Sleeping Mode

Even though you are physically awake there is a high possibility that you are still in your sleeping mode. Here are some of the examples for you to consider. I've captioned the video so I do not need to elaborate my thoughts in writing. Enjoy this one and improve accordingly.

Update on Convo Relay & ASLRucks.net

I v/blogged on the subject recently therefore I felt the obligation to provide my viewers and readers with an update. As of today, November 15th, 2010 Convo Relay has decided to terminate their relationship with ASLRucks.net.

I know that certain people from ASLRucks.net are going to assume that I'm excited about the news. It's far from the truth. The truth is I'm saddened by the fact that ASLRocks.net did not and could not seem to step up to the plate and clean their house. The matter was beyond Convo Relay's control. I wrote to the CEO of Convo Relay and told him that I thought that ASLRucks.net would be worse off if it was not for Convo Relay. In short, I appreciated Convo Relay's presence in ASLRucks.net because it was the only incentive for them to get their act together and do everything they could to stop cyber-bullying. And because they could not deliver their relationship with Convo Relay has been severed.

I also know that certain people are going to blame me and several other individual for it but the hard reality is they only have themselves to blame. Convo Relay gave them plenty of opportunities to get their act together. I know Convo Relay meant well and they did everything in their power to try and correct the problem. Unfortunately it did not seem to work. The cyber-bullying continued to take place in face of all the warning signs. My greatest fear is being realized this morning. ASLrucks.net is going to be worse off. I hope I'm going to be wrong about it but ASLRucks.net is probably going to become worse than what it was previously. The incentive to behave and vlog responsibly is no longer there.

And I'd like to say something else about Convo Relay. I've spoken to numerous individuals who used Convo Relay in the past. They all had favorable and positive message about Convo Relay. I did not hear a single negative comment about their service. It was one reason why I've tried to preserve their reputation and strike a delicate balance in separating them from being part of cyber-bullying that took place at ASLRocks.net without damaging Convo Relay and the wonderful service they seem to provide. I have yet to check Convo Relay's service and will check them out soon, as a way of thanking them for their prompt action on this matter.

Thank you,
Barry Sewell

Deaf, World Class Whiners

Just wanted to point out the obvious for you.

Numerous so-called culturally and linguistically "D" deaf people are world class whiners.

Thanks to long historic line of Deaf Whiners, the deaf community is known as the society of world class whiners.

Mind you, whining is as contagious as our laughter and smile. When you laugh there is almost certain somebody nearby that's going to laugh as well for absolutely no reason at all. When you smile you will generate smiles on the faces of people that surrounds you. It's no different when you whine. It's so contagious.

There is also a famous saying that goes something like this... who you are depends on who you hang around with. One does not need to look very far to see this proof.

Thinking back and reflecting on my life experience in the deaf community I realized how often I have had to sit down and listen to all the whining done by the capital "D" society through the years. There is always a reason to whine about something. Or is there, really? Or is it a habit forming behavior where people feel the need to whine regardless of the good things that are happening?

I would like to cite a recent event. Amazingly some culturally and linguistically Deaf people found a reason to whine about The Extreme Makeover event at Oregon School for the Deaf. I thought it was a beautiful project that would enlighten our deaf education program but yet there were some of you who managed to find reasons to whine about it! Some of you lodged your complaints at facebook and whined about the promotion of hearing aids by this Extreme Makeover group.

Here it comes again, the same old tiresome sound of waaahhh waaahhh waaahhh. Did I say anything about it? No, not yet. I ignored the whining once more. I sort of expected it and asked myself, so what's new?

And finally yesterday my wife posted a video in her facebook. The video was done by Jubilee Project. She told me about it because she thought it was a beautiful story that promoted ASL. I took few minutes to watch it and smiled afterwards. I liked it and saw the bright side to it. I was never fooled by the notion that the actress might be deaf. As soon as the lady spelled 'deaf' in ASL I knew she was not deaf. But I didn't see a problem with that simply because the underlying message was more important than the details. They were promoting ASL at no cost to us.

And yet, did somebody whine about it? Unbelievably Yes!

By evening hours I saw the return of this whining society who found a reason to whine about the video. There was a blog done by Amy known as Deaf World As Eye See It.

I left a comment under her blog and stated my thoughts;

I could not help it but think about how our deaf community are perceived by this world as world class whiners after producing series of complaints.

FYI, acting means exactly that, a job of acting like somebody that you are not. Acting means pretty much anybody could try and act like somebody else that they are not. Otherwise it defeats the purpose of acting.

End quote.

This well known Deaf Whiner named Shel had this to say to me;

Barry, quit putting down the Deaf community and assuming how Hearing people would perceive us as Deaf people.

Would you have said Blacks were world class whiners when they went on the Civil Rights Movement? When Rosa Parks refused to move to the back of the bus? Was she a world class whiner when she protested racism?

Were women world class whiners when they protested sexism and the prohibition against women voting?

Would you even dare call GLBT community world class whiners when they protest against heterosexism and homophobia?

Nosireebob, you would not, Barry! So kindly cut it out with us, the Deaf community, when it comes to audism!

Amy, pardon me for flaming Barry, but I have had it with his putting down the Deaf community.

End quote.

I responded;

Funny how you saw my comment as putting down the deaf community. I saw it as a form of encouragement for the deaf community to learn how to see bright side to everything. I saw that video and thought it was awesome because it had a bright side to it only to learn that there are people whining about it. Some people like yourself, perhaps, love to bring out the negativity in everything they touch or see. It’s a reflection of sad mentality. I’ve always saw bright side to everything that hearing people do therefore I’ve always thrived where ever I go. And because I see things differently you categorize it as putting deaf people down.

Would I have said blacks were world class whiners when they whined? Yes, if I was a black person I certainly would. Would I have called women world class whiners when they whined? Yes I would if I was a woman. Would I call GLBT community a world class whiners? Yes I would if I was gay. But I’m not black, woman and gay so I’ve not made such claim but if I was that then yes I would because I know there is bright side to everything and there are ways to educate people on these subjects in a positive way, something you seem to struggle with.

End quote.

My message to this so-called "D" society. Kindly remind yourself of how contagious whining is before you whine again. And more importantly, remind yourself of how ugly your "D" society would look every time you let out this waaahhh waaahhh waaahhh whine of yours.

A Special Inventor

This video is captioned so I won't write anything here. In the event you wish to leave a video comment please Click Here.

Court Docs. on Imperia Invest

Is this going to be the next wave of legal proceedings against some of the deaf people who actively pursued deaf investors and recruited them for Imperia Invest IBC?

According to the court documents prepared by U.S. Security & Exchange Commission it could happen. This is no laughing matter because the investment involves 6,000 deaf people who poured four million dollars ($4,000,000) into the system believing they might get lucky. But what many of them do not realize is the ramification of illegal activity that is involved here.

I personally know several deaf people who were quite active in recruiting investors, including but not limited to several vloggers at deafvideo.tv. Several of them approached me as well and even called me on VP with hope that I'd invest some money as well but because I'm an experienced investors I knew it was a scam investment opportunity so I did not lose any money there. But it was disheartening to read that approximately four million dollars were robbed from six thousand deaf people who participated. I did my math and came down to an average of $666 dollars in investment per deaf person.

And again, like I explained one of my earlier vlog there are only two legal investment regulatory systems in the United States. One of them is Security and Exchange Commission and the other one is with Secretary of State. If the investment program that's offered to you do not register with either system then you will be well advised not to invest at all. It is that simple.

Trust Your Leaders On AB 2072?

I've been watching different announcements and statements coming from deaf leaders on AB 2072 after it was vetoed by California's Governor. Some of them tried to save their faces by celebrating. Some of them went even further and misled their people. Some of them misinterpreted the veto statement by the Governor. What kind of leaders are they? How could they allow their people to be misguided and misled with misinformation on top of misinformations?

For a couple of days people asked if I'd be willing to vlog on the subject of AB 2072 veto to help them understand what's going on. I declined until somebody pointed my attention to a video done by Ken Davis with Deaf Newspaper. The subject was AB 2072. In the middle of the message I could not believe my eyes because the information were grossly incorrect.

According to Ken Davis, the bill known as AB 2072 would have encouraged the parents to go with cochlear implants and oralism programs and even pay for it. I wondered where he got that information. How could a leading newspaper for the deaf community give out misinformation like that? This begs the question. Can they read? If so, did they read the bill? Or was it a classic case of bison jump, following the crowd and believing other people's words. Whatever happen to credible journalism?

Because of the carelessness in journalism I felt obligated to vlog on the veto event so that people are going to have their facts together. Will somebody please step up to the plate here?

Happy With The Veto.

This wonderful news found its way to my desk this morning! The AB 2072 was vetoed, and rightfully so. I completely agree with Governor Andrus on all points. You can read about it at the link I'm going to attach here. That is more than John Egbert really want to show you, readers.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_2051-2100/ab_2072_vt_20100929.html

BILL NUMBER: AB 2072
VETOED DATE: 09/29/2010

To the Members of the California State Assembly:
I am returning Assembly Bill 2072 without my signature.
I appreciate the strong feelings from advocates on both sides of this
issue. Parents, when first advised that their child has been
identified with a hearing loss, are in need of information. It is in
the parents' and the affected child's best interest to have
information that is timely, appropriate, unbiased, and linguistically
and culturally sensitive. This bill is an attempt to provide that
type of comprehensive information. Unfortunately, the mechanism is
through an advisory committee that is anything but unbiased. It's
also an advisory committee that will not only duplicate efforts by
other state programs and materials by nationally recognized and
respected organizations, but it represents a significant workload
that will require fiscal resources that cannot be spared.
I do believe that our state's Newborn Hearing Screening Program,
along with other state agencies and departments, already coordinate
and work to provide the best programs for California children that
are deaf or hard of hearing. This bill is unnecessary and
potentially contradictory to those successful efforts.
For these reasons, I am unable to sign this bill.
Sincerely,
Arnold Schwarzenegger

End quote.

You see, parties from both sides quickly formed advisory committees to represent their own best interests, including deafhoodized folks. The Governor stated how important it was to provide the parents with unbiased information. All communication options. That was really simple but the radical deaf-power group wanted to enhance ASL as the superior choice. End result? It produced a long wrangled battle and complicated the bill. I was happy with how the final bill turned out but always thought that the original draft was unbiased and yes, much better.

Now that it's been vetoed, it's being sent back to the drawing table. Going back to the basics, that of "all communication options". Keeping it simple is what the Governor wanted and California is going to get exactly that.

The Governor also did not want anything duplicated with what's already offered by other State programs and national organizations.

And lastly, the Governor did not want to expend anything on this bill therefore the complicated and costly information packages won't be financed. Sorry Californians. Private organizations like AG Bell, DCARA, NORCAL, GLAD are now financially responsible for their own promotions, if any. Say good bye to this free publicity machine that was once offered. The audiologists are now back in power, thanks to the radical few who did not know a good thing when they had it.

This was an interesting experience and I know many of us learned from it. I'm moving on now that the bill is dead and you Californians are back to square one.

Good job Governor!

New! Deafhood Video Game!

My son Cobi created this humorous vlog after watching Jeff's vlog on Deafhood Church and following the turmoil that occurred at aslrocks.net. He created the entire game from scratches and did an excellent job, in my opinion. And then he asked me to join him in doing a play for the video. Was fun while it lasted. Enjoy it but don't watch it if you do not have an ounce of sense of humor.

Deafhood Church Is Here. What's Next?

This embedded video done by NLDesierto from youtube, formerly known as deafjeff. It's shown here for your review. Don't worry if they delete this video because I saved the video on my hard drive, for the record, including video comments generated by David (DeafChip), Mike (DeafOIC), Mike Gallangher, and several others who cheered on.

David (deafchip) excitedly said he wanted to join! He went even further to poke fun at Total Communication, something that would go against his words in the past. He used to defend the sincerity of deafhood and claim to respect other people's choices but it does not appear to be the case any more. He's loosely joking about it now. These are the same people that have been trying to convince us that it's nothing more than a serious personal journey. David, if you are reading this you're probably going to rush over to the site and delete your comments before the whole world sees it. Worry not, I saved your comments into my hard drive as well.

Not very long ago they talked of this so-called deaf bible by Paddy Ladd, calling it a Bible. (Note: I saved that video in my hard drive as well) And then this.... Deafhood Church. I could care less if it's only a joke. That is not the question here. The question is how careless can they get? I've been keeping track of their carelessness as they continue to shoot themselves in the foot.

I'm blogging about it because these people labored long and hard trying to lend some credibility to deafhood movement and yet in the same breath they turn around and make a mockery of the theory themselves. I'm not complaining about how dumb they want to be. In fact they are helping my cause by inflicting the damages but I am surprised at how they continue to shoot themselves in the foot. Think about it. There are numerous deaf people out there who committed their time, energy, money and participate in some of the deafhood workshops. Some of them received trainings so that they are able to teach on the subject. These people took deafhood issues seriously and yet these same deafhood leaders poked fun at the theory. Does that make sense? Have they not considered how some of their participants might feel about it? Apparently not.

I sat in this chair and pondered on this subject as I tried to make some sense out of it. I wondered if they were really that stupid. Two quick answer came up.

One, yes, they must be.

Two, they are evidently without souls.

It might begin to explain why they are constantly doing their soul searching with hope to discover their so-called deaf center. They would not be looking if they had their souls in the first place, would they? Is it why they are in search for a new Bible and a new church. Just a joke, you say? Then this begs the question. Why joke about it? They're joking about it to see if it would actually generate enough support and interest. History will teach us that numerous projects started out as a wild idea and even a joke, on purpose, with hope to see if it'd generate enough support and interest. Naturally they're going to claim it as a joke but down deep on the inside they might be testing the water.

Personal journey? Unfortunately no. It's a trap. Good luck to those who fell for it. Should not be too difficult to get out while you can still... these people are not too bright.

My New Family

Enjoy the video and learn what "special something" happened to me this summer. You may also want to turn up the volume and enjoy the customized music I created with my round drum.

Mi-yo!

ASL Community, a Society of the Infested?

Upon receiving numerous emails from some of my fans and viewers I learned about the unfortunate incident involving Ridor9th and his so-called criminal record. It is my understanding that he is currently in jail.

I would not care to elaborate on that but wanted to say that I traced the news all the way to an individual I've never heard of. His user name with youtube was Gratefuldeaf. Apparently he was the first source of the news itself. I watched the video and could not help it but notice a comment from Kalalau52 (known as Carl S.) and smelled a skunk. And then I thought of a scenario in my head... I see it as a body of water, a community that was infested with sharks that were beginning to go after each other.

Kalalau is known to have laughed and cheered Ridor9th on for attacking many deaf people, including myself. Numerous acts of defamation and slander occurred while Ridor9th attacked people and yet this Kalalau character cheered him on knowing it would only encourage him to continue behaving that way. And when this Gratefuldeaf vlogged about it, in pain, Kalalau congratulated him for coming forward on the issue.

This is what he had to say... "Yes, Jason, I could still remember initial attackers in your facebook who were out to drag your name through the mud. I was proud that you took up your guts to make this vlog about "a pack of haters." They do have their queens.".

I left a comment under Kalalau's comment stating that he was the one that laughed and cheered alongside Ridor9th when he attacked people. And that I thought he should have condemned the behavior as soon as it started, not after this individual has been jailed. Went on to tell him that words were like mirror, a reflection self, referring to him as the "queen" he spoke of. That comment was not published, I assume because Grateful and Kalalau knew each other and were perhaps even friends.

Mind you, this legal issue Ridor9th is currently dealing with may have nothing to do with defamation and slanderous work that he's done towards many individuals. The point here is, Ridor9th had Kalalau as a loyal ally up until that point. This type of behavior is exactly what I envisioned in that photo of water infested with sharks.

Upon thinking about it some more I realized that it has more to do with how desperate this ASL community has become in this cyber world. Their world is getting smaller and smaller each year. They've assimilated themselves into a world of illusions, to a degree where they do not want anything to do with people that were slightly different. They would assail those that were not deaf enough in their view. They end up being by themselves, living amongst their own until there were no more fishes to assail and consume. They came up with a new diet and called it AUDISM. The notion of attacking hearing people appeared ideal. And when they ran out of examples they ended up more isolated than ever.

At some point, which we're beginning to witness these days, their own are beginning to appear appealing. They're beginning to experiment with a new diet called cannibalism. Eating each other up seem appealing because they drove everything away and had nothing else to assail and consume upon. The rest of the world drove on forward and made huge progress on solutions of their own, without the blessings of the sharks.

Never thought I'd see the day when Kalalau would turn against Ridor9th and assailed him. This is why I've denounced the community by calling myself sharkless, as in deafless. I want no part of this stupidity.

And lastly, I am not excited about the fact that Ridor9th is in jail. I do not wish that upon anybody. And yes, I am saddened by the news. I do not think anybody in their right mind should find this news entertaining. And that's not why I'm blogging about it. I'm merely making a point here about the ASL Community and how the radical "Deaf Power" and "ASL Powerhouse" are hurting themselves. I, along with many ASL users, want no part of it.

Ella, in case you're reading this. You of all people know the primary cause. Thanks to you, this part of history is written for the rest of the world to see and read about.

Last Stand? Prayers Have Been Answered.

Just wanted to say that my prayers may have been answered. I've been praying for the radical "D" people to make their "Last Stand" at some point. And finally there seem to be an indication of an upcoming Last Stand!

This morning I ran into a blog site, issuing a call to make the last stand. How exciting! It could mean we're going to finally witness the fall of extremists, known as capital "D" deaf people. The closed society that we all have come to known and heard so much about will finally fall flat on their back, just the way the General Custer fell down and never got up again.

If you feel so strongly about it then I'd encourage you to put on your $2 yellow t-shirts and march on towards this important historic Last Stand in California. We're going to erect a monument and remember you guys the way we remember General Custer, the party that miscalculated everything and lost badly.

It's quite a bit of an irony because earlier this summer I took my family to visit the very place where General Custer fell. The picture shown here is the actual photo I took up at the Little Bighorn Battle Field, inside of Crow Reservation.

AB 2072 Opponents, One Confused People!

I have to say something here about the opponents of AB 2072. They are one really confused group of people. Seriously.

Most of you will remember my initial v/blog on AB 2072 where I stated for the record on how I saw the original bill as an opportunity to market ASL. It was the truth because it allowed organizations like CAD, DCARA, GLAD, NORCAL and such entities to compete and provide information on 'ALL COMMUNICATION OPTIONS' to the parents.

That particular privilege was erased away because the opponents were worried-sick about the potential for a mismatch, between themselves and entities like AG Bell. Lacking the confidence, they decided to complain away, effectively erasing the privilege away from everybody, including themselves. That was a dumb strategic move on their part but then I've seen these same group of people make so many strategic mistakes through the years so it no longer surprised me. It was just who they were... illogical people.

Some time passed before they realized their strategic mistake. They desperately tried to conceal the stupidity by claiming victory in removing the much feared competition, entities such as AG Bell, away from the game. What they did not tell you was they also paralyzed their own favorite organizations like CAD, DCARA, GLAD, NORCAL and such. Upon realizing they've dug up their own grave they battled away with some more bad strategic moves.

Remember the peacock effect they desperately used, in which they coordinated this $2 yellow t-shirts campaign thinking it'd make them appear bigger than they really were. They came in great numbers and they all were told what to say, as if they lacked individual intelligence (in short, incapable of thinking and speaking for themselves).

Needless to say it did not help them. It made them the party of the pathetic. And yet, this peacock came out that night and the next day claiming some kind of victory. Remember David Eberwein's vlogs that night? He claimed that the entire original bill was thrown out in favor of the new bill they wrote in the back room before the start of the day. According to them, it all happened rather quickly, as if they've found a magic wand and lucked out with a surprise victory!

Don't know about you but I remember this event as if it happened yesterday. I was surprised to see how far these corrupted leaders would go to maintain their base. They knew they could not afford one more defeat so they rallied their hands in the air, in an effort to excite their base. Well, it worked but not for very long.

It was an amazing acting job on their part. Perhaps it's because they're from the Hollywood State where they grew up being glued to their television sets and became trained to believe everything they see in a show. It came across as rather odd for some of us who were outside of California because we knew how things worked in the legislative branches. What they tried to echo was clearly a big fake.

Instead of allowing them to continue dumbing down deaf people I arranged to have this interpreter friend of mine prepare a very accurate transcript of the panel hearing. And it was posted as soon as it was done. Much silence took place afterwards. Ella and many others were caught off-guarded by this effort and refused to acknowledge the transcript. It was done simply because they knew it would deflate the hot 'victory' air they were spewing out. Some time passed before people began to acknowledge the accuracy of the transcript. Much silence followed after that.

Several new blogs on AB 2072 are beginning to resurface on both sides. I'm glad they are coming back because for a while I thought people were trying to sweep this one under the rug. The picture is becoming clearer now. The original bill was not thrown out in favor of a new one, like the opponent side claimed.

The language of 'visual language' is still the preferred choice. The opponent side desperately tried to change it to ASL but that did not fly either. The opponent side begged to have the Department of Education oversee the matter rather than the Health Department and the wish was granted. And now the opponent side are complaining about it, raising new concerns on the subject.

That's right. They fought to have the Department of Education oversee the matter and now they (Yes, they are all the same people) are trying to fight it. Read about it here at Stop AB2072 Now! I won't be surprised if they decide to delete this blog because they just contradicted themselves in a BIG way. They're now asking their base to oppose Department of Education's involvement.

This is too peculiar for my taste. Not very long ago they claimed victory and led their base of people to believe that they got what they wanted. It boiled down to one simple word. Shameful. Remember the video footage of David Reynolds and Karl White of EHDI? That was shameful too.

The frightening part is these same people are working hard to infiltrate National Association of the Deaf. I have to wonder what stupidity we're going to witness next. Heck, as much as I respect and appreciate Bobbie Scoggin as a person I need to say that she did not have any real answers to my questions on 'Audism Definition', which was adopted by N.A.D.. I could sense that she was only doing her job, diligently and yet these corrupted scholars and leaders really believe that they are going to get away the crime of dumbing down deaf people.

It's even more shameful when I take a peek across the valley of this nation and see very little or no reaction coming from the deaf community. It could be that they no longer care. If that's the case then I can't blame them for giving up on this Closed Society.

Deaf Culture?

I posted a comment under Candy's Blog and thought I'd blog about it as well. Here goes....

Candy's blog offered an interesting read again. I decided to post my thoughts on the subject because of the irony. Last night I was having an interesting ‘cultural’ discussion with members of K’amligihahlhaahl. They're also known as Nisga'a. This Native American tribe is located on the coastal side of British Columbia. They are people of totem poles. They’re one of the most traditional tribe you will run into today, culture-wise. The photo seen here is a wooden mask used by K'amligihahlhaahl.

We talked about culture and the rules that people of ANY culture must follow. In this discussion I made several references to deaf culture. The goal was simple. We wanted to understand the principle of rules behind any kind of culture. A K’amligihahlhaahl woman showed me a book called “From Time Before Memory, The People of K’amligihahlhaahl”. She opened pages 14 and 15 and brought my attention to the rules of ANY culture. Needless to say that the article captured my attention.

It explained about Family and Identity as the primary ingredients and source of a culture. Ones’ identity is developed after he or she becomes actively involved as a member of a group or something. If someone asked who you were you might say “I am Bob” or “I am Kate”. But what if they wanted to know more? You might say, “I like to read. I am a fast runner. I have two sisters. I am honest. I like the color green”. These are all facts about yourself and together they make up your identity.

The book also identified two facts that are always used to identify person's identity. It boiled down to person's "tribe” and “house”. In white man’s layman term it would mean 'group’ and ‘location’, where we were raised. Some of us were raised in the big cities. Some of us were raised in a small town or on a farm out in the country. Therefore the culture of the very location where we were raised will play a role in our identity. Approximately 5% of us were raised in a deaf family therefore the culture of a deaf child of a deaf family will not be the same as a deaf child of a hearing family therefore it is impossible for us to expect ALL of us to share the same ‘deaf culture’ that we hear so much about.

Because we all came from different parts of the nation where there are multiple cultural bases, as in cultures of western folks, traditional tribes, red necks, hilly billies, etc; Everything that we’ve accumulated through the years do play an important role in how our identities are developed. Therefore the folklife of a deaf person will always vary greatly when we compare the two.

The book also pointed out the very basic rules of ‘membership’. It laid out four simple things to follow in order to hold an identity necessary for a cultural value. 1) Family 2) House 3) Tribe (group) 4) Nation (location).

Upon reading these basic rules I could not help it but ponder about deaf culture. Do we all share the same family? No. Do we all share the same house? No. Do we all belong to the same Tribe (group)? No. Do we all belong to the same Nation (location)? No.

Now, why are these things important? The book had an answer and I’ll share them with you. It says, “There are important rules in a society about how members of these groups behave toward each other. They are much like the rules that people of any culture must follow. These rules help a society know how to behave in different situations and during difficult times. They help keep the society strong”.

In short, without these basic rules a society will never be able to reach its prime as a cultural group. This made me think and ponder about Deaf people who love to tout their so-called cultural values on daily basis. Are these people mindful of the basic rules? At this point I have my doubts.

Why? If deaf people really understood the basic principles here they would know how to behave toward each other. They would know how to behave in different situations and during difficult times". I'm seeing an exact opposite of how a culturally based group are supposed to behave. I think I'm beginning to understand why there is a long history of divisive behavior within the deaf community. It may be due to lack of 'rule' laid out by the People of K’amligihahlhaahl.

My life long journey with the Native Americans continues... because I know they have much to teach us.

NAD, a society of the Illusions?

I'm presently enjoying myself some where in the far north this morning, smelling the scents of pine and tamarack trees with a world class view of a very calm river. I see a couple of fishing boats sporting for hearty meals, tempting me to try my luck some time soon.

As I sat here this morning watching the faithful sun making its regular visit this time of the day I had to wonder about NAD's ongoing events in Pennsylvania and reflect some the things that I've been able to monitor, thanks to DeafRead.com and DeafVideo.tv.

I took a peek of 'College Bowl' to get an idea of the so-called excitement and was disappointed to learn that it was more of a Trivial Pursuit, a popular game for those so-called geniuses with bulky memory drives in their head. I was hoping it'd be more of a debate club containing selections of qualifiers from three institutions. It's not just the base of intelligence and knowledge that will make or break our community. It's our ability to articulate thoughts and place them into a debate that will take us where we need to go. And then I watched to see how the representatives of Gallaudet University touted itself as the best "higher education" program for the deaf. Forgive me but it was a laughable moment for me when they made such declaration. Did they really give all other Universities with Deaf Education program the same opportunity to compete in this College Bowl? Surely not. The best, eh? Dream on...

And then I came across Candy's Blog. That was an interesting read. I had not followed NAD's CEO candidates so for that reason I appreciated what little information I was able to pick off and read this morning. I know and I understand that Candy's blog reflects how she felt and how she might see things.

Based on what was said in Candy's Blog I can appreciate Darlene’s desire for financial independence. I’ve made numerous financial suggestions to NAD through the years with hope that they would eventually learn how to build their financial estates rather than dwelling on membership dues and grants. Unfortunately such advice fell on deaf ears for a very long time so for that reason I’m surprised to see some lights in the tunnel. However, based on her view of abused rights of deaf babies, it rang a familiar sour tune for me. Radical. Extremist. I started to smell DBC, AFA, Deafhood and such. This, will spell death for NAD if they’re foolish enough to go down the same beaten path.

Experience has taught us to know that we ought not to confuse ourselves between the difference of a proven teacher and a proven leader and politician. It takes an exceptionally talented individual to accomplish the feats of a financial guru. I have yet to meet a teacher that was a financial guru.

As for Howard, I think I’ve seen him in a video once or twice but I’m not sure where. I’ll worry about that later. However, based on what Candy laid out, I’m concerned about the ‘lawyer’ mentality. A leader that has the mentality of an attorney is not always productive. They seem to think that everything is solved through legal means. They’re usually emotionless because they were schooled and trained to think that way. This much was assured when you laid out 7 E’s (Equality, Enforcement, Education, Employment, Enjoyment of life and Expansion of our members, most through enforcement). Scary because history will teach us how well ‘freedom’ and ‘enforcement’ mix. Not too well, if you ask me. The statement ‘most through enforcement’ caught my eyes. I’ll tell you why.

Enforcing equality? The law has tried it for many decades and we’re still very off the base. Enforcing enforcement? Sounds like a heavy hand tactic.

Enforcing education? As an advocate of John Holt’s unschooling philosophy I know for a fact that education will happen with or without a teacher. It’s human’s nature to learn the things we need to learn. In short, education will happen with or without enforcement. I have a problem with enforcing education upon others because we’re at an age where the things we need to learn are rapidly changing. Much of what we learn in the educational system are obsolete and outdated.

Enforcing employment? That’s the path our nation has undertaken numerous times and each time they did, they failed miserably. This is other word for artificial economy, as in stimulus economy. They tried to force employment growth, through unnatural methods and each time it resulted in ballooned debt and failed policies. I do not know Howard’s background and training in the financial sector but he would learn immensely if he began to study and observe these matters. Enforcing employment is a bad policy.

Enforcing enjoyment of life? Funny because our nation tried it many times in the past century. Sure, we had a blast in the 1910′s, 1930′s, 1950′s, 1970′s, and 1990′s. These years were the hey days where people enforced enjoyment of life and what was the result? Debts. More debts on top of debts, leading us to this mountain of debts we’re facing today. As a society we’re slowly learning the meaning of ‘spending within the means of our life’. In short, it means we ought to learn to spend less than what we bring in, barring the concept for liabilities and debts.

Enforcing an expansion of NAD members? I’d love to see them try and enforce me to join NAD. Mind you, it is not how they are going to win the hearts and minds of deaf people. I do not need to tell you that people are most effective and empowered when they join at their own free-will. The same is true for parents of deaf children. Forcing them to do something that’s against their will and you’ll create a powerful alliance you’ll wish y0u never created.

My choice for NAD’s next CEO? Those who know me know that I do not settle for second best so I’ll have to say that none of the candidates would have won my vote. And yes, I drive a very hard bargain every where I go. It’s how we excel in everything that we do. Too many people these days are too willing to settle for ‘second best’ therefore it becomes them, a society of the cynics.

Regardless, I’ll wish them the best of luck in choosing their next CEO.

Instead of a trivial game for these so-called geniuses I'd love to see some kind of debate club containing numerous deaf education programs from different colleges come together for a College Bowl event. It's high time we placed a greater challenge for ourselves.

And lastly, I'm still waiting, patiently, for answers on the four definitions of Audism that were endorsed by NAD. I certainly hope they have not swept the issue under the rug thinking we're going to unconditionally forgive them for their misgivings.

I'd better get back to the nature and reclaim some of my sanity. Be Hopi! (be happy)

Our ethnic group is in lieu of what?

This blog is in response to John Egbert's recent posting of an article titled "Deaf-world an ethnic group not a disabled group". It sounded like a severe case of self-denial on Harlan Lane's part as well as John Egbert. Allow me to explain this further.

First, let's look up 'ethnic group' in Collegiate Edition of Merriam Websters. It says;

1 : Heathen
2 a : of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background enclaves b: being a member of a specified ethnic group c : of, relating to, or characteristic of ethnics

You and I do see "linguistic and/or cultural origins or background" as the grounds for Professor Harlan Lane's argument in that article. However what he has not disclosed is the fact that the status of deaf ethnic group is based on their disability, that of deafness. In this article he desperately tried to separate people's deafness away from them and make them believe that they would have belonged to this "Deaf World" ethnic group even if they were not deaf. How do you separate the two? I mean, who is he trying to kid here?

Because of our deafness (a form of disability) we developed a language (ASL) and a culture of our own, making us an ethnic group. If it were not for our deafness we would not have the need for ASL. Without ASL we would not have a culture. It's quite simple.

And lastly I do not need to remind anybody of primary definition on 'deaf' as defined by global scholars, based on the global usages. Deaf means 'lacking or deficient in the sense of hearing'. You see, it will always be identified as form of disability therefore there will never be shortage of new researches, technologies and medical solutions. And that is by no means a form of eugenics. To assist or help someone with medical solutions is not a form of eugenics.

Thank you.

Are We Really That Helpless?

The subject of "earned rights" versus "free rights" came up once again when I asked a friend to help and prepare an unofficial transcript on AB 2072 Senate Health hearing. I made it happen within 2 days and yet Ella discouraged people from reading it. What is she afraid of? Is she trying to dumb down the deaf community and keep them on the dark side? Does she really believe that we are a helpless society? Is she afraid that people are going to learn the ultimate truth? Or did she understand what really happened at the hearing?

Take a peek at Eh? What? Huh? blog site and read some of the dumbing down comments from Ella and her deafhoodized followers. This is a very sad thing to witness so if you have a weak heart, don't take a peek. It's really a discouraging thing to see. These people actually believe that deaf people are so helpless and incapable of earning their rights, by making this unofficial transcript happen.

Regardless, several independent sources went through the trouble of verifying the unofficial transcript, without being asked. And they found the transcript to be 99% accurate with the 1% unknown due to inaudible sound bytes. Did Ella and her followers really think I would prepare such transcript knowing that an official transcript would eventually come out?

This offers one more proof of closed society that they represent. One of the traits of a closed society is they will almost always refuse any information that's coming from the outside. What they continue to fail to understand is information age will defeat their closed society every time. Welcome to information age. This is what information age looks like. People are coming out with independent and verifiable sources of information at a rapid pace and catching these closed society off-guarded.

I'll copy and paste what several independent sources have said about the transcript so far.

Mike - "I've listened to the video in its entirety alongisde with Barry's transcript (with help of a hearing person doing the job). The transcript is 99% accurate. Look to Barry's blog for my explainations there. He should approve my last comment there shortly and with my inputs on identifying the inaudible parts that I was able to do. Ella needs to apologize to the person who did this transcriptioning work. The person in question committed 20 hours of work just so that YOU and others can be FULLY INFORMED of what was said at the committee hearing since about 50% of the time none of what was spoken was interpreted. Barry's helper filled in the gap for you guys. Again, Ella, if you are "one of the Deaf leaders" then it'd be in your best interest to apologize to the person who did the transcriptioning work and to Barry for making a false claim against him. The transcript is real and accurate." End quote.

Laura - "FYI, my hearing husband and friend heard it alongside with the transcript, yes, it's very accurate, real and not an a piece of exaggeration. Whoever did a transcript has done great job! Seriously." End quote.

More people are going to come forward and say the same thing. And you, Ella, of all people want to hide in the closet? Be my guest but it reveals who you really are. Thank you.

Complete Transcript of AB 2072 Hearing

Unofficial Transcript

AB 2072 Senate Health Hearing

June 23, 2010

(Disclaimer; This twenty-five pages transcript was prepared by an independent and private individual who does not wish to be named. It is a transcript of an official video provided by CalChannel.com found at https://www.calchannel.com/channel/viewvideo/1541. This effort took two days, totaling over twenty hours to produce. The transcript was thoroughly reviewed between three to four times to ensure accuracy as best as possible. The goal here is to assist the deaf community in understanding some or all of the things that were said, discussed and done during the Senate Health hearing on 06/23/10. We are not responsible for any inaccuracy due to inaudible sound bytes and/or human errors. In respect of privacy, we have omitted personal identifications of individuals who supported or opposed the bill. We decided not to disclose this portion of information and will leave that for the State of California to use at their discretion. Thank you.)

(Note; The mark, * represents edited portion with the help of individual inputs in this thread. Thank you Mike.)

Alquist: Before we begin, I’d like to make a few comments. We have a bill before us that I know has sparked a lot of passion, on many sides of the issue. I’d also like to say that back when I was 18, I decided to volunteer for 4 years of my life while in college at the Illinois School for the Deaf, in Jacksonville, Illinois, where I went to college for my undergraduate degree. I care very much about this issue, as does assembly man Mendoza. We may have differences of opinion, and this is a democracy, and I want to be sure that we have the kind of environment here today that is respectful, and conducive for people to say what they believe, within the procedures allowed within the hearing.

I’ve asked and (inaudible) this special order. Instead of having 2 witnesses, for 2 minutes each, we will have 2 witnesses for 3 minutes each, both for support and then again for opposition. And is with the case on all our bills, everyone after that simply will state their name, and that they are in support or that they are in opposition. The sergeants will have people line up on the side of the wall, to register their support or opposition for a bill. Some other comments, we have a very long agenda. I do understand that we will be spending quite a bit of time on this bill, we do have 27 bills today. We have no bill on consent, so our committee will be hearing all of the bills. So before we get started, I’d like to talk about some of our rules. We don’t allow any signs or flash cards in the committee room, we ask that it be quiet, no cell phones, which is what we always ask. And that before we begin, that you understand what the bill with the amendments taken, really does. What I would like to avoid is a situation where people on either side of the issue, and I’ll be frank, as I always am, I’ve asked for amendments from assembly man Mendoza. The bill is in a form that I think is best for parents of babies who are deaf. We, along with this fantastic staff, committee staff, have done our very best. I don’t expect that anyone will completely agree on either side with the direction that we have taken. And, I do believe it is fair. So, I could say more, but at this point, I will ask Mr. Mendoza to speak. After he does, if there are some points that are still not clear as to what the bill currently does, I will clarify and make the points. As a former teacher, I will make them very clear. And when people come up to testify, on either side of the issue, please, the 2 people, the 3 minutes each, please limit your comments to the bill in it’s current form. That way, nobody will get confused. So with that, assembly man, if you would like to present AB 2072, file item 1.

Mendoza: Thank you, thank you madam chairman. Just to be clear, I have listed 3 witnesses, 2 minutes each, and?

Alquist: That will be fine. As long as it’s a max of 6 minutes.

Mendoza: A max of 6 minutes, and then we could, okay, great. (Inaudible) Okay, great. Thank you so much, madam chair. First of all, I would like to begin with something the committee suggested, amendments, and I must be honest with you, when I first got the committee amendments that day, I was kind of disappointed, but then I heard, when you were talking to me, and I heard what you were telling me, and I took it back to my office, I understood that we’re trying to accomplish here. And it will have to take a little bit of time, and I’m open to that. And I appreciate the amendments, I actually appreciate working with Mia and Peter for their great help, I know they’ve worked tremendously on this for the last couple of weeks, or actually longer. But, I do want to step back and say thank you, for all your help and helping this bill move along, and helping this bill be a better bill. Cause I think the end result is what we want, which is having our parents with some information when their child has been diagnosed and again, I just want to be clear that this bill is not about choosing one language option over another, this bill is solely about providing information to parents who have just learned that their child is profoundly deaf. With the committee amendments, AB 2072 would require Department of Developmental Services to develop a pamphlet that is comprehensive and provides information to parents on American Sign Language, as well as Auditory , Oral approaches. DDS will develop this pamphlet, would then put up a stakeholder group that would include representatives from various communication groups...

Alquist: You might speak a little slower for me?

Mendoza: Okay, sure. The cost of developing the pamphlet and conducting the state color?? panel, will be covered by private donations that will be deposited into a special fund. This information is to be provided by the audiologist who tells parents their child has been diagnosed as deaf or hard of hearing. That information will also be given to parents a second time when they meet with their early start provider. I introduce this bill because I met with families in our district who explained the difficulties they have in common. Many of the families that I’ve met speak Spanish as a primary language, and they told me that they had no information, especially at the time of the diagnosis. I also heard stories from parents who said they were steered away, towards to, or away from certain options, rather than being told about all the options out there. Now, that is why AB 2072 is so important. Parents have a right to know. Parents need to know about the resources that are available to their children, and parents should not be steered toward or away from any type of information. Currently, there is no consistent information provided at time of diagnosis, and nothing consistent at the hearing coordination centers. It is critical that parents receive information (inaudible) at the diagnosis. Again, this bill is not about choosing one option or encouraging parents to make a choice, but the bill simply ensures communication options have been related to parents so that they can decide what is best for their family, and their needs. Here with me, I have 3, actually 4 people, but all within the 6 minute limit. First, I have a parent of twin daughters, who will be speaking. Alicia King?? , followed by a deaf adult, John Fortias? , and an oral deaf adult, Cherry Burgman? . Thank you, madam chair.

Alquist: First witness, please?

Cherry: Hi, thank you for letting me speak here today, and I’m in support for AB 2072.

Alquist: And it will be 3 witnesses, 2 minutes each, yes.

Cherry: Thank you, and my name is Cherry Burgman, and I was born with a profound hearing loss, and without my hearing aid, I can’t hear anything. I cannot hear an alarm, I can’t hear a baby cry. (Microphone adjustment interruption) Oh, thank you. I’m here speaking to you today because my parents chose the oral option for me. Since Kindergarten, I received a complete mainstream education, and I graduated from Washington State University, and I enjoy listening to music, and to my hearing husband and my son. And they’re fun, I love talking to them. And I understand that there are those who do not choose oral option for their child, and I respect that. But what I don’t understand, is why someone would want to deprive parents of being presented with detailed information about communication options for their child. And if my parents had not known about the oral option...

Alquist: And what I might suggest is that when we have people speak, if you could just state in a positive way what you believe, rather than what somebody opposed to your position might think. And I will say that to the opposition as well. Just speak about your own, from your heart, what you believe.

Cherry: Sure, thank you. Basically, I would not be able to speak to you today, and I’m just glad that my parents had the choice and the information. Thank you.

John: Good afternoon, my name is John Fortias, I am 32 years old, and I have been profoundly deaf since birth. I’m here today in support of this bill. At a young age, when my Mom found out that I had lost my hearing, she decided that she was going to do the Oral Auditory approach, and this in part because she had prior training to my birth, she had a speech pathologist. As a result of her guidance, and some education through Oral Auditory school, I was mainstreamed in preschool and on. Some of my (inaudible) since then, is I was an honor roll throughout high school, I was a sport athlete and captain, graduated with honors from Wananet?? University in (Inaudible) where I was a college football player, and just a year ago, I recently graduated from law school. And continuously, from the time that I graduated from college, I’ve been continuously employed when not in school. Just most recently I’d been working as a deputy district attorney in (inaudible) county as a volunteer. Currently...

Alquist: And why are you supportive of the bill?

John: Why am I supportive of the bill?

Alquist: Yes, that’s why you’re speaking now.

John: It gives people an opportunity, a chance to have, potentially, a more, what I believe would be (inaudible), it would allow them to be just like anyone else. I’m the first to admit, I am not, I’m going off my speeches, I’m the first to admit, that I am not part of the deaf community, I don’t associate with it, but I am an advocate of you know, just the best thing, the best course of action, whatever that might be, for disabled people. And so that is a big part of why I’m here today. And...

Alquist: Just speak to me.

John: What’s that?

Alquist: I like what you’re saying, don’t look at your notes. Why are you supportive of the bill?

John: Okay, basically, what I’m getting from, is when we’re faced with such an important decision in our lives, when is not being fully informed the best solution? And it’s logical, it’s common sense, and I believe (inaudible) that being fully informed in any big decision in your life is very important, and so that is a big reason of why I’m here today in support of this bill.

Alquist: Thank you very much.

John: Thank you.

King: You’ve just heard how parents need to...

Alquist: And your name, please?

King: I’m Alicia King, and you’ve just heard how parents need to have information so that they can make an informed decision. I am a parent, I’m the mother of profoundly deaf 6 year old twin girls. Their hearing loss was discovered at birth, and when the audiologist diagnosed the girls, we were given no alternatives. Our school district did step in and offer us a sign language program, but we did not realize that there were other communication options. And we quickly found that sign language was not well suited for us, as there are no other deaf or hard of hearing people in our immediate or our extended family. It took a friend to let us know about a listening and speaking program in our area, and ultimately, that was a better choice for us. My girls are cochlear implant wearers, and by their 4^th birthday, they had age appropriate speech and language skills, they’re completely mainstreamed into our neighborhood school with their hearing peers and they require limited support services. And I’m here basically to support this because it is my parental right to make decisions for my children, and it is best to do so with complete information. We live in a country that’s based on the freedom to choose, and rarely is there a situation where any one program fits everyone. For all future parents of children born with hearing loss, please give them the information that they need, to make an informed decision in a timely fashion, and one that best suits their family situation.

Alquist: Thank you very much.

Barry: Madam chair, (inaudible) 30 seconds left over?

Alquist: Yes, there is 30 seconds left over.

Barry: Okay, madam chair, members, Barry Brokaw, on behalf of the California academy of audiology, we are the licensed health care professionals that address people with hearing impairment, we’re *agnostic over the options that are available to parents, but we think they should be informed of all of the options. We treat the kids, and we strongly support this measure.

Alquist: Thank you very much. And for everyone else, who are in support, please just state your name and that you are in support.

“Madam chair, X with the California medical association, we were in support of the previous version of the bill, we’ve had a quick opportunity to look at the amendments, they seem very positive and consistent with the reasons we were supporting the bill all along, so we hope to remain supportive, and we thank the author for his leadership on this important issue.”

Alquist: Thank you. Others in support?

“X, in support of the bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“X, in support of the bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“X, in support of the bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“X, in support of the bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“X, a parent in support of the bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“X, in support of the bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“X, in support of the bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“X, I support this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“X, I support this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“X, I support this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“X, I support this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“X, I support the bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“X, I support this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“X, in support of the bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“X, with California hospital association in support.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“X, I support this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“X, I support this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“I’m X, and I support the bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“X, and I support the bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“X, and I support the bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“X, I support the bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Good afternoon, X, I support this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“X, I’m X’s mother, I support the bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“X, California association of private school organizations, and private special education schools in support.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“X, I’m grandmother of X, and I definitely support this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“X and I’m support this.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“X, I support this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“X, support the bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

Alquist: Is there anyone else in support? If not, we will go to the opposition, so if people at the table could leave, please, and have the witnesses in opposition.

(Clapping)

Alquist: No clapping, please. No clapping, no boo’s, just very quiet so we can all pay attention to what is going on. And what I’m going to ask, is that we adhere to the same rules, that you speak not about someone who holds an opposing point of view, but why you have the position you have. And welcome, Senator Pelanco. And what I would ask, since this is a special order, do you want to do 3 witnesses, 2 minutes each, or 2 witnesses, 3 minutes each, so I understand?

Unknown: I think we’ve pretty much, have concluded that it’s a 1 minute. We broke it up to keep it within the 6 minutes, if that’s okay, madam chair?

Alquist: Okay, so I’ll just be aware of that, and when it’s 5 minutes and 45 seconds, I’ll say it’s almost time.

Unknown: Time’s up.

Alquist: Okay.

Unknown: Madam chair, members, thank you very much. Let me acknowledge the work from staff, I think we’ve come a long ways from where the original version of the bill is. Today, you’re going to hear from the opponents. Very quickly, if I could just highlight the areas of concern, (inaudible) as it relates to the amendment, and then my supporters of the bill here, the supporters of the bill will go into detail as to the basis for their position. With regards to the first recommendation, of where the analysis would put it iin DDS, there is a strong, deeply felt opposition to that. The current program sits within the California Department of Education. The issue before you is not a medical model issue, regional centers that fall under the DDS category fit that model. As we talked to many of the senators, we’ve stressed the education component, and it’s importance, we have an existing structure in that department, we would very much ask that the bill be amended to reflect that. They’ll go in further. The other we would ask that we change visual language to include American Sign Language, it would be showing respect, be consistent to the community...

Alquist: I’m sorry, I didn’t hear, to change what?

Unknown: You use in the current language of the amended version, visual language, we would like it to be replaced to American Sign Language. This would be consistent and respect the deaf constituents. Sign language rights have been endorsed, as you know by the U.N. treaty signed by president Obama. We would also ask to change listening and spoken language, to just spoken language. And then, the real sticky bone of contention, I think has to do with the audiologist role as it relates to the information. There, we will hear from the witnesses, the importance of making sure that there is no inherent conflict, that if there is going to be a role, that it be a role that is nothing more than a referral of information that comes as a result of this body that is going to be created, and that it be done so in a manner that does not allow for any incentives whatsoever on referrals. Having said that, the witnesses are ready to address in more depth, the issues.

Tim: Good afternoon.

Alquist: Good afternoon.

Tim: Good afternoon, my name is Tim Arthur, I’m the president of the California Association of the Deaf, Sacramento chapter. I graduated from Georgetown University, and this fall, because of all this, I’m looking forward to starting my masters’ in public policy. We are opposed to the bill as it is currently written, but we’d like to see an amendment that would work for the best interest of deaf children and the parents. First of all, I wanted to thank you for the positive changes to the current mark up language of the bill, and it means progress, but the language of the bill still needs a little bit more work to make it so that we can really put the focus on the deaf children and getting the parents access to the information that they need. I wanted to point to a 2003 state senate resolution number 20, it formally apologized for the outrageous attempt to *socially engineer people out of *existence. The regional version of Mendoza’s AB 2072 bill leads us towards a slippery slope of *eugenics. So the proposed amendment is a very good step in the right direction. It is fair, if we have a few changes to the amendment. The proposed amendment by the health committee, it still threatens the fundamental values of a deaf education and language development, by giving audiologists the power to discriminate information for which they are not trained or licensed. The audiologists’ training gives them the buyer that’s inherently unacceptable, if the audiologist ought to have a role, it must only be to identify that child is deaf, as soon as possible, and then refer the parent to an appropriate professional or entity with a focus on the educational aspect of raising a deaf child. That needs to be determined by the panel of people who are, represented by people involved with the...

Alquist: It has been 5 minutes, you have 1 minute left.

Unknown: Sherry... Sherry. You do it. Sherry... no, Sherry, no Sherry, you present.

Alquist: You have one...

Sherry: I just want to respect the parents’ right to speak...

Alquist: There is one minute left.

Sherry: I will get right to the target and the heart of the matter, I want to thank you again for recommending the proposed amendments, and my name is Sherry Ferina, I’m here representing the California Coalition of Stakeholders of Parents, and the deaf community. We oppose, unless amended with the proposed amendment, the bill, unless it’s amended as proposed. We recommend there are 4 different changes to the amendments, we hope that the committee will adopt these recommendations, and we have papers for you so you have a hard copy of what we would like to see. So I want to emphasize with regard to our involvement and our commitment to seeing an improvement in the educational system for deaf infants and children. We have a history regarding the U.S. congress commission on education for the deaf, and their report verifying the need to identify gaps, and the reason why we need to have a system overhaul. We have the California superintendent of education, Delaine Easton, called for a task force to restructure deaf and hard of hearing programs in California...

Alquist: We’re at 6 and a half minutes, if you could complete your (inaudible).

Sherry: We have the establishment of the California deaf newborn and infant screening program, and the americans with disabilities act, and so forth, all of this points to why it’s an education issue, and why the state entity with oversight needs to be the California Department of Education.

Alquist: And in closing? Okay, we’re beyond time...

Unknown: Thank you, thank you.

Alquist: Thank you very much, if everyone else would just like to state their name, and that they are opposed to the bill, please come forward.

Unknown: Is it okay if I do it now, while I’m here?

Alquist: Pardon me?

“My name’s X...”

Alquist: Just your name and that you are opposed.

Unknown: I speak for my son also, we’re opposed to this bill.

Alquist: Thank you very much.

“Hi, my name is X, I’m deaf, and I (inaudible).”

Alquist: If we could just state our name, and that we are opposed, please.

“X and I oppose this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you very much. Next, please?

“My name is X, and I oppose the bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hello, my name is X, and I oppose as it is. I’m...”

Alquist: Thank you very much, next please?

“X, and I oppose this bill as written.”

“X, and I oppose.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“I represented the 100 and thousand in northern California and I represent the parents, and I oppose the bill.”

Alquist: Thank you very much, next please?

“X, and I oppose the bill.”

Alquist: Excuse me, excuse me, madam chair, I just, I notice that the T.V. screen is not picking up who is speaking, and I’m going to ask sergeants maybe, if we can either direct individuals here or at least to have the screen reflect who is testifying, because I’m hearing voices, I’m not sure either who is *presenting. Thank you very much, senator Romero, yes so if we could have the screen reflect people as they speak, yes. And if not, maybe people have to stand in a slightly different place. There, now that’s fine. We can see here. Okay?

“X, and I oppose the bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“X, and I am against this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“X, I oppose this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose as written.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hello, X and I oppose this bill as it is currently written.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“I oppose as written.”

Alquist: Your name, please?

“X.”

“I oppose this bill, X.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“X, and I oppose this bill as written.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“X and I oppose this bill as written.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“My name is X, and I oppose this bill as written.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“X, I oppose this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“X.”

“My name is X, and I oppose this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hello, my name is X, I oppose this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“X, and I oppose this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“X.”

“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill unless amended.”

Alquist: Thank you, thank you.

“My name is X, I’m against this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“ X, I’m opposed to this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“My name is X, and I oppose this bill.”

“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill. Thank you.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill. Thank you.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Good afternoon, my name is X, and I oppose this bill as (inaudible).”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, my name is X and I’m against the current bill as written.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose the bill as written.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, my name is X and I oppose this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, my name is X, and I’m opposed to this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, my name is X, and those were my children, and I oppose this bill. Thank you.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill unless amended.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hello, my name is X, and I oppose this bill as it’s currently written.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“My name is X, and I oppose this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“X and I oppose this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hello, my name is X, and I oppose this bill.”

“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill, I’m a teacher for a deaf family.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, my name is X, and I am from Fresno, California, and I oppose this bill...”

Alquist: Thank you.

“AB 2072.”

“Hi, I’m from the California association of deaf educators and we oppose this bill as written.”

Alquist: And your name, please?

“My name is X.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, I’m X, and I oppose this bill as written.”

Alquist: Thank you, X.

“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill as written.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill as written.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Good afternoon, my name is X, and I oppose the bill as written.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill the way it’s currently written.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, my name is X, and no amendments, then please shred the paper.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Thank you.”

“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill...”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Unless amended by the consensus.”

“Good afternoon, my name is X, as a medical student, I strongly oppose this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hello, my name is X and I oppose the bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill except for amended by...”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Consensus.”

“My name is X, and I oppose this bill as written.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose AB 2072 as currently written.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill.”

Alquist: And her last name?

“X.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill unless it’s amended...”

Alquist: Thank you.

“By C.E.N.I.S.”

“My name is X, and I oppose this bill as written.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, my name is X, and representing american river college, and we are against this bill unless amended.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Good afternoon, my name is X, and I oppose the bill except with amendment provided by C.N.E.I.S.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, my name is X, last name is X, and I oppose this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hello, my name is X, and I oppose this bill as written. Thank you.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, my name is... xmail, gmail.com, and I oppose this bill as written.”

Alquist: And what was his name? I didn’t quite catch it.

“X.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hello everyone, my name is X, and I oppose this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill unless amended.”

Alquist: X’s last name, please?

“Oh, I’m sorry... X.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill unless amended.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hello, my name is X, and I oppose this bill unless amended. Thank you.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“My name is X, and I strongly oppose this bill, AB 2072 as written.”

“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, my name is X, my last name is X, and I oppose this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hello, my name is X, and I oppose this bill. Thank you.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hello, my name is X, and I oppose this bill. Thank you.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hello, my name is X, and I oppose this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“My name is X, and I oppose this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill. Thank you.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, hello, I’m X, and I oppose this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill. Thank you.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill as written.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, my name is X, and I oppose this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Good afternoon, my name is X, and I oppose this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Good afternoon, I’m X, president of Sacramento valley registry of interpreters for the deaf, and I oppose this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“X, american river college, I oppose the bill as written.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hello, X, and I oppose this bill as written. Thank you.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hello, X, and I oppose this bill as written.”

“Hello, X, and I oppose this bill as written.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hello, X, and I oppose this bill as written.

Alquist: Thank you.

“Oh hi, my name is X, X is my last name, and I oppose this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, good afternoon, my name is X, and I oppose this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, my name is X, and I strongly oppose this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

“Hi, my name is X, and I strongly oppose this bill.”

Alquist: Thank you.

Alquist: I’d like to make some comments about the bill, and first of all, I’d like to thank everyone. Both those in support of the bill, and those in opposition to the bill, who have testified. This is a democracy, and we really appreciate your keen interest in what I know is a very passionate issue. I’d like to explain, and first of all I’d like to say I have no idea what is going to happen to this bill today. My staff and I have worked very hard with assembly man Mendoza, to amend a bill that we believe, that I believe is fair, and good, and time sensitive, and comprehensive, to provide good information to parents with babies who are deaf. I’d like to spend 3, 4, 5 minutes, explaining what the bill in it’s current form does. And at some point, why, I think that’s a good idea. My colleagues on the committee will have full opportunity to state their opinions, and of course, assembly man Mendoza will have full opportunity to state whatever he thinks. I’m sure my staff and I, and this is really Mia and Peter, and also my chief of staff (inaudible), have spent many, many hours looking at this bill, and having a heart to heart about what is in the best interest of families, with babies who are deaf. This bill does 3 or 4 main points, and we do have enough for a quorum right now, so while we are all sitting here, I’m going to stop for 30 seconds, take the vote for a quorum, and the reason I want to do that, is that means that once we establish a quorum, then we can actually vote on bills. So, we will call for this vote.

Unknown: Senator Alquist?

Alquist: Here.

Unknown: Alquist here. Strickland? Aanestad? Sedillo? Cox? Leno?

Leno: Here.

Unknown: Leno here. (Inaudible) McCloud?

McCloud: Here.

Unknown: (Inaudible) McCloud here. Pavley?

Pavley: Here.

Unknown: Pavley here. Romero?

Romero: Here.

Unknown: Romero here.

Alquist: Thank you. We have 5 members here, that establishes the quorum. So this means that we will be able to vote on this bill when we are through with the discussion on the last bill which was speaker Perez, and then all the bills that will follow. Some of the conclusions we came to, and the process that we used, number 1, we decided that the authority for this procedure needs to be within the department of DDS, Department of Developmental Services, rather than the Department of Education. The reason I have this strong belief, is because I think DDS is best qualified in a timely, and I know that you all don’t agree with me. I believe that DDS is best qualified to be of support in these beginning years, with a child who is deaf. Second, what the bill really does, is to say that there needs to be a brochure that is better than the brochure put out by the federal government. A brochure that gives unbiased, and complete information, on all the options in one pamphlet, available to parents who, all of a sudden, don’t know where to go and want to know what options they have. It does not exclude anything, it would be objective, and this advisory committee would be established in a way that no one group would be in majority, and that there would be fair and equal balance for all people, including with American Sign Language. Which we know is in great use, and extremely valuable. I do believe that on a brochure, and we sort of crunched the time so that what we’ve said to Mr. Mendoza is that, okay, we’re going to establish this advisory committee, whatever recommendation comes out from this committee will be given to DDS. DDS will still have the authority to put in the brochure, and I will be peering over their shoulders as a good Greek yaya, a Greek grandmother, I will look to see that it is fair, objective, and that it is information that parents can use. Now, on this committee will be representatives from American Sign Language, also representatives from those who believe in Cochlear Implants, and those who believe in anything else that has to do with helping parents figure out how to best help their children. Because it is the parents’ responsibility, with good information, to do that. We have said to assembly man Mendoza, that should the bill become law, and I have no idea if it’s getting out of this committee, it may die in this committee, but I do think the issue needs to be resolved in a fair way, for the sake of the babies.

That, should the bill get out of committee, should it get out of both houses, should it be signed into law, those are a lot of shoulds, that there would be 12 months, during which, a source of funding would need to be established, which is not in conflict with any view. So it would have to be, not in conflict, with the result of then, then within another 12 month period, creating the brochure. We don’t want any conflict of interest, we want American Sign Language, we want those who believe in Cochlear, and everyone else to be able to look at this and say, yes, this benefits babies. This effects their quality of lives, this helps parents, who may not know where to go, get good information. And I would say, that if the brochure is objective, which it will be, should all the shoulds fall into place, if the information is objective, then we shouldn’t be concerned so much with who hands the brochure out. We may disagree on that, but I have a strong feeling about that, I’m also a former teacher, a former school counselor. And like you, I want what is in the best interest of the families, and of the babies, who will become adults, and we need them to function well in our society.

Mr. Mendoza, in a few minutes, after committee members, will have a chance to speak. I know that in the beginning, he was not favorable about all the amendments, but I think we have worked closely, and I think he does care on this issue. I will stop at this point, that’s not to say I may not want to say something later, if I hear something I need to talk about.

Mendoza: Madam, madam chairman, a quick question. Should I bring my witnesses up here, in case there’s questions, or should we just?

Alquist: Just for a moment, if it goes in that direction, they will be allowed to do...

Mendoza: Should I not bring them up at all?

Alquist: Well, you can bring 2 or 3 of them to sit here, that would be fine.

Mendoza: Oh, Okay.

Alquist: If you would like. Would you like 2 or 3 to sit up here with you?

Mendoza: Yeah, in case I have a question.

Alquist: Fine. And with this, I will go to my committee for any comments, concerns. Senator Romero.

Romero: Thank you, madam chair. I have looked at this bill, and I am urging the, I’d like to urge the assembly man to consider the amendments and to adopt the amendments that have been brought forward by the opposition. Madam chair, I appreciate the work of the committee, some of these I think I can share, but others I do have concerns about. As a psychologist and educator myself, I do think that it sends an, intended or not, an unintended consequence that by moving this out of the Department of Education, into DDS, it clearly establishes this in the medical model. If we keep it within the Department of Education, I think it reaffirms that language is learned. And in looking at American Sign Language, this is not just a popular language, this is the third most popular language in this country. I think it is...

(Clapping)

Alquist: Excuse me, we will have no clapping. The sergeants are here, we will have it quiet so we can all understand what is going on. Thank you very much.

Romero: So as I approach, and as I have learned quite a bit, from both the opponents and the proponents, and from mothers whom I know in my own life, the question that I start with asking is, what are we trying to fix? That’s the question that I have to ask. What are we trying to fix? Are we trying to fix deafness? And I would have to answer, if that is the question, then I would say, no. Because American Sign Language is a, maybe one that maybe many of us are not familiar with, but it is a language. It’s recognized. And if we start from the premise of asking, what are we trying to fix? Then I would have to ask, how far are we willing to go? Are we going to fix gay children? Are we going to fix dark skinned infants, and give brochures to parents saying, this is how you can bleach skin? Are we going to fix the curl of the hair? I mean, I must honestly ask this question, because I think these are some of the concerns, and I’m not saying it’s intended in this bill. But if we’re talking about fixing, those are questions even in the history of this state, that I think, look at this beautiful mural, but there’s another mural that we could perhaps paint of California. So that’s the question. What are we trying to fix? In terms of looking at the amendments, and that’s what I fundamentally believe that by moving it to DDS, it clearly establishes it in the medical model, in need of fixing something. As opposed to the Department of Education, which maintains that this is a linguistic skill ability, and opportunity to continue to oversee. I think, and I would ask the author to consider that, and the chair as well, my views.

In terms of the question of the audiologists, I do believe that this is an inherent financial conflict of interest. And I would not feel comfortable by having the audiologist with a clear financial interest, to be the gatekeepers to parents for information on issues related to hearing. In terms of, I mean there’s other issues as well that we can raise, the advisory committee that’s been proposed, I think is balanced and fair from the opponents, I would ask us to look at that. But I go back to that fundamental question, I do not understand what we are trying to fix. And it does become a question of understanding and embracing the culture of deafness, a language which exists, a language which is the third most popular in this, a language which I’ve tried to learn, in fact as well. Haven’t been good at it. So I would ask the author, I appreciate your effort, I understand, I think good intentions in bringing this forward, but I am compelled by the opposition and would ask you to consider adopting the amendments that have been offered by the opposition.

Alquist: Who else would like to speak? Senator Pavley, and then Senator Leno.

Pavley: Just briefly, I viewed this as not something to fix, but something to inform parents of options, and that’s how I looked at it. The more information is usually the better the parents, and I have nothing but respect for members of the deaf community, and families. So, it wasn’t about fixing, cause that sounds like something’s wrong. Nothing is wrong. But what’s wrong with more information to have in front of parents? But I would like a little more *protracted discussion on DDS versus Department of Education, because my understanding is, but maybe I’m wrong, is that many times the information that would be given to parents, would be when the child is very young. Several months old, or up to a year. Historically and traditionally, I didn’t think that the Department of Education was directly involved. Wouldn’t that be, for the first few years, more of a role of DDS? And so is this an indeed a real expansion of the custom and practice and tradition of the Department of Education, and the people they serve? So that’s where I was confused...

Alquist: Okay.

Pavley: And I, and that would be one issue, I’d like to discuss that a little more.

Alquist: And we’ll have a full discussion of both your comments, and Senator Romero’s and other members’. And then, if you could wait a few minutes, assembly man, then you’ll be able to address. And I understand that former Senator Dun is here? Hello. I just wanted to acknowledge you, sir. And Senator Leno, you were next.

Leno: Thank you, madam chair. I apologize to everyone here that I wasn’t here for all the testimonies, because I would have benefitted from it. I was casting votes in another committee. But I want to thank our chairwoman, for putting so much time and energy into this. I think it’s been an uncommonly productive collaboration with the author on what has become a very controversial bill, though I also want to thank the author for being open minded, and also through the process of this bill, I think a lot of consciousness has been raised in this building. And I always appreciate when I have an opportunity to see things in a broader and more sensitive way. I align my comments with Senator Romero’s, in that, short of any real concrete reasons, why DDS could better facilitate the implementation of the bill, I would, if it were a split decision, I would side with education. Impressions and perceptions can mean a lot. And I think we could, when possible, be respectful of those issues. And to approach it as a language to be learned, as Senator Romero has said. I wish I knew American Sign Language, just as I wish I knew Russian. I don’t know either, but they’re both languages to be learned. For that reason alone, I think Department of Education may be the place to be. But, as Senator Pavley suggested, maybe we need to better understand how it is going to be facilitated and implemented. And so, I’m open to that. But otherwise, this has been a very informative bill, for me. And it really is about providing more information to parents, and to families, and that’s always a good thing.

Alquist: Senator (inaudible)? No? Okay. Just a few of my thoughts, I mean, I think DDS is a better place, but that’s certainly is...

Mendoza: Can I answer some of the concerns?

Alquist: It will be the assembly man’s decision. I don’t think there’s anything to be fixed, having grown up in St. Louis, in my $12,000 dollar house where I lived for 20 years, with a family across the street where 2 of the children were deaf. It is not something to be fixed, but what we are simply trying to do, is in a time sensitive fashion, convey complete information to parents so that they have choices. And that it is unbiased information, with all the options open. And I do believe if we end up with a brochure that is unbiased, which is certainly the goal, anybody could hand it out. And certainly, it shouldn’t be just audiologists who hand it out, but anybody could hand it out. What we’re seeing right now, is, from what we’ve seen, there’s about a third of the families who are just not getting information in a timely fashion. That’s a huge amount. And that’s really what I believe this bill is about, and it’s going to be completely up to the assembly man, he’s listening to you in terms of how we proceed. And as I started out saying, I have no idea what is going to happen to this bill. I think it’s a good bill, and should it be in a different department? Well, that certainly is up to the assembly man, if you would like to speak, assembly man Mendoza.

Mendoza: Sure. I would like to address that concern and maybe let me know if that swayed you either way, that way I understand where we need to go, but the reason I believe that DDS was a provider for us, is because currently, when the child gets diagnosed as being deaf, the people handing out that information, it’s called a newborn screening program. That’s being run out of the Department of Healthcare services. So, it’s not even run out of the Department of Ed. So we’re trying to get this information out to the family at the early stages, which is not where the Department of Ed. comes in. You understand me? So this is going back to where Ms. Senator Pavley was talking about earlier in the development stages when some of these programs, some of these options are available, the family needs that information early on, when they’re 6 months old, less than a year, but they’re not getting it. When we had the *same hearing, (inaudible) both sides were talking about, we didn’t get enough information, or we got the wrong information, or we were being steered a certain way. Well, this will fix that. This will give you a pamphlet with all the information, right? So, but the reason we chose, the DDS would provide it for us, because that’s where the hearing coordination centers are run through the Department of Healthcare services, all that’s in the earlier stages, not through the Department of Ed. So that’s why, but if you think the Department of Ed, I just don’t know if they’re in charge of this right now, it’s just the reason is that DDS is more appropriate, and then they provide services, they provide referrals. They know how to maneuver people around and help them with kid services they need.

Unknown: Madam chair, if I may? Thank you. Senator Pelanco, can you give your view of that?

Pelanco: Yes. Historically, what has been taking place, is the information is provided by the California Department of Education. It involves the early start teachers, it involves and it works with providing parents with a packet, a full packet of information, currently. The parents are referred to these centers that are, 3 of them, through out the region. It’s imperative that the parent get the information as soon as possible. We all agree to that. So when we look at the process, when a child is born, the first diagnosis occurs at the hospital level. Question for the body here, is that one location where we can begin to inform and present this packet as the mother leaves? Can we do it also, even before then, at the early prenatal family services? Everyone agrees that timely information, unbiased, scientifically based, is critical to be provided to the parents. Put it into DDS, unintended consequences, perceptions, it’s a whole different population. If a child who happens to (inaudible) has disabilities, developmentally challenged disabilities, they’re going to find themselves in that particular model of care, DDS. To put everyone there, is putting it in the wrong direction, creates mis-perceptions, number 1. Number 2, it doesn’t drive to the educational enrichment of that individual child. And we can get to the core, which is, at what point is the information given, and by whom? And we argue that the current system, if we need specific days, by the time the audiologist does that examination and identifies a hearing loss and, or deafness, and at that point in time within the next 30, 48 hours, whatever the body here feels, that parent needs to be contacted, that information needs to be informed, provided again, the audiologist is not getting anything else beyond that. No consultations, no recommendations, contact to the parent with the information would be...

Mendoza: Madam, madam chair?

Alquist: And that is fair, also. Assembly man?

Mendoza: Let me address that, going back to whether it be DDS or CDE, you know what? We’re embarking on a new way here, we’re embarking on providing information for parents. I’m open to it. If it’s CDE, that’s fine, just get the information out. So when you look at the amendments, whatever they proposed, cause I haven’t seen them, whatever they don’t like about the current amendment, (inaudible) of what the chair and the committee has suggested, I’m open to that, I’m good with it. If you want CDE, fine, the CDE, but let’s get the information out, as soon as possible.

Alquist: I would be fine with Department of Education...

Mendoza: Me too.

Alquist: If it is done in a timely fashion...

Mendoza: Yes.

Alquist: Because now, it is not always done in a timely fashion.

Mendoza: That’s correct. So, I agree with madam chair, let it be in Department of Education, let it be given at the first opportunity, when the parent finds out about their child being diagnosed as deaf. We want it in their hands... (inaudible)

Alquist: So that is one point.

Mendoza: I’m open to that, that’s not a problem.

Alquist: Are there other points that, Senator Romero, that you would like to discuss?

Romero: The one invocation is that I have for the audiologist, because if you move it to the CDE, does that remove the audiologist?

Mendoza: No, well again, the intent of this bill, the intent is to have the audiologist, once they have identified the child as being deaf, they provide this information for them, right there. And you got to keep in mind, the audiologists, they’re trained medical professionals, they know about all this. That’s their job, that’s what they’ve been titled for. So, for them not to, if a parent has a question, they’re suggesting, don’t talk to them, just get the paper and run.

Alquist: Perhaps, perhaps, you, I mean, I think it’s fine if audiologists hands it out, because if it’s a fair brochure, it’ll be fine...

Mendoza: Yeah.

Alquist: But perhaps you want to take an amendment, and I think probably both of these points would be, you would promise to do before it gets to the next committee, would be that the audiologists are not doing a selling job, that it is just...

Mendoza: Of course.

Alquist: Giving the information. I know there’s some concern on that point.

Mendoza: Can I have an, excuse me, an audiologist comment on that?

Alquist: Very briefly. And then, very briefly.

Audiologist: I think audiologists as professionals, we’re not interested in benefitting financially from what these families are doing, and I think the fact we’re required to give out the information, speaks to that point. That they are giving unbiased information so that parents can make an informed decision.

Alquist: Right. And I believe that information should be given quickly, and often. So it’s not going to be just audiologists who hand it out, but if this advisory committee is done in a fair way, and it will be, and with a fair recommendation that shows both sides, all the sides. I don’t like to say both sides, because you know what? We’re talking about babies.

Mendoza: Mmhmm.

Alquist: We should all be, and we are all on the same side. Comment over here?

Sherry: Hi, yes, I just wanted to offer a response to Senator Leno and Senator Romero’s questions, and Senator Pavley also. To a technical point, for your information, related to the federal law, I.D.E.A, part C, already requires audiologists to give California Department of Education the results within 2 days. They follow up with the parents. And current California health law requires the Department of Healthcare services, audiologists give them within 1 week. So the audiologist already is required by law, to give the HCC, that’s the California Department of Healthcare services, via the HCC, provide them information, and the California Department of Education information, and they do their follow up, and provide the parents with information. The HCC has given parents 1 week for follow up, after they get the diagnosis and they follow up. And they give them an information packet.

Mendoza: Madam chairman...

Alquist: Thank you very much.

Mendoza: I’m not opposing that, that’s fine.

Alquist: I understand that, yes.

Mendoza: Information along the way, it’s all helpful.

Alquist: I understand you’re not opposing that. And thank you for the information. Okay, are there any other comments from committee? Senator Leno?

Leno: You may have already covered this in my absence, but did we resolve some of the questions regarding using ASL in place of visual language?

Mendoza: The only concern, I think with that is that we have Cued Speech, it’s also visual, and we don’t want to exclude them from just calling them ASL, you understand me?

Alquist: Please, please.

Mendoza: Again, if we let the committee or the (inaudible) committee look into that, because we want to exclude others just because we want to put on one?

Alquist: I would suggest on that point that, well, if the bill dies, it will die, but if it moves forward to the next committee, there’s still ample opportunity for Senator Pelanco, who’s a great advocate, and others, to talk with the author and I’m sure the author would be willing to keep having an open mind, as he has with me.

Mendoza: Yes, that’s fine. Thank you.

Alquist: Okay? Okay. Assembly man, (inaudible) close.

Mendoza: Again, madam speaker, madam chair, I just again, we’re just trying to get to the providing families information along the way, at every step of the way, from when they first get diagnosed of being deaf. So, anything we can do to provide the family some information, and *madam make sure this committee and everything gets established.

Alquist: And you’re willing to take the amendments of the next committee, that would be the Department of Education, and the other amendment that simply clarifies, that when the audiologists hand out the information, they’re not doing a selling job.

Mendoza: Right. Just give the parents the information and whatever they’re licensed to do, but not selling, cause that’s not their job.

Alquist: And we know everybody will be fair about this. Okay, thank you very much. The author has closed, is there a motion? It’s been moved by Senator Pavley. Senator Romero? Senator Romero?

Romero: Can I hear from Senator Pelanco with respect to the amendments that have been agreed to, and the position from the opposition at this point?

Pelanco: As I understand, the amendments are, Department of Education, and not DDS. As I understand, the issue of Visual Language, and American Sign Language to be worked on.

Alquist: (Inaudible) to be worked on.

Pelanco: To be worked on. As I understand, let’s see, the spoken, with regards to the audiologist...

Alquist: Clarifying language on that.

Pelanco: Clarifying language on that.

Mendoza: Just to be clear on that, clarifying meaning, that they’re not selling it, but they’re still presenting the information.

Alquist: Clarifying information, that they are presenting the brochure, in an unbiased format, you’ll think of better words, I’m sure.

Mendoza: Right, right.

Alquist: I’m Greek, and whatever, so. But that it’s fair, and that they’re not doing a selling job.

Mendoza: Right, okay. And they’re able to answer questions to the parents...

Alquist: If the parents ask.

Mendoza: Right.

Alquist: Will respond to the questions of the parent.

Pelanco: Madam chair, what I would also ask, is if we cannot work out the language, that the bill come back here. I think that the audiologist issue is a big issue, the U.S. federal court justice department sued on that issue, as it relates to kickbacks, and there was a settlement as the result of a whistle blower, who provided the committee with that evidence, not to say that Californian’s audiologists are guilty of that, but those who did practice it, did do it, and so we don’t want to create the incentive, or even the opportunity for that to occur. I would suggest, and I would ask the chair, that, let us, let us work out. I’m not sure that, that issue is clear yet. Come back, to the committee with regards to the final product, so that we have one more, one more hearing, I believe. And not move the bill forward, let us, we have one more hearing. If I learned anything while we’re here, members, is don’t move the bill out until you know, it’s... if we have one more week, let us work towards that. The deadlines are not upon us, but it’ll certainly put us to a position where we need to figure this out.

Mendoza: Madam, madam chair, you know, pretty much, it’s the same story they’ve been saying all along. They just want to delay it, delay it, delay it, and it really makes it more difficult to move the bill out, especially when we’ve got deadlines coming up. And right now, we’re trying to, you know, make sure we work out all the differences, and they just...

Alquist: Okay. I’d like to speak, please. Several thoughts, one, we have spent almost an hour and a half on this bill. We have 27 bills. We have many bills next week. I feel good about the amendments that we’ve taken, on the idea of the audiologists, I’m clear, that if it’s an unbiased brochure, anybody ought to be able to hand it out. And that we have to have some faith, that it will work that way.

Mendoza: Madam chair? I think audiologists are trained professionals, they are...

Alquist: You might want to stop now. Is there a motion? And Senator Aanestad is here, and he was not, well he was probably in (inaudible), so although we’ve gotten to this point, you’re on, Senator Aanestad.

Aanestad: Just one quick concern, I didn’t know in the amendments that it, the language that says that no public funds shall be used, because we might be eligible for federal funds. Has there been any thought however, of putting in a phrase, no state general fund money shall be used?

(Inaudible)

Alquist: And that is the intent. And the bill, the amendments would read in such a way that there would be, if it gets through both houses, if, if, if, and signed into law, then there would be a 12 month period where funding would need to be found for it. And then after that 12 month period, after that funding is found, then 12 months to do the brochure.

Aanestad: So we are going to say there will be no general funding?

Alquist: Yes, and does that need to be clarified?

Mendoza: We made that suggestion earlier this week, but whatever the... I’m good with that.

Alquist: And with some of the amendments we’ve taken, the bill now goes to a prose, as I understand it. So there’s actually another place, although this is the policy committee, and I think we’ve done a good job. So, anything else?

Aanestad: Move as amended.

Alquist: Okay, so it’s been moved by Senator Pavley, and Senator Aanestad as amended. Okay?

Mendoza: Thank you, madam chair.

Pelanco: (Inaudible)

Alquist: Yes, the one outstanding issue, and you will work with the author on the sign language, yes. Thank you very much, we will call for the vote now.

Unknown: Senator Alquist?

“Aye.”

Unknown: Alquist, aye.

Unknown: Strickland, Aanestad?

“Aye.”

Unknown: Aanestad, aye.

Unknown: Sedillo, Cox, Leno?

“Aye.”

Unknown: Leno, aye.

Unknown: (Inaudible) McCloud?

“Aye.”

Unknown: (Inaudible) McCloud, aye.

Unknown: Pavley?

“Aye.”

Unknown: Pavley, aye.

Unknown: Romero?

“No.”

Unknown: Romero, no.

Unknown: It’s got 5 votes.

Alquist: That bill has 5 votes, it is out. And I’d like to thank... I’m sorry, are there other members here? Who else is here? Is he in the building?

(Murmuring)

Alquist: The bill has enough votes to get out, what we are going to do, we know that Senator Sedillo is in *rules committee, we will hold it open, should he wish to add on. And I want to thank everyone, for being here, for being respectful, and for working for the good of children. And I thank you very much.

Mendoza: Thank you, madam chair, members.