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?!

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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