Activist or Advocate? Seattle Style.

I have come to realize that when an activist is unable to address questions about issues, the activist digresses to personal attacks that have nothing to do with the issues.  This is a diversionary tactic to distract the public from the truth.  It often works or they wouldn’t use this tactic.   The so-called personal attacks could be totally made up (as most are in this situation) or a major twisting of the objective truth.

Case in point – issues of the sub-minimum wage ban in Seattle.  The Seattle Commission for People with Disabilities instituted this rule change and subsequent legislation without listening to concerns in the community.   It’s difficult to separate the Commission from the current Co-Chair, Shaun Bickley since Bickley self-identifies as the person who got this ban in place.  If people credit the Commission, Bickley becomes upset that his name was not mentioned as the person responsible.  This is why many of the issues I address are written about/to Bickley since he was the person answering for the Commission.  This is not a personal issue about Bickley himself, but Bickley, acting as Co-Chair of the Commission and as a public servant for the City of Seattle.

As far as I’m concerned, any one of the Commissioners could answer but they have left it to Bickley to do the talking.  So, my calling out Bickley is only because Bickley is the one doing the communicating for the Commission.

But, Bickley, has made it a personal issue against him, when in fact,  it’s not about him at all but the issues.  I have only been trying to get a conversation on the issues.  Bickley writes as if I have been trying to invade his personal life – I know nothing about the person, his life, and have never tried to contact him personally outside of the Commission.  The fact that Bickley seems to think that the Seattle Commission for People with Disabilities is his personal domain (Facebook and meetings) is a problem.

Bickley blocked me from the Commission Facebook page (he does state this himself) and that was a violation of the First Amendment.  Bickley claims that I cried ‘censorship” when he blocked me from contacting him.  The way he writes this it appears that he blocked me from his personal page and I got upset about that.  I have no idea since I have never gone to his personal page and never tried to contact him personally.  He did block me from the Commission page but that is not HIS page – it is a City Commission page and yes, that was a concern.  Bickley does not seem to be able to distinguish between himself and the Commission.

Bickley recently posted a long diatribe for Autism Speaking Day 2018 on his friends, Kassiane Asasumasu’s blog “Radical Neurodivergence Speaking”.  This essay is an exercise in narcissistic victimization delusions.  When I informed Kassiane Asasumasu of the libelous essay, she wrote ” It’s not libel when it’s true. It’s the best sourced item I’ve ever published.”  Maybe Kassiane Asasumasu never checks sources if she believes this nonsense too.  

For documentation and clarification of letters I have sent to The Arc of King County (Bickley’s place of employment which he claims I have visited and contacted many times asking for his removal).  Bickley also claims that I have shown up in person at his job to demand my dismissal, as well as at meetings he attends – including Commission meetings.    Yes, I have attended Commission meetings and one SAIL meeting with my disabled son but have never shown up at his place of employment regarding anything having to do with him.   These are public meetings for disability advocacy.  The Arc of King County is an advocacy agency for people with intellectual/developmental disabilities – something that I have been involved in for over 20 years.

Letter to Ramona Hattendorf, The Arc of King County, regarding the abusive response at a public meeting by Co-Chair Bickley – May 2018

Correspondence with Ramona Hattendorf regarding issues with Seattle Commission and explanation of events which have occured. June 2018

Bickley writes – she “tried to physically prevent me from exiting the Commission room, probably hoping to entrap me into shoving past her to escape so she could claim to be attacked by the big bad autistic.”

This statement is clearly a fabrication.  I left the room with the Office of Civil Rights Liaison, who is also heard on the recording saying “Shaun, back up”, and Bickley was nowhere near me at the time.  He was still in the Boardroom talking with others when Marta and I left the room in conversation.

Letter sent via blind cc to all those who submitted public comments to OLS May 2018 – I assume that the person that Bickley refers to has partner in this comment “She’s contacted many others, advocates and friends, including my partner, to warn them what a terrible person I am.” maybe one of the 70 people on this list.  This was also the only email that I EVER sent to Bickley’s personal email (except for the reply to his “cease & desist” letter)

Correspondence with Ramona Hattendorf, The Arc of King County, regarding the letter by sbickley@thearcofkingcounty.org regarding elimination of sub-minimum wage statewide – October 2018

As a follow up, the false accusations and libelous comments posted and shared on many Social Media sites regarding not only issues with me but with other disability advocates who have questioned him, are acts of aggression and harassment.

Bickley has NO evidence of the accusation he has fabricated and so the tactic is to make personal attacks and take on the abused victim role.  All I can say is that must be a very sad place to be and a sad place to see the world from.   I do hope that someone is able to talk with him and help him to come to grips with reality but given what I have learned about those with this type of personality disorder, it rarely happens unless that person can acknowledge fact.

And, Bickley, if you are reading this, please do provide supporting documentation for your claims because I have not seen the evidence.  Also, please discuss the issues as I have requested over and over again.

If. . .

If I wrote this email or was a recipient, I would not want to discuss the deceit that was practiced in passing a discriminatory law either –  but I would hope that one would be interested in evaluating the process, the new law, how it discriminates those it should have helped and how to correct it.  Unfortunately, recipients contacted do not want to discuss the issues.

Dear Friends and Allies

 

Endorsing a Bully

Disability Rights Washington is presenting their “Breaking Barriers” awards fundraiser this month.  Below is information from the Disability Rights Washington Website which describes this award.

Ex-Commissioner (Seattle Commission for People with Disabilities) Shaun Bickley, was chosen as the recipient for the Advocacy Award.  There are many of us in the disability community who have been victims of Shaun Bickley’s online malicious and cruel attacks, slander and libel.  We are upset about Bickley’s violations of the First Amendment as a Commissioner, falsified data and information Bickley presented to the Commission, the previous Mayor, the previous Director of the  Office of Labor Standards and the Seattle City Council.

In addition to the above allegations (all well documented in public records), Bickley had extreme disregard for the by-laws and code of conduct of the Seattle Commission for People with Disabilities.  In fact, after Mayor Durkan did not re-appoint Bickley to the Commission, Bickley took it upon himself to return to the Commission the next month and have himself voted in as the co-chair with a Commission appointed seat.  Bickley continues to refer to himself as the Co-Chair of the Commission despite not being appointed by the City Council.  This is a violation of the by-laws but evidently, Bickley is not held accountable to those by-laws.

“Bully”  is the least offensive description that many who have encountered Shaun Bickley use to describe his actions towards others.

How has it come to be that a BULLY is being honored as a recipient of this “Breaking Barriers” award?

 2018 DRW Breaking Barriers Awards! 

September 29, 2018

Each year, Disability Rights Washington presents its Breaking Barriers Awards.  These prestigious awards honor a business, an elected official or public servant, and an advocate with a disability for breaking barriers to advance the rights of and improve the lives of people with disabilities in Washington State. Specifically, Disability Rights Washington will present the following awards:

  • Advocacy Award
  • Public Policy Award
  • Business Leader Award

Advocacy Award

Disability Rights Washington presents this award to an advocate with a disability who has made significant contributions in the past year to advance the rights of people with disabilities in Washington State.

Breaking Barriers 2018 - Shaun Bickley

 

Missing – Common Sense

This is been a year long battle with The Seattle Commission for People with Disabilities regarding their rapid elimination of special certificates that can allow specific people with specific disabilities to work at a specific job for a wage that may be less than the minimum wage.  While they are calling these certificates “discrimination”, the certificates  can actually provide people with an alternative for community integration that they may not have now.
This Commission and those organizations that have signed onto this thought process believing that just raising the wages will enhance these people’s lives have forgotten to ask the affected people themselves.  Some very important information regarding critical issues that people with disabilities who have significant support needs and how those needs are going to be accommodated have not been addressed.
This is the fallout of making laws without collaboration and without addressing the concerns of those who are directly involved.  The Commission refused to address a variety of concerns from stakeholders saying that those concerns didn’t matter and had nothing to do with the certificates or elimination of sub-minimum wage.
The facts are very different – there were 8 employees in Seattle who were making a sub-minimum wage  –   6 were at Ballard Locks making between $9.00 and $10.50 an hour and 2 other employees at community sites who earned  $11.01 and $11.25 an hour.  (The Commission reported extremely inaccurate information via a press release stating that there were “at least 130 disabled workers in the city of Seattle making subminimum wage, most making under $1.60/hr.  The lowest-paid worker under these exemptions in Seattle makes 20 cents an hour”   SCPWD Press Release June 22 2017
The totally false information The Commission released to the press (and previously to the former Mayor and Councilmember Herbold) was discovered as a mistake by the then co-chair of The Commission.  This error was pointed out to the person of contact on the Press Release who refused to issue a correction.  The author stated – press release already went out, if we receive follow up we can discuss that with those people.  He also stated that he would believe the documents he got from Department of Labor over what someone told him.  Unfortunately, this person was not able to read the document from DOL correctly and made this huge mistake in numbers of employees and their wages.  Commission will not amend press release
This is how the Commission responds to those who questioned their numbers:
April 13 2018 second chance from Commission - spam and deliberately false information
Before this issue goes any further under such faulty research and data collection, stop and listen to those whose lives were and will be directly affected by these changes.
I continue to ask the Commission about accountability and transparency – they feel threatened and harassed by me and want to have me banned from Commission meetings.
Maybe the Commissioners should actually read some of the comments I have shared and read the research and documents they presented regarding recommendations.  While doing that, they should research what has happened in those other states who have changed their laws – are the people working, have their lives improved?  These are all issues that need to be addressed before more action is taken.

Email from Shaun Bickley regarding City Council – do not share

The Seattle Disability Commission is proud to be among the first organizations to call for an end to Washington’s exemption to minimum wage laws, which allow employers to pay disabled people, and only disabled people, less than minimum wage.

A current copy of the letter can be found here: https://docs.google.com/…/1cCT_IL6I3HLcmYKdK5QhdNamqQ…/edit…

If your business or organization (operating in the state of Washington) would like to be added, please email sbickley@arcofkingcounty.org . Text is below:

We, the undersigned organizations, oppose the practice of paying workers with disabilities subminimum wage. On April 13, 2018, Seattle joined the states of Alaska, New Hampshire, Vermont and Maryland, in ending the outdated practice of allowing subminimum wage employment of people based on their disabilities. We do not believe workers should be discriminated against on the basis of disability and join the growing coalition advocating for an end to state laws that allow such discrimination.

We believe all workers should be fairly compensated and are entitled to the same minimum wage protections regardless of their disability status. We hope the State of Washington will join other states and cities in taking the lead to put an end to this unfair employment practice.

Sincerely,

Able Opportunities, Inc.
Allies in Advocacy
The Arc of King County
The Arc of Snohomish County
ASUW Student Disability Commission
AtWork!
Autistic Self Advocacy Network
Autistic Women & Nonbinary Network
Community Employment Alliance
Disability Rights Washington
Downtown Emergency Service Center (DESC)
Geeks Without Bounds
Morningside
National Federation of the Blind of Washington
Open Doors for Multicultural Families
People First of Snohomish County
People First of Washington
Seattle Commission for People with Disabilities
Seattle LGBTQ Commission
Self Advocates in Leadership (SAIL)
Sherwood Community Services
TASH
Washington ADAPT
Washington CAN
Washington Low Income Housing Alliance
Working Washington
Work Opportunities

Preserve and build Respite and Crisis Stabilization

Time is running out – we need a YES Vote on SB 5243

 

save respite part 4 Please read and understand why a YES vote is critical to our families who need support. This bill helps to maintain and build respite and crisis stabilization services – how can an advocate be against this bill?

According to the Action Alert sent out by The Arc – Washington State they oppose this effort to preserve respite and crisis stabilization.  This bill is only aimed at preserving and building – not shutting down and limiting the few choices that our families have for respite and crisis stabilization.

It is time to question the motives of The Arc – Washington State and ask why they want to tear apart services.  Tearing down will only hurt those we are trying to help.

Please call the toll-free hotline at 1-800-562-6000 and ask your Senator to vote YES on SB 5243 – it is for the sake of our families!

Read the bill here and decide for yourself what is in the best interest of our families and community members in need of services.

(1)(a) The Yakima Valley School shall continue to operate as a residential habilitation

The Yakima Valley School must operate crisis stabilization beds and respite service beds as the capacity of the school allows and as the needs of the community require, subject to the availability of amounts appropriated for this specific purpose.
(b) As of the effective date of this section, no new long-term admissions are permitted.
(2) The department, within available funds:
(a) Shall establish state-operated living alternatives, within funds specifically provided in the omnibus appropriations act, to provide community residential services to residential habilitation center residents transitioning to the community under chapter 30, Laws of 2011 1st sp. sess. who prefer a state-operated living alternative. The department shall offer residential habilitation center employees opportunities to work in state-operated living alternatives as they are established;
(b) May use existing supported living program capacity in the community for former residential habilitation center residents who prefer and choose a supported living program;
(c) Shall establish up to eight state-staffed crisis stabilization beds and up to eight state-staffed respite beds based upon funding provided in the omnibus appropriations act and the geographic areas with the greatest need for those services;
(d) Shall establish regional or mobile specialty services evenly distributed throughout the state, such as dental care, physical therapy, occupational therapy, and specialized nursing care, which can be made available to former residents of residential habilitation centers and, within available funds, other individuals with developmental disabilities residing in the community; and
(e) Shall continue to provide respite services in residential habilitation centers and continue to develop respite care in the community.”

This is how 2SSB 5243 currently reads. Please read and understand why a YES vote is critical to our families who need support. This bill helps to maintain and build respite and crisis stabilization services – how can an advocate be against this bill?
(1)(a) The Yakima Valley School shall continue to operate as a residential habilitation

The Yakima Valley School must operate crisis stabilization beds and respite service beds as the capacity of the school allows and as the needs of the community require, subject to the availability of amounts appropriated for this specific purpose.
(b) As of the effective date of this section, no new long-term admissions are permitted.
(2) The department, within available funds:
(a) Shall establish state-operated living alternatives, within funds specifically provided in the omnibus appropriations act, to provide community residential services to residential habilitation center residents transitioning to the community under chapter 30, Laws of 2011 1st sp. sess. who prefer a state-operated living alternative. The department shall offer residential habilitation center employees opportunities to work in state-operated living alternatives as they are established;
(b) May use existing supported living program capacity in the community for former residential habilitation center residents who prefer and choose a supported living program;
(c) Shall establish up to eight state-staffed crisis stabilization beds and up to eight state-staffed respite beds based upon funding provided in the omnibus appropriations act and the geographic areas with the greatest need for those services;
(d) Shall establish regional or mobile specialty services evenly distributed throughout the state, such as dental care, physical therapy, occupational therapy, and specialized nursing care, which can be made available to former residents of residential habilitation centers and, within available funds, other individuals with developmental disabilities residing in the community; and
(e) Shall continue to provide respite services in residential habilitation centers and continue to develop respite care in the community.”

This is how 2SSB 5243 currently reads. Please read and understand why a YES vote is critical to our families who need support. This bill helps to maintain and build respite and crisis stabilization services – how can an advocate be against this bill?
(1)(a) The Yakima Valley School shall continue to operate as a residential habilitation

The Yakima Valley School must operate crisis stabilization beds and respite service beds as the capacity of the school allows and as the needs of the community require, subject to the availability of amounts appropriated for this specific purpose.
(b) As of the effective date of this section, no new long-term admissions are permitted.
(2) The department, within available funds:
(a) Shall establish state-operated living alternatives, within funds specifically provided in the omnibus appropriations act, to provide community residential services to residential habilitation center residents transitioning to the community under chapter 30, Laws of 2011 1st sp. sess. who prefer a state-operated living alternative. The department shall offer residential habilitation center employees opportunities to work in state-operated living alternatives as they are established;
(b) May use existing supported living program capacity in the community for former residential habilitation center residents who prefer and choose a supported living program;
(c) Shall establish up to eight state-staffed crisis stabilization beds and up to eight state-staffed respite beds based upon funding provided in the omnibus appropriations act and the geographic areas with the greatest need for those services;
(d) Shall establish regional or mobile specialty services evenly distributed throughout the state, such as dental care, physical therapy, occupational therapy, and specialized nursing care, which can be made available to former residents of residential habilitation centers and, within available funds, other individuals with developmental disabilities residing in the community; and
(e) Shall continue to provide respite services in residential habilitation centers and continue to develop respite care in the community.”

Shame on Frame – King 5 “Investigative” report

Susannah Frame is doing a great disservice to our community. Her total lack of appreciation for the diversity of our population of citizens with intellectual and developmental disabilities is more than problematic.   Without an understanding of this diversity one cannot even begin to understand the complexities involved in the care of our community members.  Below are some bullet points that need clarification from Ms. Frame:

  •  mentioned several times about biases in the “scientific studies” but fails to mention what those biases are.
  • refers to cost of care being less expensive in a community setting – but she has not explained what “cost of care” is or how it is measured.
  •  has not shown any indication that the cost of care is higher for those with higher support needs.
  • refers to the families who have had their loved ones in the RHCs for 20-30 years and are afraid – unaware that there are many young people who live in these therapeutic communities and many more who were denied this care.
  •  has not offered any solutions or real alternatives or how those alternatives could be achieved.
  •  seems unaware of the crisis in our community care system with so little oversight that many fear for their health, safety and lives in these community settings.
  •  has not addressed the issue of access to care in the community such as medical care and transportation.
  •  has not spoken with any of the agency service providers in the community about their inability to staff and appropriately care for an influx of people with very high support needs.
  •  has not addressed what a person’s community is and personal choice in making that decision.

If one is going to talk about de-institutionalization without addressing safe and appropriate supports in the community, this type of advocacy endorses neglect and risk for our most vulnerable citizens. The environment that is the Least Restrictive for that Person is the environment which allows that person to interact with and be part of the community to their fullest potential. As stated in the 1999 US Supreme Court Decision of Olmstead, for some that may be the institution.

The issues above need to be addressed and discussed in any conversation dealing with care of our loved ones. The answer is not arguing  “institution vs community” – the answer is to look at  the diversity of the population and understand their needed supports and then how to fund and maintain those supports.

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”  John Adams

Cost of Care

Yes, it is absolutely correct that DSHS costs for care in the RHC is greater than DSHS costs for care in a community setting. Looking only through the eyes of DSHS it would make sense to close the RHCs to save DSHS funds – but looking at the big picture of how things work that is exactly the opposite of what one should do if cost was a factor. .

Cost of care is one issue discussed  – but not what “cost of care” means for each setting nor the support needs of the residents in each setting.  The graph below is a good example of missing costs – but necessary costs for care.  Looking at the cost breakdowns for areas of care, it is clear the RHC provides a much more comprehensive package of care than the community settings.   The greatest cost of care in community settings is the personal care cost and for people with higher support needs, that personal care cost is extremely high as evidenced by the data from DDA.

RHC and Community Cost

All of these are included in the RHC Cost

Where are they in Community costs?

Other Costs

Resources:

Developmental Disabilities Administration. (2012). Cost of Community Clients with High Support Needs.

(2011). RHC Cost Details and Federal Reimbursement – CMS.

Community Cost of Care Reports, Public Disclosure Information Revealed. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.becausewecare1.com:https://becausewecare1.com/community-cost-of-care-reports-public-disclosure-information-revealed/

Clintsman, D. L. (2011). Assistant Director, Department of Social and Health Services. 30 Community DDD Residents – highest costing to DDD.

Atkinson, M. (2011). DSHS: Developmental Disabilities Services Overview. Office of Program Research and Senate Committee Services, Joint Legislative Task Force. Retrieved fromhttp://www.leg.wa.gov/JointCommittees/DDSSTF/Documents/Oct2011/DevDisabOverview.pdf

Barbara A. Lucenko, P. a. (2011). Assessment Findings for Persons with Developmental Disabilities Served in Residential Habilitation Centers and Community Settings. Department of Social and Health Services. Retrieved fromhttp://www.dshs.wa.gov/pdf/ms/rda/research/5/36.pd

Support Intensity Scale. (n.d.). Retrieved from American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities:http://www.siswebsite.org/cs/SISOnline

Division of Developmental Disabilities: Intake and Determination of Developmental Disabilities. (n.d.). Retrieved from Washington State Legislature: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=388-823&full=true

(Data taken from Certified Residential Program Costs of Care Reports for 2010. The agencies from which data was retrieved:

Aacres WA, LLC – Tacoma Aacres WA, LLC Abbott House –  Alpha Supported Living – Ambitions of Washington – Region 4 Ambitions of Washington – Region 5-  The Arc of King County – The Arc of Spokane –  Bethesda Lutheran Communities Camelot –  Centerpoint Services –  Community Alternatives for People with Autism –  Community Homes –  Community Integrated Services –  Community Living – Bellevue –  Community Living – Kent/Auburn –  Community Living – Kent Intensive Community Living – Sunnyside –  Community Living – Yakima –  Destiny House –  Educational Programs in Home Living –  Friends of Families –  Friendship House –  Group Action for Peninsula People –  Harbor Alternative Living Assoc. – Inglewood Residential Services –  Integrated Living Services –  Kitsap Residences –  Kitsap Tenant Support Services –  Life Skills Center –  Maksu, Inc –  Premier Care Services –  Provail  – Puget Sound Regional Services –  ResCare –  Shamrock Living Services –  Shared Journeys –  SL Start – Grandview –  SL Start – Seattle –  SL Start – Spokane –  Stand Together Total Living Concepts (2010)

Catch 22 – The Arc “issue”

I recently came across an article written by Irene Tanzman on LinkedIn entitled “Advocacy Organization Catch 22” published June 22, 2015.  I would encourage reading this and in addition taking a look at some of the other insightful articles that she has published.  I felt a breath of fresh air when I first read this yesterday.

There are many concerns regarding “The Arc Issue” as I will call it.  In addition to the facts that Ms. Tanzman has addressed it is important to realize that in order for a chapter to call itself “The Arc” that chapter needs to be aligned with the agenda and policies of the national organization.   Every local and state Arc sign an affiliation agreement with Arc US that the chapter will support the policies of Arc US.  if for some reason a chapter does not support a particular position they are to remain silent and not comment.   So, regardless of what is happening in your region or state, your local Arc can only speak on policies that are dictated from the national organization.

The national policy of The Arc US (taken many years ago in the late 70’s and early 80’s) is that “community” is best and ALL people can be served in the “community.”  There are many problems with this policy:

  1. It is outdated
  2. It is not in alignment with the 1999 US Supreme Court Decision Olmstead v. L.C.
  3. It is not person-centered
  4. It does not indicate why they think this is best, or how it will be achieved.

What are some of the solutions?