AB1886 Pavley !!SIGNED!! CDR Supported! Property Tax Postponement

!UPDATE!! SIGNED!! Tuesday September 28th
The Senior Citizens and Disabled Citizens Property TaxPostponement Law allows senior citizens and disabled persons topostpone their payment of ad valorem property taxes, specialassessments, and fees and other charges due on a residentialdwelling, where household income, as defined, does not exceed either$34,000 or $24,000, as applicable.

AB 2536 Leiber !!VETOED!! CDR Supported! Hotel-Motel Grab Bars

!!UPDATE!!! VETOED on 9-21 -

To the Members of the California State Assembly:
I am returning Assembly Bill 2536 without my signature as the intent of this bill can be
done administratively through the regulatory process and does not require legislation.
This bill requires the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to
establish building standards by January 1, 2006 regarding the installation of grab bars and
non-skid flooring or mats in hotel bathrooms.
While the goals of the bill are laudable, they can be better accomplished through the
building standards adoption process.
Sincerely,
Arnold Schwarzenegger
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Amended :Requires the Department of Housing and Community Development to propose building standards for grab bars in hotel and motel rooms. Also rquires that slip resistent mats meeting specific standards be made available January 2006.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_2501-2550/ab_2536_bill_20040817_amended_sen.html

SB1365 Chesbro !!VETOED!! CDR Supported! Olmstead

!!VETOED!!!! Tuesday September 28th
To the Members of the California State Senate:
I am returning Senate Bill 1365 without my signature.
I support the author’s goal to ensure that Californians are provided comprehensive
services supporting the inclusion of persons with disabilities, regardless of age or type of
disability, into community life in lieu of unnecessary institutionalization, consistent with
the U.S. Supreme Court’s Olmstead decision. I fully support the principles underlying
the Olmstead decision and am committed to making changes in State programs and
policies to ensure that persons with disabilities have appropriate access to and choices of
community based services and placement options.
I have worked to develop innovative approaches to support the ability of people to live in
their homes and communities rather than in institutions, including securing a federal
Independence Plus waiver to ensure continued provision of in home services. My
Administration is also developing statewide assessment tools to help people move out of
institutions or remain in home. In addition, the Health and Human Services Agency
(HHSA) has convened its Long Term Care Council to further develop the state plan and
approach for meeting the requirements of the Olmstead decision.
California’s Olmstead Plan, published in 2003, provides an important roadmap for
supporting the ability of state residents to live in the most integrated setting possible. My
Administration is evaluating this plan and reviewing the best ways to meet the intent of
the Olmstead decision. In that regard, I believe that further review, development and
implementation of the Olmstead Plan must be informed by input from a diversity of
stakeholders. I do not believe that it is necessary to establish such a process in statute, as
proposed by SB 1365, and consider the Olmstead Advisory Council established by SB
1365 to be duplicative of efforts already underway by HHSA to convene an Olmstead
Advisory Committee.
Given my Administration’s strong commitment to the principles and objectives of the
Olmstead Plan as well as to the value of stakeholder engagement and participation, I
believe that formalizing HHSA’s establishment of an Olmstead Advisory Committee
(Committee) is appropriate. I therefore have issued Executive Order S-18-04 directing
HHSA to establish a Committee to provide input to the Agency on its efforts to evaluate,
implement and monitor the Olmstead Plan, on recommended actions to improve
California’s long-term care system, and on opportunities to fund expanded or new
activities to support individuals with disabilities in their community. My Administration
looks forward to working with the author in identifying strong candidates to serve on this
Committee.
For these reasons I am unable to sign this measure.
Sincerely,
Arnold Schwarzenegger
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EXECUTIVE ORDER S-18-04
by the Governor of the State of California
WHEREAS, unnecessary institutional placement of individuals with disabilities adversely affects the everyday life activities, family relations, social contacts, work options, economic independence, and cultural enrichment of those institutionalized persons; and
WHEREAS, the state has a responsibility to protect against the unnecessary institutionalization of individuals with disabilities; and
WHEREAS, the opportunity to direct one's own affairs, live independently, and attain economic self-sufficiency is an essential component of developing self-worth and personal responsibility; and
WHEREAS, direction has been provided to states under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the United States Supreme Court's decision in Olmstead v. L.C.; and
WHEREAS, community-based care and services can be more cost effective than institutional care, and result in a higher quality of life that promotes the values of community participation, inclusiveness, and respect for diversity; and
WHEREAS, the active involvement of people with disabilities and their representatives in the development and implementation of activities designed to move people into, or allow them to remain in, community-based settings is critical to insuring effective strategies; and
WHEREAS, California has a demonstrated record of success in providing services that support the full integration of persons with disabilities in community life through such programs as In-Home Supportive Services, Medi-Cal, community mental health, and the comprehensive array of services defined under the Lanterman Act; and
WHEREAS, it is possible to build upon California's previous success to improve procedures and implement new tools that will enable more people to fully access their communities.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor of the State of California, by virtue of the power vested in me by the Constitution and Statutes of the State of California, do hereby issue this order effective immediately:
1. The state affirms its commitment to provide services to people with disabilities in the most integrated setting, and to adopt and adhere to policies and practices that make it possible for persons with disabilities to remain in their communities and avoid unnecessary institutionalization.
2. The California Health and Human Services Agency (HHSA) shall do all of the following:
A. Assess the state's ability to reasonably accommodate new and improved efforts to prevent unnecessary institutionalization of individuals with disabilities and to facilitate or expand community-based services and supports.
B. Evaluate the May 2003, California Olmstead Plan and make revisions as necessary to insure that it will result in positive action toward the objectives of providing services to people with disabilities in the most integrated setting possible, and enabling persons with disabilities to remain in their communities and avoid unnecessary institutionalization.
C. Identify additional strategies to identify Californians who could be served successfully in non-institutional settings and the barriers to these individuals moving at a reasonable pace from, or avoiding admittance to, institutional long-term care facilities.
D. Research funding opportunities to support expanded or new activities to support individuals with disabilities in their communities.
E. Develop recommendations for changes in state policies that will remove programmatic and fiscal incentives for institutional placement and increase opportunities to utilize community-based services.
F. Develop recommendations for changes in federal policies that will remove programmatic and fiscal incentives for institutional placement and explore options for expanding or modifying the state Medicaid plan or Medicaid waivers.
3. In order to inform the Administration's understanding of the current system and future opportunities and insure the involvement of persons with disabilities and other system stakeholders, the Olmstead Advisory Committee (Committee) is established within the HHSA.
A. The Secretary of HHSA shall select the members of the committee who shall serve at the Secretary's pleasure. The membership of the Committee shall represent the diversity of California's citizenry with respect to culture, language, geography, and disability, including psychiatric, developmental, sensory, cognitive, and physical disabilities. Furthermore, family members, representatives of statewide advocacy organizations, long-term care providers, and city and county governments may also serve on the Committee. Members of the Committee shall serve on a volunteer basis without compensation.
B. The Committee will provide input to the HHSA on its efforts to evaluate, revise, implement, and monitor the Olmstead Plan, on recommended actions to improve California's long-term care system, and on opportunities to fund expanded or new activities to support individuals with disabilities in their community.
4. All state agencies and departments are hereby directed to cooperate with and assist the HHSA in carrying out its duties under this Executive Order.
I FURTHER DIRECT that as soon as hereafter possible, this order be filed in the Office of the Secretary of State and that widespread publicity and notice be given to this order.
This order is not intended to, and does not create any right or benefits, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity, against the State of California, its departments, agencies, or other entities, its officers or employees, or any other person.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have here unto set my hand and caused the Great Seal of the State of California to be affixed this the twenty-seventh day of September 2004./s/
Arnold SchwarzeneggerGovernor of California

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
* Senator Chesbro's SB 1365 "Olmstead Bill" Passes Final Vote In Senate
* Heads To Governor - Adminstration Remains Opposed
* Advocates Vow Campaign For Governor To Sign Bill
SACRAMENTO - Legislation that would establish in state law an advisory council to help bring California in compliance with the 1999 US Supreme Court Olmstead Decision passed its final vote in the legislature Wednesday (8/25), with the State Senate approving the amendments made in the Assembly, on a bi-partisan vote of 28 to 8. The bill, SB 1365 by Sen. Wes Chesbro (D-Arcata), now heads to the Governor for consideration, who has until September 30 to sign or veto the measure (he can also allow the bill to become law without his signature).
The Schwarzenegger Administration earlier indicated it would oppose any version of the bill, and the Governor is likely to veto the measure. Advocates meanwhile have vowed to launch a major campaign to urge Governor Schwarzenegger to sign the bill, as a step toward bringing the state in compliance with the US Supreme Court ruling. Some advocates have criticized the State for lagging behind in fully implementing the Supreme Court decision - a delay that they say violates the rights of people with disabilities and seniors.
The bill passed the Assembly earlier this week by a vote of 51-27.
The legislation establishes in statute the "Olmstead Advisory Council", and provides that the council shall provide advice and make recommendations to the California Health and Human Services Agency for the placement of individuals in non-institutional settings. Amendments in the Assembly added an additional task to the Olmstead Council, requiring the body toto review options for expanding or modifying the state Medicaid plan or waivers to address barriers to persons moving from or avoiding placement in institutional settings.
Thank you to Marty Omoto and CDCAN for this release! Support !
View website at www.cdcan.us
***
!UPDATE! August 26, 2004 From Peggy Collins
Friends,
Yesterday, SB 1365 received its final Legislative approval and will shortly be before the Governor for his consideration. Only the strong and constant support of persons with disabilities, family members, and their advocates have made the success of this bill possible.
Late last week, I met with Kim Belshé, Secretary of the Health and Human Services Agency, to discuss her opposition to SB 1365. As an outcome of that meeting, the Agency offered numerous amendments for my consideration.
I greatly appreciate Ms. Belshé's willingness to discuss SB 1365 and the offering of amendments.
Among other things, the Agency's proposed amendments:

>deleted language that would have the Olmstead Advisory Council (Council) advise the Legislature on recommended actions to improve our long-term care system;
>deleted language that would have the Council advise on proposed legislation, budget proposals, or regulatory changes that would either adversely impact or enhance the State's ability to comply with the Olmstead decision;
>deleted language that would have the Council review, for consistency with the Olmstead Plan, existing assessment procedures for individuals residing in institutions or at risk of placement in institutions;
>deleted language that would have the Council assist in identifying activities that would ensure that waiting lists move at a reasonable pace;
>deleted language that would have the Council assist in developing a strategy for diverting individuals from initial placement in skilled nursing facilities, and other institutions, including but not limited to, creation of a model assessment process, identification of alternative community services, and recommending a timeline for implementing the strategy statewide;
>deleted language that would have the Council advise the Agency and State Department on regulations and licensing requirements that are inconsistent with, and impede the implementation of, the Olmstead Plan;
>deleted language that would have the Council review options for expanding or modifying the State Medicaid plan or Medicaid waivers to address barriers to persons moving from, or avoiding placement in, institutional facilities;
>deleted language that would have the Department report to the Agency, Legislature and Olmstead Advisory Council, and post on relevant web sites, information about all current home and community based waivers and about any proposed new waivers.

Again, I greatly appreciate the efforts of Ms. Belshé and I firmly believe she is committed to expanding community-living options for persons with disabilities.
However, these proposed amendments were too extensive and submitted too late to allow for meaningful discussion.
Therefore, I could not accept the amendments and SB 1365 was approved by the Legislature in its existing form.
I remain hopeful that, with your continued support, the Governor will sign SB 1365 into law.
I hope you will make one final effort toward this end by contacting the Governor and urging his support. You can contact the Governor at:
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol BuildingSacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-445-2841
Fax: 916-445-4633
To send an Electronic Mail, please visit:http://www.govmail.ca.gov
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact my office at 916-445-3375.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,


WESLEY CHESBRO
Chair
WC/pc
cc: Kim Belshé

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_1351-1400/sb_1365_bill_20040827_status.html

SB1760 !Talking Points! !!VETOED!!!

!Vetoed! Wednesday, September 29th
Reposting the Alert, the Ragged Edge Article, and the letter to the State Agencies so you can frame your comments.
Thank you for your continued support of this important legislation!
***
Sovereign Immunity, Disability Discrimination and Us
By Laura Williams
What is "sovereign immunity" and why should we care?
The Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads, "The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state."
When the issue of racial equality emerged on the open battlefield in the middle of the last century, our leaders agreed that the pattern of discrimination by states themselves against racial minorities was so clear that it was "sufficient" to override states' sovereign immunity.
Why isn't it the same when the courts look at discrimination against persons with disabilities?
Sovereign immunity for individual states goes back to our very formation as a union of states. The Eleventh Amendment to the U.S.. Constitution gives individual states immunity from suits in federal court.
This immunity was -- and is -- very important. It means states are protected from tariff wars with each other; are protected from land and possession disputes between the states, are protected from suits from foreign nations and, to a limited extent, from suits by individuals.
These separations and immunities have served our union well.
But when the issue of racial equality emerged on the open battlefield in the middle of the last century, the executive and legislative branches of our government, and the Supreme Court, agreed that the pattern of discrimination by states themselves against racial minorities was so clear that it was "sufficient" to override -- "abridge" is the legal term used -- the sovereign immunity protection states enjoyed under the Eleventh Amendment. Thus, when it came to discrimination against racial minorities, states could be sued to ensure equal access to civil liberty for racial minorities.
Not only that; but states could be sued for all forms of of discrimination against persons of color. The courts did not require that the state be proven to discriminate against persons of color in all forms of discrimination. The fact that there was a "pattern" of discrimination by a state was accepted as valid reason for a suit.
Why isn't it the same when the courts look at discrimination and barriers to equal access for persons with disabilities?
Aside from the fact that the courts themselves have been at the fore of this type of discrimination and lack of access to equal justice, the fact is that persons with disabilities are not viewed as one group (a "discrete and insular" minority is the term the law uses) suffering from a wide pattern of discrimination.
That fact alone has allowed the courts, the states and the federal government to judge disability barriers at the minutiae level of contractual law rather than at the level of a broad-based civil rights law.
The American public may never come to regard people with disabilities seen as a "discrete and insular" minority, because we are disparate in so many ways. The many barriers we face are often not judged for what they are -- barriers -- but are seen as simply the products of our own inabilities.
Many Americans see our disabilities as the progenitor of discrimination. They do not see the barriers that lack of inclusion generates in every aspect of our daily living.
Over the next decades, we must work to change that perception. We must get the public to understand that it is not the wheelchair that is the problem, but the lack of a surface that can be safely traveled by wheels. It is not the blind eye that is the problem, but the lack of ensuring that every print publication be provided in alternative format at the time of issuance. It is not the problem of the learning disabled that they have been denied full inclusion and acceptance as American citizens by the populace at large.
There should be no barriers inserted when structures are designed, when programs implemented, when services at every level are provided -- barriers that later need removing. They should not be designed in the first place.
The barriers we face every day have been designed and inserted out of ignorance and lack of respect for differences within the American populace. Through design foresight and patterns of inclusion, we can participate fully in our American dreams.
Until then we must fight to preserve the Americans with Disabilities Act with our every breath and energy.
One way to do this is to ask each of our states to waive its immunity from ADA lawsuits.
A bill to waive California's immunity was introduced into the CA Assembly Feb. 20. The bill, known as SB 1760, would add a section to current law "stating that the State of California consents to be sued in state or federal court by any person seeking to enforce rights or obtain remedies afforded by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990." To learn more about the bill, go to http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/bilinfo.html - type "SB 1760" into the query section.
Posted March 11, 2004.
Laura Morris Williams is president of Californians for Disability Rights.

***


An Open Letter to Justice Scalia
The Honorable Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, Supreme Court of the United States of America
Sir,
I have read the comments and opinions rendered by yourself and other members of the Supreme Court of the United States during the hearing of Tenn v. Lane. As a citizen of these United States, I am compelled to respond to certain of those comments and opinions.
"That depends on what is meant by the term
`discrimination,' " Justice Antonin Scalia said.
Mr. Clement replied that Congress had found examples of inaccessible polling
places that deprived people with disabilities of the right to vote.
"An inaccessible voting place proves nothing at all," Justice Scalia said. "It just
shows that the state didn't go out of its way" to provide help.
Clause 1: [Constitution of the United States]
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
Sir, are you saying that when I as a person with a disability arrives at a polling place to excercise my right to vote, that when I cannot access the place where every other citizen in my voting district is exercising their right to vote, that when I am handed a provisional ballot at the bottom of a set of stairs, that provisional ballot not being countable as a vote as a normal course of events, that circumstance does not substantially violate my right to excercise the Privilege accorded to all other Citizens within my voting district, not otherwise impaired by physical or other disability to access the Poll, as afforded in the Constitution of these United States.
I was unaware Sir, that disabled citizens of these United States had been suborned to a second class citizenship, as not entitled to Constitutional protection of all Privileges of Citizens in the several States.
Sir, I can tell you that I expect to be able to personally deliver and place my vote in every election in my district, in every polling place and that any polling place and method of placing a vote that does not afford to every citizen a place and method that allows the right of a private vote for every citizen is a substantial limitation of privilege.
Sir, as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of these United States, I would further expect that you acknowledge that Citizens of these several States come in every color and every ability and having attained the age of 18, must have the full privilege to vote sustained by every court and the Supreme Court. To do less is unacceptable. To do less is unconstitutional. To do less is un-American.
Yet during arguments on January 13th, 2004:
**During Tuesday's argument, Justice Antonin Scalia said he saw no
constitutional reason why state agencies cannot discriminate against persons he
referred to as "handicaps." Some states "may not have made it easy for handicaps to
vote," he said, but that is not reason enough for Congress to subject states to
lawsuits, he said.
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist agreed.
And Further when Justice John Paul Stevens asks whether it's true that in 1975 more
than a million students were barred from public schools that were not handicapped-accessible,
and whether that violates the Constitution. Moore doesn't answer, but Scalia does:
"You don't concede that the Constitution is violated by not providing
educational facilities to all handicapped children?" he asks. All you need is a
"rational basis" for keeping them out, Scalia points out. "It's enough that the
cost would be excessive. So saying that so many handicapped students can't get
into schools means nothing at all."
But discriminating against persons with disabilities is in fact a long standing issue in
federal courts and the Supreme Court.
Federal courts, as a long-standing constitutional
protection, are exempt from laws passed by Congress, including the ADA.
Marcia Bristo, formally with the National Council on Disability, who uses a
wheelchair, remembers being told to wheel herself off to the side of the high
court during a 2001 hearing.
John Stanton, a deaf lawyer who does not know sign language, was told that his
real-time transcription device was not allowed in the
austere, marble-lined courtroom.
Jeff Rosen, legal counsel at the disability council, was hassled by court marshals, who said his sign-language interpreter might distract the justices. "They have a segregationist attitude in their
courtroom," said Rosen, who chose not to attend yesterday's hearing, saying he
did not want to confront the situation again. "Together with their opinions, which
have continuously narrowed the ADA since it was passed, I think it shows that
they really don't understand these issues."
Rosen said at least one deaf guest was told initially that she could not bring in her
transcription device, and got it approved only after a lawyer called the court's marshals. "If it were
someone else, who didn't have access to a lawyer to advocate for them, they might get
squashed," he said. "That's not fair." **
Justice Scalia, I call on you and every federal court to uphold the constitution of these United States and
afford every citizen the privileges accorded to citizens of the several States and recognize that these citizens come in every color and ability and that privilege cannot be limited by an individual's color or
ability.
To do less is unconstitutional. To do less in un-American.
Respectfully,
Laura Morris Williams, President
Californians for Disability Rights
**Quotations are from many of the dozens of articles surrounding the January 13th, 2004 arguments
of Tenn V. Lane

California has responded to the very real risk of loss of protection under the ADA title II with SB1760,
Perata, Sovereign Immunity Waiver for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

***

Letter to State of California Agencies
Re: SB 1760 Sovereign Immunity Waiver
Dear Sirs and Madams,
The State of California has a long standing and well deserved reputation for upholding the rights and dignity of person’s with disabilities. That is a direct result of the hard work and response by the many and varied state agencies that oversee and administer the many programs and services to the citizens of this great state.

In the decades following the passage of section 504 of the rehab Act, Title 24 and the American’s with Disabilities Act, agencies have responded to and modified policy and procedure where to do so improved the delivery of service for person’s with disabilities.
We in the disability community wish to acknowledge and commend the effort. We in the disability community have been compelled by recent Supreme Court decisions to ask the State of California to waive sovereign immunity in application to the ADA.
Please allow me to address some concerns that have arisen in regards to SB 1760, Perata, Sovereign Immunity Waiver.
>Waiving immunity will tie the hands of state agencies.
There is nothing in the immunity waiver that restricts strong and appropriate defense to any action.
Justice is served when two parties can be heard in court and have the benefit of Judicial review.
>The State will be open to lawsuits.
The best defense are the proactive measures taken to ensure the appropriate delivery of services and
programs to person’s with disabilities.
>The State’s Attorney General is in place to defend agencies in court.
The AG is ALSO in place to defend the rights of the citizen’s of California and uphold and enforce
the law so that all persons are provided with appropriate program and service delivery.

I wish to thank you for your time and consideration
Best Regards,
Laura Williams, President
Californians for Disability Rights
Co-Sponsor of SB 1760

****Sample Letter - amened to address Governor

Dear Governor ____:

I am writing in support of SB1760 by Senator Don Perata, which waives the state's sovereign immunity claims with regard to suits in federal court under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). This bill is on your desk for signature.

SB1760 would provide that the State of California consents to be sued in state or federal court by any person seeking to enforce rights or obtain remedies afforded by the ADA. Further, it prohibits any public agency involved in an action under the ADA to assert that they have any immunity from suit under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions have interpreted the Eleventh Amendment as providing the state immunity from suits by individuals with disabilities who have been injured by discrimination in violation of the ADA. However, the court has made clear that the states are free to waive their immunity and consent to be sued by statute. It is the purpose of SB1760 to make it clear that the State of California waives this immunity, to achieve the intention of Congress in enacting the ADA. Congress intended to hold states accountable for discrimination against people with disabilities. In addition, California has long been a leader in protecting the civil rights of persons with disabilities, and has not tried to immunize itself from responsibility under the ADA. I ask that you sign SB 1760, and thereby reaffirm the State's commitment to the civil rights of persons with disabilities. This is a very important issue for all persons with disabilities. Without an effective enforcement method, the ADA is a hollow promise.

Thank you for the opportunity to present my views on this issue.

Sincerely,

AB1707 Judiciary !!VETOED!! Disability Access Denial Penalty

!UPDATE! VETOED with attached message. CDR SUPPORTED this measure.
It is with great regret that I must tell you the Governor has vetoed AB1707.
The text of his veto message appears below.
I think it speaks for itself, so I won't add any commentary at this point except to say that I think I know what kind of legislative proposals we can expect to see next year.
GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE: This bill reveals the next lawsuit abuse problem in California that is likely to drive businesses out of the state. By quadrupling the minimum fines associated with unintentional violations under the Disabled Persons Act (DPA), the bill will have the effect of extorting money from state and local governments much the same way violations under the Unruh Act extort money from small businesses. Instead of providing incentives to correct violations in buildings and facilities to assist the disabled community this bill will cause the focus to revolve around litigation. Businesses are often faced with a lawsuit that has a potential to be financially damaging in defending or paying increased fines for mistakes such as the height of a sign that can be easily corrected. It is unfortunate that legislation, such as AB 209 (Leslie) that would reform the system did not make it through the legislative process. I would welcome legislation that would provide an avenue for businesses or governments to correct potential violations prior to being subjected to fines or civil liability. The public policy goal should be to ensure public and private facilities are open to those with disabilities, not to penalize businesses financially for unintended violations that can easily be corrected once put on notice.
Kevin G. Baker
CounselAssembly Judiciary Committee
--------------------------------
This bill has undergone significant changes from first proposal to very bad to back to original intent. The bill passed and sent to the Governor's desk makes the penalties in two sections of California code equal. CDR supports this version!

AB1801 Pavley !SIGNED! Guide/Assistance Dogs

!UPDATE! AB 1801 Signed Into Law! CDR Supported this measure.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 30, 2004
CONTACT: Sean PetersenTELEPHONE: (916) 319-2041
Pavley Bill Stiffens PenaltiesFor Attacks on Guide and Service Dogs(Woodland Hills, CA) - As hard as it is to imagine, working service dogs areall too often the victims of interference and attacks by other dogs that areallowed to run loose or whose owners will not control them. Service dogshave changed the lives and personal freedom of countless people who arefortunate enough to be partnered with these extraordinary animals.Incidents of attacks on the dogs and/or their owners can be devastating, andsome attacks have resulted in the early retirement or death of the dogs.
A bill to increase penalties for attacks on guide and service dogs was chaptered into law today, with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's signature.
AB 1801 authored by Assemblymember Fran Pavley and sponsored by theCalifornia Council for the Blind will go into effect January 1, 2005. "Myfamily has raised guide dog puppies," said Assemblymember Fran Pavley."Several of them have come back into our lives after being retired. Hearingthe horror stories about unprovoked and terrifying attacks on a service dogor its blind or disabled owner is very personal. I felt strongly that thepenalties for these totally avoidable incidents had to be strengthened. Thestories just kept coming in to my office."An Orange County resident with limited vision saw only a blur coming at himwhen a runner and large dog ran past him. The runner's dog attacked and therunner kept going, leaving behind the bleeding guide dog with a section ofits ear missing. Another person who was totally blind and dependent onguide dogs for 30 years could only feel and hear the savage attack going onand was powerless to do anything to stop it. Two Akitas nearly killed aMedical Companion dog in Simi Valley, forcing the dog into retirementbecause of its injuries."The passage of this legislation will greatly improve the ability of blindand visually impaired, and other individuals using guide, signal and otherservice animals to travel safely on our public rights-of-way," said DanKysor, Director of Governmental Affairs with the California Council of theBlind.AB 1801 does the following:. Expands coverage of the bill from just guide dogs to include signal dogs,service dogs, and mobility aids such as wheelchairs and walkers.. Increases the criminal penalties for a person who permits any dog, whichis owned by him or her, to cause injury to or the death of any guide,signal, or service dog. The crime can now be considered a misdemeanor ifthe person acted with reckless disregard in the exercise of control over hisor her dog.. Increases the penalties for any person who intentionally causes injury toor the death of any guide, signal, or service dog while the dog is acting inthe discharge of its duties to one year in the county jail, a maximum fineof $10,000, or both.. Allows restitution of monetary damages to be ordered by a court, includingveterinary bills, replacement costs or other costs deemed appropriate, ifthe dog is disabled or killed."There needed to be serious consequences when the owners of dogs behaverecklessly or callously, and change lives in such a terrifying anddevastating way. I was proud to author this bill," concluded Pavley.
--------------------------
The California Council of the Blind, CCB, the largest and oldest consumer advocacy organization of people who are blind and visually impaired in this state strongly urge your signature on AB1801, Pavley.
As sponsors of AB 1801, we know that people with disabilities including persons who are blind or visually impaired have the right to travel safely without interference from uncontrolled dogs and from humans. Increasingly, persons who are blind or visually impaired are subjected to incidents of interference and dog attacks. These incidents can and do result in physical and psychological injury to blind or visually impaired individuals andtheir guide dogs, which may result in the early retirement or death of these guide dogs. Similar incidents are also on the rise with respect to those with other disabilities.

California Council of the Blind
Dan Kysor
DirectorGovernmental Affairs
225 15th Street
West Sacramento, Ca. 95691

http://www.ccbnet.org

AB1138 Frommer !SIGNED! Parking Placard Certification Requirements

!UPDATE! Signed into Law! CDR OPPOSED this measure
This bill, on and after July 1, 2005, would require a disabledperson or disabled veteran issued a special license plate, uponrequest, to present to a peace officer, or person authorized toenforce parking laws, ordinances, or regulations, a certificationform, as prescribed by the department, that substantiates theeligibility of the disabled person or veteran to possess the plate. Because a violation of these provisions would be a crime, thisbill would impose a state-mandated local program.
------------
This bill places the burden of the abuse on the heads of placard and plate holders. It places the legitimate holders of the placards and plates in a position of being harrassed and confiscation of the plates or placards if the paper certification is not on the person! This bill will cost the State millions of Medicaid Dollars as every plate holder must get a new certificate signed by a doctor. Current law does not "require" a doctors signature when the disability is visable.

AB1629 Frommer !OPPOSE! "Nursing Home Rate Reform"

The State Council of Californians for Disability Rights Voted to Oppose the gut and amend AB1629. We want REAL reform with protections for the residents of nursing homes! We oppose the proposed [withdrawn] Tort Reforms, we oppose rate reform that does not include staffing wages, staffing levels and provisions for care for the residents.Laura Williams, PresidentCalifornians for Disability Rights.


!UPDATE! Press Release:
Non-partisan Legislative Analyst's office reports that AB 1629 Could Cost the State Hundreds of Millions of Dollars
Date:8/26/2004
LAO Report Slams Last-Minute Nursing Home Bill: AB 1629 Could Cost the State Hundreds of Millions of Dollars, says Legislative Analyst’s Office

SACRAMENTO—The California Legislative Analyst’s Office issued an analysis today of AB 1629 (Frommer), the gut-and-amend bill currently being rushed through the Legislature. The LAO report finds that AB 1629 could significantly increase the State’s General Fund obligations.

Among other things, the LAO report concludes that:

“The expiration of the quality assurance fee would result in the loss of the state’s ability to leverage federal funds, thereby resulting in increased General Fund spending on the order of hundreds of millions of dollars, in order to continue to fund prior-year rate increases.”

--and—

“Establishing a rate floor [not a ceiling] for skilled nursing facilities limits the Legislature’s flexibility to achieve savings by reducing rates for Medi-Cal providers.”


“This report makes clear what AARP and others have been saying all along,” said AARP California Legislative Director Lupe De La Cruz. “AB 1629 is quite simply a money grab on the part of the nursing home industry and SEIU. The LAO report shows that this ‘blank check’ for nursing homes would be paid for by California taxpayers.”

AARP has strongly opposed AB 1629 on the grounds that guarantees profits to nursing homes, without requiring that any funds be spent on patient care. “As far as AARP is concerned,” said De La Cruz, “the top priority of the State of California should be the welfare of the people in the beds, not the profits of the nursing home operators and investors.”

The complete LAO report can found at www.aarp.org/ca.

###