by Mitch Pomerantz

In a time of essentially instant communications, writing a governmental affairs update in August for publication in October seems slightly out-of-date
(pun intended). Nonetheless that is the task set before me and I undertake it willingly. Here’s where we stand as of this writing.

SB199 (Hall), the CCBsponsored bill to add up to two hours per month of reading assistance and document completion to the list of services covered under
the In-Home- Supportive services (IHSS) Program. I remain cautiously optimistic that SB199 will become law. [Editor’s Note: This bill is currently on the
governor’s desk.]

I am pleased to report that AB1353 (Patterson), which would prohibit the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) from being reimbursed for utility costs
incurred by vendors under the
Business Enterprises Program and would require Caltrans to pay for those utility costs using state funds, has been signed by the Governor. Vendors running
roadside vending facilities typically operate on very slim profit margins and paying for utilities from those meager profits posed a significant hardship.
CCB was pleased to work alongside an active group of vendors to obtain enactment of AB1353.

We were not so fortunate regarding AB474 (Brown and Thurmond). This proposal would have pegged the level of individual SSI benefits in California at 112%
of the federal poverty level, but this increase was not included in the FY 2016 budget agreed to by the Governor and legislature.

AB683 (Low) would, among other things, enhance the accessibility of online voter information for blind and visually impaired persons. On the surface, that
sounds like something
CCB should automatically support. However, the devil is in the details, as they say and we could not endorse this proposal.

For some background:
Initially, existing law called for establishment of an entity known as the Visually Impaired Voter Assistance Board, whose charge would have been to put
forward recommendations to the
Secretary of State for improving the accessibility of election materials made available over the Internet. That body was never constituted, but was instead
supplanted by a cross-disability entity: the Voter Accessibility Advisory Committee. CCB advocated for a subcommittee specific to the concerns of blind
and visually impaired persons with representation from consumer organizations representing our constituency. While language establishing this subcommittee
was included in AB683, the make-up of the subcommittee was not specified; hence the necessity for CCB to oppose this bill as written. It is likely that
it will pass - and may have already done so by the time you read this - and be signed into law. Notwithstanding, CCB was sufficiently concerned over a
lack of guaranteed consumer participation that we felt the need to take the position we ultimately did.

SB450 (Roth) would permit some counties to conduct elections primarily via vote by mail. CCB is involved in drafting language which would call for those
counties to offer such ballots which blind and visually impaired voters could privately and independently read and mark before a county could conduct a
vote by mail election. The bill is likely to include other beneficial provisions but is not expected to be taken up until the second year of the current
legislative session.

And speaking of next year’s legislative session, CCB is working with Guide Dog Users of California (GDUC) to draft legislation to permit trainers from
schools outside the state which are certified by the International Guide Dog Federation to be able to provide follow-up services to their students, and
to increase penalties for attacks on guide dogs, in or out of harness. You will hear more about this proposal when it has been finalized.

I want to close with a bit of an editorial rant. It has become extremely fashionable among many within CCB to identify with the independent living and/or
cross-disability movement here in California. The thinking is that there are far more people with physical or other disabilities than there are persons
who are blind or visually impaired. As such, if we are to achieve any success in upholding or expanding our rights, we must coalesce with the broader disability
community. While such an argument is seductive and fits well with the California spirit, a close inspection of current circumstance and past history tells
us differently. I only need to cite our ongoing fight to retain and enhance categorical services for the blind. Other than our colleagues in the deaf and
hard-of-hearing community, those in the broader disability-rights movement continue to believe that blind and visually impaired persons do not need the
kind of categorical or specialized services we know are crucial for our functioning as independent members of society. My rule-ofthumb when it comes to
working with the larger disability community is fairly simple; we work together with other disability groups when we know two things: 1. that our interests
are mutual and 2. that our interests will not be subsumed by the larger group. I am an advocate first and foremost for the blind and visually impaired,
and a political realist. I know from decades of experience that if we don’t stand up for what we need, no one else will do it for us! If the foregoing
means I’m old-fashioned and outof-step, then I am proud to own it. See everyone next time.