[nagdu] Letter to out-of-state guide dog programs from California state guide dog board

Tue Mar 31 15:43:56 UTC 2015

Hello Brian,
Just trying to get a few things straight here. The professionals you list
such as doctors, psychologists and contractors are people with in-state
offices. Californians seek them out and receive their services in
California. They have their initial contact/experience with them in
California. They are also professionals whose services come at a financial
cost, paid to them in California and, in many cases subject to insurance.

In the case of a guide dog school, a Californian, as either an adult or a
minor with adult supervision, chooses for whatever reason to leave the state
and attend a program elsewhere, clearly not something California has any
authority over. They have made their decision, developed relationships at a
facility where they actually lived (without being harmed) and are eventually
sent home as graduates of that program, fully qualified to work with a guide
dog safely in any state including California. Only The Seeing Eye, as far as
I know, charges, and that fee is paid to the school before training. No
further fee is required for aftercare.

Then, sometime in the future, the handler invites a trainer from that
program where they have already graduated into their home. I'm assuming that
inviting someone, anyone in fact, into your home is a right that you
cherish. The reasons for this invitation could be as simple as standard
aftercare policies, the guide dog handler would like the instructor to
verify that they are working well in the dog's new area, the person is
working through an issue with the dog and would like more than an
over-the-phone commentary by the professional that trained them. In any
case, are you and the state of California saying that that person from the
out-of-state school, who has already trained the guide dog handler and
perhaps trained the dog prior to that, is assumed not to be qualified to
stop by for a few hours, go for a walk, maybe have lunch and make a comment?

Keep in mind that the guide dog instructor cannot do anything but make
comments. They can't force the dog or the handler to take their advice. They
can't give either an injection, as a doctor might; they can't construct
something either at the person's home or along the routes they are
traveling; they can't charge. They can merely watch and give their
recommendations.

Again, the guide dog and its handler have already been trained. The handler
is either an adult or a minor under the supervision of an adult. The words
custodial and paternalistic have been used, and if you have any knowledge of
their meaning, I suspect that you understand this. Perhaps, however, it is
your belief that blind people are in need of custodial care?

Let's look at this another way. Doctors must be licensed in California.
Let's say your best friend from childhood is a doctor in Colorado. You
invite him to your home, and while he is there, you have a stroke. He calls
911 and begins to treat you saving your life. He isn't licensed in
California. Is anyone going to press charges? I don't think so. Same
scenario which is even more analogous, your doctor friend comes for a visit.
He notices a mole on your neck and advises you to have it removed. Charges?
Again, I don't think so.

Another point is the way in which your current program limits the freedom of
blind Californians. Suppose all of the schools agree to get one of their
instructors licensed. With students from  other states, the schools have the
option to assign students to any instructor on their staff, using their own
criteria for doing so. They can also send any of those instructors to do
follow-up. Under the current conditions which your state has imposed,
schools in other states are forced to make decisions with regard to
California students that are more restrictive than for students from other
states. Do they get one instructor certified and then insist that any
California student be trained by that instructor so that, if there is either
a need for or a practice of an aftercare visit, the student can be seen by
their personal instructor? Or, do they place the California student with the
instructor whose training style, current string of dogs, specific talents
and the like are best suited to that particular student, and then, when it
is time for aftercare, send someone the student may not even know, even if
their instructor is available and willing to go?

You stated:
"Finally, I would like to stress that these requirements are not in place to
sway any person's decision as to which school they should or should not
attend.  These requirements are not in place to hinder follow-up services or
instruction, but simply to ensure consumer safety."

Clearly, as I have stated above, this program does hinder follow-up care and
places blind Californians in a one-down position vis-à-vis their
out-of-state peers with regard to choosing a school. Their personal safety
is a spurious reason at best, since the person not only has already trained
to use the dog in a facility far from home, but since graduation, has
actually been using the dog independently in California.

In fact, by limiting the out-of-state schools in providing the best level of
aftercare, this California law is actually endangering California guide dog
handlers, who have exercised their right to choose an out-of-state school.
Suppose there's been an incident. Someone throws a fire cracker that goes
off twenty feet in front of a working guide dog team (yeah, it's happened).
The team is rattled, the handler would like their instructor, with whom the
handler has developed a relationship and in whom the handler has confidence,
to walk with them and give pointers. The instructor wants very much to come
help but isn't licensed in California.

The handler's choice is to board a plane to go back to the school, which
even if the school pays for it, can be problematic if the handler is
employed, is a student or has a family to take care of. Returning to the
school isn't ideal anyway, because the incident happened at a location in
California, where the handler and dog will continue to have to work;
according to both the handler and instructor, this location is the best
place for after care to occur. So, what happens? Maybe nothing. Maybe that
person and dog don't get any aftercare at all. How does that help their
personal safety?

Furthermore, having this state-regulated system actually sets the stage for
a lower quality of training from California schools, since the other schools
cannot compete with them for California students on a level playing field.
All blind Americans have the responsibility and the right to investigate
their mobility options and form their own views about which, if any,  of the
nation's schools best meets their individual needs. Blind Californians,
however, unlike their out-of-state peers, , must way their personal beliefs
about the best options for guide dog training against the fact that
California itself has created a system that inhibits their ability to freely
choose out-of-state schools, since in doing so they must consider the
possibility of encountering limitations down the line with aftercare.

And, this may be the crux of the matter. Under this current and IMO
unconstitutional law, California schools can boast that unlike other
schools, all of their instructors are licensed to provide follow-up care in
the state. This is a great advantage to them in terms of fund-raising, a
benefit given to them by the state legislature at the expense of the
personal freedoms of blind Californians.
Donna Hill

-----Original Message-----
From: Skewis, Brian at DCA [mailto:Brian.Skewis at dca.ca.gov]
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 5:04 PM
To: Michael Hingson; NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide
Dog Users; 'Applebutter Hill'; 'Marion Gwizdala'
Subject: RE: [nagdu] Letter to out-of-state guide dog programs from
California state guide dog board

Hi all,

I wanted to take a moment to address some of the concerns posed in this
thread over the last few days.  I subscribe to this list in order to keep a
pulse on the community and I thank you all for your input on this and many
other topics.  Additionally I would like to thank you for the opportunity to
address your statements with the following:

First, I would like to stress that this letter was sent to open the lines of
communication between guide dog schools and the Board regarding potential
barriers to a licensure process that has existed since the 1940's.  In
California, if an individual engages in the training or instruction of a
guide dog or of a person in the use of a guide dog, they are required to be
licensed by the Board.  This means that any training or instruction
physically taking place inside California, requires that the individual
providing the instruction be licensed.  There is no requirement that all
instructors from all schools across the country be licensed; just those
coming into the state for training and instruction purposes.  Owner Trainers
are not required to be licensed by the Board; only those instructing others
in the use of guide dogs must be licensed.  These requirements are primarily
in place to ensure consumer protection.  In California, many professions
require special licenses.   One has to have a special license to be a
doctor, a psychologist, or a contractor, for instance.  These licenses and
associated State organizations exist to protect the consumer from physical
and/or financial harm.  After all, many of these professions, including
guide dog instruction, require that the individual providing the service
have access to personal information, and sometimes even a consumer's home.

The Board was recently made aware that despite its attempts in 2009 to
educate out of state schools of the licensure requirements in California,
schools were still sending instructors into the State to provide follow-up
instruction to graduates of their programs.  In an attempt to determine if
there were any barriers to licensure for these out of state schools, the
Board wrote the aforementioned letter to guide dog schools all across the
country.  For the most part, the letter was received well and a large number
of schools have already responded stating concerns or lack thereof.
Additionally, the Board asked that schools provide the number of teams
active in California.  This request was simply for demographic purposes and
to get an idea of the total number of guide dog users in the state.  We did
not solicit any personal information nor is any specifically personal
information required for an applicant to become licensed by the Board.
While the Board's application process does require that an applicant provide
evidence that they have successfully trained 22 guide dog teams, there is no
requirement that those individual's personal information be sent to the
Board.  Applicants are required to submit a video of themselves working with
a guide dog team in training, but the Board takes necessary steps to ensure
that the client be aware and comfortable with the fact that filming is
taking place.  The Board uses these videos for the application and
examination process only, and those videos are never used in a public
setting.  Applications are reviewed on a case by case basis and the Board is
always willing to work towards the common goal of providing safe and
effective guide dog instruction in California while following the rules and
regulations outlined in the Guide Dog Act.  The Board understands that
personal privacy is extremely important in this day and age.  This program
is not intended to be a violation of privacy, but rather a way to ensure
consumer safety.

Regarding statements that the Board's requirements are in violation of the
ADA and interstate commerce laws, there are dozens of professions and
vocations that are regulated at the State level; in every state.  Many
healing arts professions and service professions require licensure at the
State level.  This licensure applies to the individual providing the
service, not the individual receiving the service.  These laws are in place
to protect the person receiving the service by ensuring that the person
providing the service is qualified and has a personal background that
reflects one of a person that is safe to enter another person's home or
handle their personal information.

There also seems to be a misconception that the Board is supporting the
concept of, or requiring that, guide dog users carry identification cards in
California.  This is simply a misconception.  The State Board of Guide Dogs
for the Blind has not taken any steps toward requiring that ID cards be
shown by guide dog users.  Public access is outside the Board's jurisdiction
and the Board is not interested in imposing any additional requirements on
guide dog users for public access.

Finally, I would like to stress that these requirements are not in place to
sway any person's decision as to which school they should or should not
attend.  These requirements are not in place to hinder follow-up services or
instruction, but simply to ensure consumer safety.  The Board is working
diligently to address any concerns and barriers to licensure identified so
as to create an atmosphere where instructors from all over the country can
provide the services required to Californians while protecting consumers as
we are primarily mandated to do.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions regarding
guide dog instruction in California.

Thank you for your time,

Brian Skewis
Executive Officer
California State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind
Office: 916-574-7825
Email: brian.skewis at dca.ca.gov
www.guidedogboard.ca.gov

-----Original Message-----
From: nagdu [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Michael Hingson
via nagdu
Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2015 1:52 PM
To: 'Applebutter Hill'; 'NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of
Guide Dog Users'; 'Marion Gwizdala'
Subject: Re: [nagdu] Letter to out-of -state guide dog programs from
California state guide dog board

All true and good points.

Best,

Michael Hingson

-----Original Message-----
From: nagdu [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Applebutter Hill
via nagdu
Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2015 1:49 PM
To: 'Marion Gwizdala'; 'NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of
Guide Dog Users'
Subject: Re: [nagdu] Letter to out-of -state guide dog programs from
California state guide dog board

Marion,
Here's another thought. I think it can be argued that the schools don't have
the right to release this information to begin with.
Donna

-----Original Message-----
From: nagdu [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Marion Gwizdala
via nagdu
Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2015 4:21 PM
To: 'Michael Hingson'; 'NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of
Guide Dog Users'
Subject: Re: [nagdu] Letter to out-of -state guide dog programs from
California state guide dog board

Mike,

	It is also the point that we do not need the protection of the state
nor should we silently allow the board to demand guide dog training programs
release any information about their consumers in California. We will be
taking this issue up during our monthly board of directors meeting on
Sunday.

Marion

-----Original Message-----
From: nagdu [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Michael Hingson
via nagdu
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 4:58 PM
To: 'Buddy Brannan'; 'NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide
Dog Users'
Subject: Re: [nagdu] Letter to out-of -state guide dog programs from
California state guide dog board

That is, of course, the point.

Best,

Michael Hingson

-----Original Message-----
From: nagdu [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Buddy Brannan via
nagdu
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 1:51 PM
To: Tina Thomas; NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog
Users
Subject: Re: [nagdu] Letter to out-of -state guide dog programs from
California state guide dog board

Oh, what fun. This is just a small taste of what we'd have to look forward
to with a national certification. Hey, what about owner trainers in
California?

--
Buddy Brannan, KB5ELV - Erie, PA
Phone: 814-860-3194
Mobile: 814-431-0962
Email: buddy at brannan.name

> On Mar 27, 2015, at 3:05 PM, Tina Thomas via nagdu <nagdu at nfbnet.org>
wrote:
>
>
>
> Hello Everyone- Below is a letter that was sent to all out of state
> guide dog programs from the California state guide dog board regarding
> follow-
up
> services. I hope all you read this and keep in mind that this policy
> and attitude of the board is a contradiction of everything our
> organization represents. To quote Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. "
> injustice anywhere, is a threat to justice everywhere"
>
> Thank You.
>
> Tina
>
> ion <http://www.guidedogboard.ca.gov/consumers/2015_outofstate.pdf>
>
>
>
> [Name]
> Chief Executive Officer
> [School Name]
> [School Address]
>
> Dear [Name]:
>
> The California State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind (Board) exists
> to ensure the protection of people who are blind or visually impaired
> while receiving instruction in the use of guide dogs. The Board
> regulates both
the
> schools located in California as well as the instructors who train and
pair
> guide dog teams. While your school is not physically located in
California,
> the Board understands that many out of state schools place guide dogs
> with clients who reside in California at the time of placement, or who
> may relocate to California after placement.
>
> The Board understands and appreciates a school's need to maintain an
ongoing
> relationship with graduates of their program. Recently, the Board has
> received several questions regarding follow-up training from guide dog
users
> who received their dogs from schools outside of California. In order
> to provide follow-up training in California, Guide Dog Instructors,
regardless
> of school affiliation, must be licensed by the Board.
>
> The purpose of this letter is not only to inform you of the licensing
> requirements and regulations regarding guide dog instruction in
California,
> but also to create an open dialog. The Board wishes to ensure that
> there
are
> no barriers to licensure for your instructors. Our goal is to create a
> gateway for your school to safely and legally provide follow-up
instruction
> or in-home placements to guide dog users residing in California.
>
> Our records indicate that you currently have no instructors licensed
> by
the
> Board. The Board would like to invite you to undergo the licensure
> process in order to provide services to your clients residing in
> California. The Board's licensure process and criteria are outlined on
> our
website at:
> http://www.guidedogboard.ca.gov/forms_pubs/five_steps.shtml
>
> Please contact me if you would like more information on the licensure
> process, or if you identify any barriers that may impact your desire
> to participate in the licensure process.
>
> Additionally, the Guide Dog Board is in the process of determining how
many
> guide dog users reside in California. In order to identify an accurate
> population, we are surveying each guide dog program in the country
> asking how many active teams from your program are currently residing
> in California. If you could please respond simply by emailing or
> calling me
for
> a quick discussion, I would greatly appreciate it.
>
> I look forward to working with you.
>
> Thank you for your time,
>
> Brian Skewis
> Executive Officer
> California State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind
> Email: brian.skewis at dca.ca.gov <mailto:brian.skewis at dca.ca.gov>
>
>
>
>
>
> <http://www.guidedogboard.ca.gov/consumers/2015_outofstate.shtml#headi
> ng> Back to Top |  <http://www.dca.ca.gov/help.shtml> Help |
> <http://www.guidedogboard.ca.gov/about/contactus.shtml> Contact Us |
> <http://www.dca.ca.gov/adobe/> Get Acrobat |
> <http://www.dca.ca.gov/about_dca/disclaim.shtml> Disclaimer
>
> | Conditions of Use <http://www.ca.gov/use.html>  | Privacy Policy
> <http://www.dca.ca.gov/about_dca/privacy_policy.shtml>
> Copyright C 2015 State of California
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/buddy%40brannan.nam
> e

_______________________________________________
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/info%40michaelhingson.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/blind411%40verizon.net

_______________________________________________
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/applebutterhill%40gmail.c
om

_______________________________________________
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/info%40michaelhingson.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/brian.skewis%40dca.ca.gov