thomsen.

Several hours after I posted The Devious Misconceptions of AB2072, I have gotten some interesting criticism on this specific post. Guess what? Criticism is always welcome. Not only that, I’d like to take some additional time to address some of your concerns. The following post will be in Q&A format for simplicity sake:

Anonymous said...
May 5, 2010 8:48 PM
And can you tell me WHO will oversee that the written and electronic information will be written in a way that lists all communication options, organizations, and programs available to parents?

Answer: While it is true that the legislation does not specifically write who will oversee the written and electronic information to be written in a way that list all communication options, organizations, and programs available to parents; however, it is not the legislation responsibility to do so. Any new or amended Health or Safety law that is approved by the State Assembly, either the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) or the California Department of Public Health are to be tasked with overseeing the written and electronic information that should be written in a way that lists all communication options, organizations and programs available to parents.

theHolism said...
May 5, 2010 9:36 PM
Good blog.

All means exactly that, all. What part of 'all' don't they understand?

I also hear them complaining about not being asked (invited) to be part of the legislative process.

These people don't have any clues, do they?

One does not get invited. They don't call people out and take roll calls. They don't ask anybody to participate. The legislatures are 'big shots' and they do think and act that way. It is their nature and understandably so. They are busy people and have full schedule all the time. I know because I've been around them. It's the people that always have to knock on their door and pursue issues that they're covering. They are always forthcoming and willing to tell us everything we need and want to know. And yes they do listen, really. They are sincere people. But if one demonstrated political incorrectness then you can just go home. You're going to waste your time.

Answer: Yes and no. Most politician(s) do want to inform all stakeholders, constituents, and all citizens who will be impacted by such bill. However, the responsibility does not fall on the politician(s); but, rather, the responsibility falls on the stakeholders, constituents, and all citizen to let the politician know how they will be impacted by such bill. I agree with you that their time is invaluable and they will always be forthcoming and willing to listen to our view(s), whether or not they agree or disagree with us. It is their job to do what they think is best for their constituents, stakeholders and for what is in the best interest for the state of California. What they do best is know how to compromise so that all will be represented as much as possible.

RLM said...
May 5, 2010 10:43 PM
First of all, I was going to post the two edition of the AB 2072 bills from 2009 and March 2010 to dispute with Barry Sewer's vlog posting. I never had a chance of posting it few weeks ago.

We will see the real difference between the Fall 2009 and March 2010 for the bill draft writing. After encounter the organized objections from the consumer-based organizations and advocacy groups of the deaf, Mendoza added the lame and pathetic word "ASL" to stem off the opposition which infuriated the deaf stakeholders much further for not allowing the bill to be put on hold and let the deaf stakeholders to sit down with the office of Mendoza along with the California Coalition.

Answer: Just stating the fact, but there are four edition of the AB 2072 starting from February 18, 2010 when it was introduced, amended April 5, 2010, amended again on April 13, 2010 and then amended again April 27, 2010.

You are correct that there is a significant difference between the one that was introduced on February 18th to when the bill was last amended on April 27th. As part of legislature process, it can take up to six months to two years before a bill is finalized and enacted into law (thus, why we have so many revision of the bill in the first place!). Quite frankly, Mendoza did not put in the bill the word “ASL” in the bill that was introduced, however, upon my research it was the deaf stakeholders who felt that “ASL” was being left out (as you pointed out, which,  infuriated more deaf stakeholders) and as you can see the term that is now in the most current bill as stated below:

(a) Parents of all newborns and infants diagnosed with a hearing loss shall also be provided written or electronic information on American Sign Language (ASL), Total Communication, Cued Speech, and Listening and Spoken Language communication options for children with hearing loss, including, but not limited to, information about deaf and hard-of-hearing organizations, agencies and early intervention centers, and educational programs.

Nevertheless, deaf stakeholders had plenty of time to sit down among themselves (GLAD, DCARA, California Coalition, etc) to discuss the issue and work with the office of Mendoza. 

Anonymous said...
May 6, 2010 7:41 AM
I understand every part of "all". But if there is no oversight, no accountability, and no transparency, anyone with money can decide for themselves how much they want to mention the other options beside oral only.  You know this Mr Holism. So why don't you answer my concern. You continue to blame other people for not doing enough. Believe me they know the political process much better than you know it.

Can you imagine if our president created a bill that gave anyone with money the right to override already existing systems without any accountability, oversight or transparency????

Answer: I believe that the first paragraph you were specifically addressing Mr. Holism, but with the following question that you asked, I’d like to take on answering that question for you.

First, it’s against the Constitution of the United States for the President to create a bill that gave anyone with money the right to override already existing systems without any accountability, oversight or transparency. Yes, the President can submit his own bill and many ex-Presidents have done so in the past. However, there will always be accountability, oversight and transparency; this is what Congress and the Supreme Court is for. If you think that this is what Mendoza bill is doing; then by all means, file a state lawsuit claiming that the bill will be overriding existing systems without any accountability, oversight and transparency.

Candy said...
May 6, 2010 11:00 AM
Quite devious, I'd say. Good article!

Check out my latest post where I am able to show the real reason behind the opposition to AB2072.

Answer: I’m impressed. Extremely well-researched.