by Mitch Pomerantz

This is an end-of-the-year update on bills sponsored, supported, or followed by the California Council of the Blind during the first half of the 2015-16
legislative session. During 2015, CCB sponsored one bill, wrote letters of support (and opposition in a couple of instances), and kept track of several
others.

I want to first acknowledge the members of the CCB Governmental Affairs Committee for their assistance and support: Leena Bandy, Ardis Bazyn, Margie Donovan,
Roy Harmon, Alice McGrath, Steven Mendelsohn, Charles Nabarrete, Teddie-Joy Remhild, and Robert Wendt. Each of them has specific expertise in one or more
areas and CCB was most fortunate to be able to utilize their talents as legislative proposals came to our attention.

I also want to acknowledge President Jeff Thom's assistance in our advocacy efforts. Since I reside in Pasadena and Jeff in Sacramento, the leg-work involving
face-to-face meetings with legislators or their aids and testifying at committee hearings was handled by Jeff. I spent a fair amount of time on the phone
and drafting letters.

So let me begin with the bill CCB sponsored: Senate Bill 199, authored by Isadore Hall, which would add to the list of supportive services offered under
the In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) Program up to two hours per month of reading assistance and completing of financial and other documents for recipients
who are blind or visually impaired. CCB sponsored this bill because as we know, while access to written information is one of the greatest barriers we
face in living independently, the reading and completing of documents is not a service covered under the IHSS Program. While SB199 passed both the State
Senate and Assembly, Governor Brown vetoed the bill due to funding concerns. Senator Hall will not be able to reintroduce this proposal during 2016, the
second half of the current legislative session, due to existing rules.

Assembly Bill 1353, authored by Jim Patterson, was a proposal sponsored by blind vendors and actively supported by CCB. It would prohibit the Department
of Transportation (we know it as Caltrans) from being reimbursed for utility costs incurred by vendors operating under the Business Enterprises Program
for the Blind and would require Caltrans to pay for those utility costs out of state funds. The vendors adversely effected by having to pay for utilities
are those running roadside rest areas on California's highways. Many of these vendors operate on very thin profit margins and AB1353 was intended to remove
this financial burden. Thanks to the hard work of a number of vendors along with many of our members, AB1353 was signed by the Governor. This is a tremendous
victory and one about which all of us should be proud.

Other bills in which CCB took interest included:

AB8 (Gatto), which authorized use of the state's existing network of changeable message signs to help apprehend a suspect when a hit-and-run accident occurred
resulting in a fatality or serious injury. CCB supported this bill because of the number of blind and low vision individuals who have been injured in such
accidents over the years. Just prior to the CCB Conference and Convention, the Governor signed AB8 into law.

Reluctantly, CCB was forced to oppose AB683 (Low), which requires the Secretary of State to establish a Voting Accessibility Advisory Committee (VAAC)--a
cross-disability entity--to make recommendations related to improving the accessibility of elections for people with disabilities who are voters. This
body was put forward in lieu of the initial concept: a blindness-specific entity to address the unique access needs of blind and low vision voters. The
bill did propose a subcommittee under the VAAC to address our specific accessibility concerns. While there were a number of provisions which would potentially
benefit us, CCB became concerned that the bill language failed to specify representation from consumer organizations of the blind including CCB. Not surprisingly,
AB683 was signed by the Governor so we will just have to see if our concerns are appropriately addressed by the subcommittee and the VAAC.

CCB opposed SB251 (Roth), which protects a business with 100 employees or less from liability for minimum statutory damages after the business has obtained
an inspection by a Certified Access Specialist, thereby allowing that business to identify and correct violations. We sent a letter strongly opposing this
bill because we saw it as a clear effort to enhance the ability of business owners to thwart the legitimate efforts of persons with disabilities to ensure
that places of public accommodation comply with state and federal accessibility statutes. Surprisingly given the political orientation of the legislature,
SB251 passed both houses rather easily. Fortunately, Governor Brown decided to veto this bill because of a tax credit provision to which he objected.

SB474 (Brown and Thurmond) would have increased SSI grants for individuals to 112% of the federal poverty level. Although we strongly supported this bill,
the increase was not included in the budget agreed upon by the Governor and legislature in June.

CCB strongly supported SB624 (Anderson), which would have taken steps toward ensuring that all state websites finally meet state and federal accessibility
requirements. Unfortunately, this bill failed to muster sufficient support for passage by the legislature.

SB450 (Roth) is a proposal which will be taken up in 2016. It 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 ballots that blind and low vision 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 as well.

And speaking of our legislative efforts next year, I want to mention two proposals resulting directly from recent CCB resolutions. First, CCB, in collaboration
with Guide Dog Users of California, will be looking to introduce legislation addressing issues under the jurisdiction of the State Board of Guide Dogs
for the Blind. Second, this year we were unable to find an author for draft bill language permitting purchase by state agencies including the Department
of Rehabilitation of assistive technology utilizing DOR's State Price Schedule in lieu of the existing requirement of a competitive bid process which is
typically time-consuming and bureaucratic. This lengthy process has cost blind persons employment opportunities and CCB must try to rectify this unacceptable
situation. Finding authors for both proposals will be a priority for CCB this fall.

Finally, the Governmental Affairs Committee in the person of Charles Nabarrete will be looking into the feasibility of holding another CCB Capitol Day
sometime during the spring in Sacramento. When we have more information, we will let everyone know. Take care and continue advocating for our rights in
your local communities.