President’s Column: 2010 Legislative Activities

President’s Column: 2010 Legislative Activities

By Jennifer Dunnam, President

The National Federation of the Blind succeeds at the goals it sets because we are persistent, and we know how to put our collective experience to use.  That is what drove our efforts again this year in the legislature and permitted us to achieve a victory that has been a long time in the making.  Our bill requiring a minimum of six weeks of sleepshade training for all new counselors hired at Minnesota State Services for the Blind passed both houses of the Legislature and was signed into law in mid April!  Now, the staff training policy at SSB can certainly be expanded as needed, but by law, it cannot be eliminated as was done in the past.  This is one more example of how our collective efforts can bring about needed improvement in opportunities for blind people. 

We introduced the bill last year to strengthen the training requirements for those who work at State Services for the Blind as rehabilitation counselors.  At the time, the training for staff at SSB went like this: all staff hired to work at SSB were required to undergo a couple days of “phase 1” blindness specific training—a basic orientation to blindness.  Those staff working in a more direct role with blind customers were to continue with “phase 2” training—were  sent first for two weeks at one adjustment to blindness facility, and then for two weeks at another.  None of this training was required by law, and very little blindness-specific knowledge or experience was required in the hiring process, even for rehabilitation counselors.  While this training plan was better than the lack of staff training in place before its implementation in 2004, the training fell far short of giving those working with blind people the foundation they needed, and in some cases may have even been counterproductive, creating more fear about blindness by not allowing staff sufficient time to see that a greater degree of comfort with blindness techniques was possible.

When our bill was first introduced, it included a number of provisions that raised some opposition.  For example, we know that a number of states with successful rehabilitation programs require many months of intensive blindness training for their staff, and we wanted the new staff here in Minnesota to be at least as well prepared for their work.  We are no strangers to controversy, of course, but given the nature of the opposition and our desire to get something done as soon as possible about the problem of inadequate training for staff, we decided that our best course of action was to have consideration of the bill deferred to this year, to see if we could work out some agreement among concerned parties that would result in real improvement rather than risk having to wait until the next legislative session and start all over.  We knew that discussion had been occurring at SSB about a plan to improve the staff training, so the timing was right to get something in statute as soon as possible.  During 2009, we worked to provide our input into the discussion about staff training, both through our own organizational efforts and through our representation on the Rehabilitation Council for the Blind. 

A new staff training policy was developed and implemented at the beginning of 2010.  Now, the policy deals with the training of all new staff, not just counselors.  It provides for the basic introduction to blindness training for every new staff member; for six weeks of sleepshades training for counselors, managers, and other direct service staff; and for continuing education.

We appreciated the improvements in the new policy.  Still, we remembered what happened in the early part of the decade—the elimination of a policy when the leadership changed.  Blind Minnesotans needed something more permanent than a policy, so we pursued passage of our training bill this year.  Representative Tom Rukavina was our chief author on the House side; our author in the Senate was Senator David Thomassoni, and we had an excellent line-up of co-authors in both houses.  At the start of the session, we worked to amend the bill so that it reflected the progress made in the new policy.  The amended language received the support of the Department of Employment and Economic Development, and passage of the bill looked promising, although we know that in the Legislature nothing is done until it's done.  It went through all the necessary Senate committees and ultimately passed the Senate with the exact language that we agreed to.  It also went through a series of House committees and emerged at the House floor with identical language and looking as if it would also pass there.  However, on the floor of the House, we got a little surprise.  Representative Torrey Westrom offered an amendment on the floor.  For those who do not know, he is a member of the House of Representatives who happens to be blind.  He has historically not been particularly friendly to our efforts.  His amendment was not related to rehabilitation counseling or SSB at all; it concerned accessibility of public records.  Obviously, we, too, are concerned with accessibility  of information, but when we pursue things like this, we try to be very careful to lay groundwork and ensure that there are no unintended consequences and that the effort will achieve what we intended.  The House accepted Representative Westrom's amendment, and the bill passed.  At first we were quite concerned that our language had been changed, but fortunately, the language regarding staff training remained intact.  Of course, however, there remained the concern that now the language was different in the two houses, and that the differences could stall it completely.  Luckily, the Senate did concur with the last-minute amendment, and the Governor signed the bill at the end of April. 

We then learned that the Westrom amendment as passed could have had a negative effect on the technology accessibility legislation that we supported and helped to get passed last year.  When this problem was pointed out, additional legislation was passed to prevent any interpretation negating the law from 2009.

This law does not contain every thing that we might have wanted, nor does it fix all of the problems, but it helps to set a foundation that will result in even more improvements in the future.

Other of our legislative efforts this year were also successful.  We brought attention to a problem in a budget proposal that could have severely affected the budget at State Services for the Blind, resulting in deep cuts; the problem was fixed.  We were also pleased to support language strengthening the penalties to those who willfully harm guide dogs and other service animals; this legislation also passed.

 

Thanks so much to all the many Federationists who helped with these efforts.  This type of success does not happen because of only one or two people working on the issues.  We in this organization discuss what is needed, we pass resolutions enunciating and clarifying our positions.  We make sure that the legislature knows who we are on an annual basis through our day at the Capitol; this year we met personally with about 100 legislators—that's 100 who personally saw and met with blind people, heard our issues, and got a bit of positive blindness education as well.  There is no substitute for that, but of course, every legislator received the written information that we prepared.  We made calls to our legislators at critical points; we attended and testified at hearings.  We are making sure they hear our thank-yous as well, because they need to know that their support was important and we appreciate the work they helped us to do. 

We also thank our old friends and our newer friends in the legislature and other parts of the government, for recognizing the good sense in our efforts and for helping and/or not hindering us in getting things done.