TA was a high school student in the 6,000-student Forest Grove district.  He had spent most of his educational career in Forest Grove and had never been considered for special education.  When his school work fell off, he was evaluated and found to have attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.   The school district, however, would not provide him with special education services, finding that TA’s disability was not affecting his educational progress. Two years later, TA’s parents enrolled him in a private school and asked Forest Grove to reimburse them for the cost of the tuition.  The school district refused but an administrative hearing ruled that the parents should be reimbursed.  The Oregon District Court reversed this decision but was, itself, reversed by a panel of the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals.  The US Supreme Court will now make the final call.

DRO signed onto a brief that was submitted in support of TA’s position.  The brief, prepared by DRO’s national organization, the National Disability Rights Network, and others, supports the proposition that parents should be reimbursed when a school district utterly fails to meet the needs of a child with a disability.  TA has also received the support of the US Department of Justice.  It filed a brief stating: "When a child with a disability has been denied a free appropriate public education, IDEA authorizes an award of private-school tuition reimbursement regardless of whether the child previously received public special education."   If this were not the case, tuition reimbursement could "never be available to parents if a school district wrongly refuses to identify their child as having a covered disability."

The legal question in the case, Forest Grove School District v. T.A. (Case No. 08-305), is whether parents in a special education dispute with a school district may be reimbursed for “unilaterally” placing their child in a private school when that child has never received special education services from the district.  It is interesting to note that the Supreme Court heard the same issue in 2007 in Bd. of Ed. of NYC v. Tom F.  In that case, the court deadlocked 4-4, with Justice Kennedy not participating.  All nine justices will decide TA.  And so, if the other eight justices hold their ground, Justice Kennedy will be the decider.

DRO believes that it is essential that students receive appropriate evaluations early on and the special education and related services to which they are entitled under federal law. When schools fail to comply with the law, parents are forced to take matters into their own hands and seek other placements.  Schools should partner with parents so that the student has the benefit of the school’s experience and expertise and does not have to go elsewhere to seek an adequate education.  This cannot be achieved if schools have a fiscal incentive to cut a student loose.

. The case will be argued before the Court on April 28th.

I'm back home from a full day at the state Capitol.  We are three legislative days away from a big deadline.  Any bill that has not moved out of its original committee by the close of business on Tuesday is dead.  This deadline sets up a last minute scramble for folks to keep their bill breathing.  A bill can die for many reasons.  It may never have had a hearing or been heard and left its committee unmoved.  It may need amendments that cannot be agreed upon or cannot be produced by Legislative Council on time or in technical shape.  It may lack a Fiscal Impact Statement from the Legislative Fiscal Office because of time restraints or a the bill may just have a crippling cost (in this session, virtually any cost is crippling).

I arrived at 8:00 am in Hearing Room B for a Work Session on the ominously-named Senate Bill 911.  The committee chair promptly banged her gavel and said that SB 911 would not be heard because it lacked a fiscal impact statement.  I was then told that House Bill 2353, scheduled for a hearing that day at 1:00 pm, would not be heard because the amendments had just arrived and they also did not have a "fiscal."

These bills concern standards for secure residential homes serving mental health clients and the reporting of people who have been committed to a psychiatric hospital to the FBI in order to prevent them from having guns.

At noon, I made a half-hour report on pending legislation at the Mental Health Caucus, a bi-weekly meeting of legislators, lobbyists, advocates and bureaucrats convened by state Representative Ron Maurer.  Afterward, I worked with some lobbyists on a bill affecting the procedural rights of families in special education hearings and discussed ideas on how to improve the state hospital and to get kids in community mental health facilities the education services they need.

Then, some great news.  Senate Bill 731 passed out of its committee in its eighth amended form.  This bill will save people who receive public benefits from having those benefits garnished from their bank accounts.  Now, even though these funds are protected by law, banks have to turn them over to collectors and the person has to go to court to get them back.  This is money that people rely upon for subsistence.  Many are not able or brave enough to go to court to assert their rights.  Kudos to Sybil Hebb from the Oregon Law Center for great work!  (I helped a little.)

And so, amid all the frenzy and talking and mulling, something good was accomplished!  On to tomorrow.....

The auditorium at Portland Community College was full by 5 PM for the 6 PM Ways and Means Committee forum.  By the time the forum began, the overflow room was overflowing.

Co-Chair Margaret Carter was absent due to illness, but 21 other members of the committee were present.

Our orange "No DD Cuts" stickers seemed to be just as numerous and obvious as the purple t-shirts - yeah for us!  We heard a full hour of testimony before anyone from the DD community spoke - that being Jeanne Farr (thanks to Bernie for being there early to sign her up, distribute stickers, etc). Following on Jeanne's heels was Bud Thoune.  Both Jeanne and Bud represented our interests very eloquently and persuasively.

Parents and self advocates were also well represented in the crowd.  I saw Arlene and Roberta from FACT; Steve, Hannah and Sherry from SAAL, and several other familiar faces.  Everyone who could get their hands on a copy of the committee's survey was filling one out.  Most of those wearing our orange stickers were new to me - a good sign that our grassroots are reaching beyond the usual suspects.

We're on a roll...so keep on rollin'!

Bill

Bill Lynch, Executive Director
Oregon Council on Developmental Disabilities

The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference.
The opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference.
The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference.
And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference.

(Oct. 1986)

I recently got an email from a Community Mental Health director asking me what I thought a program should address when designing a proposal for a pilot project to demonstrate the integration of physical and mental health services.  My very short response to this big question went like this:

We seem to have a rare opportunity to step back and ask ourselves how a public mental health service would be constructed if we were starting from day one.  I would begin by trying to understand who the service recipients are and what they want.  I'm no marketing guru, but I think people want the same thing from MH services as they want from other goods and services:  convenience, reliability, choice, good customer relations.

I also think that everyone needs a measure: how do we evaluate our success?  Care of chronic disease seems to be a focus of many health care reform discussions.  If we can diagnose an individual, provide them with the information and tools to manage their disorder and then provide clear feedback on how they are doing, we can minimize acute episodes and the cost associated with them, keep the person feeling reasonably good and save bucks.  We can also use those measurements to demonstrate the overall effectiveness of the service which supports future investment in the service.

Stories circulate through the media about people who claim to need a "service animal" or "assistance animal" that paint the person as a scam artist who is trying to get around the rules.  It is somewhat like the broad public perception of the insanity defense as a means for criminals to fake their way out of going to jail.  There seems to be a natural inclination for people to feel that if they have to follow a rule, everybody should have to follow the same rule.  No exceptions.

But our disability discrimination laws recognize that some people do need to be treated differently so that they can receive the same services, benefits and opportunities as others.  This topic came up yesterday when Senate Bill 875 was heard by the Senate Consumer Protection and Pubic Affairs Committee.  The bill amends a law that presently allows landlords to charge a pet fee to blind and deaf tenants who have service animals.  Federal and state civil rights laws prohibit the charging of such a fee, and so the purpose of the bill is make the laws consistent.

At the hearing, legislators asked why these animals should be treated differently than pets.  The answer is that they are not pets.  They are an essential aid that allows a person with disabilities to function in the home and in society.  A service animal should be treated by a landlord like part of the tenant.  If the animal were to cause damage to the apartment, it would be like the tenant causing that harm.  General safety or cleaning deposits that are charged to all tenants can certainly be charged to a person with a service animal.  But the animal is not a luxury or an hobby.  It is essential to the life of the person with disabilities.

Legislators also asked about the difference between a service animal like a seeing eye dog, and an assistance animal such as a cat that provides comfort to an individual with mental illness.  There are many jokes circulating in the media about people who claim to need a "comfort ferret" or "companion horse" because of a disability.  The answer is that the law only requires "reasonable" accommodations and that if a person has a medically diagnosed disability and a clinically recognized need for a companion animal in order to remain in independent living, the law protects that need.  It should also be noted that not only the person with disabilities but society as a whole benefits when a person can remain living independently, outside of an expensive care facility.

Disability laws like the ADA and Fair Housing Act exist to allow people to share in the beneifts of society, not to let them shirk the rules.  And yes, Senate Bill 875 was passed by the committee. 

I'm at the Red Lion Hotel in Salem, attending a meeting of about 150 people who have been convened to discuss what factors should be taken into account in creating pilot projects to test the integration of mental health, chemical dependency and physical health services.  The attendees broke into five work groups to discuss System Structure, Performance-based Contracting, Financing and Payment Methodologies, Goals for Integrated Service Pilots and Essential Services for Recovery.

Through the mass of discussion, a few things became clear.  This is a complex undertaking.  There are many interests that are affected.  There is excitement about change but also anxiety.  Resources and time are very limited for the task at hand.

We've just finished up the meeting.  Hold on, there is much more to come.