[Nyagdu] Legislative Consideration

Sat Jan 16 16:43:07 UTC 2010

Albert:

We have been working on this, I was not at convention last year, but I 
believe and Marion can correct me, but we have resolution put before the NFB 
Board of Directors to work on this.

Again, if I am wrong can someone correct me.

If I was so presented, which I will look again, it would be in the 
August/September or October/November 2009 Edition of the Braille Monitor and 
can be downloaded or read on the NFB.org website.

Cheryl Echevarria
Independent Contractor
www.Echevarriatravel.com
1-866-580-5574
Reservations at echevarriatravel.com
Affiliated as an Independent Contractor with Montrose Travel CST-1018299-10

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Albert J Rizzi" <albert at myblindspot.org>
To: "'Marion & Martin'" <swampfox1833 at verizon.net>; "'New York Association 
of Guide Dog Users'" <nyagdu at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2010 11:44 AM
Subject: Re: [Nyagdu] Legislative Consideration

> Boy oh boy, merry has had a tough go of it as of late.  I would whole
> heartedly support any measure to extend the types of protections as are
> afforded in Florida.  It should be unlawful to represent ones self or 
> their
> animal as individuals  or animals afforded protection under the ADA.
> Perhaps we could start a nation wide campaign to ask all states to adopt
> legislation like that of Florida. Consistency from state to state would be 
> a
> key factor and should be a concern included in our dialogues going 
> forward.
> I would be all to happy to open a conversation with the proper state
> officials here in new york to start that ball rolling when appropriate.
> Would you think that addressing this issue as a violation of the ADA would
> be best addressed at the federal level or the state?
>
> Albert J. Rizzi, M.Ed.
> CEO/Founder
> My Blind Spot, Inc.
> 90 Broad Street - 18th Fl.
> New York, New York  10004
> www.myblindspot.org
> PH: 917-553-0347
> Fax: 212-858-5759
> "The person who says it cannot be done, shouldn't interrupt the one who is
> doing it."
>
>
> Visit us on Facebook LinkedIn
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nyagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nyagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On 
> Behalf
> Of Marion & Martin
> Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2010 11:11 AM
> To: FLAGDU List
> Cc: NYAGDU List; NAGDU List
> Subject: [Nyagdu] Legislative Consideration
>
> Dear All,
>     Last week, someone claiming protection under the ADA brought what they
> purported to be a service animal onto a Hillsborough Area Regional Transit
> (HART) vehicle and this animal bit the employee. Though we are unclear 
> about
> all of the circumstances, such as if it was a fixed route or para transit
> vehicle or if the dog was a legitimate service animal, the incident has
> caused some issues.
>     When Merry was coming home from her internship last Wednesday, the
> operator told her she needed to provide documentation for Kappie, which 
> she
> refused to do. He refused to move the vehicle while he contacted the
> dispatcher. ITM, Merry called me concerning this. When I called the
> dispatcher, I was told that HART had implemented a new policy that "all
> animals, including service animals, must show proof of vaccination" (his
> words). I advised him that such a policy was in violation of the ADA, to
> which he asserted it was not. When I asked him if he was an attorney, he
> said he was not but he would be happy to transfer me to HART's legal
> counsel. He also told me that Merry could ride this time, but would need 
> to
> provide such documentation  of vaccination the next time she traveled.
>     I left a message for HART's counsel, Sylvia Berrien,  and received a
> return call the following morning. I have discussed this issue with Ms.
> Berrien, with HART's  Director of Customer Service, Sylvia Castillo, and
> Katherine Eagan, HART's Chief of Route Development, all of whom apologized
> for the incident, assured me that there was no such policy, and 
> immediately
> issued a memorandum to all HART operators concerning this.
>     This all leads me to the subject of this message. Florida statute
> 316.1301, Commonly known as the "White Cane Law", states in paragraph (1),
> "It is unlawful for any person, unless totally or partially blind or
> otherwise incapacitated, while on any public street or highway, to carry 
> in
> a raised or extended position a cane or walking stick which is white in
> color or white tipped with red. A person who is convicted of a violation 
> of
> this subsection is guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree". In
> addition to this incident (HART seems to believe this animal was not a
> service animal under the definition of the ADA), we have encountered 
> others
> claiming their pets were service animals in order to gain access with 
> them.
>     How would you feel about a measure to create a criminal penalty for
> those who pass their pets off as service animals in order to gain access
> with them, similar to those provisions mentioned above? I am also
> circulating this message to other affiliate divisions and to the NAGDU 
> list
> to gain input on this issue. All comments are invited!
>
>
>
> Fraternally yours,
>
> Marion Gwizdala, President
>
> National Association of Guide Dog Users
>
> National Federation of the Blind
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Nyagdu mailing list
> Nyagdu at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nyagdu_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> Nyagdu:
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nyagdu_nfbnet.org/albert%40myblindspot
> .org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Nyagdu mailing list
> Nyagdu at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nyagdu_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
> Nyagdu:
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nyagdu_nfbnet.org/cherylandmaxx%40hotmail.com
> 