments maintain time and temperature controls, indicating
>> and recording thermometers and indicating pressure gauges for pressure
>> cookers and retorts, minimum
>> temper-
>> ature and time period standards for cooking foods, and other facilities
>> necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of ORS 616.695 to 616.755.
>> (3) Food dispensed, transported, sold, held for sale, stored, salvaged or
>> displayed, is not filthy, decomposed, putrid, unsafe, contaminated,
>> deleterious to health, unfit, unwholesome, unclean, in- sanitary or
>> diseased.
>> SECTION 4.
>> ORS 659A.143 is amended to read:
>> [2]
>> HB
>> 3077
>>
>>
>> 659A.143. (1) As used in this section:
>> (a) “Assistance animal” means a dog
>> or other animal designated by administrative rule that has been
>> individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an
>> individual.
>> (b) “Assistance animal trainee”
>> means an animal that is undergoing a course of development and training to
>> do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual that directly
>> relate to the dis- ability of the individual.
>> (c) “Assistance animal trainer” means an individual exercising care,
>> custody and control over an assistance animal trainee during a course of
>> training designed to develop the trainee into an assistance animal.
>> (d) “Food establishment” has the meaning given that term in ORS 616.695.
>> [
>> (d)
>> ]
>> (e)
>> “Place of public
>> accommodation” means a place of public accommodation as defined in ORS
>> 659A.400.
>> (f) “Restaurant” has the meaning given that term in ORS 624.010.
>> (2) A place of public accommodation
>> or of access to state government services, programs or activities may not:
>> (a) Ask an individual about the nature or extent of a disability that the
>> individual has or may have;
>> (b)
>> Unless the
>> place is a food establishment or restaurant, require an individual to
>> provide documentation proving that an animal is an assistance animal or an
>> assistance animal trainee; or
>> (c) Notwithstanding any fee or admission charge imposed for pets, require
>> that a person with a disability or an assistance animal trainer pay a fee
>> or admission charge for an assistance animal or assistance animal trainee.
>> (3) A place of public accommodation
>> or of access to state government services, programs or activities
>> may:
>> (a) Ask whether an animal is required due to a disability; [ and ]
>> (b) Ask about the nature of the
>> work or task that an animal is trained to do or perform or is being
>> trained to do or perform, unless it is readily apparent that the animal
>> performs or is being trained to perform work or a task for the benefit of
>> a person with a disability[ .
>> ]
>> ; and
>> (c) If the place is a food establishment or restaurant, require proof that
>> the animal has a valid assistance animal tag issued under section 2 of
>> this 2015 Act.
>> (4) If a place of public accommodation or of access to state government
>> services, programs or activities customarily charges a person for damages
>> that the person causes to the place, the place may charge a person with a
>> disability or an assistance animal trainer for damages that an assistance
>> animal or assistance animal trainee causes to the place.
>> (5) A person with a
>> disability or an assistance animal trainer must maintain control of an as-
>> sistance animal or assistance animal trainee. Except as provided in this
>> subsection, control shall be exerted by means of a harness, leash or other
>> tether.
>> If the use of a harness, leash or other tether would interfere with the
>> ability of the animal to do the work or perform the tasks for which the
>> animal is trained or is being trained, control may be exerted by the
>> effective use of voice commands, signals or other means. If an animal is
>> not under control as required in this subsection, a place of public
>> accommodation or of access to state government services, programs or
>> activities may con- sider the animal to be out of control for purposes of
>> subsection (6) of this section.
>> (6)(a) Except as provided in this subsection, a place of public
>> accommodation or of access to state government services, programs or
>> activities may not deny a person with a disability or an assistance animal
>> trainer the right to be accompanied by an assistance animal or assistance
>> animal [3]
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> nagdu mailing list
>> nagdu at nfbnet.org
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nagdu_nfbnet.org
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>> nagdu:
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nagdu_nfbnet.org/annedie%40nycap.rr.com
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> nagdu mailing list
>> nagdu at nfbnet.org
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nagdu_nfbnet.org
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>> nagdu:
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nagdu_nfbnet.org/tami%40poodlemutt.com
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nagdu mailing list
> nagdu at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nagdu_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for nagdu:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nagdu_nfbnet.org/marianne%40denningweb.com
>

-- 
Marianne Denning, TVI, MA
Teacher of students who are blind or visually impaired
(513) 607-6053