[Cagdu] thoughts on guide dog board

[Shannon L. Dillon]

This note is going back to a couple of days ago, so sorry it is a little out of date with today's topics.

 

SB 475 is a bill that if passed would increase the amount schools would pay to the board annually.  Separate from the issue of SB 475 is the issue of whether the board is overstepping its bounds by requiring out of state schools to comply with licensing requirements that deny follow-up services to Californians who choose to train with out-of-state schools.  Out-of-state schools who do not become licensed by the California board are not supposed to provide follow-up training or services within the state of California.  This issue came up last year when I spoke about my training experience at the August 23 seminar in Oakland.  So there are two issues we need to work on right now.  One is the SB 475 issue, in which the board would like to ask for more money from not-for-profit schools who conduct guide dog training.  Is it reasonable that not-for-profits have to pay 5% of their annual income to the Board?  What does the Board do to deserve this money?  Do you think the people who donated their money to the guide dog schools intended it to be spent on payments to a board that denies or limits choices of Californians to training?  

 

The board was created in 1947 to help protect blind veterans.  I think blind people now are a long way from where they were in 1947.  Anyway, SB 475 is the issue we all should write individual letters to Senator Padilla about.  We will send a letter as CAGDU once we have the new letterhead.

 

The second issue we have to work on is what to do about the board altogether.  The legislation creating the board sunsets in 2010 or 2011.  So this is a good time to be working on the resolution to put this board to bed.  I'm working on gathering more information for the resolution.  I previously put it altogether and have to dig it up again.

 

 

SHANNON L. DILLON


 
> Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 09:59:21 -0700
> From: rstigile at sbcglobal.net
> To: cagdu at nfbcal.org
> Subject: Re: [Cagdu] thoughts on guide dog board
> 
> Hello Ken,
> I agree with you, on all of your points about the Board.
> The only thing that you need to know, is that the bill sb 475 
> deals with increasing the amount that schools must pay to the 
> Board on an annual basis.
> I hope this helps,
> 
> Robert Stigile
> 
> 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Ken Volonte" <kenvolonte at comcast.net
> >To: "Cagdu" <cagdu at nfbcal.org
> >Date sent: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 09:44:37 -0700
> >Subject: [Cagdu] thoughts on guide dog board
> 
> >Hi cagduers. The following thoughts represent my views on the 
> guide dog
> >board and its function.
> 
> > The society we live in now is a more mobile one. People 
> travel about
> >all the time for jobs, for increased opportunities, for a change 
> in their
> >individual needs and preferences. I happen to live in 
> California, but I
> >should be able to go to a guide dog school of my choice safe in 
> the
> >knowledge that my chosen school can provide me with follow up 
> services if
> >needed. The position of the guide dog board is at odds with this 
> because
> >the board requires all schools to obtain licensure in California.
> 
> > Every school has its own specialty which might dictate a 
> desire to go
> >there. For example, Pilot dogs was, for a long time, the only 
> school that
> >was comfortable with guide dogs using escalators. GDB dogs have 
> the edge in
> >terms of soundness and consistency. Fidelco uses German 
> Shepherds, and so
> >on. All of these schools know how to train guide dogs, and the 
> law should
> >recognize this and not put encumbrances in the way of any student 
> making any
> >choice.
> 
> > Now we come to the matter of trainers who will train a pet 
> dog to be a
> >guide dog for a small fee of, say $1,000.00 a month. Suppose I 
> want to
> >train my pet Poodle to be a guide and go to one of these 
> unscrupulous
> >trainers. What guarantee do I have that this trainer knows what 
> is expected
> >of a guide dog? What protection do I or the public have under 
> the law? If
> >push came to shove, none at all.
> 
> > I have no problem with a licensing body or with supporting 
> that body. I
> >have two problems with the California State Guide Dog Board. 
> First, board
> >members are appointed by the governor and this appointment can be 
> secured by
> >a big contribution. People on the board don't necessarily have 
> to know
> >anything about guide dogs or their function. Second, the board 
> presumes to
> >regulate schools outside of California, and that's the focus of 
> this whole
> >business with 475. Cagdu may have inadvertently caused this 
> problem by
> >inviting members of the board to our seminar last year, and it's 
> up to us to
> >fix it.
> 
> >_______________________________________________
> >Cagdu mailing list
> >Cagdu at nfbcal.org
> >https://www.nfbcal.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/cagdu
> _______________________________________________
> Cagdu mailing list
> Cagdu at nfbcal.org
> https://www.nfbcal.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/cagdu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://nfbcal.org/pipermail/cagdu/attachments/20090406/fb68989b/attachment.html