DD Quarterly Spring 2006

Circulation 21,377

Publication of the Ohio Developmental Disabilities Council bringing disability issues and accomplishments to the attention of Ohioans.

Personal relationships build influence

DeWine urges working on campaigns or running for office

Editorial note: AXIS Director Sue Willis recently had the opportunity to talk with one of Ohio’s U.S. Senators, Mike DeWine, about issues of interest to readers of DDQ. The following article summarizes their conversation. Future issues of this publication will feature interviews with other policymakers.

What do you feel is the biggest difference between being a U.S. Senator and being a senator here in Ohio?

DeWine: Well, I guess you start off with a much bigger constituency. Instead of one-third of the state, you’ve got the entire state. One of the things I love about being a United States Senator from Ohio is this is such a diverse state. You’ve got, literally, a little bit of everything in this state… from Appalachia, to some of the greatest cities in the country, to a lot of suburban [areas]. It’s a real mix and mixed economy.

I imagine living in Washington is much different than living on the farm.

DeWine: It is. We spend part of the time in Washington. We have a house here in Greene County, and a house in northern Virginia. So it’s kind of two lives, really, back and forth.

We know that you are a member of several important committees in the Senate. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, what’s your position on the Americans with Disabilities Act?

DeWine: I was in the House of Representatives when we passed the Americans with Disabilities Act. We’ve seen, since that time, what it has done. We’ve seen a couple Supreme Court cases that I don’t like…that I’ve been vocal about… that have restricted it. I talked about that, frankly, in the Supreme Court nominations of Judge Roberts and Judge Alito. I used the opportunity that I had to question both of them to say that I didn’t like the decisions and I thought basically what the Court was doing, in a sense, being a secret legislator. In other words, taking the judgment of the court and imposing it over the Congress.

My staff and I are constantly trying to review and see if there’s anything else that frankly can be done. I think one of the biggest challenges that’s faced by people with disabilities is employment and lack of employment opportunities.

And, we’re trying to work in that area to try and improve those opportunities. In a job training bill that I was involved in a few years ago... one of the things we tried to do was make sure we worked with the community so that the bill was written correctly so that people with disabilities had the most opportunity, as far as job training. In a sense, that we continue to have some dedicated funds for people with disabilities but also allowed them to use other facilities as well for job training… open all avenues for job training. We tried to do that when we crafted the bill. That’s what counsel I got from people with disabilities that I talked to that wanted us to do what we could when we crafted that bill.

We also recently had a bill with Senator Ben Nelson [Nebraska] to try to improve and give some preference in regard to some contracting jobs with the IRS. We just passed [an amendment to the bill] that is basically for jobs we have set aside for people with disabilities with regard to telemarketing with the IRS. We’ll get this bill passed.

Continuing along the lines of employment...Congress has passed initiatives allowing states to have programs to increase employment of people with disabilities. One of these is Medicaid Buy-In. But Ohio has not implemented this program. What do you think we, as a large population of people with disabilities, could do to get MBI passed in our state?

DeWine: I think it’s like anything else. I think it is a question of information. I don’t think that the general public [knows] that there are so many people who want to work but have some barriers that prohibit that. They’re either under employed or unemployed because of those barriers. And removal of those barriers would allow them to work and be full participants in the American Dream. And, that’s just a message those of us in public office have to try and get out. It’s also a message that everyone else who understands the issue has to try to get out.

You think we need to do more?

DeWine: We all have to. I mean, look, we obviously are not communicating enough. We’re not getting the message out, or else, you know it would have been changed in Ohio before now. We’ve got to bring it back to individuals. In my experience in politics, in over 30 years, when you talk in the abstract, it doesn’t do any good... But if you can relate it to this individual person and make it personal, and they can see that person…and they know that person wants to work, and hear that person… and that person says, ‘I want to work, and here’s what is stopping me from work. Remove that barrier, and I can go to work. I can be productive.’

So personal stories have an impact? They make a difference.

DeWine: Personal stories… that’s why people read People Magazine. I mean, that’s why people go to movies, why we listen and watch TV… why we read books. So anecdotes, I think, is the way to drive it.

Senator, you are the first Ohio senator in over 60 years to serve on the Appropriations Committee. What drives your decisions about what to use the money for and how to distribute our tax dollars?

DeWine: We try to prioritize money in areas that we think will really make a difference, and where someone else is not putting the money. Or where our money can jump-start something, or make something happen that wouldn’t happen but for us putting it in. We prioritize children; we prioritize people who are poor, or for medical care. Those are some of the areas that are prioritized. We prioritize people to help people have better opportunities.

You recently voted against the Budget Reconciliation Act, but you supported the Family Opportunity Act, and you supported Money Follows the Person—that were both in that act. So, why did you vote against it?

DeWine: I thought the budget was a very hurtful budget. Not enough money for education. Not enough money for children. Not enough money in the area of cuts, really...So those were the reasons. I think it’s going to be a budget that is going to be very difficult here in Ohio and we’ll see the ramifications of that budget in the months ahead.

You mentioned this a bit earlier, but how do you deal with the frustrations of knowing that an initiative might be right, but it’s failing.

DeWine: Well, I get around that, because I’ve found in the Senate, there’s always another day... And you have to be persistent and patient, which is somewhat contradictory, but the people who get ahead and get things done…the people who can accomplish things…are people who don’t give up, and they keep coming back, and keep coming back. Eventually, they get it done.

Some of the big ideas we’ve seen in this country, whether it be civil rights, disability rights, whatever right we’re talking about… some of them have taken 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years...and some people who have been proponents of them have not even lived to see them get passed. So you have got to take the long view. As much as we would like to see something get passed in a year or two years, sometimes you just know that’s not going to happen.

For example, Money Follows the Person—to have that fully done, is a long process. And we’re going to break through this year, and whether that’s going to be implemented to the fullest extent we want, it may take awhile.

What are a few of the initiatives you want to continue working on?

DeWine: Well, children’s health issues; I’ve worked on a lot. A big issue that Ted Kennedy and I worked on was FDA [Federal Drug Administration] regulation of tobacco. FDA regulates every other product, but doesn’t regulate tobacco. That’s an issue whose time has come, but we haven’t been able to convince the Congress yet. If we could get the FDA to regulate tobacco, we would cut down on, ultimately, the amount of underage smoking, and the marketing of these flavored cigarettes and things that specifically appeal to young kids. We’d save a lot of lives. Well, we have failed, so far, to get that passed, but we will. It may be a year...it may be ten, but eventually it will pass because it makes so much sense.

And will you continue to work on Money Follows the Person?

DeWine: We’ll continue to follow that because it clearly has a ways to go. The whole area of employment for people with disabilities is something I’m very interested in because it is such a huge issue. The public has to really understand. My staff and I are looking for opportunities to expand in that area.

Several ways to approach it, one is in job training, but the other is through the federal government—a major contractor; and maybe putting more emphasis on those contracts. What Nelson and I did was a very small beginning with the IRS. It won’t even happen until the next contract goes out. So we’ll see how it works. But you know, having some of these call operations being done by people with disabilities is something that could supply a lot of jobs and could provide a lot of opportunities and it’s a pretty easy thing to do. Not that the jobs are that easy, particularly, but it’s pretty easy legislatively to do, and doesn’t cost any money, and it can get done.

So we kind of have to look for those opportunities. And I’m going to continue to work on other areas. I’ve been very much involved in mental health issues. I wrote a bill called the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment Crime Reduction Act, which the president signed in 2004. That idea was to put the mental health community together with the law enforcement community and have them working together. What I found, when I was a county prosecutor, is that a lot of time you get the same people coming through the court system time and time again. Well, they had mental health problems, that’s why they were coming through. And so what you needed to do is bring in the mental health people and bring the law enforcement people in, and get them working together. Those are some of the things that I’ve worked on in the past and I’ll be continuing.

Ohioans with disabilities have been trying to build relationships with the legislature. It feels like we don’t have much power and it’s very frustrating to see the infighting and the politicking going on. What would you suggest to those of us who might want to make our voices stronger?

DeWine: I think there are a lot of avenues to do it. Certainly, one is to run for office. And, I always advise people to jump in, at any level—whether it’s the county level or the state level or the local level.

The other is if you don’t want to be the candidate yourself, get involved in someone else’s campaign. Candidates are always looking for someone to help them. Help them on issues; help them on ideas, phoning, helping with door-to-door, all kinds of work. Just volunteer. People are always looking for help, particularly if they don’t have to pay you.

Get involved and you’ll be right in the campaign. You don’t have to pick the guy who’s running for president. Pick somebody who’s running for county prosecutor or somebody who’s running for state legislator. They’ll welcome you with open arms. Then you’re in, and you’ll know that person. That becomes that personal relationship.

What was your first office?

DeWine: First office was county prosecutor. I beat an incumbent county prosecutor. And then four years later, I beat an incumbent state senator. Then I ran for the Congress, and ran in an open seat, and served eight years in Congress. Then I was elected lieutenant governor. Then I ran for Senate and lost once, and then I ran two years later and won. So I’ve been in the Senate now for 11 years.

I’ve been in politics for 30 years. I started when I was 29 when I was county prosecutor. A lot of people start as township trustee…or something else. There are a lot of offices out there.

I think what people are looking for in a candidate is someone who is earnest and personable and who will connect with people and talk with people. And there’s no substitute for personal contact. I think that goes a long way, particularly in a small area.

Sounds like that’s a way to begin making our voices strong.

DeWine: Absolutely. I think it is. What I have found is there are several different kinds of people who are interested in politics… there’s a group of people who want to run for office, and there’s another group of people who don’t want to run for office, but want to be involved. There’s some cross-overs, but most people who say ‘I don’t want to run for office,’ get involved, and volunteer, they work on a campaign, or they get paid, or whatever Then there’s other people, who want to run...You need both. Because that’s how you have influence. It’s personal relationships, knowing the candidates, being candidates...that’s how any organization, any group has influence. It cuts across party. You should be involved.

Thank you very much, Senator. I hope your ideas and suggestions will encourage our readers to get involved.

Making Medicaid Buy-In a Reality in Ohio

Wednesday, April 26, 2006
10 am – 4 pm
Riffe Tower, 31st Floor
Columbus, OH 43215

After years of effort, a Medicaid Buy-In (MBI) bill is right around the corner. However, much work will still need to be done to get the bill passed and implemented.

Advocates are invited to attend this free event to learn about the bill and how to teach legislators what it will do for people with disabilities.

At this event, join people with disabilities, family members, and others in learning how to contact legislators and make MBI a reality!

Registration is required. For more information, contact AXIS, (800) 231-2947.

Sponsored by The Ohio Olmstead Task Force

Former Congressman Coelho visits Columbus, says fight is on to redefine ADA: personal stories are key

Former U.S. Congressman Tony Coelho visited Columbus February 17 and stopped by the Epilepsy Foundation of Central Ohio and met with its board and staff to discuss the ADA and ways in which the foundation can assist its chapters.

An author of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Coelho represented California in Washington, D.C. for ten years. He now serves as board chairman of the Epilepsy Foundation of America, based in Landover, MD.

Coelho, 64, has had epilepsy since his early teens as a result of an auto accident, he said.

On the state of the ADA, and the efforts by some to derail it, he said the ADA “has been exceedingly successful. It is the law of the land, and we are making progress.” While the U.S. has the capacity to lead in such endeavors, though, it also has the ability to retreat a bit, he noted.

Of the nine major ADA cases that have come before the U.S. Supreme Court in recent years, five have been favorable and four have been unfavorable—and the decisions have been close votes, he said.

“We are now trying to redefine the ADA to include those disabilities that the court has kicked out,” he said. Epilepsy and chronic illnesses such as asthma are not covered by the ADA. “The Court has been pretty good in telling the states to enforce the ADA, but when it comes to ADA and the workplace, it’s been awful.”

“We need to address those disabilities that have not been included in the workplace,” he said.

“There has been a reluctance to address the ADA in Congress...but we are now pursuing it. We’re trying to convince people from both parties to support it,” he said.

“I take the view that I want to get this (ADA) redefined. If they want to repeal the ADA, then I say, let’s go for it, let’s have the political fight. The gloves are off, we’ll have the fight if that’s what it takes,” he said.

Changes, though, can’t be imposed from the top, he said. They must come from the grassroots. That is why it is important for people with disabilities to register to vote, go to the polls, and meet with their elected officials.

“Under our democracy, the squeaky wheel gets the grease,” he said. “If you register to vote and you participate in the electoral process, every elected official is interested in what bothers you,” he said. “If you don’t register to vote, and do not take part, the officials generally don’t take an active interest in what bothers you. Whether that’s right or wrong, that’s reality.”

Coelho prefers to empower citizens with disabilities with the responsibility of educating their elected officials rather than expecting or assuming that Congress would automatically seek out disability-related information.

Local visits to legislators are effective, he said. “When people visited me in my local office, I paid attention. If you meet locally with a Congressperson, it has an impact.”

Personal stories are key. “If you tell your story and it hurts you and you cry, that’s okay,” he said, because it shows the impact that disability, stigma and unawareness have on your life.

Nancy Brantner, Epilepsy Foundation of Central Ohio executive director, said Coelho’s visit was important. “Tony stopping by helps solidify the relationship between the national association and local, and also brings the whole picture together of what’s happening with epilepsy. As a result of his visit, we’re going to be more vocal about what we’re doing,” she said.

Coelho was in Columbus to deliver the keynote speech at Ohio State University’s Moritz College of Law during a conference on disability and the law.

National Mental Health and Deafness Conference

BREAKOUT 2006: Cultivating Recovery

June 15-17, 2006
Columbus, OH

A biennial conference that brings together a variety of professionals who seek to improve the mental health services for people who are deaf, hard of hearing, or deaf-blind. Presentations will address the issues and concerns of direct service personnel and consumers.

For more information, call toll-free v/tty (877) 781-6670 or e-mail vwalker@c-s-d.org

MRDD Month celebration provides education and call to action

“Everyone belongs in the political process” was the theme for a rally at the Ohio Statehouse on March 9 to kick off the celebration of March as Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Awareness Month. Individuals with developmental disabilities, their families, advocates and providers gathered to demonstrate that the disabilities community is a viable voting bloc and to learn how to become more active in the political process.

“What better place to voice our theme, ‘Everyone belongs in the political process,’ than in the heart of out state government, the Statehouse?” said Lon Mitchell, executive director of Ohio Public Images.

“If people with disabilities, our families and our friends all voted, we would have the largest voting group in the nation,” said AXIS Director Sue Willis, one of the featured speakers at the rally.

She suggested several steps to promote getting out the vote.

• Make voting a priority in our organizations. Include voting as a part of our mission statements and goals.
• Make sure everyone is registered. Repeatedly ask people if they are registered to vote, especially if they have moved.
• Develop an interest in the political process. Volunteer to work on political campaigns.
• As we get closer to an election, remind people to vote. Include re-minders on your work or personal answering mach-ines. Put a statement at the end of all your e-mail messages. And include a reminder to vote on the agenda of every meeting.

Kenneth Ritchey, Director of the Ohio Department of MRDD, encouraged those attending to meet personally with their state legislators. “Let them know what your concerns are,” he said.

Among the legislators who attended the rally was District 51 State Representative Scott Oelslager who presented a proclamation commending MRDD Awareness Month. It noted that “despite the increasingly effective methods of care available for people with disabilities, a lack of public awareness and understanding often makes life more difficult by denying opportunities and imposing unnecessary restrictions.”

The purpose of MRDD Awareness Month in March is to increase the public’s awareness and understanding of people who have mental retardation or other developmental disabilities so that these citizens will have increased access to social and economic opportunities.

As this year’s theme suggests, everyone, including people with developmental disabilities, can vote, volunteer, be a neighbor, work, and be a friend in our communities.

Groups meet and form nonpartisan coalition to promote registration and voting by Ohioans with disabilities

Twenty-seven organizations that advocate for people with disabilities met in Columbus Feb. 21 for a day-long voting conference intended to build power for Ohioans with disabilities.

Tentatively known as the Ohio Disability Vote Coalition, the group of agency staff members and directors seeks to register more Ohioans with disabilities to vote, educate them on the issues that affect them, encourage them to meet with elected officials to express concern about the issues, and urge citizens to exercise their right to vote during elections.

The current project builds on similar efforts started in 2004 to strengthen the electoral impact of Ohioans with disabilities. At the recent meeting, the group created a mission statement that will be voted on at its next meeting to be scheduled soon.

“I am passionate and committed to making this happen in Ohio,” said Sue Hetrick, director of public policy and advocacy for the Ability Center of Greater Toledo. “It’s going to happen in Ohio.” Sue Willis, director of the AXIS Center and Hetrick, developed the conference.

Kelly Anthony, senior field organizer with the American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD), based in Washington, D.C., facilitated the group’s strategy session.

Anthony said that 85 per cent of the population of people with disabilities are unemployed and underemployed, and two-thirds of the population live below the poverty level. “The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) changed some things, but has it changed enough?” she asked attendees. “Being visible doesn’t necessarily equate to being powerful.”

Historically, Anthony added, people with disabilities have been divided and disregarded by elected officials. “Divide and conquer. It’s the oldest trick in the book,” she said.

Ohio’s coalition and several other states’ voting groups will join AAPD’s Disability Vote Project (DVP) to establish electoral power for the disability community. DVP is working to build a nonpartisan, consistent and identifiable bloc of voters with disability interests.

Many national organizations, who have demonstrated the ability to organize coalitions and raise funds are joining this national campaign. These include: Paralyzed Veterans of America, Easter Seals, National Association of Councils on Developmental Disabilities, National Association for the Deaf, and the National Disability Rights Network.

To add your organization to the Ohio Disability Vote Coalition, contact Sue Hetrick, (614) 575-8055, shetrick@abilitycenter.org or Sue Willis, (800) 231-2947 v/tty, axiscenter@aol.com.

Primary Election Day is Tuesday, May 2, 2006. The deadline to register to vote in the primary is: April 3, 2006.

Mammography screenings available to women with disabilities through federal programs

Federal programs operating in Ohio have made it possible for women with disabilities to obtain low-cost or no-cost mammograms that have the potential to save their lives.

According to Kathleen Korosi, quality improvement coordinator of Ohio KePRO, the quality assurance overseer for Medicare, women with disabilities neglect their breast health by not having mammograms that could detect deadly cancers.

Of women aged 52-69 receiving Medicare benefits, 52% of women with disabilities had mammograms in the past two years, while 61% of women without disabilities had the exam.

The Ohio Breast and Cervical Cancer Coalition, of which Korosi is a co-chair, has made it a priority to educate women with disabilities on the importance of mammograms. The coalition also reaches out to providers and physicians, in an effort to educate them on the topic of breast health and to reduce attitudinal barriers toward women with disabilities, she said.

“It’s a matter of making sure everyone is on the same page,” she said. “If a physician doesn’t order a mammogram, the patient won’t think it’s important.” Physicians often focus on a woman’s primary disability and forego breast exams, she said.

Mammograms for Medicare recipients

Korosi said women with disabilities aged 40 and older who receive Medicare benefits qualify for one mammogram per year with no Part B deductible, and those aged 35 to 39 are eligible for their initial “baseline” mammogram, the test to which all subsequent breast exams are compared.

Women receiving Medicare may receive the test at no charge or may have to pay a small co-pay, depending on location, Korosi said.

Women with disabilities should be proactive as they make mammography appointments by asking if a facility and its equipment are accessible. They should mention their disability and suggest that a little more time might be needed for the exam, Korosi advised.

Women who use wheelchairs should ask if the mammography equipment can lower to 24 inches from the floor, has a tilting C-arm, and if a positioning wheelchair with locking wheels is available, or if their own wheelchair can be used during the exam. A woman who is deaf may request an interpreter, she noted.

Usually, the most accessible mammography locations for women with disabilities are hospitals and stand-alone clinics, she said. Mobile units are not; they have steps and no on-site radiologist to immediately view the film to see if the test needs to be repeated, she added.

If a patient has had a mammogram before, she should let the technician know what positioning proved successful in the past as far as helping obtain proper positioning for the exam.

Ohio Breast and Cervical Cancer Project serves women without insurance

Women aged 50 and older—including those with disabilities—with incomes up to 200% of the federal poverty level and who do not have health insurance, qualify for a free mammogram through Ohio’s Breast and Cervical Cancer Project (BCCP). The program has existed through federal law and funding since 1993.

BCCP patients younger than age 50 do not qualify for a free mammogram unless a clinical breast exam detects a breast abnormality. The BCCP program examinations also include pelvic exams, PAP tests, clinical breast exams, and diagnostic work, said Laura Sefcik, program director of BCCP at the Ohio Department of Health.

“Breast cancers, along with other cancers, are very likely to be cured if they are found at an early stage. The earlier you find a cancer, the more likely you are to survive it,” says Sefcik.

“In our contracts, providers must make a reasonable effort to have accessible equipment for people with disabilities,” she said.

Women seeking exams may call one of 11 regional BCCP offices. If they qualify, they are referred to a physician or center in their area. BCCP is linked with 700 providers throughout Ohio.

Each region has space available for new patients, but capacity changes on a daily basis, so women need to call and ask about appointments, Sefcik said.

For more information about BCCP, visit: www.odh.ohio.gov; email BHPRR@odh.ohio.gov; call (614) 728-2177; fax (614) 564-240.

To contact Ohio KePRO, visit: www.ohiokepro.com; email kkorosi@ohqio.sdps.org; call (216) 447-9604, ext. 2140; fax (216) 447-7925; 5700 Lombardo Center Dr., Suite 100, Seven Hills, OH 44131.

News from Ohio Legal Rights Service (OLRS)

Ohio Legal Rights Service
8 E. Long St., Suite 500
Columbus, OH 43215-2999

Toll-free: 1-800-282-9181
Local: 1-614-466-7264
TTY toll-free: 1-800-858-3542
TTY local: 1-614-728-2553
Fax: 1-614-644-1888

www.olrs.ohio.gov
http://olrs.ohio.gov

OLRS advocates for access to local county boards of MRDD

During the 2005 federal fiscal year, Ohio Legal Rights Service (OLRS) advocated for 38 individuals who were denied access to, or were losing services from county boards of mental retardation and developmental disabilities (MRDD). In these cases, the individuals were challenging the eligibility procedures established by the state and administered by the county boards.

OLRS has seen a considerable increase in this type of case over previous years. While any number of reasons could be given for the increase in eligibility cases, at least one contributing factor is the numerous service and policy changes to the MRDD system.

The Children’s Ohio Eligibility Determination Instrument and the Ohio Eligibility Determination Instrument (C/OEDI) were developed in 1992 to standardize state-wide eligibility procedures. These instruments are used in every county board of MRDD in Ohio to decide who is eligible for services.

The instruments, designed to gather information about a person, identify if the person has substantial functional limitations in selected life skill areas. If the administration of the C/OEDI determines that the person has three or more substantial functional limitations, then that person would be eligible for services from the county board of MRDD.

These eligibility determination instruments are important to a person with MRDD, because it can mean the difference between re-ceiving services and not receiving services from the county board.

OLRS’ involvement with C/OEDI issues primarily involved: 1. The county board’s refusal to administer the C/OEDI and 2. Appealing the county board’s eligibility decisions.

Individuals who contacted OLRS about C/OEDI issues needed different kinds of advocacy.

Examples of OLRS advocacy

In several cases, county boards administered the C/OEDI and found that individuals did not have three or more substantial functional limitations and were not eligible for services. OLRS advocacy in these kinds of cases included either assistance with self-advocacy on how to challenge the county board’s decision or providing representation during the hearing and appeal process.

Some cases involve county boards that refuse to administer the C/OEDI due to a lack of documentation to show that a person had a developmental disability (DD) before turning 22 years old. In one case, an OLRS investigation identified documents and other information that showed the person had a DD before turning 22. The county board agreed to administer the C/OEDI.

In other cases, OLRS’ investigations showed that the first C/OEDI administration did not include accurate, updated information about the person. In these cases, OLRS negotiated with the county boards to use the new information and to administer the C/OEDI a second time.

In one case, OLRS advocated for an individual at her appeal, arguing that based on the results of the C/OEDI, the person had limitations and appeared to be eligible for services. OLRS encouraged the county board to review the information and documentation from the C/OEDI and reconsider their decision. The county board reviewed the information and decided the person was eligible.

In another case where a person was in the appeal process, OLRS advocated for her at her hearing. OLRS used the results of an independent evaluation to help the person win her appeal for services. The documentation from the independent evaluator provided additional information for the C/OEDI to support that the person had a limitation and justified eligibility for county board services.

The final example involves a person who appealed a county board’s decision to not administer the C/OEDI based on a previous IQ score. OLRS advocated for the client at the appeal, arguing that the bulk of the documentation, including other IQ test results, showed that the person had a developmental disability and should be administered the C/OEDI. The county board agreed to administer the C/OEDI and the client was eligible.

These case examples demonstrate OLRS’ successful advocacy efforts. It is apparent that accessing county board services is an issue among people with mental retardation and developmental disabilities. OLRS will continue to advocate for individuals seeking access to county board services.

If you feel you have been inappropriately denied services by your county board of MRDD, you can contact OLRS for assistance.

House Bill 3 and voting procedures for people with disabilities who are unable to sign their name

Through information and education, a group of disability advocates and agencies was able to obtain change in an important voting bill recently passed by the Ohio General Assembly.

House Bill 3 (HB 3) included sweeping changes in Ohio’s election laws, some of which were necessary to bring Ohio into compliance with the federal Help America Vote Act.

Among other things, the bill creates a “voting power of attorney” for people who are unable to sign their name because of a physical disability. Originally, it was unclear to advocates what “unable to sign” might mean, and whether this provision would be mandatory or would be a tool for use by people with disabilities, in addition to other accommodations that would be required under existing federal law.

The bill appeared to be an attempt to accommodate voters with disabilities, but did so in a burdensome way. It did not address how a person who was “unable to sign” for elections purposes could “attest” for the purposes of the voting power of attorney. It also failed to acknowledge that many, if not all voters would be able to comply with a state law signature requirement through reasonable accommodations, as required by federal law.

After significant educational and informational activities by disability advocates and service agencies, several changes were made to the final bill.

First, the person with the disability may either execute a power of attorney or may appear at the county board of elections and make an oral designation of a person to sign their name for them. This responded to concerns that a person who was “unable to sign” for voting purposes was also unable to “attest” in the new power of attorney.

More importantly, language was added in the final bill to specify that the provisions of the law apply only when a person cannot physically sign their name or make a mark when provided “reasonable accommodation, including the use of assistive technology or augmentative devices.”

With this language, it is clear that a board of elections or other elections official must allow a person with a disability to use an accommodation of their choice to sign any elections document, including a candidate petition, ballot, or poll book.

As required by federal law, the accommodation must be individualized to the person’s needs. Thus, a person who uses a stamp or a computer program to sign his or her name in the normal course of daily living must be allowed to do so in the elections context. Any other reasonable accommodation must be provided to the person with the disability if that will allow him or her to sign his own name.

Some concerns remain regarding the final language of HB 3. It still is not clear whether the voter is required to follow the procedure as set out in this bill in order to provide authority to another person to sign the voter’s name. If this is so, HB 3 presents additional problems, as it requires the person with a disability who is “unable to sign” to somehow “attest” to his or her disability, or to present a statement from a physician in order to provide the oral designation. This is an additional burden and expense for people with disabilities.

Nonetheless, advocates have been hard pressed to imagine a scenario where a reasonable accommodation would not resolve this question for a person with a disability. Assuming that the provisions of the bill are implemented in good faith by elections officials, there should be very few instances where the voting power of attorney law comes into play unless the person with a disability chooses to use it.

Signatures and technology: a personal observation

In dealing with HB 3, it was easy to infer a limited understanding of the promise that technology holds for people with disabilities, and that such technology is a tool to be used, much as others use tools in their daily lives.

At issue was how a voter with limitations in fine or gross motor ability or another physical disability can “sign” his or her name on an elections document.

The state law language that creates confusion on this issue is at section 3501.011 of the Revised Code. It defines “signature” for the purposes of election law. It allows a voter to make a cursive signature or, “for persons who do not use a cursive-style legal mark during the course of their regular business and legal affairs,” to make the mark they use so long as it “is written in the person’s own hand.”

Now, those of us who have dealt with and thought about these issues recognize that no one really writes a mark in our “own hand.” We use a tool. An assistive device. Technology. Otherwise known as a “pen.”

For those of us practicing in federal court, we have electronic signatures that allow otherwise unsigned documents to comply with rules that require a “signature.” Other examples like this abound.

In other words, in every venue but elections, the notion of what is a “signature” is flexible, as required by the circumstance. It is this insight that should be at the core of implementing the accommodations language in HB 3.

Did You Know?

Ohio Legal Rights Service v. St. Vincent Family Center

Court opinion: Ready access to the records of children at licensed residential facilities

For the second time in less than a year, a court has upheld the statutory authority of the Ohio Legal Rights Service (OLRS) to obtain access to restraint and seclusion logs kept by a children’s mental health facility.

In the case of Ohio Legal Rights Service v. St. Vincent Family Center, the Court denied the Center’s motion to dismiss and granted OLRS’ motion for summary judgment. The Court ruled that under state law, Ohio Revised Code § 5123.60, OLRS had the right to access all records related to the care and treatment of a person receiving services in the Center, which was licensed and certified as a mental health provider. The Court rejected an argument that such access was limited to those clients “represented” by OLRS.

The Court also ruled that OLRS access was not prohibited by the federal privacy regulations under HIPAA. OLRS access is allowed because it is “required by law,” and because OLRS is a “health oversight agency” as those terms are defined in the federal regulations.

This ruling mirrors the holding of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio in the case of “http://olrs.ohio.gov/asp/OLRSvBuckeye.asp” Ohio Legal Rights Service v. Buckeye Ranch, reported at 365 F. Supp. 2d 877 (S.D. Ohio 2005). That decision was not appealed and the records were provided to OLRS.

Finally, the St. Vincent court affirmed the right of OLRS to issue a subpoena for records if a facility denies a request. This allows OLRS to enforce its authority to access records without the delay and expense of court action.

A copy of the decision can be found at http://olrs.ohio.gov/asp/olrsvstvincent.asp.

Martin Litigation Update: Trial date set for October 23, 2006

A trial date has now been set in OLRS’ community integration case —Martin v. Taft. The court, after conferring with counsel for the parties, scheduled the trial to begin on October 23, 2006. It is expected that trial will take two to three weeks, with each side calling several expert witnesses.

Additionally, the court has issued a scheduling order that requires the parties to complete discovery by June 16 and to file any dispositive motions (such as a motion for summary judgment) by no later than June 30. Briefing on those motions, if any, would be complete by July 24.

Finally, the court also scheduled a settlement conference in the case for September 12, 2006. OLRS continues to view settlement as a legitimate option in this complex, much delayed case, but only if it is possible to do so in a way that protects the interests of the plaintiff class. Otherwise, the issue of Ohio’s compliance with the integration mandate of the ADA will be submitted to the federal court for resolution.

The Martin class action lawsuit was originally filed by OLRS in 1989 on behalf of four Ohio citizens seeking to end Ohio’s practice of segregating people with mental retardation and developmental disabilities in institutions—when they choose to be served in a more integrated setting appropriate to their needs.

OLRS will move to new location

After more than thirty years at the same location, OLRS will be moving to the LeVeque Tower in late spring, 2006. The LeVeque Tower is located at 50 West Broad Street in downtown Columbus. The move will provide OLRS with a consolidated floor plan and considerable cost savings. While the location will change, the OLRS local and toll-free telephone numbers and web site address will remain unchanged.

More information about the move will be available in the next issue of the DD Quarterly.

Service Coordination: A Guide for Families

This publication provides information about Ohio’s Family and Children First system, including information about the county Family and Children First Councils, Individual Family Service Coordination Plans, County Service Coordination Mechanisms, and the important role that families have in this system. The Ohio Legal Rights Service created this publication through a contract with the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill of Ohio (NAMI Ohio) and with funding from the Ohio Department of Mental Health.

For a copy of the guide, visit: http://olrs.ohio.gov/ASP/pub_ServiceCoordination.asp