Families of SOs Community Group
WE HAVE MOVED!!! ............................. ............................... ......................... ............................ ............................. .......................... HERE: http://support-for-families.boards.net ............. ................ ............... ................ ............................... .................Please create a profile...
Well, the long awaited second published article is out.
http://www.news-leader.com/article/20131122/NEWS01/311210137/Champion-for-workers-who-serve-disabled-airs-city-ire
Two things strike me here. First, they call me the "combative" one yet, justify their refusals to do anything with one excuse after another - and of course conveniently ignore that their indifference provokes combativeness as in calling government on what they do that harms others.
Second, the irony here is that while government is overzealous to pass laws involving sex offenders, they are apparently scared to do so when it involves regulating private employers to purport to provide care for them - in that arena, they choose popularity over regulatory positions.
It is also interesting that while the so-called Human Rights Commission claims that my proposal has merit and they validate several things I had to say, they also decided to do nothing as the preferred course of action to take. Unfortunately, I do not have a Facebook account, nor do I want one, so I cannot leave any comments on the Internet article.
http://www.news-leader.com/article/20131122/NEWS01/311210137/Champion-for-workers-who-serve-disabled-airs-city-ire
Two things strike me here. First, they call me the "combative" one yet, justify their refusals to do anything with one excuse after another - and of course conveniently ignore that their indifference provokes combativeness as in calling government on what they do that harms others.
Second, the irony here is that while government is overzealous to pass laws involving sex offenders, they are apparently scared to do so when it involves regulating private employers to purport to provide care for them - in that arena, they choose popularity over regulatory positions.
It is also interesting that while the so-called Human Rights Commission claims that my proposal has merit and they validate several things I had to say, they also decided to do nothing as the preferred course of action to take. Unfortunately, I do not have a Facebook account, nor do I want one, so I cannot leave any comments on the Internet article.
Chairwoman Johnson
I am sending this email to reply to the comments by the Commissioners during the November 20, 2013 meeting of the Human Rights Commission about my proposal. I ask that you forward this email to all the Commissioners so they know what my responses are, as discussed below.
http://www.news-leader.com/article/20131122/NEWS01/311210137/Champion-for-workers-who-serve-disabled-airs-city-ire
Shortly after the October 16, 2013, meeting you sent me an email informing me that several of the Commissioners commented after the meeting that I should pursue a public petition to have the issues addressed by city government, in lieu of pursing the faster method of going directly to city government officials. It was a suggestion that communicated the lack of interest those on a "Human Rights" body of government had in the rights of people with disabilities - rather ironic I must say.
One of the comments made by Commissioner Duckett and Commissioner Scott was to speak about my "combativeness" and "burning my bridges" because I do not mince words in what I say. However, I have learned that those in government tend to take such positions because they simply do not like, and frequently resent being called on what they do that harms the people. In other words, they prefer to blame citizen who express their frustration and call government out on what they do, rather than taking responsibility for what they do that harms the people.
We are not dealing with a class of people who can defend themselves, but rather, we are dealing with individuals who do not have that ability by reason of their disability - individuals who are routinely being abused, neglected, physically injured, and subjected to potentially-life threatening medication errors by privately employed direct support staff because neither their employer nor state officials care about the training and education they have, to insure they provide the best publicly funded services they can to consumers. I would hope government would take this seriously.
However, from the onset of my submitting my very first email to City Council, I have consistently received an adversarial response, moreover, even though the Commissioners say that I make many valid points, they too take an adversarial role by consistently failing or refusing to actually help solve the issues going on by their consistently "tabling" the issues so nothing is actually addressed, let alone actually solved, and instead blame me for expressing my frustration about the conduct of those in government that is harming the people.
The City Attorney prescribes to what is called the "clear statement rule" in that unless their is a state law that implicitly and explicitly gives the city permission to enact laws here, then the City Attorney erroneously purports that no legal authority exists. This is a typical position that is all too common among attorney's operating in a government capacity to seemingly justify and rationalize taking the politically popular road to deprive civil rights when it favors a specific class of people or entities, e.g. government officials and / or employers.
If and when those on the "Human Rights Commission" and City Council want to engage in constructive dialog to actually address and solve the issues, then I am more than willing to meet with them to do so. If, however, they want to continue "tabling" and ignoring the issues so they do not have to actually deal with and solve the issues, then yes, I am going to call them on what they do that is harming the public. It is meaningless and a gross contradiction to claim that a citizen has "valid points" in their avocations, when the response is to turn blind eyes to such.
They can regulate the private sector......they can regulate everything ealse and them saying that it would be to difficult is a cop out the human rights should be allover this and pushing for the changes its going to protect the workers as well as the people who need the help.....it sounds like they go after the SO coz its the easiest thing for them to do.
Keep up the good work.