Just as I thought.
It was 23 Ayes and 11 Noes. The bill will go to Assembly either on August 26 or shortly after that. And then when all good and dandy the bill will go to the Governator's desk for his signature. And the rest will become history.
BILL HISTORY
2010
Aug. 24 In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after August 26 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.
Aug. 24 Read third time, passed, and to Assembly. (Ayes 23. Noes 11.)
Which means only 6 Senators did not vote out of 40 Senators. I'd say with all the amendments and changes the people have mostly been heard. And this will be the first time that ASL is to be recognized legally in a bill with the Governor's signature. People need to move on and take the time and plan for this by seeing this as a huge opportunity to help ASL be recognized for parents of deaf and hard of hearing babies. After all it is the parents who must decide for their babies. No one else owns their babies. Not even Deaf organizations or Deaf people. Some of these Deaf groups, organizations or people have for the longest time had this sense of "ownership" or "entitlement" over babies born with hearing loss. That attitude simply need to be dropped. Many of us has been saying that for awhile. It'd be better to show the positive side of ASL rather than get all ugly and call people "Nazis" or accuse them of "eugenics" in the worst way. All that posturing simply backfired dramatically in the worst way and it can only paint them in the public eye with more negative images seeing them as "extremists." I can only imagine what Senators may have been thinking when they got this flyer in their inboxes. Or the public reading an article about the bill and protest for the time and not know anything about Deaf culture or ASL and read those Nazism remarks. If anything I'd say the whole protest took on a rather sloppy approach.
It's one thing to protest and make your case known but it's another to hurl insults, lob accusations and use Godwin's Law to try and link Senators as if they were a bunch of Nazis. Not cool. Not smart. And it won't win any hearts this way.
Anyway, this bill is a step closer to get the Governator's famous signature.
30 comments:
"First they ignore you, then ridicule you, then they fight you and then you win" - Ghandi
AB 2072 The Day After
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg5g1H1cVpw
Linda, that quote is rather a bit misplaced here. If you think this is a win by those who are against AB2072 then where are the rejoicing? Where are their blogs and vlogs congratulating themselves on the successful amendment changes, the changes in language and wordings and the changes in on who the panel members are to consist of that many of them must have some kind of a hearing loss? They are curiously and quite damningly quiet.
Linda, where are they? Planning a full scale assault and protest tomorrow or the coming days?
There was no ridiculing from those who simply oppose based on the language and words used. The ridiculing was reserved for those who insist on using Godwin's Law and accuse people of practicing eugenics and so on.
mcconnell
McConnell, didn't you understand what Ella said?
Let me try again in English:
See 00:29:17 of
https://www.calchannel.com/channel/viewVideo/1706
...where Senator Alquist acknowledges what Ella already told you. The audiologists now oppose AB 2072.
Linda ,
Is that true about Audiologists now oppose AB 2072 ?
Lets see the transition through the bill than listening to vlog .
Transition usually tells the truth than vlog .
Have a good day !
GoatMan aka Travis
Alquist was referring to a previous admendment where the audiologists weren't happy with language of that bill and was against it simply because it was essentially a gag order, loosely speaking. Look up August 17, 2010 amended bill. Look at line 22 - 24:
"The audiologist shall not inform or counsel a parent toward a particular option beyond the scope of his or her practice."
Now, look at the recent August 20th amended bill the same line and you can it struck out the above lines I gave you and replaced it with in line 23 to 29:
"The audiologist shall note in the newborn’s or infant’s record that the parent has received the informational pamphlet. During the course of evaluation and treatment, the audiologist shall inform and counsel the parent of all available communication and language options as described in the pamphlet."
See the difference? It's now much better for audiologists to swallow than the previous one. I listened to what Alquist instead of watching the ASL interpreter since the terp didn't quite get it all.
I get it. Thanks for the greatest, greatest, greatest clarification, Mike. When I saw ASLElla's story about Audiologists' new opposition to AB 2072, I was befuddled.
Linda...you need to read the latest amendment very, very, very carefully. Please don't jump any conclusions.
McConnell,
You asked why we were quiet. Partly, we were stunned. Partly we didn't believe it just as you don't yet believe it... Partly we were checking...
No, Alquist was speaking YESTERDAY, and the Audiologists had just spent the morning of 8/24 reversing their position to various legislators on the 8/20 bill.
Candy asked why Romero and Cedillo voted FOR it, remember? Things were changing just before and maybe even DURING the 8/24 session.
I don't expect you to believe me even yet, but wanted to show you what proof is currently publicly available.
Eventually leginfo will catch up with the FACT that the audiologists have registered their opposition with the Assembly earlier today. I believe it was the CAA that registered, but am not sure of the actual audiology agency at this time.
Yeah... I spent a day already being stunned by it. Once you reassure yourself that what I've said is true, you might find yourself spending some quiet time thinking about the implications of this switch just as we have been...
So anyway, you get the Ghandi quote now?
- Linda
The only implication I can see if CAA did oppose the current bill's language as of yesterday could mean changing the language again that's more palatable to them. But until we know exactly what they oppose we won't know.
I don't think they can amend it any more. I think that's because it originated in the Assembly, so the Assembly would have to ask the Senate to do the amending, and the deadline for the Senate to amend was last Friday, which means the Assembly would be expected to kill it or pass it along to the governor.
But you are now discussing stuff around where I'm not sure enough of my facts to argue anymore, so I'm just telling you my best understanding there.
I DO know that Senator Cedillo is expected to address the Assembly tomorrow. In the past, he has spoken in our favor. I don't yet know what time he is expected to speak, but will let you know when I find out, and we WILL be asking (ONCE AGAIN!) for both interpreting and captioning, though only interpreting is likely to be provided, if the past is any indication.
- Linda
Bills that are amended in the other House must be returned to the House of origin for acceptance or rejection (i.e., “concurrence” or “non concurrence”) of amendments adopted in the other House. For instance, an Assembly Bill amended in the Senate is returned to the Assembly for concurrence in Senate amendments. Concurrence items are placed on the Assembly Unfinished Business File. The Assembly then has two options: concur or non-concur in Senate amendments.
One-day Waiting Period
A vote on concurrence is not in order until the bill has been on the Unfinished Business File for one calendar day (A.R. 77). Resolutions are exempt from the one-day waiting period. If amendments are concurred in, the measure is enrolled (see page 18) and then sent to the Governor for his or her signature or veto. In the event the House non-concurs, the Speaker and the Senate Rules Committee appoint a six-member conference committee (three from each House) from their respective Houses (see information under “Non Concurrence:
Conference
Committees” heading next page).
http://www.assembly.ca.gov/clerk/billslegislature/Leg_Procedure.pdf
Cool, Mike!
Thanks!
- L
Ok, let's see if I've got it now. From pages 16 and 17 of that same PDF file:
"A vote on concurrence is not in order until the bill has been on the Unfinished Business File for one calendar day (A.R. 77). Resolutions are exempt from the one-day waiting period."
This is NOT a resolution so this one day was required, and should have been 8/25.
If the ammendments are "concurred in", the bill goes to the governator, and we're on to waiting for his signature or veto.
But if the Assembly decides to non-concur, the Speaker and the Senate Rules committee appoint conferees (takes some time, but let's say less than one day, so still 8/26).
The non-concurrence conference committee chair gives notice to the File Clerk in both Houses, and the meeting time and place must be published in the File ONE DAY PRIOR to the meeting (that's one more day, 8/27).
The conference meets, decides on amendments (if any) and a final report is signed and submitted to both Houses. No more amendments after that (takes some time, let's assume less than one day, so still 8/27).
The Conference Report is not "in order" unless it is received at the Desk at least THREE CALENDAR DAYS prior to the Final Recess, not including the day the report was received, so that's 8/28, 8/29, and 8/30.
Final Recess is on August 31, so it's technically doable, but it looks to me that everything has to be well-greased, which seems unlikely if the audiologists are trying to oppose after they have supported for so long.
Can you see errors or have other opinions?
It seems to me that unless we want to release the audiologists, they are likely to be stuck with things as they are...
Sure wish I knew their specific objections, tho!
- Linda
Mike/Linda --
See, Senators and Assemblyman Mendoza have heard EVERYBODY, not just the audiologists or opposition.
They made the amendments and changes *for* EVERYBODY.
Therefore, everybody in the AB2072 were heard......
Let's make it simple...Ella lied!
Update per the leginfo.ca.gov
Assembly Rule 77 suspended.
File: ASM Concurrence
File Date: 08/26/10
Yeah, RIGHT!
Ella AND Senator Alquist both...
Mike, today you will have time to get the facts before you let any more people RIDICULE, so I expect you to NOTICE that we are nearing the "fight" part of the Ghandi quote now... Today's Assembly session should reveal more TRUTH.
- Linda
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_2051-2100/ab_2072_bill_20100825_history.html
Rule 77 suspended... Means they don't have to wait a day, but they already did, didn't they?
FOUND IT!!! PROOF!!!
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_2051-2100/ab_2072_cfa_20100824_113053_sen_floor.html
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/20/10)
California Coalition (source)
American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees
California Association of Private Special Education Schools
California Coalition
California Hospital Association
California Speech-Language Hearing Association
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/24/10)
ASL Presents LLC
California Academy of Audiology
California Association of the Deaf
California Association of the Deaf, Sacramento Chapter
----------------------
CAA IS NOW OPPOSED TO AB 2072!
Today's Assembly session starts at 10 AM PDT, and, according to the Assembly Daily File (ftp://leginfo.public.ca.gov/pub/dailyfile/asm/assembly_Regular_Session.pdf)
...AB 2072's Concurrence is item #18 scheduled to be heard.
At this time, it looks like https://www.calchannel.com/channel/live/3 will be carrying the live coverage, but time and "channel" have changed at the last minute before, so I will try to update you guys if I find out any changes.
- Linda
- Linda
If CAA now opposes to the AB 2072, are they pissed off at CA-NIAS? Is it because CA-NIAS are now strongly against the Audiologists' philosophy?
They went past AB 2072's concurrence (Item #18) without bringing it up. They ARE going in order, just skipping stuff.
The "captions" so far are NOT what the humans are saying, but just some bannered text related to the bill they're talking about at the moment.
No "captions" at the moment. I guess deaf folks only need to know about the bills that talk about them, if even those?
So far, no interpreter either, so I'm guessing from the text that appears once in a while, along with all the other deafies eagerly watching.
AB 2072 may be coming up in some later concurrence session? In any case, nobody's missed anything about it yet as of 11:12 AM PDT.
- Linda
AB 2072 concurrence discussion has been postponed until tomorrow.
This is my guess and nothing more, that the Assembly will concur the AB2072 eventually even though the CAA now oppose the bill. I do not have exact information why CAA opposes it not, my guess would be that it tramples over their job as it is by outlining what they have to do and they may (again, this is MY opinion)feel that they should be allowed to use their expertise in explaining what they know best and may feel that they do not need to get into other modalities that they are not well versed in. CAA's opposition to the bill, in my opinion is not going to change anything at this point.
So, the opposition is stunned? I wish the opposition would take into account the opinions of the supporters especially when it comes to Nazi and eugenics claims, that, I think hurt the opposition more than they ever will know. I feel for the opposition. But, at the same time, the bill would not be where it is today (ASL in CA law!!) if it wasn't for them.
I totally agree with several points made in this thread, especially the part where somebody said Ella had lied. No surprises there. Ella tried to speak for the deaf community and failed miserably. And now she's trying to speak for the audiologist? Will somebody please give her some professional help?
I feel for some of people who were surprised, shocked and stunned by the passage. If they exercised common sense they would not be. I knew it'd pass, since day one, because they have to pass something to improve upon an existing law that was way too vague and weak. They surely could not sit idly and do nothing about it.
I'm glad to rid of this issue as soon as the Governor signs it and he will. Glad because the more I hear from the opposition party the more I sincerely believe they're one dysfunctional society and that's a depressing thought.
Thanks Mike for keeping us posted.
Look at ANY audiology major. What IS their expertise? You can see it in the classes they are required to take.
They take classes right along with SLPs (or LSLPs these days), in programs prominently funded by the Oberkotter Foundation and AG Bell, so there is NOTHING that allows the idea that a child they need to serve may not wind up with enough hearing to learn to listen!
Audiologists have SOME expertise related to the technology, and SOME expertise related to the physiology of the ear, but they do NOT have expertise in anything but the oral education philosophy (look at where the audiology major sends them for practicum!), so when they are asked how to educate, they either fall back on the CAA's proclaimed agnosticism with regards to method, or they look the parent in the eye and give the opinion their training prepares them to give!
Candy likes to quote Licia King's repeated testimony of her plight getting only ASL advice from the first audiologist before learning about CIs, but her twins were both implanted at the minimum age of 12 months, and, in my opinion, she really should also have disclosed in her testimony that she is employed as Communication Director of the Sacramento CCHAT, one of the oral option schools sponsoring the bill and paying lobbyists a bunch of money.
But Candy sees that and goes off talking about how MANY parents are steered to ASL programs, when the overwhelming bulk of the steerage is into oral-only programs.
Option schools have spent SO MUCH MONEY on lobbying that they could simply have reprinted their brochure, sent stacks of them out to the 1400+ audiologists, and had money left over!
Ask yourself, what do they get by having the state require that an audiologist do anything, even something as tame as handing out a brochure?
The oral option schools BENEFIT from accelerating the status quo practice of audiologists being the gatekeepers to oralism.
This is clearly seen, for example, on page 5 of
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments//2008/952/589/2008-952589590-04e86f4b-9.pdf
...where the sponsoring California Coalition's Executive Director, Elisa Roche, is also shown to be the Executive Director of Oralingua School for the Hearing Impaired (the oral option school in Tony Mendoza's district), where, in 2007, she received compensation of $90,000 + benefits in the amount of $4500 for 9 hours per week of work.
Is it unreasonable to think that Candy's friend, Dr. Roche might stand to benefit personally from this as well as the warm feeling she gets by working with the deaf babies?
Sure it will pass. The option schools paid enough money lobbying for it to pass that they could just have used the money to publish the original brochure and send boxes full of them to California's 1400+ audiologists with money left over, so I've gotta ask, what do they expect state backing buy them?
See the section toward the bottom of page 5 http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments//2008/952/589/2008-952589590-04e86f4b-9.pdf page 5 for how much Candy's buddy Elisa Roche made for 9 hours of work a week in the latest availble 990 for Oralingua School for the Hearing Impaired.
Dr. Roche not only represents Oralingua, but she is the Executive Director of the California Coalition, the main group of private oral option schools sponsoring this bill.
Besides, it's a no-brainer NOW that it is already a runaway train... They've put off concurrence one MORE day (told the terp to go home today, and hired from a different agency for tomorrow), so they have one LESS day to deal with any non-concurrence before the 8/31-must-pass deadline
Understand why Candy would want to get out in front of the bandwagon early, tho... ;-)
Barry, we weren't stunned by its passage. We were stunned that the audiologists reversed their position and now OPPOSE AB 2072.
Also, not all the opposition was stunned. Far from lying, Ella correctly broke the news that the audiologists had changed their stance, and as you can see when you carefully reread, THIS FACT is what she was called a liar for!
So you might not want to dig yourself in any deeper than you already are.
- Linda
Linda is a sore loser.
Many CEO's make exorbitant amount of money, this is nothing new.
90K is nothing compared to what other CEOs make. Instead of tackling the merits of the bill, the merits of opposition points, Linda, you had to go off on some wild goose chase. Typical.
I blog for free, don't get no compensation, I sacrifice my time for causes I believe in. My valuable time, time which I don't have a lot of, comes from my heart on matters I strongly believe in. Also, I like to write.
When it comes to politics, all this money game is pretty old, and it is something I'm not too crazy about. It's been around for ages and sure didn't start with AB2072. Same old, same old.
Linda ,
Okay from what I see the latest amendment on Aug 17th, let me copy and paste
AMENDED IN SENATE AUGUST 17, 2010
AMENDED IN SENATE AUGUST 2, 2010
AMENDED IN SENATE JUNE 9, 2010
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 27, 2010
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 13, 2010
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 5, 2010
(1) By an audiologist immediately upon identification of a newborn
or infant as deaf or hard of hearing. The audiologist shall not
inform or counsel a parent toward a particular option beyond the scope of his or her practice.
The audiologists weren't happy with that language and they were already against it only one language , not the whole system .
Amendment on Aug 24th
The opposition also argues that audiologists are not the appropriate experts to advise parents and families about language acquisition because audiologists are trained to measure and "treat" hearing loss by recommending hearing aids or cochlear implants.
The audiologists were already against it 7 days before 24th and put on oppsition side on 24th. I wasn't stunned at all . Because I knew there is NO must or required!
Have a good day !
GoatMan aka Travis
Everyone ,
The previous comment that I posted above me , I felt that it should satisfy the ASL communities and I felt the anti-ab2072 should support this bill . Its just my thought and hope u understand this .
Have a good day !
GoatMan aka Travis
Post a Comment