I agree! Also the “crab theory” (not really a theory) assumes that people from a specific group prevent the progress from others in that specific group from being successful. Sorenson management is made up of predominantly hearing people with a few token deaf in customer interfacing positions (there only Deaf person I know of on the Executive Team). So this is definitely not a case of Deaf people preventing other Deaf people from being successful.

Like you said, it’s about holding companies accountable in ensuring proper stewardship of the NECA funds, which were designed for the purpose of providing access to the telephone network for Deaf and Hard of Hearing people as mandated by Title 4 of ADA, not to fatten a few people’s already very fat pocketbooks.

Even though Sorenson had provided millions of dollars to the Deaf Community, they were reimbursed by the government directly or via taxes. This ‘generosity’ doesn’t excuse their unethical and/or illegal acts, including milking the government in excess of whopping 180 million dollars within TWO years while guarding 80% of the market share, harming other VRSes These selfish acts may hurt the Deaf Community in the long run, too. Don’t you care about that? What if the Congress decides to ignore any feedback of the VRS companies next time and goes ahead to make steep budget cuts because they were ‘lied to’ by a VRS company the last time? What will then happen to VRS corporations, the interpreters and the Deaf Community? When we think these acts won’t affect the Deaf Community, too often they end up damaging us more than we realize.

Why would demanding a corporation to be socially responsible, ethical, and transparent considered as crab theory?

Yes, Communication Service for the Deaf (not CSDVRS) was the first company ever to roll out VRS. In fact, we had VRS booths set up at Deaf Way II in 2002 before Sorenson and HOVRS rolled out their VRS services shortly afterward. Sorenson, because of their huge cash reserves (millions if not billions of dollars) from other businesses, were able to invest a lot of money into new technology and VPs and engage in overly aggressive, and maybe even unethical practices to capture their market share.

I am thankful that this has resulted in wonderful video equipment for Deaf people, but at what price?

Sheesh! We are talking about Congressional Report. Crab Theory? Oh, gimme a break!

J E N N E R & B L O C K
Jenner & Block LLP
1099 New York Avenue, NW
Suite 900
Washington, DC 20001-4412
Tel 202 639-6ooo
http://www.jenner.com
Michael B DeSanctis
Tel 202 637-6323
Fax 202 661-4828
mdesanctis@jenner com
Offices:
Chicago
New York
Washington, DC

June 24, 2008
VIA ELECTRONIC AND REGULAR MAIL

To: Mr. Curtis Hagan
Assistant Inspector General – Audits
Office of Inspector General
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, SW, Room 2-C478
Washington, DC 20554
Re: TRS Audit

Dear Mr. Hagan:
The purpose of this letter is to record in writing the following facts: The Office of the Inspector General cancelled KPMG’s on-site visit to Sorenson’s corporate headquarters, which was set to begin June 16, 2008, even though Sorensen was ready, willing and able to accommodate that visit and make substantial data available to your auditors.
As Bill Garay will confirm, I personally inquired at least a dozen times over the last 15 months into when OIG planned to conduct the on-site portion of the audit. On May 27, 2008, Mr. Carnahan told me that he and his staff were ready to visit Sorenson’s offices to conduct the onsite portion of the audit of Sorenson’s recordation and reporting of VRS minutes. I had a
telephonic conversation with Mr. Carnahan on June 3, 2008 in which I confirmed that Sorenson would be available and would welcome the KPMG audit staff beginning Monday, June 16, 2008.
We discussed what his team would need in terms of office space and equipment, and I assured him that we would provide him and KPMG with whatever they needed. We also discussed substantively that we would begin first thing Monday morning by having key employees walk his team through Sorenson’s processes and procedures for the recording and reporting of VRS minutes, and that his team would let us know how they wished to proceed from there. He asked Sorenson to reserve a full week, though he did not know whether KPMG would need all of that time.
Following up on my call with Mr. Carnahan, I sent a confirming letter to you on June 5, 2008, in which I stated “We remain committed to cooperating with OIG in the interests of having the audit completed in a timely manner. To that end, I am writing to confirm that Sorenson has agreed to host Terry Carnahan and his KPMG staff, commencing June 16, 2008, for the onsite
component of the portion of the audit involving Sorenson’s systems and procedures for the recording and reporting of VRS minutes.”
In response, you informed me that you had decided to cancel the on-site visit. You asserted that you and Mr. Carnahan read my June 5 letter as not confirming our willingness to host the on-site audit. In fact, the letter states the exact opposite. Moreover, on June 12,1 told you that we still
were ready, willing and able to host your audit commencing on June 16. Indeed, I called you that day from Salt Lake City, where I was involved in the preparations for KPMG’s visit. You made it clear at that time that KPMG would not visit on June 16, and that you were not interested in rescheduling for a later date.
During our June 12 call, you complained that in my June 5 letter I identified confidential data and information that should not be shared with the public or with other offices or bureaus within the Commission. However, I provided that information in writing to you because you had suggested that I do so in our earlier phone conversation on May 29, 2008. That suggestion was consistent with my previous conversation with David Hunt and Carla Conover, who informed me in an in-person meeting on May 14, 2008, that it is and always has been OIG’s policy to keep confidential all non-public information produced by TRS providers during the course of an audit
and that such information would not be disclosed to the public or shared with other bureaus within the Commission. See Letter from M. DeSanctis to W. Garay, May 22, 2008.
Under these circumstances, the OIG bears complete and total responsibility for not undertaking the planned on-site minute audit. We did exactly as you had asked in identifying our confidential information and confirming that we would host the KPMG team beginning June 16. Moreover, over the past 15 months, we have now incurred substantial costs for an audit that you apparently no longer wish to hold. We remain willing, as always, to host the on-site minute audit and would be amendable to speaking with you about rescheduling.

Sincerely,
Michael B. DeSanctis
Counsel for Sorenson Communications, Inc.
cc: Kent Nilsson, Inspector General

As usual, anti-sorenson people would start classic deaf crab theory and try to pull down sorenson.

Sorenson have provide millions to deaf community such as set up interpreter training program, etc..

So stop crab theory and claiming that they are doing illegal. Congress start to investigate.

Sorenson stop auditor from checking into Sorenson because auditor was focusing on one vrs – not all vrs at same time.

someone need to look at Mr. Chandler’s history..

And gee whiz, they hire Deaf technicians! How about more Deaf employees in the upper management? They are in the extreme minority.

Please. I am tired of being thrown crumbs and being told, ‘Be grateful for what you get, or we’ll take away what we’re giving you!’

The other VRS companies can easily replace Sorenson, and the company knows it. That’s why they’re playing dirty. It’s time they’re called out on it.