Fantasy of Inclusion

Take a moment to read this blog posting “Three Strikes… and He’s Out?

Wow – this is reality for many of our family and community members – this is why we become isolated.  Inclusion for us is a fantasy.

A recent comment made to me by a King County District Court Judge regarding taking my son to a self-advocacy meeting and a Seattle Commission for People with Disabilities meeting ;

“I think you took your son  there just to bother him”   (referring to the Autistic Activist who told me that guardians are all self-serving and every person is able to speak for themselves)

Thank you, Judge, for your understanding –  I do not take my son places to bother others – is that how you view INCLUSION, Judge?

Yes, I’m sure my son’s behavior does bother people and he is not able to be appropriate in many settings of inclusion.  Waiting in line, being patient, being quiet, sitting down, keeping hands to himself, are all very difficult things which take constant support to try to have a resemblance of “appropriate” behaviour.   It takes alot of energy to provide this constant support – one of the reasons that caregivers become isolated when ensuring people with disabilities are included.  We don’t want to bother others and it’s not fun for us to try to manage our son’s behaviors in places that are difficult for him – it’s always a balancing act with a needed escape route.

So, if you see us out in our community – we are not there to bother  or frighten you – we are there to try to give our son some meaningful experiences in life.

 

Haste Makes Waste – Seattle Style

Seattle has been played by a disability activist who has worked extremely hard to have legislation passed that removed the use of special certificates for people with disabilities.  While this may seem like a great step forward in the name of social justice, in reality, it has caused people to lose employment hours and discriminates against people with disabilities by limiting choices and alternatives.

The old saying “haste makes waste” was very evident in the process that has occurred.  Information from concerned and involved stakeholders was blocked which made it impossible to collaborate with the Commission and the Office of Labor Standards with regards to the rule change. Several City of Seattle staffers questioned the urgency of the issue but continued to push this along at the rapid-fire rate the activist was insisting upon.

When the voices of those directly involved are silenced and actions are taken without their input, violations occur.  This is an all too common theme in issues related to those with disabilities – particularly those with intellectual/developmental disabilities.  It’s even more frustrating when this rebuff is done by a Commission that is there to advocate with and for those with disabilities.

This transcript sums up fairly well the response that I received to any inquiry or concern.  The Co-Chair alleges that I harassed and stalked him in addition to many other fabricated stories of what I have done.  This conversation was between a disabled community advocate and the Co-Chair of the Seattle Commission for People with Disabilities.   transcript between Cheryl Felak and Shaun Bickley May 2018

The law, as now written, actually discriminates against people with disabilities who would be able to get a job as “an apprentice, learner or messenger.” 

It is costly and time consuming to hire and train anyone and employers may be even more wary of hiring a person with an intellectual/developmental disability.  Having the option of using a special certificate for a limited amount of time as a trial is an alternative that actually could have provided an opportunity for both employers and employees to “try out” a job without out a full investment for something they may not be sure would work out for either of them.  Having a time limit to the special certificate is a protection for the employee.

According to the Policy Manager of the Office of Labor Standards, the Minimum Wage ordinance prohibits our office from approving a special certificate  for any individual who meets the criteria of “an individual whose earning capacity is impaired by age or physical or mental deficiency or injury” regardless of the individual’s occupation.

It also needs to be noted that the Commission did not contact the City of Seattle Supported Employment Program for any information regarding supported employment.  The City of Seattle is recognized as a “best practice” and has received many awards for the work they do.  Supported Employment Brief Overview_2018 describes the City of Seattle Supported Employment program.

Some excerpts from City of Seattle Supported Employment Overview:

We customize each job by bundling a variety of entry-level duties into positions that individually match candidates’’ skills, which also allows your other employees to maximize their time.  The supported Employment program’s hallmark is its ability to design effective positions that adapt to individual human and organizational needs.

Job coaches provide training and coaching “support’ as needed for the supported employee.  Job coaches are a valuable resource for the entire workplace of a supported employee, and are available at no cost to an employer who hires a supported employee.  Coaches are dispatched from local community agencies that serve the employment-related needs of people with developmental disabilities.

How did the Seattle Commission for People with Disabilities totally ignore this program and employees?  One reason is that the Commission refused to communicate with anyone that had concerns or questions about their push for a rule change and legislation.

It’s too late now to change the law in Seattle but there is time to stop this activist from going statewide with this and causing more harm.

Seattle Minimum Wage and People with Disabilities describes some of the deceit, lies and violations of the First Amendment practiced by The Seattle Commission for People with Disabilities in pursuing the law to eliminate special certificates.

If you are approached by Shaun Bickley (@lLeftistAutist on Twitter) to sign on to the campaign he has posted  or circulated – please think it through and understand what is missing in this campaign – mainly planning, transition, funding, collaboration and sustainability for disabled employees and our community.

Shaun Bickley campaign to end subminimum wage in Washington State July 2018

 

I got the city to ban subminimum wage

 

 

Abled/Disabled Division

Many recent issues with regards to advocacy are termed with the labels of “abled” or “disabled”.  This really strikes me as very odd, particularly given that so many have rebuked being “labeled” in the past so readily label others.

“Nothing About Us, Without Us” and “Did you even ask disabled people who would be affected”  are two of the most common statements from disabled self-advocates.

I have also found that one is labeled “abled” with no regard to disability – but it tends to mean a person who does not agree with the “disabled” viewpoint.  From those who self-identify as “disabled”  (which from my observation has no bearing on if the person is disabled or not – I know some people with significant disabilities who would never self-identify as “disabled” because they are who they are) I have witnessed extreme judgements and strong biased opinions written that are based solely on fiction.  No facts or evidence are produced to support those judgements but they are sold to others as the truth.

Also, disabled activists may be very “abled” in comparison to others who are disabled – do these “abled”  disabled activists speak for every disabled person?  In my opinion, they do not and have no interest in learning about the needs and choices of those “more disabled” then they are.  How does one even measure disability when it is so varied from one environment to another?

The disadain, hate speech, extreme judgements of disabled activists against anyone they define as “abled” (again this has no bearing if the “abled” person has a disability or not since it is in the eye of the activist) borders on pathology – delusions and fabrications of actions they believe “abled” people have done – is something that needs to be addressed and called out.

Using the “disabled card” to get away with abusing others is not okay.  It only builds walls and barriers to collaboration. One such disabled activist in Seattle swears at, calls people “sociopaths” and makes up abuse by other disabled advocates if one has a difference of opinion.  People say “he’s disabled” as if that excuses this behavior.

These are just some of the reasons that I just have to laugh at the “Breaking Barriers” award given out by Disability Rights Washington – an annual award given in several categories.  The advocate award is given to someone with a disability for breaking barriers to advance the rights of and to improve the lives of people with disabilities.

Obviously, my definition of justice and ‘breaking barriers” are very different than DRW’s definition.  They chose Shaun Bickley, the co-chair of the Seattle Disability Commission and the Secretary of Self-Advocates in Leadership (SAIL).  I totally agree that this person is very committed to his activist role but I also question his ability to build bridges and work collaboratively with others who may not totally agree with his opinion and deceit.

In addition, the issue of the elimination of special certificates which allowed people with disabilities to be able to be employed at less than the minimum wage has proven to be harmful to those involved – Mr Bickley is receiving this award for his successful campaign to ban these certificates.  This is discrimination against those with disabilities and prevents them from having jobs as learners, apprentices or messengers.

A New Low for Disability Rights Washington

I have recently been informed of a situation in which a lawyer from Disability Rights Washington – Susan Kas – removed a 19 year old young woman from her family home and took her to an undisclosed ‘shelter” in another city.  Disability Rights Washington  (DRW) is the federally funded Protection and Advocacy Agency for our state.

Last month, Amber O’Neil, age 19, went missing from Seattle and was thought to be with a 52 year old man she met at Seattle Central College.  Here is a link to the news media coverage of her missing and then of her being found in Oregon.  David Posey was the man she was with and he was taken into custody in Oregon by US Marshall Service on June 20, 2018 for parole violations and remains in prison.  He had previously been charged and found guilty of grand larceny, larceny of banknotes/checks (counterfeit money) and “simple assault of family members”.  He also had counterfeit money on his person when he was taken into custody on June 30, 2018.  Amber returned home to Seattle but continued to correspond with David Posey, claiming to be in love and wanting to marry him.  Amber’s father is against this relationship and this difference of opinion has caused some turmoil in the family.

David Posey had instructed Amber to contact DRW regarding her civil rights.  Amber did as she was instructed and DRW staff lawyer, Susan Kas, has personally been involved in helping Amber with her civil rights.

Susan Kas, staff lawyer with DRW

Susan Kas personally went to Amber’s home, served some papers to Amber’s father and together with some other staff removed Amber from her home and took her to an undisclosed “shelter”.  Amber appeared in court with about 5 DRW lawyers/staff on July 9, 2018 regarding issues of guardianship.  Adult Protective Services was also involved.

Disability Rights Washington cannot provide direct assistance in the following situations:

  • Criminal law
  • Family law
  • Assistance becoming the guardian of an individual with a disability
  • Out-of-state issues
  • Workers compensation
  • General medical malpractice & personal injury
  • General consumer bankruptcy issues
  • Any issue or problem not directly related to your disability
  • Assistance finding employment, housing or financial assistance
  • Assistance filling out forms & Social Security applications
  • Anything that is not the wish of the person with the disability

From the video Disability Rights Washington – Rooted in Rights

“when we choose how we advocate, we don’t advocate for what a person may say is best for a person with a disability, we really try to focus on the expressed interest which is different than what some people might call the best interest of someone.  That’s what we think everybody, regardless if you have a disability ought to be able to make important personal decisions for themselves.” (Susan Kas, Staff Attorney, Disability Rights Washington)

Issues of Guardianship – The court needs to be involved  there are legitimate concerns in this issue regarding the relationship of a vulnerable adult with man almost 3 times her age who has a history of being convicted of grand larceny, counterfeiting and abuse.  He was on parole but is currently incarcerated after taking Amber out of state – she was missing for about 30 days – when they were located in Portland on June 30, 2018.  Common sense tells us that this relationship would be cause of concern FOR ANYONE! Having a concern about this relationship is not abuse – it is true concern for the safety, well-being and protection from exploitation of a young woman who just recently graduated from High School.

DRW sees this as a violation of Amber’s civil rights.  Are they now providing her with the counseling that her father was?  Are they providing Amber with honest choices and truth about the situation?  Or, are they using her as a PAWN to in this horrendous situation of civil rights vs. common sense and caring?  This is not a game, this is the life of a young woman who was in school and had an internship for this summer that she has now lost.  She had goals of an education and a better life.  What does she have now? What will she have in the future?

Disability Rights Washington is governed by a Board of Directors, with help from our Advisory Councils. These groups are made up of people with disabilities, family members, and others who have an interest in disability rights.

This video describes the Protection and Advocacy System

A substantial portion of the Disability Rights Washington budget is federally funded.

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.