State's advocate for the deaf loses her job

Miss-Delectable

New Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2004
Messages
17,158
Reaction score
7
State's advocate for the deaf loses her job: Times Argus Online

When Carrie Foster of Cambridge, one of the more than 300 state employees slated to be laid off over the next few weeks, came to the Statehouse to explain her predicament to lawmakers this week, she had to do more than rearrange her schedule.

Foster had to find a sign language interpreter so she could communicate with legislators.

Foster has – or had until recently – the job of making sure that deaf or hard-of-hearing Vermonters like herself who need services from the Agency of Human Resources can get them.

"It took many years for the deaf community to get this kind of a position" inside the agency, Foster said through a sign language interpreter. "If this position is eliminated, who will go to bat for them?"

When state revenue declined over the last year the state began making cuts in spending. Earlier this year the administration decided 320 state workers would need to be laid off, unless an agreement can be reached with the union to reduce that number through other concessions.

So far, more than 112 employees have been notified they have lost their jobs, including Foster.

That position, created about four years ago, was the most recent in one section of the agency, said Joan Senecal, commissioner of the Department of Disabilities, Aging and Independent Living.

"This is very difficult. These are good people and they are hard-working people," said Senecal, who runs the division of the Agency of Human Services where Foster worked.

Several others in the agency who work with deaf Vermonters through the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation will pick up the job of helping deaf and hard-of-hearing residents, Senecal added.

"People will still be able to rely on that," she said.

But Foster said that her position is unique in that it was designed to train state workers and help the hard-of-hearing with getting access to the Agency of Human Services.

Foster, who is 42, said she is not as worried about what she will do as what deaf and hard-of-hearing Vermonters will do when they need help from parts of the agency like the Department of Health or the Department of Children and Families. Her job for four years has been to train workers in the agency to be able to meet those needs and to help those who need help navigating the agency.

And one of her jobs is to coordinate sign language interpreters for deaf Vermonters who need the services paid for by the state of Vermont as required by federal law. But when she came to the Statehouse, state payment of an interpreter was not an option because she was testifying as a member of the Vermont State Employees Association, the state workers' union, Foster explained.

"It was very frustrating," she said.

Ultimately the union helped her hire an interpreter, Foster said.
 
Sad, but seems to be the norm from the hearing powers that be.

In Ohio, Strickland (not just him as Tafts Admin was same/same) has said when questioned about no interpreters for the state offices and prisons... "We do not find that necessary"

Frustrating!

I feel badly for D/deaf Vermonters
 
okay, tried to edit but didn't get it, here goes again -

<clarified> :

"....not find necessary" :mad: !
 
Yes Dogmom, frustrating to say the least.

There are specializations in the state and resources that should be utilized but are not.
My hubs, State Prison System, was told that directly. As was I in LE. Many others same/same.

And, yet, who do they yell for when there is a D/deaf DeafBlind person who needs communication, those with the skill or they provide no service at all.

This issue is another that crosses all political boundries and is extremely frustrating.
 
I think Federal law would apply to any given situation. If someone needs an interpreter to communicate, it should be made available to them, especially in this case where it is a state worker with a disability needing to go before a committee and plead for her job. It becomes an unfair decision. Because she can't understand spoken language and they can't understand sign language, its almost like they have told her - I'm sorry but because your deaf we're not even allowing you to appeal your case to retain your position. It's not right at all.

I would have been livid!
 
Back
Top