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!
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Happy With The Veto.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Initially the elected legislators drafted a very simple bill, as I poined out under 49deafcancuk's vlog. The original bill draft included ASL as one of the option. But that was not good enough for Ella and her people. They wanted more. They wanted to paint ASL in gold and the rest of the options painted in black. End result? The elected legislators tried to make every body happy by modifying the bill several times and complicated the bill in the end, which caught the Governor's attention. It was too biased. He threw the bill out of the door and sent Californians back to square one, just like it was before.
ReplyDeleteThis begs the question... what was it like before? ASL was not even recognized as a language in California. Ella and her people blew it, big time. They had a unique opportunity with the original bill but they became greedy and gained NOTHING in the end. It's back to same old California.
I would like first thing to make clear is that I am not one of them deafhood people, nor am interested to be a member.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the AB2072... I always have had known that this bill would not pass in the first place because I knew it was duplication of several different programs already provided in the state of California. I see all those proposals, oppositions, debates, and even personal insulting/attacking, were all a moot. But in all, it was very educational process for all of us, nevertheless.
Thank you for letting me comment here.
Big Guy
Right DJStacey. We, ASL community, need to learn to appreciate what little ground we're able to gain and build from it. When you want something you don't ask for everything at once. You put your feet in and you build on it. The original draft gave them a really unique opportunity to do that but no... they had to be greedy. You and I know what greed does to people. That's the story here.
ReplyDeleteThank you Brian for commenting here. You said it, moot from the very beginning. But I was able to see the positive light in the original draft. I saw it as an opportunity because that's what it was. An opportunity. We had an opportunity to build on it but no... somebody had to be greedy, which is unfortunate. Maybe not so unfortunate because the existing law may be just fine where it stand today.
ReplyDeleteDJStacey,
ReplyDeleteI left several more comments under kokonut's blog and waiting for him to approve the comments. Should show up there shortly.
The answer to this anonymous person would be yes, in my opinion. It was a really simple bill. A unbiased one and it would not cost the State of California a penny. That would have been signed by the Governor, yes.
The final draft would have cost the State between $100,000 to $150,000 in initial costs to cover expenses associated with advisory panels and publications. It would also have on-going expenses to publish pamphlets to make sure detailed information were provided.
With the original bill, it would not have cost them a penny. It seem to make a difference for the Governor who refuse to incur more debt for the State.
Thank you for your response to my comment.
ReplyDeleteNot taking any sides here... Just a thought, if the original bill was unbiased, then why was it proposed without any inputs from deaf/ASL industries in the first place? That is as far I understand in the past few months and I would like to learn more about that.
The Deafhood Foundation - Their intentions may be noble but how they approach to certain issues made me apprehensive and uneasy. As english was my first language and ASL is my primary language, my experience with both methods worked very well for myself, but that's just me. What works for one may not work for others, so that's why it is very good to have choices that are avaiable. I, myself have seen my own eyes that when infant's first language is ASL, they usually have difficulties with english-writing skill. They do comprehend words, but grammar structure is the weak area.
It's getting pretty lengthy here, so I will stop myself here. After all, it is individual's own journey to make the best choices for themselves with respectable guidances, the way it always should be.
Thank you again
Hi Brian. Nothing wrong with taking sides. Nothing wrong with not taking sides. Agreeing with something does not mean you're taking sides either. This is something most people confuse themselves with so I wanted you to know that your opinion do count, at face value and in no way would I say that you've taken sides. Speak freely.
ReplyDeleteYou asked if the original bill was unbiased why then was it proposed without any inputs from deaf/ASL industries in the first place?
I've explained this before and I'll explain it again. It's how the legislative branches work. They don't go out and ask communities for their input. They have their own research department where they will perform extensive research on everything. And if any community wanted to get involved they'd be welcomed. Their inputs would be welcomed. I know because I've worked with legislative branches before and they simply don't go out and seek biased information. They stick to researches and research alone unless people wanted to come forward and contribute their thoughts / expertises into the bill.
There are some deaf people out there saying they were not invited. It goes to show how much they understand legislative branch.
I do not know anything about the Deafhood Foundation but I'm assuming you're referring to people that are involved with the foundation. If so, I can say that I agree with you. Their intentions may be noble but how they approach certain issues also made me uneasy.
I appreciate your view on choice of language and what worked in your view and what didn't work too well. I've also hear many other stories that reflected the exact opposite. In short, one size fits all approach won't work. It never will simply because every deaf person have different degree of hearing losses. They all come from different background and cultures (family circumstances). To some family it's very important to speak and to some family it's not so important. Who are we to decide for them? Best if we allowed them to make the best decision for themselves. Not every family are going to make the right decision but the decision should be theirs to make. Our job here is to help them make informed decision in a neutral way.
I liked it when you said it's individual's own journey to make. They will always try to make the best choices for themselves. And yes, that's the way it always should be. I agree. Thanks for sharing.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBen,
ReplyDeleteIf Ella and deafhood folks are happy with the veto then so be it. It means they are happy that California's current law does not mention ASL. Sure is a strange way for them to celebrate after all.
If they thought they're going to get a clean slate by starting a new bill they will have to think again. It won't be easy and according to the trainings I've received I know for a fact that it takes an average of three or four years before a new bill is created and passed. It's a lengthy process to try and help the legislators understand why a bill is so important and worthy of Governor's signature.
Knowing what Ella and deafhood stand for it's relatively easy to predict that they're going to create a biased bill, which won't go very far in California.
I'll say it again... they did not know a good thing when they had it. The original draft was 'perfect' but because they did not want to appreciate it they blew it, big time. And to see them celebrate today tells me who the fool is.
I cook two perfect sunny up eggs this morning and I don't want to break the yolks . So the original draft was like two perfect sunny up eggs then Ella and her children turned this to scramble eggs that what happen on this bill was just ridden by the Governor . How stupid they are.
ReplyDeletebgmaron8
lavender16,
ReplyDeleteLoved your analogy of sunny-side eggs becoming scrambled eggs...
Barry,
Should CDNIAS introduce a bill of their own, it will be biased towards their beloved ASL philosophy and they'll have an uphill battle with it. They're still carrying a tremendous amount of baggage from the 50's to 80's when oralism and TC produced mixed results and as a result, AB2072 got saddled with so many qualifiers, it got ridiculous.
CI's and AVT are far more advanced today that they really do enhance what's left of a profoundly deaf child's hearing. There are many hh children with milder losses who benefit with the better digital aids and can implement speech therapy. ASL is another option to help a deaf child visually understand language. I've always liked Hands & Voices' mission, "whatever works" for the child. That is something that AB2072 could have been had it not been for some deaf leaders' baggage.
Ann_C
There can be no viable access while the deaf are facing each other off. They really do need to drop the chip on their shoulder and the pro-oral lobby needs to do the same, I think deaf worldwide are getting really disenchanted with these continual 'my mode is best' approach. Damn their deafhood and AG Bell too, send them to some desert island to fight it out, not use others... I think we would all vote for that !
ReplyDelete