X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Approved-By:  "(Bill McGarry)" <wtm@SHELDEV.SHEL.ISC-BR.COM>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.l-hcap
Date:         Fri, 2 Oct 1992 02:00:29 EDT
Reply-To:     "(Bill McGarry)" <wtm@sheldev.shel.isc-br.com>
From:         "(Bill McGarry)" <wtm@sheldev.shel.isc-br.com>
Subject:      Handicap Digest # 2949

                             THE HANDICAP DIGEST

                                 Issue # 2949

                         Thursday, October 01, 1992

Today's Topics:


                                ******


                            RE: CP & engineering
                                    Abuse
                            Re: Cp & engineering
            disability act, deafness, and inpatient hospital care
                               NEW WINDO BILL
                     Re: When/where is Closing the Gap?


                                ******


To subscribe to the Handicap Digest mailing list or have your
thoughts in the next issue, please send electronic mail to
Bill McGarry at any of the following addresses:


UUCP:       uunet!bunker!wtm
INTERNET:   wtm@bunker.shel.isc-br.com
BITNET:     l-hcap@ndsuvm1.bitnet
Fidonet:    The Handicap News BBS (141/420)   1-203-337-1607
	    (300/1200/2400 baud, 24 hours)
Compuserve: 73170,1064

                              Bill McGarry (Moderator)
                              (203) 337-1518



------



Subject: RE: CP & engineering
From: nstrand@hopi.intel.com (Norman Strand)
Organization: Intel Corporation

I have worked with electrical engineers that do Integrated Circuit
design for about 9 years, my observation is that if your CP is mild
enough that you can do the classwork to get a BSEE.  (Get to class,
do the labs for the classes, participate in class room discussions,
take the tests for your classes, do the drawings for the classes
that require them, and write the reports for your classes.) Then
your CP is mild enough to do all of the work that an electrical
engineer that designs integrated circuits does.  What I have seen
is that in my area that industry is actually more accomadating to
handicaped individuals than the educational system.

Norman Strand




------



Subject: Abuse
From: Dick_Sobsey@psych.educ.ualberta.ca (Dick Sobsey)
Organization: U of Alberta Abuse & Disability Project

The University of Alberta Abuse & Disability Project is conducting
research on physical, sexual, psychological, and other abuse
against people with disabilities. We are interested in hearing from
people with interest in this issue.This includes people with
disabilities who have been abused, researchers, and people working
in disability related services who have been aware of abusive
episodes. If you have any information on this topic or would like
more information about the project, please contact us.




------



Subject: Re: Cp & engineering
From: fee@asel.udel.edu (James Fee)
Organization: A.I. duPont Institute

My name is James W. Fee Jr. I have a Masters in Engineering and
have been working as a Bioengineer since 1976.  The idea that a
person with cerebral palsy can't be an engineer is rediculous and
insulting!  I have cerebral palsy and while it is a mild case it
should never be used as a deterrant no matter what its degree.
Engineers are best who have the ability to think creatively and
cerebral palsy has little if anything to do with creative
thinking.  Those who suggest we should not be engineers because we
can't do X (fill in X as you wish) should  definitely not be
engineers they have already demonstrated their lack of creativity!





------



Subject: disability act, deafness, and inpatient hospital care
From: mro@thumper.bellcore.com (Mike Ordun)
Organization: Bellcore MRE


I need some advice regarding a recent experience.  A young deaf
woman that I know required emergency psychiatric admission to a
local hospital for some problems that she needed help with.  This
was a voluntary admission on her part and took place on a Friday
evening.  What legal responsibility does the hospital have to
provide a sign interpreter and in what time frame?  I demanded that
an interpreter be present during group sessions on the floor and
during Dr. visits.  I felt that written and other communication was
adequate for casual kinds of contact but for theraputic
communication an interpreter was essential and that the hospital
was negligent if it was not provided.  I stated this very stongly
to hospital administration;  I was not a popular person.

The hospital said that they were trying to find an interpreter but
were having a lot of trouble.  I kind of doubt their sincerity and
don't think that they tired real hard unitl Monday when my wife and
myself started making a real stink.  They were not successful in
finding anyone before she was discharged late on the following
Tuesday; a major factor in the discharge was the inability of the
institution to provide a theraputic environment.

To try to put things into prespective, my wife and myself were
involved because this young woman lives with us while she is trying
to get her life back together.  She has had a rather troubled past
and my family is all the family that she has now.

As I see it there are a couple of issues here.  First what exactly
were the hospitals responsibilities?  They claimed to be trying to
find an interpreter but without success. I believe that they should
have anticipated this kind of situation and been prepared
beforehand.  Nevertheless, where could (should) they have gone for
an interpreter?  This all took place in Northern NJ within easy
travel distance of the NY metropolitan area.  With respect to my
friend, things are OK now but I really want to be prepared if I
ever have to go through this again and most of all want to ensure
that it dosen't happen to anyone again who might be faced with a
similar situation at this hospital.

Thanks -- Mike Ordun
mro@thumper.bellcore.com





------



Subject: NEW WINDO BILL
From: LOVE%TEMPLEVM.bitnet@UTARLVM1.UTA.EDU (James Love)

[Forwarded from the HHI Research Findings mailing list
 <HHI-RES@UTARLVM1.UTA.EDU> by Patt Bromberger <patt@squid.tram.com>]
                              MEMO

From:     James Love <love@essential.org>
          Taxpayer Assets Project

Re:       HR 5983, legislation to provide online access to
          federal information
          (Sucessor to Gateway/WINDO bills)

Date:     September 23, 1992, Washington, DC.

     On Wednesday, September 23, the House Administration
Committee unanimously approved H.R. 5983, the "Government
Printing Office (GPO) Electronic Information Access Enhancement
Act of 1992."  The bill, which had been introduced the day
before, was cosponsored by committee chairman Charlie Rose (D-
NC), ranking minority member William Thomas (R-CA) and Pat
Roberts (R-KA).  The measure was a watered down version of the
GPO Gateway/WINDO bills (S. 2813, HR 2772), which would provide
one-stop-shopping online access to hundreds of federal
information systems and databases.

     The new bill was the product of negotiations between
Representative Rose and the republican members of the House
Administration Committee, who had opposed the broader scope of
the Gateway/WINDO bills.  Early responses to the new bill are
mixed.  Supporters of the Gateway/WINDO bill were disappointed by
the narrower scope of the bill, but pleased that the legislation
retained the Gateway/WINDO policies on pricing of the service
(free use by depository libraries, prices equal to the
incremental cost of dissemination for everyone else).  On
balance, however, the new bill would substantially broaden public
access to federal information systems and databases, when
compared to the status quo.


     WHAT HR 5983 DOES

The bill that would require the Government Printing Office (GPO)
to provide public online access to:

     -    the Federal Register
     -    the Congressional Record
     -    an electronic directory of Federal public information
          stored electronically,
     -    other appropriate publications distributed by the
               Superintendent of Documents, and
     -    information under the control of other federal
               departments or agencies, when requested by the
               department or agency.

The Superintendent of Documents is also required to undertake a
feasibility study of further enhancing public access to federal
electronic information, including assessments the feasibility of:

     -    public access to existing federal information systems,
     -    the use of computer networks such as the Internet and
          NREN, and
     -    the development (with NIST and other agencies) of
          compatible standards for disseminating electronic
          information.

There will also be studies of the costs, cost savings, and
utility of the online systems that are developed, including an
independent study of GPO's services by GAO.


     WHAT HR 5983 DOESN'T DO

The new bill discarded the names WINDO or Gateway without a
replacement.  The new system is simply called "the system," a
seemingly minor change, but one designed to give the service a
lower profile.

A number of other features of the Gateway/WINDO legislation were
also lost.

-    While both S. 2813 and HR 2772 would have required GPO to
     provide online access through the Internet, the new bill
     only requires that GPO study the issue of Internet access.

-    The Gateway/WINDO bills would have given GPO broad authority
     to publish federal information online, but the new bill
     would restrict such authority to documents published by the
     Superintendent of Documents (A small subset of federal
     information stored electronically), or situations where the
     agency itself asked GPO to disseminate information stored in
     electronic formats.  This change gives agencies more
     discretion in deciding whether or not to allow GPO to
     provide online access to their databases, including those
     cases where agencies want to maintain control over databases
     for financial reasons (to make money off the data).

-    The republican minority insisted on removing language that
     would have explicitly allowed GPO to reimburse agencies for
     their costs in providing public access.  This is a
     potentially important issue, since many federal agencies
     will not work with GPO to provide public access to their own
     information systems, unless they are reimbursed for costs
     that they incur.  Thus, a major incentive for federal
     agencies was eliminated.

-    S. 2813 and HR 2772 would have required GPO to publish an
     annual report on the operation of  the Gateway/WINDO and
     accept and consider *annual* comments from users on a wide
     range of issues.  The new bill only makes a general
     requirement that GPO "consult" with users and data vendors.
     The annual notice requirement that was eliminated was
     designed to give citizens more say in how the service
     evolves, by creating a dynamic public record of citizen
     views on topics such as the product line, prices, standards
     and the quality of the service.  Given the poor record of
     many federal agencies in addressing user concerns, this is
     an important omission.

-    S. 2813 would have provided startup funding of $3 million in
     fy 92 and $10 million in fy 93.  The new bill doesn't
     include any appropriation at all, causing some observers to
     wonder how GPO will be able to develop the online
     Congressional Record, Federal Register, and directory of
     databases, as required by the bill.


     WHAT HAPPENED?

The bill which emerged from Committee on Wednesday substantially
reflected the viewpoints of the republicans on the House
Administration Committee.  The republican staffers who negotiated
the new bill worked closely with lobbyists for the Industry
Information Association (IIA), a trade group which represents
commercial data vendors, and who opposed the broader
dissemination mandates of the Gateway/WINDO bills.

Why did WINDO sponsor Charlie Rose, who is Chair of the House
Administration Committee, give up so much in the new bill?
Because Congress is about to adjourn, and it is difficult to pass
any controversial legislation at the end of a Congressional
session.  The failure to schedule earlier hearings or markups on
the WINDO legislation (due largely to bitter partisan battles
over the House bank and post office, October Surprise and
campaign financing reform) gave the republican minority on the
committee enormous clout, since they could (and did) threaten to
kill the bill.

Rose deserves credit, however, for being the first member of
congress to give the issue of citizen online access to federal
information systems and databases such high prominence, and his
promise to revisit the question next session is very encouraging.


     PROSPECTS FOR PASSAGE

The new bill has a long way to go.  It must be scheduled for a
floor vote in the House and a vote in the Senate.  The last step
will likely be the most difficult.  In the last few weeks of a
Congressional session, any member of the Senate can put a "hold"
on the bill, preventing it from receiving Senate approval this
year, thus killing the bill until next legislative session.  OMB
and the republican minority on the House Administration Committee
have both signed off on the bill, but commercial data vendors
would still like to kill the bill.  There's a catch, however.

Rose's staff has reportedly told the Information Industry
Association (IIA) that if it kills HR 5983, it will see an even
bolder bill next year.  Since IIA was an active participant in
the negotiations over the compromise bill, any effort to kill the
bill will likely antagonize Rose.  Of course, some observers
think that an individual firm, such as Congressional Quarterly,
may try to kill the bill.  Only time will tell.


     IS THE GLASS HALF EMPTY OR HALF FULL?

Despite the many changes that have weakened the bill, HR 5983 is
still an important step forward for those who want to broaden
public access to federal information systems and databases.  Not
only does the bill require GPO to create three important online
services (the directory, the Congressional Record and the Federal
Register), but it creates a vehicle that can do much more.
Moreover, HR 5983 would provide free online access for 1,400
federal depository libraries, and limit prices for everyone else
to the incremental cost of dissemination.  These pricing rules
are far superior to those used by NTIS, or line agencies like
NLM, who earn substantial profits on the sale of electronic
products and services.

     WHAT YOU CAN DO

Urge your Senators and Representatives to support passage of HR
5983, quickly, before Congress adjourns in October.  All members
of Congress can be reached by telephone at 202/224-3121, or by
mail at the following addresses:

     Senator John Smith            Representative Susan Smith
     US Senate                     US House of Representatives
     Washington, DC  20510         Washington, DC  21515


The most important persons to contact are your own delegation, as
well as Senators George Mitchell (D-ME) and Bob Dole (R-KA).

For more information, contact the American Library Association at
202/547-4440 or the Taxpayer Assets Project at 215-658-0880.  For
a copy of HR 5983 or the original Gateway/WINDO bills, send an
email message to tap@essential.org.

==============================================================
James Love, Director              voice     215/658-0880
Taxpayer Assets Project           fax       call
12 Church Road                    internet  love@essential.org
Ardmore, PA  19003
==============================================================






------



Subject: Re: When/where is Closing the Gap?
From: janina@netcom.com (Janina Sajka)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

Closing the Gap is in Minneapolis at the Radisson South Hotel
October 22-24.  We are expecting the conference schedule on
computer disk in a day or so.  When we get it, we'll release it on
WIDNet for downloading.  Since we don't have ftp at WIDNet (yet),
we'll oblige with copies of the file in mail.  Send your request to
widnet@delphi.com with the line send ctg schedule as the text of
your message.




------






                                ******

                  End of Issue # 2949 of the Handicap Digest

                                ******
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU