[nfbwatlk] Impressions of SRC Meeting

Tue Mar 10 04:32:39 UTC 2009

Hello All,

I have finally come up from the weekend of Girl Scout Cookie Sales.
Our fingers almost fell off but the sun came out enough times to keep
Kaitlynn going.

Now, in regards to the meeting on Saturday. I was able to attend the
first hour or so. Cindy graciously allowed me to read the statement of
the NFBW first so that I could go and attend to a prior commitment. I
will post the statement later tonight or first thing in the morning.

Thank you to Kay Burrows and Jedi for attending the meeting on behalf
of the NFBW and themselves. I heard Kay's statement and know that she
made some great points of the value of a residential program. I am
sure that Jedi did a marvelous job as well as she is quite an
effective speaker. I also know that Dan Fry called in and I know that
he spoke eloquently as usual. I appreciate the fact that he is always
keeping an eye on things here in Washington.

Hard choices are having to be made these days. I know about the high
unemployment rate and I don't know that people are thinking things
through clearly. How often are we trying to save everything without
real comprimise. I have a couple of ideas that I would like to share.

1. Order of selection vs closing the residential program. You cannot
close the residential program and expect to get it back anytime soon.
If the residential program does close, then those people who would
have received training, learned the necessary skills to live
independently and become employed will not be able to do so. Well, so
what? It is only 21 a year or so. But think about that. For every year
it is closed that is minimum of 21 people who would not learn the
necessary skills. Who COULD end up living in assisted living
facilities on DSHS, getting medical from DSHS, getting food stamps
from DSHS and NOT be paying into the state tax pool. Where as if we go
to an order of selection, we are still serving those who are in
desperate need of help. There are those who go blind due to whatever
and who now need to deal with the blindness and the fact that they
were already parents. I know of one person who told their spouse to go
and find their children a proper parent because now that they were
blind, they did not feel that they could be a proper parent. That
person attended the OTC and is a proper parent and moving on with
their life. If that person had not gotten at least SOME of the
necessary skills, where would the kids be? The marriage, as so often
does, fell apart and the kids may have ended up in foster care. These
are the worst case senario, but they are possible. Probable? Not sure,
but possible.

2. Going out of state to the NFB centers. As stated in the formal
statement, the NFBW will not stop advocating for those who are
desirous of going out of state to the NFB centers. We want you to go
to the centers. We want you to be successful. However, there are
situations where this is not possible. So, does that mean we don't
want you to go to a local center and get the basics and come to
meetings and network with us and become active with us and learn from
peers? I am learning from my peers all the time whether they realize
it or not. Some training in an emmersion program is so much better
than no training in an emmersion program.

3. Lou Oma said that there are restrictions on how the money is spent.
I believe that there are and will be. However, again is this open to
interpretation? Can two different people read the same set of
"instructions" and come up with a different senario? I am sure that
they can and will.

4. Without the residential program, DSB will be swallowed up with the
local state VR program and frankly, DSB would be hard pressed to
justify why they need to be separate with out the residential program.
I, like others, have lived in a state with a VR program and NO DSB or
Commission for the blind. Flat out it stinks. If DSB goes away, like
the residential program, we would be truly hard pressed to get it
back.

These are my thoughts on the subject. I thought that the meeting went
well while I was there and I was truly disappointed that this happened
during a time I was unable to attend the full meeting. Kudos to those
who went and to those who called in.

Thank you,
Kris Colcock Lawrence
1st VP, NFBW

On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 6:14 PM, Robert Sellers
<robertsellers500 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Mike,
>
> I believe we should fight to maintain the residential program. I'm not sure
> how many units DSB maintains. Even if  the number needs to be reduced to  2
> or 3 units to stay afloat. These economic  rough times   wont' last forever.
> With or without the stimulus package the economy will turn around in 2 or 3
> years. We  fought long and hard to rid this state of a 'needs assessment'
> type of program. If  the  OTC residential program is dropped it will be very
> difficult to  reestablish. I think we all believe that the the residential
> type program is superior to    the alternative.
> I believe the order of selection kprocess can be quite subjective and not
> providing the blind of this state with the best rehab services.
>
> I'll probably have more to say, but I need to leave and catch a bus for a
> meeting.
>
> Bob Sellers
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nfbwatlk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nfbwatlk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
> Behalf Of Mike Freeman
> Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2009 9:28 PM
> To: NFB of Washington Talk Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [nfbwatlk] Impressions of SRC Meeting
>
> You have a point, Dan. I have always resisted Order of Selection but was
> beginning to wonder along the same line of reasoning as you outline
> below. For I believe that once the residential component of the OTC is
> no more, it will be but a short and almost inevitable step to closing
> the OTC altogether. Why DSB staff can't grock this is beyond my ken.
>
> However, to adopt this stand I would feel more comfortable getting
> intput from the rest of the NFBW Board of Directors. What say you, NFBW
> Board members? I'm deliberately doing this on-list as I have no
> objection if word of this discussion gets out. Perhaps it will make all
> of us think a bit and take off the rose-colored glasses.
>
> Mike Freeman, President
> NFB of Washington
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dan Frye" <dfrye at nfb.org>
> To: "NFB of Washington Talk Mailing List" <nfbwatlk at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2009 7:42 PM
> Subject: Re: [nfbwatlk] Impressions of SRC Meeting
>
>
> Mike:
>
> Here's a thought that not many will be happy to hear or willing
> to tolerate, but which I think makes sense and should guide our
> future input.  While the threat of Order of Selection is
> unpleasant, I'd rather see the agency adopt this budget-saving
> exercise than diminish the residential portion of the OTC.  When
> such a policy is adopted, a conclusion about who gets service has
> to be made, and the Order of Selection exercise will most
> certainly require that the most severely disabled be served
> first.  Within our community, this will mean generally totally
> blind and legally blind people needing training and employment;
> it will generally not refer to those who have lots of residual
> vision and are easier to place.  I can't remember if DSB has a
> more liberal eligibility standard for service than is required by
> Federal Rehabilitation guidelines, but if it does, the Washington
> agency should narrow eligibility criteria to correspond with
> Federal minimums.  If dollars have to be preserved in this way,
> so be it.  Order of Selection sometimes results in a more
> concentrated degree of high-quality services being delivered to
> those who need it most.  When this prospect is tossed around by
> agency administrators trying to frighten our community, I'd tell
> them to bring Order of Selection on if that's what it takes.  DSB
> administrators think, perhaps, that we won't have enough resolve
> to say something this hard and potentially disadvantageous to
> some of our constituency; perhaps this degree of political
> resolve is required in this circumstance.  I hope that we do
> possess this degree of principled commitment to the program.
> Please don't misunderstand.  I do not relish this prospect, but I
> think that a lot of misinformation exists about Order of
> Selection, and it doesn't have to be as bad as some make it out
> to be.  What agency administrators fail to understand is that it
> matters less about numbers served than the quality of service
> given to those who can be assisted.  The foregoing is my personal
> opinion; it does not represent any endorsed view of the NFB at
> the national, affiliate, or local level.
>
> With Kind Regards,
>
> Daniel B.  Frye
> Office: (410) 659-9314, Ext 2208
> Mobile: (410) 241-7006
> Note: This message has been issued remotely from the Braille
> Note.
>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>From: Mike Freeman <k7uij at panix.com
>>To: nfbwatlk at nfbnet.org
>>Date sent: Sun, 08 Mar 2009 12:36:11 -0700
>>Subject: [nfbwatlk] Impressions of SRC Meeting
>
>>Fellow listers:
>
>>Technically, Marlaina Lieberg of WCB is the designated "consumer
> representative" on DSB's State Rehabilitation Council.  Below are
> her impressions of yesterday's meeting.
>
>>Mike Freeman
>
>>----- Forwarded Message -----
>>From: "Marlaina Lieberg" <1guidedog at gmail.com
>>To: "Mike Freeman" <k7uij at panix.com
>>Date: Sunday, Mar 8, 2009 12:14:57
>>Subject: please forward to nfbw
>
>
>>> Hello all.
>>> I decided to wait a few hours before posting or even much
> discussing my
>>> impressions of the SRC meeting yesterday.  So, here they are.
>>> during her report, Lou Oma Durand stressed repeatedly that she
> valued the
>>> residential aspect of the OTC.  She said that she has been
> running in the
>>> baseball field at midnight with students in the past, and she
> sees the
>>> change the residential program can make in lives it touches.
> She indicated
>>> that she has had discussions with Dean Stenehjem at the School
> for the
>>> blind, and he has offered the possibility of using the school's
> cottages for
>>> 3 weeks or so in the summer as a residential training facility.
> DSB is
>>> considering that.  Parenthetically, Cindy and I asked her during
> the days
>>> prior to the SRC meeting yesterday about partnering with the
> school to do
>>> child and family services work.  I never thought we got a clear
> response to
>>> that suggestion, just as many other suggestions we raised seemed
> not to have
>>> a clear response for me.
>>> It was wonderful to see so many people present in the room for
> testimony or
>>> simply to be a presence.  Many people, including OTC current
> students, gave
>>> great testimony regarding how impactful the OTC has been or is
> currently in
>>> their lives.  We had a number of people calling in, and the
> Council felt
>>> that while we had an issue with one person having an inordinate
> amount of
>>> background noise, the system worked perfectly and we will look
> into
>>> expanding its use for future meetings.
>>> The stories we heard were from blind people who had either
> worked with other
>>> blind people in the OTC, or who themselves were changed because
> of the
>>> impact of the residential portion of the OTC.  We heard from
> people who said
>>> they never would have made it with training in their home, or a
> 3-week
>>> training experience elsewhere.
>>> Throughout the day, we were reminded by DSB staff that if they
> could not
>>> find money to cut, DSB would go into order of selection to serve
> its
>>> customers.  Order of selection means that decisions regarding
> the importance
>>> of one customer's need versus another will have to be made,
> thereby creating
>>> waiting lists.
>>> Since most of you are most concerned about the OTC, let me stay
> focused on
>>> that issue.  Keiko Namekata, OTC Director, reported on average
> numbers of
>>> students the OTC has served for 4 years prior to apartment
> living, and the
>>> first 4 years after the apartments became a part of the
> residential
>>> experience.  Cindy asked Keiko for some annual statistics, a
> thing I might
>>> add we've been trying to get from other DSB staff all week, and
> Keiko said
>>> she'd be glad to provide them.  She shared that the OTC is open
> from 8 to 5,
>>> and students migrate in and out as they go for the various
> classes they
>>> need.  She mentioned keyboarding and computer skills as two
> separate
>>> classes.  I asked her why those were separated, and she said
> that in order
>>> for some students to really grasp the keyboard shortcuts
> necessary to be a
>>> successful computer user, plus the fact that it is not uncommon
> for students
>>> to have reach range issues, keyboarding really must be separate
> from
>>> computer skills training.
>>> We had a fair amount of discussion about the budget, and Jim
> Lochner, DSB's
>>> budget analyst, along with others in management positions,
> indicated that
>>> the senate budget could require even more cuts.  Nobody knows.
>>> Toward the end of the day, I initially attempted a motion
> requesting DSB to
>>> share with the Council the justification they use for retaining
>>> state-funded, non direct service delivery positions.  Throughout
> the day we
>>> heard that each staff person doing direct service touches the
> lives of an
>>> average of 100 persons.  It was a hard motion to make, but I did
> so to get
>>> discussion back to the issue about which the blind community is
> most
>>> concerned, preserving the residential portion of the OTC.  After
> the motion
>>> was seconded, Don Alveshere spoke up and said when the positions
> are
>>> transferred in July, there would be no state funded direct
> service
>>> positions.  At that point, I'm afraid I was tired and my head
> spinning, so I
>>> said, "Don, I've been trying to behave and be respectful all
> day.  Now I
>>> have to say this.  What you are essentially saying is that this
> is a done
>>> deal.  Let's just get it out on the table."  Debbie Cook then
> explained that
>>> the issue isn't about jobs, and she reiterated again that if
> something isn't
>>> done, DSB will go to order of selection, and as other DSB
> personnel said
>>> throughout the day, order of selection is the first step toward
> melding DSB
>>> into general VR.  Cindy responded that my motion, she believed,
> stemmed from
>>> frustration that the Council has no information, or very little
> information,
>>> yet DSB continues to say they are listening to our ideas.  I
> withdrew my
>>> motion after discussion, and simply requested information
> (again) to help
>>> the Council understand how DSB arrived at its current decision.
>>> So, my impression is that we might get to keep 2 apartments,
> since Lou Oma
>>> mentioned that as something they are considering.  However, I
> wouldn't take
>>> it to the bank.  As the consumer representative on the Council,
> I will share
>>> what I know as I learn it, and I know Cindy will do the same.
> Frankly, I
>>> came away feeling that if we get 2 apartments, we'll be lucky.
> The SRC
>>> members did agree that we needed conference calls between
> face-to-face
>>> meetings so that we can remain informed and in communication
> with the
>>> Agency.
>>> I think people can and should feel some comfort in the fact that
> without
>>> exception, each member of the SRC felt concerned that the
> Council was not
>>> involved in any way shape or form until after a decision had
> been made.  One
>>> member even came straight out and said that when it comes to an
> agency job
>>> or serving blind people in the most appropriate manner, he
> didn't care who
>>> had to go.
>>> Another thing we discussed is the possibility of streaming
> council meetings
>>> live on ACB Radio.  Stay tuned, we'll see what happens.
>>> Thank you for reading this; these are my personal observations,
> and should
>>> no way be misconstrued to be representative of actual approved
> minutes from
>>> yesterday's meeting.  This is simply how Marlaina Lieberg saw
> things, and
>>> how she reacted in the best way she knew how.
>>> Warmly,
>>> Marlaina
>>> I use to be indecisive, but now I'm not so sure!
>
>>_______________________________________________
>>nfbwatlk mailing list
>>nfbwatlk at nfbnet.org
>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbwatlk_nfbnet.org
>>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info
> for nfbwatlk:
>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbwatlk_nfbnet.org/dfrye%4
> 0nfb.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfbwatlk mailing list
> nfbwatlk at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbwatlk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> nfbwatlk:
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbwatlk_nfbnet.org/k7uij%40panix.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfbwatlk mailing list
> nfbwatlk at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbwatlk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> nfbwatlk:
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbwatlk_nfbnet.org/robertsellers500%4
> 0comcast.net
>
> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1330 - Release Date: 3/15/2008
> 2:36 PM
>
>
> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1330 - Release Date: 3/15/2008
> 2:36 PM
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfbwatlk mailing list
> nfbwatlk at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbwatlk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for nfbwatlk:
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbwatlk_nfbnet.org/tishgifts%40gmail.com
>