Deaf Oral AGBell Representatives Using CART During AFA/AGBADHH Meeting?
While reading AFA’s letter requesting for a copy of the CART transcription from the AFA/AGBADHH meeting two weeks ago, apparently on the behalf of two deaf oral AGBADHH representatives, a thought came to my mind. Why was the CART services needed in the first place?
Wasn’t there an interpreter in the room, voicing for Deaf AFA leaders. Weren’t these deaf oral representatives able to lipread the interpreter?
I am surprised to see that these deaf oral representatives still needed CART transcriptions, even with an interpreter voicing for the Deaf people in the room. “We understand that the CART was provided as an access provision for the two Deaf AG Bell representatives. Since the CART is a word file and permanent record of the meeting, we would very much value having a copy for our history. “ AUDISM FREE AMERICA: AFA’s 2nd follow up email to AG Bell Assoc
Last summer Jay Wyant, the newly elected oral deaf president of AGBADHH, was able to use the voicing interpreter during the interview with Ruthie Jordan. I am confused. Am I missing something here?
Please no bashing. Thank you
P.S. Only comments related to this topic will be posted. No attacks will be published.
While reading AFA’s letter requesting for a copy of the CART transcription from the AFA/AGBADHH meeting two weeks ago, apparently on the behalf of two deaf oral AGBADHH representatives, a thought came to my mind. Why was the CART services needed in the first place?
Wasn’t there an interpreter in the room, voicing for Deaf AFA leaders. Weren’t these deaf oral representatives able to lipread the interpreter?
I am surprised to see that these deaf oral representatives still needed CART transcriptions, even with an interpreter voicing for the Deaf people in the room. “We understand that the CART was provided as an access provision for the two Deaf AG Bell representatives. Since the CART is a word file and permanent record of the meeting, we would very much value having a copy for our history. “ AUDISM FREE AMERICA: AFA’s 2nd follow up email to AG Bell Assoc
Last summer Jay Wyant, the newly elected oral deaf president of AGBADHH, was able to use the voicing interpreter during the interview with Ruthie Jordan. I am confused. Am I missing something here?
Please no bashing. Thank you
P.S. Only comments related to this topic will be posted. No attacks will be published.
April 13th, 2009 at 8:46 am
Hello MZ!
Good morning (almost noon). Trying not to bash down but I do have my opinion. I feel that AFA should get copy of CART if they do have interpreter there at the meeting. CART is part of “recording” tech, AFA deserve to get the copy of CART. Thank you.
April 13th, 2009 at 9:26 am
Play Video Comment
April 13th, 2009 at 9:29 am
You’re pointing out the irony and obvious conflict in what AGB says about oralism and lipreading and the fact that the Deaf members of the meeting representing AGB needed CART services still?
YEP! Amazing they can’t see what’s in front of their own eyes!
April 13th, 2009 at 9:51 am
Something tells me that two oral AGBell reps may not able to read the lips 100 percent perfect, hence they depend on the CART. Probably they won’t admit that they couldn’t read the lips very well. Who knows? Hmm….
That’s something to think about.
Insane Misha
April 13th, 2009 at 9:58 am
Mishka, I thought you knew that reasonable accommodations aren’t one-size-fits-all?
Besides, the ASL interpreters aren’t oral interpreters. Both require different capabilities.
April 13th, 2009 at 10:39 am
The AFA brillantly requested for the copy of CART recorded transcription which they are entitled under the Americans with Disabilities law.
Well, many oralists really could not able to lipread at all.
The AGBell usually jump on the bandwagon of supporting any legislation on captioning needs for deaf tv viewers.
Is that kind of hyprocritical on the part of AGBell so far like calling the shots for the rights of captioning needs for their own AGBell members, but many deaf oralists could not lipread at all.
I am culturally deaf myself. I never have any kind of formal training for lipreading. I am really superbu at lipreading than many and many deaf oralists and mainstream students ever I know of. I am factually proud of doing better with lipreading than any deaf oralists. Kinda a real delight to rub the noses of the AGBell and staunch deaf oralists.
Many oralists usually request for the ASL interpreting for their higher education classes, but the AGBell refuse to provide those interpreters due to the clash with the philsophy of AGBell. Give me a break!
I am kinda pleased to see the squirms on the AGBell staff and leadership about the CART transcript copy. I would be not surprised that the AGBell would find any way to make up some excuses. I know the AGBell people very well.
The AGBell people should know that the honesty and open communication are the best policy!
The AGBell should know better that they could not play any games with us, Deaf America and the AFA or will risk the real wrath.
Robert L. Mason (RLM)
RLMDEAF blog
April 13th, 2009 at 10:58 am
ASLforlife and Shannon, I see it as a reasonable request. Had they used the oral interpreters, then there wouldn’t be any need for CART. But since they did use CART, they do have an electronic recording of the meeting. If they are refusing to share, I would find that odd.
Don G and Misha, I do wonder. An oral interpreter would be the most logical accommodation for oral deaf people.
RLM, yes, the lipreading abilities of oral deaf people vary. Some are excellent lipreaders, especially when they are able to use residual hearing to aid with the lipreading while others don’t do so great in lipreading. In general, for the profoundly Deaf people, it is a difficult skill to master.
CW, I already stated that Jay Wyant did use an interpreter voicing for him. I am perfectly aware that oral deaf people prefer to use oral interpreters as these oral interpreters are trained to enunciate clearly. Some Deaf people, including oral deaf, can read the lips of the ASL interpreters, though. I am puzzled that AGBell Association didn’t use an oral interpreter, considering that it is in the business of promoting lipreading and/or listening.
April 13th, 2009 at 11:12 am
Hi MZ,
Regardless if a person has a hearing aid or cochlear implant, they are never hearing.
When I wear my two digital hearing aids while working with my computer, I can hear the hard drive head going back and forth looking for data, but still, I am not hearing.
Many people still don’t get it.
What hearing people hear and what I hear is like the different between watching HDTV and static 1950 black and white TV.
Be nice if those AFA people in the meeting with the two Oral Deaf would tell us if those two were able to have the attention to the process of the meeting or were out of the loop and looking at the pictures on the walls during the meeting.
April 13th, 2009 at 11:19 am
If the Deaf person wants to make the lecture by using his or her voice, how can they understand him or her? Wondering. AGB is so fishy.
April 13th, 2009 at 11:25 am
I also see another irony.
AGBell may have had CART services to assure that there is a record for THEIR purposes.
And AFA took advantage of a service that AGBell paid for.
Interesting that the meeting was plastered with communication access galore. Maybe overkill, for all we know.
April 13th, 2009 at 11:39 am
John, I don’t think anyone is denying that Deaf people are like hearing people. However, I think a lot of hearing people are somewhat clueless regarding the quality of sounds the deaf people hear and how much they miss.
Dino, hard to say. Some oral deaf people can speak well while others don’t speak well.
Ann C, that’s what I am also wondering about, using CART as an excuse to record the meeting electronically. With oral interpreters, there would be no recording. If that’s the case, would it be fair for them to do that while barring the AFA activists from doing their own recording, using their own cameras/camcorders.
An organization promoting oralism and/or listening ends up using a CART for two oral deaf people. Why not use an oral interpreter? Why not use a FM system? Why a CART?
April 13th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
What if the Oral Deaf person who has many bright ideas wants to make the lecture at the AGB. I bet the person will be excluded who can’t speak. Yes there are some Deaf person who can speak but CART is one way of communication.
April 13th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
MZ,
If AGBell “barred” AFA activists from doing their own recording, how does one explain that AGBell released the CART transcript when AFA requested it? Legal dept paranoia of getting sued or thinking no one would ever ask for it?
Did AGBell representatives use their own cameras/videorecorders at the meeting? Anyone at the meeting know?
It may be that the CART service kept the meeting civil, creating an awareness that EVERYTHING said at the meeting was being recorded and that words at the meeting could not be taken out of context by either AGBell or the AFA activists once the meeting was over. AGBell legal dept probably coughed up that idea of the CART service as well.
April 13th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Yes, there’s something wrong with that picture. To set rules for the meeting that included a prohibition on recording devices implies that a free discussion was expected without the constraints that recording would impose.
Then they have CART which is essentially transcribing. Okay. They should have warned about that first, and in the spirit of free discussion, destroyed the CART notes in full view of the participants. I assume this didn’t happen.
In the spirit of fairness, AGBell should provide unedited copies of the CART transcription to both sides since there was no input nor agreement from AFA about CART.
Otherwise AGBell risks being viewed as devious about their willingness to meet.
April 13th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Play Video Comment
April 13th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Dino, I don’t know if the oral deaf representatives can speak very well or not. I would presume they have excellent speaking skills along with excellent oral skills, but CART was provided instead of oral interpreters. So who knows?
Ann C, a copy of the transcript hadn’t been provided to AFA activists yet. The link shows the second request from AFA activists for the copy of the CART transcript.
According to the AFA activists, AGBell Association stated that no electronic recording would be allowed in the meeting room. I was under the impression that AGBell Association won’t be doing any recording, either.
I am not involved with AFA. Yet I feel something odd here.
April 13th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Candy,
What I understood was that AGBell insisted that NO recording be allowed at the meeting….but when the 5 AFA representatives came into the room, they were surprised to see the CART. They were not appropriately informed of that service even though they were informed that ASL interpreters would be present but it was never clear who the ASL interpreters were for. I had assumed that AGBell people don’t understand ASL and they assumed the AFA representatives will use ASL.
I thought it was unfair and a shame what AGBell did, and that it was fair that AFA made a request for a copy. It would have been much better and safer for everybody to simply videotape everything including audio information and let it be a subject of interpretation of how the meeting went on. It would be better if AGB had informed AFA of their intention to have the CART services in addition to ASL interpreters.
April 13th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Hello, I am sorry my webcam video comment did not work. I do not know why. I could not log into seesmic either. Oh well.
What I said was that I think when AGBell hired the cart service, they paid for it. I think they pay extra for manuscripts too. I do not think it is free. If AFA wants a copy, they are to pay for it from the cart service. Not much is free these days. Maybe AGBEll did not request the manuscripts.
I do not know how cart service works. Just my opinion. Thanks.
Now someone please delete my frozen video comment. That is embarrassing. sitting there for a min and a half?
Ben
April 13th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
One of the AFA representative said that there were three video cameras on the ceiling at the three corners of the room where the meeting was held.
April 13th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
If there is a certified CART provider, then, what’s the problem? I don’t think that the certified CART provider comes from either AFA or AG Bell member. This provider SHOULD have given her/his business card to AFA and AG Bell. So that way, Either have AFA or AG Bell to contact this provider to obtain a transcript. Make sense.
If AG Bell have not obtained the transcript from a certified CART provider, then, give them some time. If not, call an attorney.
CART is a good way for the records about the meeting.
April 13th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
I think that the AFA should not go after the AGBell organization in the first place. I think that the AFA should work with the AGBell to fight for the Deaf people’s rights, like Deaf employments, Closed capitions on CNN news, youtube videos, providing certified teachers, oral and American Sign Language interpreters, providing full and unbiased information to families about varied communication modes (ASL, PSE, Oral, Cue system, and SEE), etc.
Remember Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. He was able to bring every Black person together, no matter what their beliefs were. Dr. King was focusing on the future of children of color and talking about his dream. Dr. King could not stop the KKK organization. President Obama will not stop the KKK organization. Do you know why? America is not a communist country. I am glad that AFA is taking some actions, but it will not stop the AGBell organization or change its views.
April 13th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
I gave the credit to Valhallian about the KKK organization. He is correct that we cannot stop the AGBell organization whether we agree or disagree.
April 13th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
I assumed that AGBell used the CART service for their future legal purposes along their affordable lawyers. AGBell simply tried to protect themselves from being “Miscommunication” at the meeting. So AGBell and their lawyer can use CART documents at the court which AFA can’t win against them under Black and White document instead of verbally meeting. That’s the way I see and my point of view.
April 13th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Here is the link about CART service:
http://www.captionfirst.com/
April 13th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Ben, your video comment works fine. I think that would be a reasonable solution.
Dianrez and Ella, I did some digging and found the letter from AGBell Association:
“As a reminder, no audio or video recording will be permitted.” http://audismfreeamerica.blogspot.com/2009/04/afaag-bell-confirmed-meeting.html
So it didn’t state that electronic recording wouldn’t be permitted, just audio or video recording. In that case, CART is extempt.
Again why would AGBell Association need a CART when oral interpreter would be a better choice?
I guess there is two issues here. Why a CART instead of an oral interpreter? Why not share the copy of the CART transcription?
It would be fair to share the copy of the transcript.
John, who was the AFA representative who made that statement? Was there an objection made regarding the three video cameras? Why wasn’t this made public earlier?
White Ghost, if AGBell Association provides a copy of the transcription, I think that will resolve the issue.
Still I find it strange that they would choose a CART rather than an oral interpreter.
April 13th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
I stand corrected about AFA request for the CART transcript that has not yet been answered by AGBell. I overlooked the link, yet for some reason thot that AGBell did release the transcript. My bad.
I’m presuming that it was AGBell who hired the CART service, as the AFA activists were not notified before the meeting about it, so the AFA activists were not the ones who contracted for the CART. I doubt that the CART service will release a copy of the meeting transcript to AFA, as it was not the client who hired the service. Explains why the AFA’s request to AGBell instead for a copy of the transcript.
The CART service has the full unadulterated transcript on the computer drive…
April 13th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
MZ –
I would not care about an oral interpreter. I would not worry about getting an oral interpreter. All I care about is a copy of that the transcription. It’s for the records to be kept for the future use.
Think about the court system for the plaintiffs and defenses, for instance.
Common Sense.
April 13th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Next time, AFA or other organizations should bring their own Freelance CART person. CART person is only type the text document and saved the file into their drive under laptop.
Rochester Institute of Technology still using CART service for notetaker as well when I was in college. Amy C. is correct about it as legal purposes like ASL interpreter can not share their client’s confidential stuffs as well as CART service.
April 13th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
My assumption on why AGBell had CART, because – they are smart to say “no video no audio” but they didn’t say anything about CART. Like Charles The Rogue said – CART is for typing, and they can keep the documents….just sneaky, like 130 years ago, and today still sneaky.
April 13th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
I think that we should not make any big assumption that CART provider recorded the conversations during the meeting. Give AGBADHH some time to form a response to AFA’s email. After all, AFA has not responded to my questions since April 1st.
I absolutely have no idea if it is a standard practice for the CART providers to record the conversations. My gut says that it is not the standard practice but I could be wrong.
Joseph Pietro Riolo
josephpietrojeungriolo@gmail.com
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain.
April 13th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
hi all
MZ thank you for raising this topic
AFA members were clearly instructed that audio and videotaping of the meeting would not be allowed. This implied that no real time recording of the meeting was permissible.
AFA does not object to AG Bell keeping a copy of the CART for their records as long as we are provided a copy as well. If there is a fee associated with getting a copy, we would like to know that and will respond accordingly. We do not want to assume that AG Bell is hiding, withholding, or trying to control information but we find their failing to have provided us with the transcript or a reply odd given the fact that they were able to do twitter and the “denouncement” press release so promptly.
When we entered the meeting room and they said the CART was there for the 2 Deaf AG Bell members, i looked at the screen and when a fellow AFA member introduced herself by signing “Hello, I’m Karen” the CART read “Hell know Karen,” i pointed it out and we have a nice laugh over the error. The CART transcriptionist was apologetic and we indicated it was no big deal at all.
I did ask for a copy of the CART transcript as soon as we saw it and explained that we had thought no recording of the meeting was allowed but since it was there and would be a saved document, we would like to have a copy as well for our records. The response from the AG Bell director of Communications, Catherine Murphy, was something to the effect of “we will take that into consideration.”
Re: the small black devices that were mounted above the molding on three of the walls in the AG Bell Volta Bureau library room – i do not know if they were videocameras, alarm systems, some type of loop system or some other device.
When AFA entered the room Catherine Murphy, AG Bell Director of Communication was seated at the head of the table while the four other AG Bell representatives were on one side of the long table with their one interpreter standing behind them and AFA members were motioned to sit directly across from them.
The same interpreter for AG Bell was in the Volta Bureau for most of the day on Friday during the rally. It was completely unclear as to what she was doing in Volta Bureau the day of the rally as no ASL Deaf folks were allowed entry. Perhaps she was facilitating meetings between the Deaf AG Bell representatives and other AG Bell staff members? John Stanton, chair of AG Bell’s Public Affairs Council; Catharine McNally, member-at-large – both of the Deaf AG Bell members at the AFA / AG Bell meeting on April 2nd were also in Volta Bureau on April 3rd during our rally according to their twitter livefeed.
thanks again for bringing up this topic
Peace
Patti
April 13th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Ben, number 18, your video is fine! Both Deaf Rep for AGBADHH and AFA should get the copie of CART transcript equally for FREE on TIME. AGBADDHH should KNOW better because they already have experience with the lawyers to protect AG Bell’s stealing the telephone and the lawyers want AG Bell’s telephone profit and stock market to keep AG Bell’s name clean and very holy. They, the AGBADHH already expertly experienced “hypocrites” and “looking to cover up excuses”.
If AFA do NOT have time for everything to response because of too many email on youtube and AFA needs more time to get more teamwork to sit down together… So they, AFA do have a right to get the copies of CART transcript before response to other email first. Look what happen AGBADHH is laughing now because of targeting to AFA with lots of false story… Enough is Enough!
AGBADHH knows how to make false since they already know that AG Bell is NOT a true telephone inventor so they wanna copy AG Bell’s false telephone inventor to cover up themselves that they are better than us… Fine and we will move on to stand our right and fight the Audism against AGBADHH and AG Bell.
April 13th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Ella,
This is the first time I commented in this particular post. You responded to me? I don’t see Candy elsewhere. Just wondering, seems kind of weird eh?
Anyway, all deaf/hoh people require different services. For all we know, they may have done this to get their own recording of the meeting. But, it could simply mean that these two individuals DO indeed need CART services. Let’s not jump to conclusions. Just because you’re oral does not mean you need oral interpreter, I mean, it is a personal preference, no?
April 13th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
MZ,
I, too, detected the irony and agree with you,
Dianrez, Don, and Patti about the unfairness of
the AGBell. I sincerelty hope that AGBell will eventually come into the agreement to submit a copy to the AFA.
April 13th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Patti, thank you very much for coming here and providing more information.
So AGBell Association provided both an oral interpreter and CART. Now that makes more sense. That’s unusual for a small meeting. Yet if an oral deaf person depends on lipreading and/or listening while the other person relies on listening without lipreading and CART simultaneously, then both are needed. The assistive devices don’t always provide full coverage. The oral deaf people have more choices now than ever in the past.
The black boxes are very likely components of the audio system enhancing the aural environment for oral deaf people wearing assistive devices, either digital hearing aids and cochlear implants.
……
Now the CART transcription copy. Well, since AGBell Association forbade the use of of audio and/or video devices to record the meeting, I hope it will take the high road and provide a copy to AFA activists, free or at a cost. Seeing that AGBell Association may have a copy of the meeting. It won’t look good for one organization to have a copy while another organization was prevented from having any official documentation.
April 13th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
It might be out of question I may ask. Have AFA members ask that ASL interpreter if she/he is certificated interpreter? Every time I go to any meeting, I usually ask the interpreters what level or certificated they have. I wonder if interpreter could be misunderstood somewhere in during that meeting. I have no clue about CART. Is AGBELL public office as 503C? Check District of Columbia about a law what public office must obtain. In Missouri, there is a law called “Sunshine Law” which any public meetings, they can request the transcription. Check out what their law provide about public meeting policy. If private office, we can do nothing about it period.
My 2 cent
April 13th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Or, there is still a possibility that the transcription may be destroyed (shredded or erased, for example), so that there is no record of conversations as originally intended.
Just a thought, in case nobody thinks of that possibility.
Joseph Pietro Riolo
josephpietrojeungriolo@gmail.com
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain.
April 13th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
JPR, I was thinking of that possibility too. Also, having used CART in past, depending on level of service, not every CART requires transcripts to be preserved.
April 13th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Transcript must be keep copy for record files in AGBADHH for their proof. Should give AFA for FREE no matter what. If transcript copy destroyed, AGBADHH must respect AFA no matter what! AGBADHH should pay 500 billion dollars to AFA for damaging the truth and hiding the ugly mess.
my 2 cents
April 13th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
{seesmic_video:{“url_thumbnail”:{“value”:”http://t.seesmic.com/thumbnail/Qn7ZcQlK2a_th1.jpg”}”title”:{“value”:” ”}”videoUri”:{“value”:”http://www.seesmic.com/video/5VS7TA7xz7″}}}
April 13th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Hey!! I guess my video comment works after all. It did freeze for awhile.
I suggest any other organization, (I do not think AGBell will be willing to meet with AFA again, because of a “sit-in protest” at the end of the meeting)should agree to certain demands from the other sides prior to setting up a time and day for any meeting.
For example, AFA ask for a meeting with AGBELL, then those two organization agree to conditions such as no recording device, no camera, if CART, then how a copy of manuscript me obtain, etc… then if all is agreeable, then set up a time and a place and a day for their meetings.
What ya think?
Ben
April 13th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
JPR/Candy –
Your’e right. If it’s on the non-level of service, then, it’s possibly destroyed. Make sense. I forgot about that!
April 13th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
What I am about to say here has no change in my previous opinion of the event, however I will say this:
If AGB said no video and audio recordings, I would agree that its a bad faith move on their part if they actually use CART for the purpose of recording. If they used CART only as a form of communication access, just like an ASL interpreter, then it should be ok, as long as its not used for recording purposes.
If they recorded it, the way I see it, it would also be a violation of the no video recording agreement, because CART is actually a form of a video tool, so if they used it for recording, then AFA should be entitled to a copy too.
I would not suggest pressing this matter further until it is proven that it indeed has been used for recording purposes.
April 13th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Recording of meeting or individual are permissible in DC without anyone’s consent. Check the DC law.
The AGBell was very clever for making that kind of demand to keep anything from being recorded
The AFA done its courtesy of not recording the AGBell meeting out of cooperation and respect upon the request of AGBell.
That’ why I said about the AFA’s minor error for having the meeting at the Volta Bureau on their turf, instead of neutral site.
We could see what the AGBell is all about – cunning, manipulative and secretive.
Alexander Graham Bell was the person with same personality.
AGBell ought to provide the transcript copy out of courtesy what the AFA done so far.
Mutual respect and two-way communication are real necessity for productive meeting and collaboration.
If the AGBell fail to submit the transcript copy in timely manner before the end of April 2009.
The AGBell will face the real wrath from Deaf America. I would seek to revoke the AGBell’s non-profit organization status for other reasons. I meant it!
AGBell, stop playing games with us, Deaf America! Comprendo?
Robert L. Mason (RLM)
RLMDEAF blog
April 13th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Given that I made a remark on waiting for response from AFA to my email that I sent on April 1st (see my first comment in this discussion), it is my responsibility to disclose that I did receive response from AFA within the past hour. So, this remark now no longer has any purpose for this discussion.
Joseph Pietro Riolo
josephpietrojeungriolo@gmail.com
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain.
April 13th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
AFA is lucky that AGBell even agreed to meet with them. AGBell has absolutely nothing to gain from meeting with an “organization” that is just a few months old. It is laughable that AFA can make “DEMANDS” on AGBell. And if AGBell won’t meet their demands, then what? Exactly. AFA has no power or authority to do anything at all.
April 13th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
sorry MZ that i wasnt clear
not an oral interpreter
AG Bell provided one interpreter who was supposed to voice for AFAers who used ASL and sign for AG Bell folks who spoke only. We added our own ASL interpreter to voice for us
the AG Bell interpreter stood BEHIND the two Deaf AG Bell members. that is where she was positioned before we even entered the room
It was clear that she was not there to provide oral interpreter at all. She was situated directly behind the two Deaf AG Bell members – perhaps to help them hear the voice interpreting for of our ASL?
im not sure why she was positioned there but our ASL interpreter stood next to her and did the voicing for our ASL and their interpreter mostly signed ASL for when the AG Bell representatives spoke
hope im making sense
smile
peace
patti
April 13th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
sorry for the typos above
in a bit of a hurry
re: the CART transcription might have just been a live access thing and not a saved document / record – if that were the case then AG Bell’s counsel and communications director would have stated so when we asked if we could receive a copy immediately upon seeing the existence of the CART system projected on the screen.
instead the communications director’s reply was something like “we will take that under consideration” or “we will investigate that”
so we made evident our desire for a copy before the meeting really officially took off and if they were only having CART present for the purpose of access and not a potential record / document, they would have stated so
instead stating that they would not be saving the transcript, they said they would look into / or consider giving us a copy of it
(if i had the transcript – i could give you the exact wording ; )
really no harm in both AG Bell Assoc and AFA having a copy
if we find out the transcript has been destroyed or shredded AFTER we made the request (which was before the meeting started) – OY! that does not bode well
we have good faith that AG Bell will provide us with the transcript as it is merely a record of our meeting as requested
They always say the believe in informed choices and this information will help folks be more informed
much peace
patti
April 13th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
Folks,
I fear some people may be putting the “CART” before the horse (sorry, I had to use that pun).
While I also see the irony of using CART versus oral interpreters, I do, as a person who has sat through NUMEROUS lengthy meetings (as I’m sure many of you all have as well), understand the use of CART in this situation. Whether or not it was recorded and saved is a whole different issue, but as a predominantly oral deaf person myself (I also sign), I have found CART to be extremely useful in many situations. Face it, no one is a 100% lipreader, I don’t care WHO they are or WHAT they say.
So, CART in this type of situation, whether it just be a live access thing or a permanent recorded record of what was said, makes perfect sense. It would help with the flow of conversation, be there to help in the event someone looks down to make a note and misses something before they look back up, etc.
On the main issue, I think IF a permanent copy of the meeting records exist, a copy should be provided to the AFA people as well. Under standard Rules of Order, these may perhaps need to be entered into the record at the next AG Bell meeting as minutes. They could perhaps be waiting for that, they could be waiting to hear back from the person whom was the CART transcriptionist, etc. I beg people to keep an open mind and wait and see. The standard wait time is 2 weeks for most business letters. If no response by then, then a second letter and another 2 weeks. No response after that? I say let ‘em have it at that time on a daily basis via emails, phone calls, etc. and document those.
April 13th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
Patti, to echo your remark, OY. It made me wonder what was in the minds of the AGBell people when they refused recording devices on one hand and then authorized the CART on the other, apparently without realizing the paradox.
AGBell is in a corner now: to refuse is to be suspected of nefariousness; to hand it over is to acknowledge they made a honest mistake and is willing to correct it. If I were AGBell, I would opt for the latter in the interest of promoting dialogue.
April 13th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
I think MZ raises a good question. Since Patti Durr made it clear that there wasn’t an oral interpreter, only ASL-to-Voice interpreters.
With that, I’m going to assume that oral interpreters are best suited for one-on-one situations. Since that is probably the case, it seems to me that AGBell’s interpreter bill would triple if not for CART. Why triple? They would need to hire 2 interpreters (one for each deaf person) and then hire one more (for relief)–this is on top of hiring an interpreter to translate ASL into voiced English.
Whoo, that seemed a bit complicated for me, hahaha.
Also, I’d like to ask DianRez a question to her comment #48: Does AGBell want to foster dialogue?? I mean, if they said “No,” then there’s not much one can do, eh?
To keep pushing them for dialogue when they’ve shown/said they don’t want it, could be construed as harassment. I dunno.
Ah well.
Ben
Miss ya, MZ! Good post btw.
April 14th, 2009 at 10:41 am
I want to bring something else to the surface here. I read some blog that says AGBell was deceptive when they told AFA not to bring any recording device, and then have a CART in their meeting.
Having read that, I also realize that AFA may have been a little decetiive themselves. I am sure they planned a “sit-in” protest if they did not get what they wanted.
AFA did not warn AGBell that they would have a “sit-in” protest, ( I am sure they planned it )to me , that is deceptive.
What goes around, comes around. Meaning, AGBell was deceptive, then AFA was deceptive back.
I think that is funny (not haw-haw funny).
What say you?
Ben
April 14th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Ben,
I think the whole thing is funny, to be frank. This is how I see it:
Group A disagrees with Group B’s philosophy. Group A demands Group B change their philosophy. Group B says “No.”
Group A goes on to ask for dialogue.
Group B relents to pacify Group A. In fact, if Group A paid some attention, they would know Group B did not want dialogue in the first place. Group B never gave any impression they would change their philosophy.
At the end of the day, both groups lose.
Ain’t that hilarious?!
April 14th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
It is well said. Sure is hilariouos. What a world we live in.
Ben
April 15th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
There are some obvious conclusions to be drawn here,..and they don’t have to be spelled out!!