Hello!  I’m Dave Atias.  I’m the new Assistant Director of Advocacy at CDR.  I was hired in late July.  Before I tell you a little about myself I would like to describe my start at CDR.  My first week on the job entailed a trip to Washington DC for the annual National Council on Independent Living Conference.  My first day of work at the CDR office was the day the Maggie Brooks story hit the newspaper.  So my second week at CDR was spent sleeping on Main Street.

I didn’t quit!  In fact, with my background, I have actually enjoyed (as much as one can enjoy being attacked by the County Executive) what I’ve been doing so far.

I am a Rochester native, who spent the majority of my childhood in the 14621 area.  I graduated from Franklin High and played a little bit of baseball at American University in Washington DC.  My college degrees are both from SUNY Brockport (BS in History and MA in Secondary Education).  My intent was to be a teacher, but I soon found that my teaching style didn’t match “normal” school settings.  I’ve found myself teaching at Rochester School for the Deaf (RSD), St. Joseph’s Villa, School Without Walls and a couple of suburban schools.  I even went to Hawaii and taught for a while at the Kihei Charter School.

So how did I end up as the Assistant Director of Advocacy?  While teaching at Rochester School for the Deaf in the late 90’s, I was doing a project on a presidential election with my students.  One of my students asked for help researching the Green Party.  As I helped him, I realized that I shared a lot of values with that party.  I contacted a local person and I’ve been involved ever since.  From that time, I’ve run political campaigns, run for office myself, organized rallies, held fundraisers, did mailings, protests and more.  It’s been really cool that even though my political life and CDR life are totally separate, I’m using the same skills for both.

I’m very excited to be at CDR and am look forward to helping our community do the great work that we are known for.  On September 18th, I leave for my first national ADAPT action, where we’ll be continuing the fight to get the Community Choice Act passed and to make sure the federal government is upholding the Olmstead Decision.  I can’t wait!  Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding the ADAPT trip in September or Advocacy Team at CDR.

The real story behind the muck-raking article that appeared in the D&C on Sunday August 29, 2010, began about six months ago.  At that time, County Executive Maggie Brooks or someone in her administration decided to use the county’s payrolled investigators to try to dig up dirt on the Center for Disability Rights (CDR).  The limited findings of those investigators have since been blown far out of proportion, misconstrued and lied about by county officials in an effort to end the Consumer Directed Personal Assistance Program (CDPAP) of CDR.

Fast forward a few months.  CDR received a five sentence letter from Monroe County on July 22, 2010, stating that they would no longer be using our services, effective immediately, with no explanation of why.  At about the same time, Monroe County issued a full press release and three page letter to the press detailing the supposed findings of the “investigations” performed by the county’s staff.

CDR, our consumers, attendants and staff were shocked by these allegations and by the county’s refusal to talk to CDR or the CDPAP consumers.  The home care programs of nearly 300 people and the jobs of well over 700 attendants and staff were suddenly in serious jeopardy.  People’s lives were in tumult because of the misconstrued and falsified findings of a handful of Monroe County investigators.

About 6 days into that tumult, CDR received a call from a person representing herself to be an excellent researcher with information on why Maggie Brooks was really making the decision to end CDR’s contract to provide CDPAP.  She spoke with one of CDR’s administrative staff and left a set of references.  Ordinarily, I would not consider returning such a call.  At no time have I reached out to find anyone to investigate this situation.  As the D&C correctly states, I’ve never employed an “investigator” in the past.  However, these are not ordinary times in which we are living.  In my role, and my long commitment to this agency and the people we serve, I feel I need to consider all legal options in order to maintain the services and jobs our people know and love.

Furthermore, one of the references this person named was Darryl Porter, special assistant to Mayor Bob Duffy.  Mr. Porter is not someone I know well, but I’ve met him on many occasions and have had numerous short conversations.  The person, who identified herself as both Sue Stiles and Wendy Howe, left Mr. Porter’s cell phone number as a means of reaching him.  Mr. Porter’s cell phone does not seem to be generally available, so this further implied that the caller had a legitimate connection to Mr. Porter.  Given his position with the Mayor, it felt that if Mr. Porter would vouch for this person, then it would seem to be wise of me to return the phone call.

I was able to reach Mr. Porter on his cell phone the day after the caller first contacted us.  At that time, despite his suggestions in the D&C, I indicated to Mr. Porter that the person had said the he could vouch for the person’s ability to access information and ability to research and find information.  Mr. Porter told me something to the effect of, “Yes, she’s given me good information before.  She’s always been straight with me.”  There were a few more short statements of support.  This all said, it seemed clear to me that it was worth returning the call from this person.

I spoke with the caller and agreed to meet with her and pay her an upfront retainer fee.  If the information she had and was able to find was as good as she promised it to be, I would have been absolutely willing to pay more.  Again, I am fiercely committed to maintaining the stability of the services provided by CDR to the CDPAP consumers who choose us as a vendor, even if it costs me a significant amount of personal money.  Please be clear, at no time did CDR pay this person in any way.  She was paid exclusively by me.

Over the next few days, the person’s behavior and temperament were erratic.  Her follow through was definitely not what I expected and her theories on what was really behind the Maggie Brooks’ decision to end CDR’s contract became increasingly absurd.  I agreed to meet with her one more time to see the information she had supposedly gathered.  When I saw what she had, it was a scraping together of notes and documents with no bearing on the situation.  I made an additional payment to her, because I had promised I would and I don’t break promises.  I left the situation and contacted her the next morning to indicate that I was ending the business relationship and wanted no further contact.

She persisted to contact me, trying to convince me that she had great work to show me and that I needed to pay her.  I told her no, and reminded her to stop contacting me.  This, while annoying, was nothing about which I would ever contact the police.  The situation changed for me in the afternoon of August 3, 2010.

On or about that time, I received two voice mail messages from a man identifying himself only as “John” and indicating that he was her “friend”.  He went on to say that he had a lot of money invested in this and that I needed to give her her money or that I would be “meeting” with him and that it would “not be pleasant”.  To be honest, this scared me.  I am myself in a wheelchair and I have a wife and two small children at home.  I was afraid for my safety and theirs.

To make matters worse, a few hours after I received the threatening phone calls, my wife saw a strange vehicle with two men driving down our street slowly.  They looked at our house as they drove by, turned around at the end of the block and came back, driving slowly and looking at our house again.  Needless to say, we were scared.  My wife was home with my sick daughter and I was out with my little boy.  I wanted to protect my family so I called people I know.

It was in this window of time that I spoke with Molly Clifford who put me in touch with RPD Chief Moore.  I think it’s worth noting that Molly and I speak on a regular basis, probably weekly and we are friends outside of our professional relationship.  Chief Moore and I have spoken on many occasions and in particular had been in contact recently to ensure that the protest outside the County Office Building went smoothly between police and protestors.  Given my position with CDR and my engagement in the Rochester community, these are the people that I know.  Despite the D&C’s implicit suggestion that there’s some big cover-up and scandal, I simply turned to the people that I know at a time of great duress when I thought my family might be in danger.

Fortunately, the van that had driven down our street was later identified by a neighbor as a non-threat.  But at the time that I talked to Molly and Chief Moore, it was absolutely scary.  My understanding is that the police increased surveillance of our street for that night.  I met with officers from RPD the next day.

When I met with the various RPD officers, they took down my report and ultimately must have made contact with both the woman that had contacted CDR in the first place and the man that had left me the threatening messages.  Both of these individuals stopped contacting me and there was no more suspicious or threatening behavior.  I felt much more safe and chose to not press charges.

I feel that the D&C omitted a number of the important facts from above and that the individuals interviewed in the story from the City of Rochester are conveniently mis-remembering our conversations.  Regardless, you now know the real story of my purportedly trying “to get dirt on Maggie Brooks.”  There was never an effort to get dirt in Ms. Brooks.  There was an effort to get information that would show the true motivations behind Monroe County’s attack on CDR.  They made allegations about neglect and investigations by state agencies which we’ve thoroughly refuted with evidence.  That continues to leave many people, including the D&C’s own editorial page, wondering what the real motivation behind the attack is.

The real story of the county’s motivations is as yet unknown.  Ms. Brooks’ wild suggestion that this is some sort of effort to blackmail her is baseless and even the D&C indicates that no one interviewed, nor the RPD documents, suggest anything like blackmail.  This seems to again be the county trying to distract from the real matter at hand: their allegations against CDR are slanderous and baseless and they’ve disrupted the lives and care for nearly 300 people without cause or due process.

The real story told, I am sorry that you’ve had to hear and see all this ugliness.  I believed with a positive reference check from a staffer to the Mayor, I was doing the right thing for CDR’s consumers and staff.  Apparently, I was wrong.  I made a mistake and I’m sorry for that.  I’m sorry if I have damaged the reputation of CDR or the fine people associated with the agency as consumers, staff, volunteers and members of the board.

I remain committed to doing what is in my power to ensure that CDR’s consumers get the services they want from the vendor they want.  Please feel free to contact me with any questions you may have.

Sincerely,

Chris

The D&C article can be viewed here:

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=20108290355

While Maggie Brooks has been busy alleging that CDR is the target of Medicaid Fraud investigations by the Attorney General, her own Probations department, which was part of the investigation, has issued a letter to CDR announcing the conviction of two attendants and indicating that CDR was the “victim” of the fraud, not the perpetrator.  (See documents at www.cdrnys.org)

When faced with the reality that Maggie Brooks’ left hand has not met the right hand, Maggie’s spin doctors had to start getting creative.  According to the Democrat and Chronicle:  County spokesman Noah Lebowitz said even if CDR was victimized by the attendants, “it clearly shows they failed to properly screen and manage their employees. We hold them responsible for the action of those employees. They refuse to take responsibility for that.”(D&C August 19, 2010 – see below)

This convenient misunderstanding of what a consumer directed program is comes to you DESPITE the accurate information available on Monroe County’s website:

“Recipients have flexibility and freedom in choosing their caregivers. The consumer or the person acting on the consumer’s behalf (such as the parent of a disabled or chronically ill child) assumes full responsibility for hiring, training, supervising, and – if need be – terminating the employment of persons providing the services.”  http://www.monroecounty.gov/hs-assistance.php

But wait, it gets better.  What (Spin) Dr. Lebowitz is suggesting is that if one employee is guilty of a crime, obviously, the entire organization is corrupt and should be closed down.  I wonder if Maggie Brooks has ever experienced anything similar.  Oh, wait… there was that whole Robutrad scandal last summer.  Maybe there’s a comparable situation?

Maggie Brooks in the Democrat and Chronicle about Robutrad:  “We’re talking about one county employee throughout this investigation and that is Bob Morone.” Maggie seems to have a very different perspective on the connection between crimes of her staff and the crimes of attendants (who the County’s website recognizes are actually not supervised by CDR, but the consumers enrolled in the program).

What’s that you say, Maggie’s hypocrisy can’t get worse?  Wait, there’s more!

From the Messenger Post regarding Robutrad scandal:

“Brooks, however, would not decisively say the Robutrad group should have been disciplined for visiting strip clubs and drinking alcohol while being paid by the county. “At the time, we were gathering the facts,” said Brooks.”

Maggie wouldn’t even say that Robutrad workers, being paid by Monroe County, should get disciplined for going to strip clubs while being paid by Monroe County!

Thanks for reading,

Chris

—-

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20100819/NEWS01/8190341/Two-personal-care-workers-convicted

Two attendants in the Consumer Directed Personal Assistance Program administered by the Center for Disability Rights recently were convicted of petit larceny for submitting time sheets that falsely claimed they provided care.

Roy E. Hedman, 42, of Clairmount Street, and Louis R. Smith, 74, of Reynolds Street, were convicted Aug. 5 in Monroe County Court before Judge Stephen T. Miller.

CDR made the convictions public Wednesday in a news release, which included letters from Monroe County Office of Probation — Community Corrections that called CDR a victim in the case and e-mails between the agency and the county that CDR said showed its cooperation in the case.

County spokesman Noah Lebowitz said even if CDR was victimized by the attendants, “it clearly shows they failed to properly screen and manage their employees. We hold them responsible for the action of those employees. They refuse to take responsibility for that.”

Darling said that CDR is a fiscal intermediary. Its job was to handle payroll, billing and personnel files for the attendants who were hired and trained by clients who managed their own services, he said. Darling pointed out wording in the letter from probation office. “The agency itself is named as a victim.”

CDR and the county have been at odds since July, when the county ended the agency’s contract to administer the CDPAP program. CDR has disputed county claims about “widespread lapses in client care.” CDR has taken the county to court over the contract, and a hearing is scheduled for Monday.

According to a felony complaint against the defendants, Smith received $3,410.55 and Hedman received $2,826 in wages to which they were not entitled. The complaint said that from on or about July 31, 2007, to on or about July 16, 2008, the men claimed they provided home care services to a Medicaid recipient when the individual actually was hospitalized.

According to the Office of the Attorney General, the state had paid CDR $11,964.76 as a result of the false claims. CDR must repay that money.

Sentencing for Smith and Hedman was scheduled for Sept. 30. Darling said the agency would be asking for restitution.

PSINGER@DemocratandChronicle.com

August 13, 2010 will be my last day working as the Transportation Advocate at the Center for Disability Rights. I will be moving to Syracuse on August 15th to attend the Syracuse University College of Law. In particular, I will be studying Disability Law. Although I will miss the Center for Disability Rights very much, it was actually CDR that inspired me to go to law school.

I decided to attend law school after working for the CDR for two years because my experiences at CDR exposed me to the many flaws that still exist in our legal system today and to the absurd amount of violations to the Americans with Disabilities Act that go unpunished. Discrimination based on disability is still very prominent today. I want to work to change that.I chose to attend Syracuse University College of Law because I really like the Disability Law and Public Policy program offered. Many other schools offer two or three courses that focus on ADA issues, but Syracuse offered much more than that. As I am already deeply rooted in the disability community and want to continue to help our community progress, the Disability Law and Public Policy program at SUCOL attracted me more than anything any other law school had to offer.

Many people have asked me why I want to be a lawyer, but I have yet to come up with just one solid answer. I want to be a lawyer because I am sick of people with disabilities being told that they cannot enter a public place because it is inaccessible. I want to be a lawyer because I want states to stop violating the Olmstead decision and start enforcing it so that individuals with disabilities can live in the most integrated setting possible. I want to work, and I know other individuals with disabilities want to work too, and as a lawyer, I can help these individuals who are discriminated against by employers. I want to fight to end the sub-minimum wages that some disabled people are being paid. There are so many areas where individuals with disabilities are still facing discrimination, including, but certainly not limited to, housing, transportation, work and public access. I want to be a lawyer because not only do I want to see these things change, I want to be a force in that change.

Two years ago, when I began working for CDR, I did not know how many public places were still inaccessible, I was unaware of the Olmstead decision, I had no idea what subminimum wage was, and I was ignorant to the fact that discrimination based on disability still existed. Working for CDR brought all of these issues to light for me and I became very passionate about changing things. Thank you to all of the consumers, employees and friends of CDR for helping me learn. I will miss you all very much, but I’ll be back!

To celebrate my recent college graduation my boyfriend surprised me with a trip to Walt Disney World. Having never been to Disney World before, I was ecstatic! When I arrived at Disney I was presented with a large pin that said “I’m Celebrating My College Graduation!” I wore this pin with pride as I rushed out to catch the next bus to Epcot.

When the bus arrived the driver opened the front doors and shouted “Hang on, I’ve got to get the wheelchair on the bus.” This irked me a little as I am a person, not a wheelchair, but I was so excited to be in Disney that I let it go for the moment. Soon the driver came to the back door and opened the ramp so that I could get on the bus. He strapped down my chair and then asked, “Do you need the seatbelt?” I replied, “No thanks.” The driver then turned to my boyfriend and asked, “Does she need a seatbelt?” There was no way I was going to let this go. I immediately (and sharply) told him, “Excuse me! You talk to me!” He smiled, said, “Okay,” and then went to the front of the bus. Before I even arrived at my first theme park on my first day in Disney I had already been offended, twice. I thought I was a college graduate very capable of making decisions and speaking for myself, but the bus driver apparently thought I was just a wheelchair unable to make my own decisions.

As it turns out, although this was the first time, it would not be the only time that I would have issues with a bus driver at Disney World.

I quickly learned that taking the bus was the worst part of being in Disney World. I loved the parks and I loved my hotel, but I hated taking the bus to get from the parks to my hotel or vice versa.

Don’t get me wrong, some of the bus drivers were very pleasant, but none of them followed a “standard procedure.” Some bus drivers would ask me, “Would you like to wear the seatbelt?” On another occasion, one driver said, “You don’t need a seatbelt, do you?” However, most bus drivers would simply just try to strap the seatbelt around me without saying a word. When I informed these drivers that I did not need or want the seatbelt, they would insist that all Disney bus drivers must force all wheelchair users to wear seatbelts. I would inform them that mandating me to use a seatbelt was not a federal regulation, and in fact, constitutes discrimination since no other passengers were required to wear a seat belt. In fact, seat belts were not even provided as an option for other passengers.

After informing the bus drivers of these facts, many of them would tell me that they just needed to call dispatch to make sure it was okay because they did not want to get in trouble. I told them that I understood and that I was not trying to get anyone in trouble. After calling dispatch, most of the drivers would then tell me that everything was okay. On one occasion a bus driver began swearing at me and actually refused to let me off the bus when we arrived at my hotel. I had to wait on the bus for twenty minutes until a Disney transportation supervisor came to diffuse the situation.
Overall, I enjoyed my experience at Disney, but the transportation was completely unpleasant. As it turns out, even the “happiest place on Earth” has problems with accessible transportation.

I first became involved in advocacy for consumer directed services in 1982 in Los Angeles.  Like many people with significant disabilities, I wanted to limit medical control and intrusion into my personal life.  Nurses and social workers can really  mess up your love life, and other freedoms most people take for granted.

By the 1990s, many policy makers began to see consumer controlled services as a best practice to be emulated.  As the executive director of an Independent Living Center in Cook County, Illinois, I ran one of a dozen research and demonstration projects about consumer direction, funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation in the late 1990s.  Support for the concept grew.  More and more states adopted the model as an option for people with disabilities and seniors who could manage their own home care.One of those states is New York, and I was glad to move here in 2008 and work on the advocacy team at CDR.  CDR has a national reputation as a leader in the disability rights movement and as an advocate for positive reform in long term care policy.

As an experienced non-profit manager and policy advocate, still working full time, I don’t qualify for Medicaid, but I do need some home services.  I pay for them out of pocket.

For years I’ve had to manage the paperwork for payroll taxes and other obligations associated with having a home services worker.  Now I have the choice to pay CDR to serve as my fiscal agent for payroll purposes.  Like Medicaid consumers of the Consumer Directed Personal Assistant Services (CDPAS) program, I used the CDR system to help me recruit my attendant.  I turn in a timesheet every week that includes the best fraud control mechanisms I’ve ever seen to prevent false billing.  Unlike Medicaid CDPAS consumers, CDR bills me for my attendant services rather than Medicaid.  So for now, the County can’t take away my choice.

My point is that I don’t have to use CDR’s services – I choose to use CDR’s services.  I choose CDR because they offer the best in consumer controlled home care.  I get to control my own services by selecting, training and scheduling my own aide.  I have high confidence that the high quality of support I’m counting on will continue because CDR is run by people with disabilities.  The majority of board and staff are people with disabilities.  Just as women’s organizations should be run by women, and other minority organizations should be run by their membership, disability organizations should be run by us.  CDR is us.

So please do whatever you can to support CDR to keep its contact to serve as fiscal agent for CDPAS.  Call Maggie Brooks at 585-753-1000.  Comment online in response to press coverage of this issue.  Get updates on the CDR website at www.cdrnys.org.  We need your help to defend our freedom.

The twentieth anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is July 26, 2010.  But even 20 years after passage of our landmark civil rights law, some businesses and building owners still say that “we are ‘grandfathered in’ so we don’t have to do anything to make our buildings accessible.”  They are mistaken.  They may do less than what’s required for a newly constructed or significantly renovated building, but they are still required to do something.  Under Title III of the ADA, buildings built before the law became effective must be accessible to the extent that is “readily achievable,” meaning that violations are easy to fix without much effort or expense, or it’s not an “undue burden” to the business.  An undue burden might involve, for example, putting in an elevator in a small two-story shop.

But there are other changes that are easy.  Examples include, but are not limited to, reconfiguring office furniture, widening shopping aisles, installing a ramp to replace a small number of steps, relocating a flower pot to open a path of travel on a sidewalk, and installing a doorbell when an electric door opener is not feasible.  A fast-food place that provides fixed tables and chairs must also provide accessible seating dispersed so that it doesn’t appear to be segregating people with disabilities.  It is all about proportions.  If a restaurant has 5 tables with fixed chairs, at least one must have movable seating.

In some situations, staff assistance can help address an access problem.  In a fast food restaurant, if a person can’t reach a self-serve food or drink item, then staff must reach it for them.  In a grocery store, staff must assist individuals to reach shelves that are too high or too low.

Of course safety and security must be taken into account, for both the person in a wheelchair and other people.  A ramp might not be up to new construction code standards, but is still better than no ramp.  As a business grows and has more resources, it may have to make additional improvements to bring it up to code.

Too often owners are uneducated and unaware of the ADA’s requirements.  We need to preserve the ADA and hold businesses accountable.  Whatever effort they put into making their businesses accessible will be repaid by more business income from people with disabilities, and our families and friends who travel with us!

How has the ADA equalized employment prospects for those with varying levels of disability?

The Americans with Disabilities Act has brought epic change to the rights of people with disabilities in achieving testing accommodations. While it is common to hear of testing accommodations in education and standardized testing, the ability to have accommodations for pre-employment exams is also lawful under the ADA. Accordingly, the language of the ADA states that “appropriate adjustment or modifications of examinations” is a form of accommodation that disabled applicants may request. www.ada.gov Further, there are certain restrictions on pre-employment tests that shield applicants with disabilities.

Among these protections are the proper design of selection criteria and the organization of tests in a manner that does not exclude applicants with disabilities. A criterion that screens out a person with a disability must be job-related and consistent with business necessity.  To constitute business necessity a criterion must be related to an essential job function.  “The obligation to make reasonable accommodation means that an employer must make modifications or adjustments to the application process that would enable a qualified individual with a disability to be considered for the position he or she desires”. http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/edi/hr_tips/ Tests must not be in formats that require use of the impaired skill, unless it is a job-related skill that the test is intended to measure.

Specifically, a written test cannot be given to a person with dyslexia or an individual who has a visual processing impairment and instead must be given orally. http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/edi/hr_tips/ Unless the ability to read is a job related skill that such test is designed to assess, the written test need not be given to an individual with a developmental disability. This also extends to those with mobility impairments who are required to take a timed pre-employment exam. The ability to complete an exam within a specified time is not necessary unless the test is developed in a manner that assesses one’s speed in completing particular tasks.

There are numerous possible accommodations available for pre-employment testing, but an employer is not obligated to provide any accommodation unless the applicant or employee states a need to do so. In other words, the applicant or employee is responsible for informing the employer of his/her disability and the necessary accommodations. Some possible accommodations are alternate test formats such as Braille, large print, audiotape, or a computerized version, extended time, use of a scribe, etc. http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/edi/hr_tips/

The following questions may serve as general guidelines in determining the legality of a pre-employment test: Does the test raise questions about an individual’s mental state or disability? What is the test’s purpose, and does it meet that purpose? Is the test interpreted by a health care professional? Does the test measure the employee’s performance of a task, or simply the employee’s psychological response to performing the task? http://library.findlaw.com/2005/Sep/12/199863.html

With greater competition for jobs, accommodations in the job application process are a crucial step in giving applicants with disabilities equal opportunities.

Recently, the Center for Disability Rights embarked on a new initiative – reaching out to, and partnering with our local LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered) community.

Rochester has a large and vibrant LGBT community, a significant number of whom are people with disabilities. In the effort to make CDR a more welcoming place to our LGBT staff, consumers, and visitors, it was only natural that we would include the Gay Alliance of the Genesee Valley (GAGV) and other LGBT organizations in the greater Rochester area.This initiative is very important because, here in Rochester, many venues and events for the LGBT community have been inaccessible to people who use wheelchairs, or who have mobility impairments. Out of frustration, those of us who use wheelchairs limited our involvement because we did not always feel welcome or valued.

That was then. Now that Chris Hilderbrant, Chief Operating Officer here at CDR, is on the board of GAGV, inroads have been made, and it has been easier to do outreach to the LGBT community. The strides that we have made are exciting, and we are partnering with GAGV and ImageOut to do some cool and fun things!

This Saturday, July 17, 2010, CDR will have a float in the Gay Pride Parade. Michelle Fridley, Miss Wheelchair New York, is joining us, and will be a part of the CDR float. The preparations for the Pride Parade have been fun, to say the least! If you want to join us contact me, Anita Cameron, at (585) 546-7510. We will be lining up at Park Avenue and Brunswick at 2:00 pm on Saturday. The step-off for the parade is at 3:00 pm sharp.

On July 29, 2010, CDR, in partnership with ImageOut, will screen a hilarious film about the relationship between people with disabilities and the LGBT community. It will be at the Strathallen Hotel, located at 550 East Avenue, from 6-8 pm. The name of the film is a bit shocking, so I won’t say it here, but you’ll love it anyway.

I am very excited about our collaboration with ImageOut, who organizes the screenings for the LGBT Film Festival. We are working together to make certain that the venues that they choose are accessible to people with disabilities. We are also encouraging them to screen more films that show positive images of people with disabilities.

This is only the beginning. CDR will continue to forge relationships with organizations within the LGBT community so that there will be a greater bond and mutual collaboration between our communities that results in more access for everyone.

If you’ve been following discussion or listening to the news on the state of the state budget lately, you’ve probably been hearing the acronym “FMAP” a lot.  FMAP stands for Federal Medical Assistance Percentage, which is the rate that determines the amount of federal Medicaid money each state gets.  The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, more commonly referred to as the Federal stimulus bill, enacted an enhanced FMAP for some states, including New York.  This meant that New York would get an increase in Federal Medicaid funding during the period of the enhanced FMAP rate.  This enhancement in funding is set to expire at the end of this year.The reason Washington decided to give states more Medicaid funding than they usually get as part of the stimulus bill is because state Medicaid programs all over the country were being strained.  The country was experiencing an economic downturn of unprecedented proportions; people were losing their jobs, which, in many cases, also meant they were losing their health insurance.  It made a lot of sense then that people were turning to Medicaid for the care and services they need to keep them healthy and safe.  It is not uncommon for people to turn to public programs in times of need.

The nation’s economy continues to struggle, which means everyday people continue to grapple with how to make ends meet.  For this reason, leaders in the U.S. Senate and House have attempted to extend the current enhanced Federal Medicaid funding through June of next year to support states’ Medicaid programs.  The Congressional leaders know that Medicaid programs will continue to grow and states like New York will continue to struggle to pay for the ballooning program.  To date, no extension has been passed by either house.

Both New York Senator’s Schumer and Gillibrand are supportive of extending the enhanced FMAP, as are most of the members of the New York delegation in the House.  It is Members of Congress from other states who have been holding this up for fear that it costs too much.

Without an extension of the current enhanced funding, New York State faces a $1 billion hole in the already-contentious state budget.  We need to see an extension happen before Congress breaks for their August recess.  The alternative could be massive cuts to essential services, including those upon which many of us rely.  Governor Paterson has proposed an FMAP contingency plan, which would slash state funding in almost every sector, not just Medicaid.  This would be extremely detrimental and have far-reaching consequences.  The Legislature would have to agree to the plan and pass it, but the Assembly and Senate have left Albany for the time being, so we don’t know when or if Paterson’s plan will become reality.

The CDR/RCIL Advocacy Team will keep you posted on developments and will alert you to any action that is needed to help get the FMAP enhancement extended to June 2011.