Debate about HR 911 at IECA Conference next week

[Anonymous]

http://www.iecaonline.com/blog/2009/10/ ... -programs/

http://www.iecaonline.com/blog/2009/10/ ... ves-to-nc/

Thoughts?

[Anonymous]

Who all's going to this event? From the looks of some of the blogging, CAFETY has snuggled up a bit...  :eek:

[Anonymous]

Looks like compromise could be in the cards for the CAFETY/ASTART/IECA folks. CAFETY appears to care not that HR911 is a piece of legislation that would ultimately legitimize institutionalized abuse of American kids, ASTART plugs this bill like it's the next best thing to sliced bread and IECA appears "worried" that ANY legislation or regulation of this industry above its current level is "very strict"? These sorts of efforts appease the industry, not hold it truly accountable. It is time to lobby against HR911 and stop compromising with the industry.  :bs:  :bs:  :bs:  Who cares if IECA is worried about regulations? That sounds like a good thing, right? Why be half-assed about it? You proponent folks, although having been really quiet lately, are thinking "oh, that's good enough, it's more than what we have now and we can always make amendments..." Yeah, ok, I'd like to see how that works out since amendments don't simply fall out of the amendment tree... Why not do it right the FIRST time?

Why was the testimony at the 2007 hearings so 'scripted'? Why was the REAL deal not set forth to the lawmakers? Why did Miller cave? Why stand by and let this bill stand a chance? If the people who "originally" inspired this sort of legislation have a problem with it, then it's time to go back to the drawing board. Don't sell out or compromise just because there are so-called "experts", doctors, lawyers, etc... involved.

Who's going to this conference?

[blombrowski]

The presenters are:

Grace Cole - CAFETY
Bob Friedman - ASTART
Brian Lombrowski - CAFETY/ASTART
Chris Noroski - CAFETY

As for H.R. 911, the language in the bill is based off of Oregon statute.  If you haven't been paying attention lately, Oregon statute, properly enforced just forced the closure of one of AEG's flagship programs.  

There are several programs that H.R. 911 would have an impact on that I can think of off the top of my head, including certain programs in New York, Massachusetts, and Montana for starters.  As always, who is doing the enforcement matters.

[Anonymous]

Mark Skalarow from IECA says:

"In the end it was remarkable because it marked the first opportunity for each side in this important debate to listen and speak with each other and to begin a dialogue. I was taken at one point by Dr. Santa’s view that 10 of the 14 regulations outlined in the bill he completely agreed with, and he saw two as administrative annoyances that he could live with. That left just two parts of the bill where he disagreed–with some vehemence–but this showed me that both sides are closer together than anyone had thought. The CAFETY and A-START folks are NOT trying to close down all residential programs, and the therapeutic industry folks accept the value and need for some regulation or licensure."


So here we go... get the consultants to bend a little, get the HR911 bill supporters to bend a little and what do you get? More support for the bill by people who dangle the lives of children in their hands. What a mess.

Pull the plug on HR911 before another kid dies in captivity!!! Do it right or don't do it at all. Who are you to decide such matters? Who out there wants to shut down ALL residential programs? Are there rumors being started? Backs being stabbed? What gives? How is this helping? Putting a bandaid on a shotgun blast wound??  :beat:  :beat:  :beat:   :bs:  :bs:

For the rest of the article, and to save Ursus the trouble of having to go behind me and post the link, lol... ,

 here's the link that shows the article that includes this excerpt.

http://www.iecaonline.com/blog/category ... onference/

[blombrowski]

The major sticking point for NATSAP was provided by John Santos, which is the "reasonable right to a telephone".  This is a non-negotiable for us, and we will be the first ones advocating against the bill if this provision is gutted from the final version.

However, if you want to join Lon Woodbury in opposition to the bill on procedural grounds (what happens during the rule writing process) please go ahead.  I grant that the interpretation of that very legality could be anything from allowing a student his or her own cell phone on campus to only letting students call from a pre-approved list that's provided by parents.

When other residential providers are comfortable with the "reasonable access" provision and NATSAP isn't, it certainly makes me more comfortable that the bill has at least some teeth.

Not a perfect bill by any means.  But better than the current state of affairs.

But anonymous you are more than welcome to organize your own group of people in opposition to the bill to point out its deficiencies.  While not being hostile to the audience we made a vigorous stand for youth rights and ensuring due process and were thoroughly mocked by the audience.

In the words of Dennis Green, "They are who we thought they were", and more than anything that was the value of going in there.  It's one thing to read blogs, but it's another to actually meet someone face to face and see them in action.  Certainly not all of the educational consultants who were there, but as a group they left an impression that only confirmed our suspicions.

[Anonymous]

Nobody's joining lon woodbury in anything. ISAC was not invited to the hearings or the conference, can you blame Lon and Co?  :roflmao:  This is more about the fundamentals than procedures. Compromising and not compromising. You know, things like "the principle of it all"...  You're worried so much about the phone calls, but what would HR911 do to protect American kids placed in programs located outside the USA?

[Anonymous]

Right, this bill, as is written, gives no help to those outside the U.S.  It would be better if it included all U.S. operated companies foreign and domestic.  Yet, at the same time, what protection do kids have within the U.S. if no legislation is passed?  There are far far more programs operating within our borders that we actually CAN do something about with HR911.  I agree it's flawed, but working to solve those flaws is more important than just fighting all legislation at this point.  Look how long even getting this done is taking....and how long do we think starting from scratch would take if we scrap it all.  How many kids would be abused during that process?

[Anonymous]

Scratch? Who said whoever would have to start from scratch? CAFETY/ASTART didn't get on board till 2005 or later. Lots of work had already been done prior to that time. The CAFETY/ASTART folks did not start from scratch back then and a lot has been learned in the meantime. Some tweaking and reinstalling the original teeth would be a great start. In reality, the prospect of eliminating the abuse and fraud in programs is quite a seemingly insurmountable task. It is really sad to see people settle for less, toss aside kids offshore, compromise with the industry leaders and set what could turn out to be dangerous precedents for lawmakers and programs as a whole. Amendments are very hard to add so you're better off putting more teeth in the beginning or just kill the bill altogether.

 I believe that the American people, including the kids in question, can be educated about what is bad about programs. Agencies can be notified and programs held accountable for fraud/abuse just fine. If there is a state somewhere that lags behind, well, put some fire under its butt. Exercise the legal system, ie lawyers, doctors, etc... There are already websites and organizations that have been around for a long time that could do a much better job than the government could ever do policing/reporting/educating etc about this industry. Why does the State Department warn parents about offshore programs now? If there was a way to acquire a million+ dollar a year budget, this would be the ultimate solution, IMO of course, but to support HR911 the way it is written right now is just not the right thing to do, also IMO.