*PUBLIC POLICY PERSPECTIVES RE-EMERGES TO FOCUS ATTENTION ON WHAT WILL BE ANOTHER LONG, HOT SUMMER IN THE STATE CAPITOL OVER ANOTHER STATE BUDGET CRISIS

It would be an understatement to say that 2009 has presented huge challenges for CFILC, the SCNetwork, and the general public to keep track of the ongoing state budget crisis. We continue to use the over-worn and weary phases used in the State Capitol to preface the “historic” and “unprecedented” nature of the budget deficit and the ensuing budget fights. Like many other communities of interest and our allied partners, we have focusing on building our capacity to keep track of and appropriately respond to strongly oppose proposed cuts in programs and services for people with disabilities.

CFILC and the Systems Change Network are doing all that we can to keep pace with the ongoing public policy debate and the constantly changing circumstances associated with the continued growth in the size of the projected budget deficits. We have lobbied in the hallways and committee rooms of the State Capitol and have reacted decisively and strategically to mobilize our community. We have mounted coordinated protests inside the State Capitol and in District Offices throughout the state; launched postal and email advocacy campaigns; made appointments for Capitol and District Office visits; tracked and advocated upon our legislative agenda and state budget priorities; and collaborated with our allied partners.

Of course, this has taken a tremendous commitment of time and resources and the entire process has taken a toll on everyone involved. Yet, while it appeared at first glance that the state budget crisis finally would have been resolved at least through June 30, 2010, like everyone else we were chagrined to discover that the budget agreement began unraveling virtually at the same time as the Governor was signing the “final” budget agreement into law.

We are all aware of the reasons why this has happened. The Governor’s economic forecasts had been “pumped up” to sway the few Republicans that were needed to meet the two-thirds voting requirement for the February 2009 budget bill, but those revenue estimates and other economic forecasts were soon derailed. Our state and national economies have continued to slide downward as consumers feared for their own economic survival and reacted by limiting personal spending and hording savings. Of course, such consumer reactions have further precipitated the continuing revenue shortfalls that are part of the current $23.9 billion budget deficit.

While economists differ on whether tax increases are necessary to close the gap or whether program cuts will actually worsen the state economy, the few Republicans who voted for the last budget act have been universally attacked for placing the public good above political ideology. The two Republican Assembly and Senate Caucus leaders who supported the temporary tax increases were soon voted out by their Caucuses and replaced by successors who swore allegiance to the God of No Taxes. They continue to oppose using the proposed budget “rainy day” budget surplus to offset further cuts even though the state is being battered by fiscal hurricanes.

The rejection of the ballot measures that would have given voter approval to make necessary adjustments and authorization to critical portions of the budget agreement has further contributed to the growing deficit. So, in the end, those of us who advocate on behalf of people with disabilities have licked our wounds, supported one another, and vowed to redouble our efforts. Even our colleague Marty Omoto was tempted to give up out of frustration over the entire process, only to return to publicizing his CDCAN reports.

So, it is now crystal clear that it’s going to be yet another long, hot summer in the Capitol. IOUs will be issued, state vendors will face unpredictable payment delays, vacation plans will be cancelled or delayed, hundreds of hours of bickering floor debate will be televised, and the younger legislative staff members who now populate the chambers of both houses will age beyond their years overnight.

Am I being too depressing? Since our last email newsletter was last publicized in April, let’s hear a bit of good news before getting back to the state budget.

CFILC’S SPONSORED BILL, AB 398 (MONNING/CHESBRO), RELATING TO THE STATE ADMINISTRATION OVER THE CALIFORNIA TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY PROGRAM, PASSES OUT OF THE SENATE HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE---RECENT NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION HAVE BEEN PRODUCTIVE AND INCREASED THE LIKELIHOOD AB 398 WILL BE SIGNED INTO LAW BY THE GOVERNOR

As we are all aware, this year CFILC has co-sponsored AB 398 in partnership with Traumatic Brain Injury Services of California (TBISCA). The bill transfers administrative oversight over the California Traumatic Brain Injury Program from the Department of Mental Health (DMH) to the Department of Rehabilitation (DOR). TBISCA has long advocated for the shift to DOR because DMH was never a good “fit” since traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) are a physical injury, rather than a mental health condition and DMH reportedly had neither the expertise nor motivation to administer the TBI Program on a cooperative basis with the TBI Program sites.

The bill passed out of the Assembly on its Consent Calendar by a unanimous vote. After it was referred to the Senate, it was given a dual policy committee assignment to be heard both in the Senate Human Services Committee and the Senate Health Committee. If AB 398 passes both of those hurdles, it may also be heard in the Senate Appropriations Committee before being eligible for a vote on the Senate floor.

Most recently, we are pleased to report that on June 23^rd, AB 398 passed its first major hurdle in the Senate when it was heard in the Senate Human Services Committee. It was voted out by a 4-1 vote, with only Senator George Runner casting a NO vote.

After reading this article, it may be a good idea for the Advocates whose ILCs are located in his Senate District to meet with the Senator or his staff to suggest that he should strongly consider changing his vote when the bill is eligible for a vote on the Senate floor. When contacted by TBISCA, his staff informed us that the Senator had cast a “Nay” vote in committee because he believed that the bill should be required to be evaluated for program effectiveness before becoming a permanent program, as would be authorized by the bill.

The Senator’s rigid position was unchanged even after being informed that the TBI Program has already been evaluated for program effectiveness in the recent past and was assessed as being a worthwhile program. We guess that that he must believe that with all of the free surplus of cash available in the State Treasury, the State of California can afford to pay for another duplicative program evaluation for a program that has been in effect for over 21 years!

Senator Runner’s position is a unique one since AB 398 received unanimous Republican support in the Assembly. Are there really any legitimate reasons why he should continue to vote against a bill that would: (1) improve the delivery of programs and services to survivors of TBIs and their families; (2) to offer TBI survivors greater access a broader range of current and prospective services administered by DOR to help them live more independently without significantly more costly institutionalization; (3) promote government efficiency and cost-effectiveness in the delivery of these vital programs and services; and (4) adds no new costs to the state and may open avenues for additional Federal funding? Inquiring minds need to know.

As previously reported in previous editions of Public Policy Perspectives, the TBI community strongly believes that DOR is the state agency best suited to administer the TBI Program. As they point out, DOR currently administers most of the existing state and Federally-funded programs that serve people with disabilities, including independent living centers.

Shortly after we introduced the bill, we met with high-level representatives of DOR, the DMH, and Health, and the Health and Human Services Agency. We had learned that that the DMH is being substantially reorganized due to projected staff reductions and that the Health and Human Services Agency, which supervises both departments, was open to finding a way to shift the TBI Program to DOR. Knowing that we needed to ensure that there was a smooth transition that would not negatively impact the TBI program or the contracts that had been awarded to the existing TBI service providers, we urged the affected state agencies to work with us on substantive amendments to be inserted into the bill.

Ultimately, we received a commitment that they would, in fact, cooperate in identifying all of the statutory amendments to AB 398 that are necessary to make the transition. In turn, we moved the bill through the Assembly with the promise that we would try to finalize the agreement and amend the bill accordingly in the Senate. The bill did move through the Assembly policy and fiscal committees and the bill was placed on their respective Consent Calendars, which is a status assigned to bills with no opposition and unanimous bi-partisan support . Thus, we were able to move the bill forward and it was out of the Assembly.

Most recently, we were able to negotiate a final package of mutually supported amendments. Perhaps even more importantly, we found that our discussions with the state agencies were very collegial and supportive in tone and that we were all engaging in a cooperative process with the clear objective of improving the program. As a direct result of those discussions, we walked away from the last negotiation session with a shared understanding that DOR was committed to overseeing the program and improving the delivery of programs and services, including a commitment to seek to secure future Federal funding opportunities to expand vocational rehabilitation services and other supportive services for TBI survivors.

AB 398 was scheduled for a hearing before the Senate Health Committee on July 8^th, with an understanding that it would subsequently be referred the Senate Appropriations Committee if it is passed by that policy committee. Unfortunately, the status of AB 398 and hundreds of other bills is on HOLD pending a decision by the Senate Leadership to postpone all Senate policy committee hearings until the budget bill is passed and signed into law.

Like all other similarly situated bills, AB 398 may require rule waivers to be allowed to continue to move forward after the deadline for policy committees to hear and report out bills. Postponements of this type are common during budget crisis situations, so we need to be poised to move forward as so as the signal to go ahead is given for these pending bills.

If passed out of the Senate policy and fiscal committees, AB 398 will then be eligible for a final vote on the Senate floor. If passed, it would then be transmitted to the Assembly for Concurrence in the Senate Amendments. It is important to note that our ability to negotiate with the Administration on the proposed transfer and their signal to move forward significantly enhances the chances that the Governor will sign the bill into law.

In the final analysis, a legitimate argument could be made that the introduction of AB 398 may have “saved” the TBI Program for potential elimination now that there has been a genuine commitment to improve the program. As we are all aware, many programs that were once viewed as “sacred cows” have been proposed for elimination due to the ongoing budget deficit.

The reorganization of the Department of Mental Health for staff downsizing purposes easily could have relegated the program for possible elimination in the wake of the budget deficit, since it is a relatively small program for which the costs of state oversight could have been viewed as no longer essential. Instead, we expect that the TBI Program to be revitalized for the benefit of TBI survivors and their families----no small task in the current budget environment.

AFTER THAT SHORT “COMMERCIAL BREAK”, WE NOW RETURN TO THE STATE BUDGET: THE LONG, HOT SUMMER CONTINUES AS LAWMAKERS AND THE GOVERNOR TRY TO BRIDGE THE BUDGET DEFICIT BY MAKING MORE PROGRAM CUTS WHILE AVOIDING THE “T WORD”----TAXES

While it would be wonderful to report on state budget developments as they occur in “real time” in the State Capitol to keep Public Policy Perspectives readers up to date day-by-day and hour-by-hour, such an effort on its own would be a full time undertaking. As we can see from the daily news reports, email exchanges, the CDCAN newsletter, and other sources the state budget is a moveable target.

Much of what transpires actually is born in behind-the-scenes strategic planning by the Republican and Democratic Leadership and their caucuses, as well as negotiations with the Governor. In most cases, unless you are regularly glued to the California Network that televises floor debate, there are too many floor vote “exercises” that are predictably unlikely to succeed and it can be truly baffling when hours of heated debate fail to produce bills that meet the two-thirds vote requirement.

More than even before, the Republicans are taking hard-line on their “no tax” positions. While the Governor sometimes gives mixed signals about what are his exact demands for a budget agreement, overall he has an extremely poor record of delivering actual deliver Republican votes. Prior governors were often able to wield the inherent powers of their office to either threaten to veto key legislation, to campaign on behalf of candidates they favored in exchange for their budget votes, or to offer them future high-paying political appointments. Our current Governor is significantly less skilled in this regard and many legislators in his own party want to avoid dealing with him as much as they can.

The current $23.9 billion budget shortfall is significant. Moreover, this edition of Public Policy Perspectives is being published on July 2^nd, after the beginning of the new fiscal year on July 1, 2009, it is now apparent that the stalemate will continue unabated.

We all know by now that past advocacy strategies employed to avoid cuts for programs and services for people with disabilities are no longer as effective. Simply put, the entire equation for making the necessary political calculations to solve the budget deficit is no longer part of the playing field.

Note: On June 30^th, Melissa Richard, the System Change Network Advocate for Freed, prepared and disseminated an excellent report examining many of the factors contributing to the ongoing budget crises. It is well written and worthwhile reading that you can access by linking on to document titled “CABUDGET.doc.” She has promised to further elaborate on the document she views as a working budget reference document.

I won’t make an effort to keep up with Marty Omoto’s daily, sometimes hourly CDCAN reports, or to duplicate the discussion about many of the budget issues Melissa has highlighted in her report. We all know that deep and painful cuts are on the near horizon and likely will reappear in the foreseeable future until the national and state economies stabilize and until we reinvent the process by which state revenues are generated and make the structural changes (e.g. changing over-reliance on personal income taxes, changing the two-thirds vote requirement, etc.) needed to break the endless cycle of continued deficits.

The Democratic Leadership continues to promise to fight the good fight to resist making unsustainable cuts in health and human service programs that support the tattered remains of our historic safety net for seniors, poor and low-income families, and people with disabilities. Yet, we also know that the same leadership team is being pulled in multiple directions by other affected communities of interest including, among others, those working in unions, education, transportation, higher education, environmental, and other special interest groups. They are all resounding the same theme; namely, that further cuts will lose Federal matching funds or otherwise jeopardize the critical infrastructures Californians have relied upon for decades to sustain these programs.

Unfortunately, many Republicans view the budget crisis as their long-hoped for “perfect storm” of fiscal dysfunction. They view the current budget crisis and the lack of an imminent solution as an opportunity to permanently eliminate programs and services they view as wasteful spending despite any of the tragic human consequences that may ensue.

Term limits and the resulting constant turnover in the Assembly and senate Leadership, committee chairs, and Members of the Legislature and their and staff has realistically worsened prospects for avoiding these annual budget battles in future fiscal years or to provide the necessary incentives to enact much-needed structural reforms. It is simply impossible to overcome the learning curve created in the post-term limits environment that would enable the vast majority of talented and ambitious Members to acquire the knowledge and expertise to make contributions before being termed out.

Moreover, redistricting has also created so many “safe” seats in Republican legislative districts throughout the state, that there are no incentives for them to depart from the rigid ideological and political stances on public policy issues. Those who do “go rogue” by voting for the budget without prior approval often find themselves punished by recall campaigns, well-funded primary challengers, or ouster from any leadership committee vice-chair positions they may hold. Republicans have made intransience a permanent political strategy and have fine tuned “just say NO” into a dubious “art form”, especially during budget debates.

Since it is impossible to use the CFILC email newsletter as a means to keep everyone updated on a daily basis, I will instead focus attention on some key considerations that may help chop our way through the jungle. They include:

(1) The New Fiscal Year Begins Without a Budget: I am writing this part of the email newsletter mid-day on July 2nd, so it is now clear as reported in the Capitol news media that we not only have no budget agreement, but the Legislature lost an important opportunity to avoid yet another $3 billion plus deficit. State Controller John Chiang had warned that yet another cash flow deficit would require the issuance of IOUs, known as “registered warrants” to vendors doing business with the state, local government, taxpayers who are owed refunds, and other payment obligations. He now has no choice other than to issue those IOUs.

Democrats made some “creative” and legally contentious last-ditch efforts to trim $3.3 billion from the 2008-2009 education budget and similar costs shift proposals, many of which were based on their calculation as reflected in an earlier Legislative Counsel legal opinion, that they could be passed with only majority vote requirements. Naturally, Republicans and the Governor announced that the proposals were unconstitutional in view of the two-thirds vote requirement and stood their ground in resisting these efforts. The Governor went so far as to veto several of the bills when they were actually transmitted to his desk and promised that he would veto every single such proposal, thereby creating another standoff on the budget. Still unresolved in this maze is how much more health and welfare programs will be cut to resolve the deficit.

The Governor was willing to take a calculated risk in opposing these stop-gap spending measures that would have allowed cash payments to continue to be made. With the prospect of further contributing to a decline in the state economy and the state’s credit rating looming with the issuance of IOUs, the Governor is apparently convinced that the stop-gap measures would only have provided disincentives for Democrats to come to the negotiation table to resolve the budget deficit as a whole. However, if no budget agreement is reached in the immediate future, the Governor will share much of the blame for the lowering of the state’s credit rating and the higher costs of interest payments that would have to be absorbed by taxpayers.

Both sides are counting on increased public pressure and media criticism to support their political strategies. A series of television advertisements are on the public airways criticizing the Governor for protecting special interests at the expense of people in need of government assistance. However, the Governor continues to insist upon the resolution of the entire $26.3 billion deficit in the budget negotiations. He believes that the issuance of the registered warrants will increase the stakes and force lawmakers to come up with an agreement sooner than later.

Democrats are now viewing the Governor intentions with an even greater degree of distrust. Senator Steinberg had pledged that the stop-gap efforts would not have had any negative impact on his commitment to negotiate the resolution of the entire deficit. In reality, the Governor has many former staff from prior Republicans governors, including those who served under former Governors George Deukmejian and Pete Wilson. He appears to believe that the hard-line negotiation tactics employed in the past by the “Iron Duke”, Governor Deukmejian will work again and he is willing to be both the “good cop” and “bad cop” while always placing blame for stalls in the negotiations on the Democrats.

As many of you are aware, the Governor has proposed some draconian measures to address the budget deficits in the longer term. Among other things, he has proposed to create a new, lower tier of retirement benefits for new state workers. He also would like to lower or require more health insurance co-pays for retired state workers. The Democratic leadership promised to given his proposals due attention after the budget deficit is solved, but they will face considerable criticism from much of their base if they move in any of these directions.

In the wake of these developments following the veto of the Democratic bill package that would have cut education spending and shifted redevelopment funds, the Governor has called for yet, another Special Session on the state budget. He cited as the justification in his proclamation another rubber stamp fiscal emergency.

Simultaneously, State Controller Chiang announced that he will begin issuing the IOUs effective on July 2, 2009. He reported that the issuance of the registered warrants is necessary to keep enough cash on hand in the State Treasury to meet constitutionally-mandated payments to schools and state bondholders.

To further trim back state spending, the Governor announced that he will issue an Executive Order imposing a third unpaid “furlough” day for more than 200,000 state workers. The additional furlough day means that state workers will have to accept what constitutes another 4.6 percent pay cut on top of the previous pay cuts already ordered by the Governor and upheld by the courts.

It is unclear at this point in time how long it will take for lawmakers to resolve the new budget deficit. Democrats has proposed various incarnations of $12 billion in program cuts, while the Governor has drawn a line in the sand for $16 billion in cuts that were in effect before the additional deficit growth. Assembly Speaker Karen Bass and Senate Pro Tem Steinberg continue to insist that the Governor’s demands would permanently undermine the health safety net. Republicans refused to accede to Democratic majority vote proposals to add nearly $2 billion in tax increases on tobacco products and oil drilling. Local governments are extremely concerned about other proposals to borrow funds earmarked for those entities.

Further complicating the budget was a June 20^th appellate court ruling that voted down an effort to borrow $1.8 billion in transit funding. A lawsuit had been filed in 2007 by the California Transit Association that contended that the Legislature illegally shifted $1.3 billion in transit funding earmarked by a voter-approved proposition that dedicated those funds for transportation uses. The Third District Court of Appeals ruled that the shift to other uses was illegal. If the ruling is not overturned upon further judicial review, the budget deficit will grow by another $1 billion this year.

(2) Basic Budget Infrastructure Still in Place? Check; Budget Details To Make Up The New Deficit? Not So Much: It is important to keep in mind that the basic infrastructure for the budget year extending through June 30, 2010 is already in place as a result of the last February 2009 Budget Act. This means that the statutory provisions contained in that bill and budget trailer bills that made all of the necessary legal authority for budget items, the transfer of Federal “pass through” funds to the state and local government for allocation, and other structural necessities are still in place. Each year, these statutory agreements are an essential part of delivering the state budget and the lack of those details in the current budget battle could have made reaching a budget agreement more difficult to resolve.

The key issue and the remaining task for lawmakers to address is how to resolve the $26.3 billion revenue deficit. Those considerations are the foundation for the continued negotiations as both sides struggle to solve the deficit through more program and service cuts or, as Democrats hope to achieve, “fee” increases. Fee increases are now the new buzz word to avoid referring to the “T Word”--- taxes, or last’s year’s favored term of art “revenue enhancements.”

(3) ILC Funding Secure Through June 30, 2010: The most important aftereffect of the continued integrity of the current Budget Act is that funding for ILCs will not be affected by the budget deficit. DOR has confirmed that because the Federal pass through funding is already part of the last Budget Act, ILC funding is secure. Of course, this is not to say that our consumers are out of the woods in term of additional program and service cuts, so the advocacy campaign to try to avoid more of the proposed draconian cuts favored by the Governor and Republicans will continue unabated.

(4) Key Budget Cuts Are Still Set to Take Effect July 1^st: Even though the Legislature and the Governor are still negotiating on closing the current $26.3 billion budget deficit, the February Budget Act closed that $40 billion deficit with significant health and human service program cuts that disproportionately impact seniors, poor and low-income families, and people with disabilities who rely upon those programs and services. The cuts include:

A 2.3 percent cut in the maximum SSI/SSP monthly grants for low-income seniors and people with disabilities that reduces the monthly grant for an individual from $870 to $850 per month. This reduction comes on top of a prior SSI/SSP grant reduction that took effect in May that reduced the allowable monthly grants from $907 to $870 for an individual.
A 4 percent reduction in CalWORKS grants for low-income families with children. It reduces the maximum grant from $723 to $694 per month for a family of three living in high-cost counties. This figure represents which is the same grant level, as adjusted to account for inflation, eligible families received in 1989 dollars. In addition, the COLAs for CalWORKS grants have been frozen since 2004-2005.
The elimination of “optional” Medi-Cal benefits for adults, including dental services, eye examinations, incontinence creams and washes, and other medical assistance aids. While a lawsuit has been filed to oppose these cuts, a Sacramento County judge ruled against the plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit.
Wage and health benefit cuts for IHSS in-home care workers will also take effect July 1st. The February 2009 budget agreement reduced the maximum amount that the state will contribute as its share for the costs of wages and benefits for these workers from $12.10 per hour to $10.10 per hour. Counties are authorized to contribute local funds to increase these hourly wages and benefits, but counties are facing their own deficits and most will be hard-pressed to make up the difference with the reduction of the state share. The workers may have at least achieved some temporary relief after a decision last week when a Federal judge blocked the reduction after concluding that the state had not adequately studied the impact of these cuts on IHSS services (duh!). The Administration’s legal team plans to petition the judge to allow the wage and benefit cuts to go into effect pending further review and a ruling by an appellate court.

(5) Does The Governor Have a “Plan B” He is Willing to Negotiate Or Is It Another Negotiation Ploy?: On June 29^th, the Governor’s advisors met with some members of the Capitol Media Bureau to give them “deep background” about a potential willingness on the part of the Governor to lay the foundation for a budget agreement. His advisors announced that he has made it clear to the Democratic leaders that he may be willing to accept an alternate set of proposals from his $24 billion May Revise-like deficit solution that reportedly would not eliminate entire programs nor raise taxes.

The Governor’s Office convened a background briefing for the media corps to discuss this potential Plan B. Reporters were allowed to take notes, but were prohibited from taking any actual documents out of the briefing room. According to John Meyer, the Sacramento Bureau Chief for Sacramento’s Public Broadcast System “The California Report” radio broadcast as posted on his “Capital Notes” blog, the Governor’s proposal, in the aggregate, the Plan B would add up to $23.7 billion, compared to the $23.9 billion May Revise and the Democratic plan for $23.4 billion, all of which would need further adjustment in the aftermath of the most recent expansion of the deficit.

The reporters were briefed that the Governor would agree to drop plans for eliminating welfare assistance, health care for poor children, and financial aid for college students. However, the advisors made it clear that he would not agree to any tax increases, even the proposal to increase the Vehicle License Fee by $15 to pay for state parks. He reportedly will also continue to insist upon a 5 per cent pay cut and a reduction in health care benefits for state workers.

In addition, the Governor would go back to his planned suspension of Proposition 1A local government revenues (worth $2 billion) and would agree to a modified version of the Democratic plans to shift state worker paychecks by one day, thereby saving almost $1 billion. The Governor would also abandon his highly criticized plan to close state parks and would try to find money for parks operations elsewhere than the Vehicle License Fee increase.

The plan would cut funding for the Healthy Families Program that provides health care for children by $95 million more than the Democratic plan. He would also limit eligibility for enrollment to families who earn 200 percent of the Federal poverty level (about $44,000 per year for a family of four).

These are merely a representative sample of some of the components of the purported Plan B. Aides to the Democratic leadership have indicated that they are well aware of the proposals, but they were not given the same opportunity to view the same charts that were shown to the reporters. The Governor’s advisors also cautioned that the plan should not be viewed as a formal “counter-offer” on the part of the Governor. They simply characterized it as “another way to get to the Governor’s bottom line.”

In the final analysis can we really trust the Governor’s apparent willingness to support an alternative to his May Revise plan? It’s unclear since circumstances will undoubtedly change as the negotiations continue and the pressure mounts relative to the issuance of the IOUs and the further reduction in the state’s credit rating. The stakes are extremely high once again, but keeping track of all the developments will not be easy.

TURNING BACK TO SOME “HAPPY NEWS”---CFILC AND SCNETWORK STAFF RECEIVE AWARDS FOR THEIR LEADERSHIP AND ADVOCACY: BRIEF PAUSE TO COMMEND CHRISTIE RUDDER AND EDDIE REA FOR THEIR NCIL CONFERENCE AWARDS

Whenever possible, it’s always nice to end an email newsletter on a positive note. At the annual NCIL Conference in Washington D.C., two of our compatriots who are an integral part of our collective advocacy efforts on behalf of people with disabilities were acknowledged for their leadership skills and dedicated work.

Christie Rudder, the Systems Change Advocate at the Dayle McIntosh Center in Garden Grove, was awarded the prestigious Region IX Advocate of the Year award for her numerous accomplishments and dedicated work at the center and through the Systems Change Network. For those of you who have not already had an opportunity to view it, I highly recommend that you log on to the You Tube website to view an important and emotionally moving video Christie produced describing her personal history of escaping a frightening institutionalization setting and her courage and fortitude in throwing aside those chains to become a statewide and nationally recognized leader and advocate for people with disabilities. You can view her video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeWVcbn-luQ.

Please do not miss this opportunity to witness her compelling and inspiring story.

Similarly, one of our own, Eddie Rea, CFILC Youth Organizer, was acknowledged as the recipient of the NCIL Youth Leadership Award “for, like, his own totally awesome work, you know, on behalf of organizing youth with disabilities”. Well, I’m not sure if that phrasing actually appeared on the award Eddie was given, but he nevertheless is also deserving of recognition.

Eddie works tirelessly on number of important projects such as helping to organize the upcoming 18^th Annual Youth Leadership Forum for Students with Disabilities (July 26-30), the YO! Advocacy Summit for Youth with Disabilities (September 11-13), serving as a board member of the State Independent Living Council (SILC), and many other initiatives specifically targeting youth with disabilities to become leaders and advocates in their communities.

Let’s all applaud both Christie and Eddie for their accomplishments!

Henry J. Contreras,
CFILC Public Policy Director.