Cease & Desist Letter”

I received a “Cease & Desist Letter” from Shaun Bickley two days ago.  One more attempt of his to bully and refuse to be accountable for his actions.  He had already filed a petition for an anti-harassment order against me so I’m not quite sure what the purpose of the “Cease & Desist Letter” was.

I’m looking forward to going to court to defend myself against accusations of harassment, lies and stalking by one certain co-commissioner of Seattle Commision for People with Disabilities.  I’m very sorry that this person does not seem to understand the role of a public office and believes that when a constituent asks questions, voices concerns, requests clarification or desires to be involved in the decision making process  – it is not harassment or abuse but active participation that is encouraged by our laws.

My questions are not to this co-commissioner directly or personally other than the fact that he is the one who has been answering.  As far as I’m concerned any member of the Commission could provide the information but no one has stepped up to do that.  This Commissioner could also delegate communication with me to another person.  It doesn’t matter to me who answers the questions but that they are at least addressed and answered.

It’s very interesting to me that this person cites my legal access to public records and research as issues of harassment.  He claims the recording I made at a public meeting and witnessed by several others in the room was a “private conversation” and illegal.  It’s also interesting to note that in the supporting documents with the petition is a declaration from another Commissioner describing the events of the conversation on May 17, 2018 which are clearly not what occurred when one listens to the recording.

Washington State law allows one to use sound and video recording devices at public meetings unless they disrupt the orderly conduct of the meeting.   That is what I did and I’m glad I did because it provides proof of the actions and language used by this individual.  We don’t have to rely on hearsay by those who have been brainwashed by his tactics, we can hear for ourselves and make our own opinion about the conversation.

This person has a public office and is under the sames rules and regulations as any representative of a public agency (RCW 42.30.020)  and the agency has a duty to promptly record and provide meeting minutes for public review (RCW 42.30.030).     It doesn’t matter if the person is a volunteer or a paid public servant – they are all accountable to state laws and regulations.

RCW 42.30.020 – Legislative declaration states:

The legislature finds and declares that all public commissions, boards, councils, committees, subcommittees, departments, division, offices, and all other public agencies of this state and subdivisions thereof exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business.  It is the intent of this chapter that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.

The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve the.  The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know.  the people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.

Holding our public servants (volunteer or paid) accountable to their duties is not abuse and harassment – it is doing our duty as a citizens.
My assumption of why this behavior has been allowed to go on so long after so many people have complained to the city government about the abuse, harassment and bullying practiced by this co-chair is that they are afraid he will sue for discrimination if he is reprimanded or let go.   That’s probably the case that he would file a lawsuit but is that reason to allow these actions to continue?  Not in my opinion.
 Forgot to add that this person is one of the recipients of the Disability Rights Washington “Breaking Barriers” awards.  So not only do we not hold people accountable, we give them honors for their abuse and harassment.

Elimination of Special Certificates

The issue of the elimination of the special certificates for people with disabilities has been very controversial.  There have been many problems related to lack of transparency and accountability on the part of the Seattle Commission for People with Disabilities.

Many attempts to have a conversation with the Commission and collaborate have been denied which is a violation of The constitution of the United States, First Amendment.

The First Amendment provides individuals with the right to engage in protected speech without government interference. If a local government establishes a social media site to communicate with the public about agency business, the First Amendment will apply to the comments and posts made by others on that site.

So, the moderator of the agency page cannot simply delete, hide or block posts or people based solely on the content of the message that was posted.

The Commission blocked, censored and harassed community members, disability advocates, people with disabilities and stakeholders who had concerns and/or questions from interacting on the Commission’s public Facebook page.   This exclusion by the public entity of the Seattle Commission for People with Disabilities of the very people the Commission was set up to advocate for is an extreme example which is becoming all to common.

When ideology is used without consideration of other viewpoints as the sole decision making process, there can be many unintended consequences.  A healthy debate with varying viewpoints and a rational analysis to problem solve in the decision making process can help to mitigate the abuse of power that is used when decisions are based solely on ideology.  People do not have to agree but when there are discussions we can all learn something.

Many problems have been encountered in this process and I question the legality of the decisions that have been made when proper procedures were not followed.

  1.  June 2017 was the first mention of any issue of the elimination of the special certificates for people with disabilities according to the Commission’s meeting minutes.
  2. A quorum was not achieved at the June 2017 meeting in which the Commission reports they had a unanimous vote to eliminate the special certificates.
  3. According to the by-laws of the Commission they need a majority of appointed Commissioners  present in order to have a quorum.  During June 2017 there were 13 appointed Commissioners – they would have needed 7 Commissioners present for a quorum – they only had 6.  This means they would not have been able to have a meeting or a vote.
    • A Quorum needs to be present in order to have a vote
    • The so-called “unanimous vote” was actually invalid according to the Commission by-laws
    • June 15, 2017 minutes PwD
  4.  It was reported in July 2017 by the Mayor and Councilmember Herbold that there had been a unanimous vote by the Seattle Commission for People with Disabilities.  This article states that the Office of Labor Standards will begin rule revisions and a City Council vote before the end of the year.
  5. Revisions proposed to the City of Seattle’s Minimum wage rule – eliminating subminimum wages for employees with disabilities – August 17, 2017
  6. First public notice from OLS regarding Special Certificates requesting public comments – unfortunatley, the decision had already been made by former OLS Director Dylan Orr, Former Mayor Murray and Councilmember Herbold.  Was the information shared during legislative meetings in June 2017 by Commissioners Shaun Bickley and Matt Kanter representative of the community they represent?
  7. Office of Labor Standards (OLS) received the most comments on this issue than any other rule revision comment request in the past.  They received 70 responses and it had been reported that there was a “slight” preference for the elimination of the certificates.  (later found to be false when records were reviewed – see below)
  8. OLS announces Final Rule September 29, 2017
  9. If you submitted a comment you most likely received the following email from Karina Bull from OLS about September 30, 2017 with a copy of the Press Release dated September 29, 2017.

From: Bull, Karina

Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2017 7:15 AM

To: Bull, Karina <Karina.Bull@seattle.gov>

Subject: OLS Issues Final Rule Revisions for Seattle’s Minimum Wage Ordinance

Greetings,

Thank you for submitting a comment to inform our rulemaking process for subminimum wages for people with disabilities. We carefully considered all comments and sincerely appreciate your contribution to this process. Yesterday, our office announced the final rules; the announcement is below.

 

Again, thank you for your participation.

 

Regards,

 

Karina

Karina Bull

Policy Manager

City of Seattle | Office of Labor Standards

 

 

810 Third Avenue, Suite 375

 

Seattle, WA 98104-1627

 

Phone: 206-684-4536

 

karina.bull@seattle.gov

 

10. Given lack of transparency and accountability in this legislation, I began to do more research into how the decision had come to be made.

11.  Seventy comments were received by OLS – 33 (or 18 if duplicate scripts are not counted) were in favor of elimination of certificates; 37 were against elimination of certificates.  Clearly far from unanimous and from my perspective indicates there needs to be more research done on the issue.

12.  There were 15 comments which were identical to the script template that Commissioner Shaun Bickley had sent out and tagged many people on Social Media sites to send in to bolster his project –  45% of the comments in favor of elimination were this exact script.

 

[suggested script]  

Dear Ms. Bull  

I am writing to express solidarity with the Seattle Commission for People with Disabilities’ recommendations to end subminimum wage and the use of subminimum wage certificates in Seattle.  

As you know, the Commission conducted an extensive four-month review, and received overwhelming support for this course of action from both community members with disabilities and disability organizations. They also contacted the workers making subminimum wage along with their family members and employers, who have all agreed to this timeline.  

I believe that we should listen to people with disabilities, especially those with intellectual and developmental disabilities who are most impacted by this. They know what they need and we should support them and applaud them in their quest for equality before the law.  

I look forward to Seattle becoming the first location on the west coast to grant wage equality to workers with disabilities, and in finally ending this blatantly discriminatory practice.  

Sincerely,  

(Name)  

(Resident of Seattle, connection, etc)  

13.   Comment received from Karina Bull, Policy Manager of Office of Labor Standards regarding the corrections to the reported facts on the OLS comments.

Our office carefully reviewed the outpour of comments in favor of retaining subminimum wage, as well as the outpour of comments in favor of prohibiting the subminimum wage. Ultimately, the final rule was reached with strong support of our former Director, Dylan Orr, former Mayor Murray, and Councilmember Herbold. The more recent decision to codify this prohibition in our Minimum Wage ordinance was passed by City Council, 8-0 

14.   My view of this is that the comments sent in were basically meaningless in the decision making process.    I do not know what information Dylan Orr used  but I do believe that both former Mayor Murray and Councilmember Herbold were not provided with accurate information on the issue.  Again, the saying “Nothing about us, without us” was disregarded in this legislation.

Where is the accountability for the actions taken by this renegade Commission?  Do they represent what you need?  If not, join me in attending their meetings and providing much needed common sense and input.

Did he say what I think he said?

The response that I have gotten from many people who have listened to the abuse that the Seattle Commission for People with Disabilities spewed at me after their last meeting (May 17, 2018) is “Did he say what I think he said?”

YES – Hear for yourself – if you are offended by this encounter (this was the first “in-person” conversation that I had with this person) please write to any or all of the following people or agencies.

It doesn’t matter if one is a volunteer or not, disabled or not – as a representative of a City and Community Commission, one needs to uphold the duties of the office.

Mayor Jenney Durkan photo

Seattle City Council May 2018

Contact City Council

Seattle Boards and Commission Home page

Contact Boards and Commissions

Seattle Office for Civil Rights

Contact Office for Civil rights

Seattle Office of Civil Rights Commissions

Contact Seattle Disability Commission

If you would like to read a history of the questions and concerns that were excluded from any discussion on the legislation which eliminated choice and alternatives for those with significant disabilities, here is the document sent to the Office of Civil Rights (per their request) to receive answers to.

Questions to PwD Commission that need to be answered

Next Post will discuss the issues of the Office of Labor Standards and comments received regarding the rule change in September 2017.

Commission of Bullies and Chaos

Seattle Commission for People with Disabilities – a commission that sounds as if it’s diverse, inclusive and collaborative has proven to be something else.  It has been a commission of bullies who falsify information to the public.

About the Commission page

  1.  I have requested meeting minutes be posted their website.  The Commission responded that it was up to the city to post the minutes, that they had been submitted.
  2. I requested copies of the meeting minutes through City of Seattle Public Records Request for the minutes from June 2017 through March 2018.  My response was returned “The records you requested have not been created and finalized by the commission because of lack of a quorum.  As a result, there are no existing records that match your search.”  (Office for Civil Rights)
  3. How is a city commission able to function for over 8 months without a quorum and also elect new co-chairs?  How can they function without meeting minutes?

This Commission needs to have some direction and oversight.  It is run by people of questionable motives with little understanding of some of the real issues facing our community members with significant cognitive and developmental disabilities.

My experience with this Commission has only been since July, 2017 when I found out about their agenda to eliminate special certificates .  By the time I had any information on this there had already been work done through the Office of Labor Standards. While I know there have been and still may be some people with integrity on the commission, they are not the ones that are making decisions and speaking on behalf of this commission.

From what I have seen since July 2017 bullying and causing chaos have been the behaviors that have been accepted by the commission.  The Commission roster has changed and there are new co-chairs.

Without having a quorum for at least 8 months I’m very curious how decision have been made and why there has not been a quorum.  How can new co-chairs be elected without a quorum?  What guidelines does this commission follow in managing their meetings and work?

April 30, 2018  –  Shaun Bickley (apparently co-chair) and Jessica Williams-Hall terms expire.

Meet the Commissioners April 2018

commission PwD roster changes 2017 through 2018

 

 

“We Did It” (not)

We did it

Seattle passes elimination of special certificates – leads to job losses for people with disabilities

Injustice – this law certainly is.  It was propelled through a rapid process with little thought, planning or research done.   The backers of it told half-truths at best to out-right lies about the people it affected, will affect and their research.  They refused to answer critical questions from concerned advocates and community members, harassed and wrote libelous comments about people who disagreed with their “cause.”

One would think that the Seattle Commission would be a little more concerned about the fall-out from their victory – but given that the Commission has no clue about what it takes for job development, job skill building, appropriate supports and funding for those supports too be sustained, they apparently think that magic will happen and jobs will appear because of this law.  They think their job is done.

Now we can clean up their mess. 

The 2017 Commission for PwD had an Employment Committee with some great goals – although elimination of the special certificates was not among those goals.  I’m not sure when and how that became the goal but it appears that the other goals were forgotten.

Employment Committee

The fact that the Commission for PwD has no follow up or evaluation process it is up to others to do that.  The lies continue – coming from both people on the commission and the Mayor.

Since the Commission for PwD no longer has an Employment Committee, they can sit back and pat themselves on the back for their wonderful work.   I think they need to be held accountable to their actions  – I’m trying to get the information out but it’s hard when I’m blocked and censored.

My son and I went to their meeting yesterday to give a Public Comment to The Commission for People with Disabilities April 19 2018.  Even though we were there at the published time for the start of the meeting and public comments, the Commission was already on their 3rd or 4th agenda item, no sign in sheet and no acknowledgement.

They make it very difficult to be involved in processes which affect our community members – curious how they think they are meeting their purpose of accountability and working with the community on issues that concern them.

accountable to community

Below are just a couple of the outright lies that the now Co-Chair of the Seattle Commission for People with Disabilities wrote:

“The Commission IS disabled people, half with I/DD, several with intellectual disabilities.  We had testimony from disabled people and family members across the city, all in support.  We have already worked with the families and employers affected by this legislation, all of whom supported and consented to it.  

Don’t make assumptions and assume the disabled people are too stupid to decide what we need or to collaborate with other disabled people.”

 

“That’s why the rule change, proposed and advocated for by people with I/DD is so fantastic.  Your assumptions are just that:  assumptions that have no basis in fact.  I’m not college-educated and we have multiple members with ID and I/DD – just because you don’t agree with our conclusions doesn’t invalid our experiences.  

BTW, we worked not just with disabled community members but with the workers, their families, and employers, all of whom agreed to this change, none of whom are losing their jobs.  Please don’t make assumptions about us or decide what we need without talking to us. “

Seattle Commission issues apology

Update (October 12, 2017) 

I have been asked by some commissioners to file a formal complaint with the City of Seattle regarding the abusive nature of interactions between a particular member of the Seattle Commission for People with Disabilities and community members and organizations who had a concern. 

If you or others you know felt that a member of the Seattle Commission for People with Disabilities was abusive or inappropriately criticized you in their response to you, I have been asked to send a formal complaint to both the Commission and the Office of Civil Rights – Seattle Department of Civil Rights – complaints Thank you.

 

This past week a representative from the Seattle Commission for People with Disabilities sent an apology to me for being banned from their Facebook page by one of the page administrators.

According to the representative, the page administrator took things way too far.  Because of this incident, they have instituted a temporary social media policy and reassigned roles.  The Commission will be formally adopting a policy in October.  Until that time, you and another have been “unbanned.”

The commission will, however, be moderating the page tightly and will remove posts that become “inflamed” or that attack another.  You and Friends of Fircrest, were attached because of one person’s vociferous opinion about Fircrest and his mixing his personal opinion with that of the Commission (which has not yet taken a position.)

 

I appreciate the acknowledgment of the censorship and accept the apology.  I do hope to be able to attend upcoming meetings to provide another voice to the conversation.

We need to have these conversations to build a stronger community.

Elimination of Sub-minimum wage in Seattle

The Seattle Commission for People with disAbilities  has made a recommendation to the Seattle City Council to eliminate certificates which enable employers to pay people with specific disabilities a commensurate wage.  I know that there are discussions all across the country that are looking at issues of employment and wages for people with disabilities.

This is a quick update on this very heated discussion.  From what I can assume by the articles that I read and the correspondence I have had with at least two of the commissioners regarding this issue vie Facebook,  there has been little research or collaboration with those in our community who may be, now or in the future, affected by this proposal.

Attempts to offer insight, requests for research, transition plans and funding plans have been ignored and people who expressed concerns have been rudely and aggressively mistreated by at least one of the commissioners.

Seattle Commission for people with disabiltiies Shaun Bickley and Cindi Laws

Below is the first letter that I submitted on the Facebook page.  This led to the Facebook page administrator blocking me from further comments or reacting to any posts – and this post was removed.

I am the parent and guardian of a young adult with significant intellectual/developmental and mental health disabilities – all of a degenerative nature and I network with many other families, caregivers, guardians and people with IDD who totally disagree with the assumptions that you and others are making about those with disabilities.

Yes, the members of the commission may have disabilities but is the specific population of those with significant intellectual/developmental disabilities represented?  The population which identifies as disabled is extremely heterogeneous and we need to have choices available to ensure that all have a chance and opportunity to work. We are all very concerned regarding this issues. For many of these people who work under these certificates it’s not about making a living wage – it’s about having a job and being a member of the community, participating, sharing experiences and having daily goals and activities – basically adding meaning to their lives. 


Unfortunately, my son and others who experience some of the same types of issues he does, are not able to articulate their ideas, attend meetings, and speak in coherent sentences – even with the help of assistive technology, and so their voices are not heard. 


You do not speak for them – in fact, it is quite the opposite because you deny the people who know, love and understand them, the opportunity to provide their ideas and choices. These people are their friends, families, guardians, caregivers, coaches, case managers, co-workers. These are the people who are all better equipped to fill in and be a proxy for their voices. 


The fact that you make assumptions that you are speaking for all people with disabilities without taking into consideration those who are affected by this issue is an act of discrimination and devaluation of their personhood. 


We need these certificates to ensure choice – remember the saying “nothing about us, without us” – Please take it to heart!

Mr. Shaun Bickley, one of the commissioners, took offense with my letter, stating “”nothing about us, without us” refers to disabled people, not to parents, siblings, neighbors,  co-workers and other allies”.  He wrote that they (the commission) were all disabled and therefore can speak for all people with disabilities – whereas, guardians’ concerns are only self-serving.  He wrote that all people, even if they can just move one muscle, can make their choices known – regardless if others understand them or not.  (I am very confused by this since if others do not understand, how are their choices known?)

In looking at the members of the commission I noticed that several are lawyers, a few have PhDs and several others have a variety of advanced college degrees, one is a filmmaker and an artist,  one is a medical doctor  – I’m curious which one has an intellectual/developmental disability?  This is the question that got me blocked from the Facebook page as it was seen as using “degrading language and making people feel unsafe.”

More to come – letters have been sent to The Seattle Commission for People with Disabilities, the Mayor’s office, the Office of Labor Standards and to each member on the Seattle City Council.