Re: Where Are The Best Services/Schools In The State?

[Guest guest]

First you call us " virulent " and NOW you threaten " two or three " pro-

scholarship persons that you will find old messages/posts.

Why the name-calling and threats all of a sudden?

>

> From: Mouser <HYPERLINK

> " mailto:ginaam%40sbcglobal.net " ginaam@...>

> Subject: Re: RE: Where Are The Best

Services/Schools

> In The State?

> To: HYPERLINK

> " mailto:Texas-Autism-Advocacy%40yahoogroups.com " Texas-Autism-

Advocacy@yahoog

> roups.com

> Date: Friday, November 7, 2008, 4:39 PM

>

> ,

>

> I find your comment and description of those of us parents who are

> pro-voucher extremely inappropriate and offensive.

>

>

>

>

> " You're a shining star, no matter who you are.

>

> Shining bright to see, what you can truly be. "

>

> Earth Wind & Fire

>

>

>

>

>

> No virus found in this outgoing message.

> Checked by AVG.

> Version: 7.5.549 / Virus Database: 270.9.0/1773 - Release Date:

11/7/2008

> 9:08 AM

>

>

> No virus found in this outgoing message.

> Checked by AVG.

> Version: 7.5.549 / Virus Database: 270.9.0/1775 - Release Date:

11/8/2008

> 9:56 AM

>

[Guest guest]

I assume we have a mix: anti public school /pro voucher folk, pro public school /pro voucher and anti voucher /pro public school.

What do they all have in common:

They all have a child with autism on different points along the spectrum. They all adore their child. They all want whats best for their child and most days they want what is best for everyone's child with autism.

They all have experienced some insensitive comments along the way about their child, they all have wished they had more money to do more, even the wealthy .

They all wish for social inclusion and acceptance whether it be at public or private school.

Lets focus on sharing the best resources among both public and private schools. Lets focus on supporting those who do not have access to good schools and need another system so we even up the opportunities for all of us. Lets advocate for eachothers children as well as our own who may have better resources.

My email is too long so I won't go into detail suffice to say that a wonderful expensive private school is Joy School in Montrose (I have not attended but know it well). And a wonderful public school for my son's present degree of ASD symptoms is Westside High School in HISD. They call me every week w/new ideas they have thought up to help my son and to check Im ok with them going ahead w/those ideas.

*** Please don't accuse me of wanting us to sing Kumbaya, I just know we have more in common than not.

*** Lets also remember the work people like have done for all our children with autism eg. insurance and look at people's actions because language does not always come across the way we mean especially in emails.

Diane

Subject: Re: Where Are The Best Services/Schools In The State?To: Texas-Autism-Advocacy Date: Friday, November 7, 2008, 3:58 PM

Thanks for clarifying this virulent comment.Calling scholarship supporters "anti-public school" is just likecalling parents who are pro-safe vaccine "anti-vaccine. " It's divisiveand inaccurate. Parents who support educational options for children are notanti-anything except perhaps the gravy train that ultimately feedsprivate law firms with our tax dollars. We believe that money shouldgo to the education of children, not to fund the bottomless no-winTexas system of "litigate your way to FAPE" no parent can possiblyoutmatch.I, for one, support scholarships for all children who need them toaccess an appropriate education in time to actually do them some good,and also support our local public school which we attend and love. Idon't see how that's "anti" anything. > >> > > > > > Someone else

recommended the Dallas metro-plex area, but the VAST > majority> > of the virulent pro-voucher (read anti public school) parents I > know are> > from the Dallas metro-plex area. . .leading me to believe that > there can be> > major problems there too.> > > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Thanks for this clarification, . Scholarship supporters are as

diverse a group as kids on the spectrum - Democrats, Republicans,

Independents, and of all varying religious beliefs and nationalities.

And I would venture to say that most scholarship supporters who may

consider themselves anti-public school, and with good reason, probably

didn't start out that way - especially the parents I know who fully

intended their child stay in public school but were eventually left

with no choice but to remove them when serious issues arose and the

public schools immediately began assembling a defense instead of

collaborating to address the child's needs. Or others who were filed

suit on under IDEA in an attempt to silence, bully them, or run them

off. I know these tactics well.

I still believe that for the most part scholarship supporters are more

" pro-options " than anti-public school, and would be thrilled if their

child could be successfully educated in their local public school.

Most share the goal to get their kids BACK in public school. In fact,

when our district sued our child, after footing the legal bills,

private tuition and all the related services for years ourselves and

pumping huge tax dollars into the school while they funneled them to

the attorneys who were fighting us, we were able to return him to the

same ISD after doing their job for them. The sp ed. coordinator who

was part of the ARD team that sued us was assigned to the new team

three years later for " continuity " and remarked how " brave " we were

and how " commendable " it was to be handing our child back over to the

ISD. (Scare tactics anyone?) I responded that I didn't consider it

commendable at all. We were just accessing the education we were

paying for and they were obligated to provide, and that our child

WOULD be successful there, end of story. Yes, indeed, it would be a

safe assumption we'd be very anti-public school after all of that. And

who could blame us? What a pleasure to prove them wrong!

>

> ,

>

> I find your comment and description of those of us parents who are

pro-voucher extremely inappropriate and offensive.

>

> You can disagree with us but you don't to resort to name-calling.

>

> I looked up the exact meaning of " virulent " , and here is what I

found out.:

>

> 1. Extremely infectious, malignant, or poisonous. Used of a disease

or toxin. Capable of causing disease by breaking down protective

mechanisms of the host. Used of a pathogen.

>

> 2. Bitterly hostile or antagonistic; hateful: virulent criticism.

See synonyms at poisonous. .

>

> 3. Intensely irritating, obnoxious, or harsh.

>

> By the way, you could consider me as anti-public school and am proud

of it. Having come to the states from a socialist country where the

government was in control of all the schools, jobs, businesses, I

never understood how the American public have bought into the idea of

public schooling anyway. That is another topic for another day and

another forum.

>

>

>

> Someone else recommended the Dallas metro-plex area, but the VAST

majority of the virulent pro-voucher (read anti public school) parents

I know are from the Dallas metro-plex area. . .leading me to believe

that there can be major problems there too.

>

[Guest guest]

I also want to praise Liz Scillian and all the Scholarship families

who did NOT gain Scholarships for the 80th Legislative Session, but

gave it all in trying to pass the Senate Bill 1000.

Liz and other families brought forth a wonderful idea to make public

schools compete and to stop the abuse of FOR PROFIT law firms used by

all ISDs in our State. There is no way we can " litigate our way to

FAPE " ... I like my colleague's word choice LOL ... and these law

firms will continue to harm one family after another, debt upon debt

story as they quietly cleanse Special Need families that disagree

with limited or minimal services.

I believe that we should support options and alternatives and empower

parents with the RIGHT and TAXES to go to the school that will help

their Special Need child whether it is public, private or home-school.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Someone else recommended the Dallas metro-plex area, but the

VAST

> > majority

> > > of the virulent pro-voucher (read anti public school) parents I

> > know are

> > > from the Dallas metro-plex area. . .leading me to believe that

> > there can be

> > > major problems there too.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

>

[Guest guest]

I do agree - well said....

Senator said something along the lines of what Ms. Winklema was talking about when she came to meet with some of us in Houston...

He said that the moment parents disagree with appropriate placement, etc. - that parents should then have the option to take their child elsewhere until the matter was settled -- I'm assuming with that scholarship money...

There does need to be a choice.

I think both sides can win here.

1. We DO need to reform the Due Process system - I think Senator got that totally drilled into him at our Town Hall Meeting. He asked for LEGISLATION to be presented to him on that!

2. While the system is being fixed - parents need an option or choice.

I do not see why both of the above cannot be worked on at the same time.

Sincerely,

M. Guppy

M. GuppyMy autism journey isn't about waiting for the storm to pass, it's about learning to dance in the rain.... Texas Autism Advocacy: www.TexasAutismAdvocacy.org

"There are some aspects of a person's life that we have no right to compromise. We cannot negotiate the size of an institution. No one should live in one. We cannot debate who should get an inclusive education. Everyone should. We cannot determine who does and who does not get the right to make their own choices and forge their own futures. All must."

Subject: Re: Where Are The Best Services/Schools In The State?To: Texas-Autism-Advocacy Date: Saturday, November 8, 2008, 5:45 PM

I also want to praise Liz Scillian and all the Scholarship families who did NOT gain Scholarships for the 80th Legislative Session, but gave it all in trying to pass the Senate Bill 1000. Liz and other families brought forth a wonderful idea to make public schools compete and to stop the abuse of FOR PROFIT law firms used by all ISDs in our State. There is no way we can "litigate our way to FAPE" ... I like my colleague's word choice LOL ... and these law firms will continue to harm one family after another, debt upon debt story as they quietly cleanse Special Need families that disagree with limited or minimal services.I believe that we should support options and alternatives and empower parents with the RIGHT and TAXES to go to the school that will help their Special Need child whether it is public, private or home-school.> > >> > > > > > > > > Someone else recommended the Dallas metro-plex area, but the VAST > > majority> > > of the virulent pro-voucher (read anti public school) parents I > > know are> > > from the Dallas metro-plex area. . .leading me to believe that > > there can be> > > major

problems there too.> > > > > > > > > > > >>

[Guest guest]

Magnet schools could help address these issues in the public

setting. On private placement, I think this whole arguement goes

away (for at least 99% of the combatants) if vouchers had the

following parameters:

1. They're funded from a source other than existing school funds. I

think the biggest concern that anti-voucher folks have is the

reduction of already low education funds to support the vouchers.

Have them supported by another means, and the idea may gain more

traction.

2. Have them available to all special education students.

3. A way for low income families to take advantage of them, without

having to take on the burden of covering the gap between voucher

value and private school tuition.

Changing topics, did Sentator offer any plans to reduce the

Medicaid-waiver waiting lists in Texas?

Thanks - Clay

>

> I do agree - well said....

>  

> Senator said something along the lines of what Ms.

Winklema was talking about when she came to meet with some of us in

Houston...

>  

> He said that the moment parents disagree with appropriate

placement, etc. - that parents should then have the option to take

their child elsewhere until the matter was settled -- I'm assuming

with that scholarship money...

>  

> There does need to be a choice.

>  

> I think both sides can win here. 

>  

> 1.  We DO need to reform the Due Process system - I think Senator

got that totally drilled into him at our Town Hall Meeting. 

He asked for LEGISLATION to be presented to him on that!

>  

> 2.  While the system is being fixed - parents need an option or

choice.

>  

> I do not see why both of the above cannot be worked on at the same

time.

>  

>  

> Sincerely,

> M. Guppy

>

[Guest guest]

I couldn't agree further with mom2boysplano, after personally battling my ISD,

who has

" DEEP " pockets, they eventually bled us dry financially. The only way to

resolve the strong

arm of the Deep pocket ISD's and their money hungry attorney's who teach them to

fight

parents for services day 1, is to have healthy competition with the public

school district. It

makes perfect sense to me. Corporate America is protected by Anti-Trust Laws so

that this

cannot happen in business , why should it be any different for parents of

special need

children. It should be our choices. The competition will have a HUGE impact on

these for ISD

Attorney profits,. It will be a personal choice like everything else each

family makes.

[Guest guest]

,

You are not alone and this goes on in every ISD. All ISDs use FOR

PROFIT law firms to force Special Need families to give up and

quietly be cleansed from public schools. I am not trying to pick on

an ISD, but here is a couple examples of ISDs who are using taxpayer

money to crush Special Need families.

http://tinyurl.com/5zexny

ISD

http://tinyurl.com/5d6rp7

El Paso ISD Thanksgiving billings

Truly, this is going on all over Texas and it is shameful. These FOR

PROFIT law firms get paid by ISDs with our taxes and then crush

families legally with debt and denial of services.

How could it be any more repressive for Special Need families when

this system exists?

Mark

>

> I couldn't agree further with mom2boysplano, after personally

battling my ISD, who has

> " DEEP " pockets, they eventually bled us dry financially. The only

way to resolve the strong

> arm of the Deep pocket ISD's and their money hungry attorney's who

teach them to fight

> parents for services day 1, is to have healthy competition with the

public school district. It

> makes perfect sense to me. Corporate America is protected by Anti-

Trust Laws so that this

> cannot happen in business , why should it be any different for

parents of special need

> children. It should be our choices. The competition will have a

HUGE impact on these for ISD

> Attorney profits,. It will be a personal choice like everything

else each family makes.

>

[Guest guest]

Isn't that Texas School Watch website supposed to be one where those situations are highlighted?

What school districts are spending to fight against FAPE?

I think making all those situations very public is a good thing. That is one thing Senator agreed with as well -- making that cost/benefit analysis public knowledge.

Everyone should be sending that information to Texas School Watch.

M. GuppyMy autism journey isn't about waiting for the storm to pass, it's about learning to dance in the rain.... Texas Autism Advocacy: www.TexasAutismAdvocacy.org

"There are some aspects of a person's life that we have no right to compromise. We cannot negotiate the size of an institution. No one should live in one. We cannot debate who should get an inclusive education. Everyone should. We cannot determine who does and who does not get the right to make their own choices and forge their own futures. All must."

Subject: Re: Where Are The Best Services/Schools In The State?To: Texas-Autism-Advocacy Date: Sunday, November 9, 2008, 6:03 PM

,You are not alone and this goes on in every ISD. All ISDs use FOR PROFIT law firms to force Special Need families to give up and quietly be cleansed from public schools. I am not trying to pick on an ISD, but here is a couple examples of ISDs who are using taxpayer money to crush Special Need families.http://tinyurl. com/5zexny ISDhttp://tinyurl. com/5d6rp7El Paso ISD Thanksgiving billingsTruly, this is going on all over Texas and it is shameful. These FOR PROFIT law firms get paid by ISDs with our taxes and then crush families legally with debt and denial of services.How could it be any more repressive for Special Need families when this system exists?Mark>> I couldn't agree further with mom2boysplano, after personally battling my ISD, who has > "DEEP" pockets, they eventually bled us dry financially. The only way to resolve the strong > arm of the Deep pocket ISD's and their money hungry attorney's who teach them to fight > parents for services day 1, is to have healthy competition with the public school district. It > makes perfect sense to me. Corporate America is protected by Anti-Trust Laws so that this > cannot happen in business , why should it be any different for parents of special need > children. It should be our choices. The competition will have a HUGE impact on these for ISD > Attorney profits,. It will be a personal choice like

everything else each family makes.>

[Guest guest]

These are some great ideas. I have some thoughts about them as well.

1. I would be very interested to hear some proposals for alternate

funding sources other than existing school funds. Have any sources

been identified or recommended by any of our disability organizations

or advocacy agencies that fought this legislation last session? That

would be a great starting point for them before taking an active

position against this kind of legislation, as some of them did last

session.

2. It's unclear how the argument would go away if MORE vouchers are

proposed to be funded when 99.9% of the arguments opposing this kind

of program cites " draining already underfunded public schools " as the

primary reason to oppose. More scholarships represents more loss of

funds if you go with that argument.

This argument just doesn't hold up since this kind of program is

structured as a zero fiscal impact proposal. As one child exits it

SHOULD result in that much less of a financial cost to that school (a

financial wash.) The real problem is that the reality of our public

education system relies on a parasitic model for sp ed. funding and

services distribution, as Gene Lenz with the TEA explained at the last

hearing on this topic. He testified that the real concern wiht

scholarships is the need for the ISD's to retain the kids to whom the

ISD's allocate less resources than they draw in state and federal

funds in order to offset the cost of the children who are given more

resources than their funding covers. But where does that leave the

children whose needs are being underserved? And how do you get parents

to accept the premise that their child and their family's personal

financial contribution must be trapped in a system that is " using "

them at the cost of that very child's future?

This is a true civil rights issue. Just as children learning ESL need

to be competent in English to gain an educational benefit from an

English taught curriculum, children with autism need their

deficiencies addressed to enable them the full educational benefit

they can derive without threats or the singular " remedy " outlet of

costly and exhausting litigation.

3. Low income families have access to Medicaid that often allows them

to supplement inadequate services in public schools. Coupled with a

scholarship offer if needed, they might be able to fully fund a better

program than middle-income families can with costly and ultra

high-deductible insurance plans that provide NOTHING towards autism

treatments, which is still the grim reality post HB 1919 for the vast

majority of families.

It would be very interesting to find out how the ESL program was

funded, which guarantees year round educational services to any

pre-school child in Texas if another language other than English is

the primary language in the home. Perhaps the ARC can look into how

this was accomplished and apply some of those funding solutions to a

proposal they could support and partner with us on. It would be a

terrible disservice to the autism community to oppose a program that

offers much needed and necessary hope to so many by imposing

conditions that are completely impracticable. This is a great

opportunity for organizations of this type to work towards a solution

by offering ways to achieve a bill that would meet these ideals

instead of allowing them to simply serve as roadblocks.

>

> Magnet schools could help address these issues in the public

> setting. On private placement, I think this whole arguement goes

> away (for at least 99% of the combatants) if vouchers had the

> following parameters:

>

> 1. They're funded from a source other than existing school funds. I

> think the biggest concern that anti-voucher folks have is the

> reduction of already low education funds to support the vouchers.

> Have them supported by another means, and the idea may gain more

> traction.

>

> 2. Have them available to all special education students.

>

> 3. A way for low income families to take advantage of them, without

> having to take on the burden of covering the gap between voucher

> value and private school tuition.

>

> Changing topics, did Sentator offer any plans to reduce the

> Medicaid-waiver waiting lists in Texas?

>

> Thanks - Clay

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

99.9% goes away ... then why does not the ARC and Raise Your Hands

and other lobbyist groups provide solutions like you suggest.

What is the hold-up?

> >

> > I do agree - well said....

> >  

> > Senator said something along the lines of what Ms.

> Winklema was talking about when she came to meet with some of us in

> Houston...

> >  

> > He said that the moment parents disagree with appropriate

> placement, etc. - that parents should then have the option to take

> their child elsewhere until the matter was settled -- I'm assuming

> with that scholarship money...

> >  

> > There does need to be a choice.

> >  

> > I think both sides can win here. 

> >  

> > 1.  We DO need to reform the Due Process system - I think Senator

> got that totally drilled into him at our Town Hall

Meeting. 

> He asked for LEGISLATION to be presented to him on that!

> >  

> > 2.  While the system is being fixed - parents need an option or

> choice.

> >  

> > I do not see why both of the above cannot be worked on at the

same

> time.

> >  

> >  

> > Sincerely,

> > M. Guppy

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Governor and the legislators have a surplus in the budget

(I believe it is in the billions), maybe it's a good idea to write

senator Sahpiro and governor letters requesting the use of this

money to fund an alternate autism education program rather than using

it for property tax reduction as planed.

In comparison to many other states who put education first and spend

triple and quadruple what Texas spends on special needs children

(like Massachusetts for example), Texas is almost dead last. We are

not a state that values education, never mind special needs

education. The reality is if vouchers are passed, there will no

longer be any more special education reform in Texas. The answer to

all requests for betterment will be use the voucher system, what else

do you need.

3. Private choice is available in HCS and CLASS programs,

unfortunately many for profit providers having to stay in buisness

and make a profit, along with poor rates make it so that these

programs are useless and riddled with abuse in group homes

etc..Accountability is lacking and meaningful services are rare.

How will private choice in education be any different?

If you are a family that can pay $60,000 a year for a home ABA

program or an excellent private program, you can use the voucher to

defray a small amount of your cost and supplement the rest to make

sure your child gets what they need. I don't think medicare will

defray the cost for poor families. Medicare doesn't pay 50,000 a year

towards education or ABA therapy.

Decent private schools cost at least 25,000 to 30,000 a year, let's

say the vouchers pay for even half of that (which I don't think it

would) families able to pay the remainder will be able to use the

voucher, while most other families will not.

You're right it is a civil rights issue, the issue of making sure all

children with disabilities (not just autism) can access free, decent,

and available public education. Not just people who can afford to

supplement a voucher, or people who live in metropolitan area where

there are some private schools and ABA providers,or people who can

transport their child to and from school (public schools have special

ed transportion for free and many single and married working parents

depend on that to transport their child so they can be at work on

time and keep their jobs). There is also a subset of children with

such high behavioral, medical and toileting needs that will not have

a choice since I am not aware of any private schools that accept

these children.

I think that if we all join together and advocate for accountability,

reform in TEA policies and due process we can improve public

education for all special needs children rather than just the small

percentage that would be able to use the vouchers.

Nagla

> >

> > Magnet schools could help address these issues in the public

> > setting. On private placement, I think this whole arguement goes

> > away (for at least 99% of the combatants) if vouchers had the

> > following parameters:

> >

> > 1. They're funded from a source other than existing school

funds. I

> > think the biggest concern that anti-voucher folks have is the

> > reduction of already low education funds to support the

vouchers.

> > Have them supported by another means, and the idea may gain more

> > traction.

> >

> > 2. Have them available to all special education students.

> >

> > 3. A way for low income families to take advantage of them,

without

> > having to take on the burden of covering the gap between voucher

> > value and private school tuition.

> >

> > Changing topics, did Sentator offer any plans to reduce

the

> > Medicaid-waiver waiting lists in Texas?

> >

> > Thanks - Clay

> >

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

ok, how should I start? Where do I send my letter?

I really want to do something about this...please,

rosie

>

> Subject: Re: Where Are The Best Services/Schools In

The State?

> To: Texas-Autism-Advocacy

> Date: Monday, November 10, 2008, 10:49 AM

> Governor and the legislators have a surplus in the

> budget

> (I believe it is in the billions), maybe it's a good

> idea to write

> senator Sahpiro and governor letters requesting the

> use of this

> money to fund an alternate autism education program rather

> than using

> it for property tax reduction as planed.

>

> In comparison to many other states who put education first

> and spend

> triple and quadruple what Texas spends on special needs

> children

> (like Massachusetts for example), Texas is almost dead

> last. We are

> not a state that values education, never mind special needs

>

> education. The reality is if vouchers are passed, there

> will no

> longer be any more special education reform in Texas. The

> answer to

> all requests for betterment will be use the voucher system,

> what else

> do you need.

>

> 3. Private choice is available in HCS and CLASS programs,

> unfortunately many for profit providers having to stay in

> buisness

> and make a profit, along with poor rates make it so that

> these

> programs are useless and riddled with abuse in group homes

> etc..Accountability is lacking and meaningful services are

> rare.

> How will private choice in education be any different?

> If you are a family that can pay $60,000 a year for a home

> ABA

> program or an excellent private program, you can use the

> voucher to

> defray a small amount of your cost and supplement the rest

> to make

> sure your child gets what they need. I don't think

> medicare will

> defray the cost for poor families. Medicare doesn't pay

> 50,000 a year

> towards education or ABA therapy.

> Decent private schools cost at least 25,000 to 30,000 a

> year, let's

> say the vouchers pay for even half of that (which I

> don't think it

> would) families able to pay the remainder will be able to

> use the

> voucher, while most other families will not.

>

> You're right it is a civil rights issue, the issue of

> making sure all

> children with disabilities (not just autism) can access

> free, decent,

> and available public education. Not just people who can

> afford to

> supplement a voucher, or people who live in metropolitan

> area where

> there are some private schools and ABA providers,or people

> who can

> transport their child to and from school (public schools

> have special

> ed transportion for free and many single and married

> working parents

> depend on that to transport their child so they can be at

> work on

> time and keep their jobs). There is also a subset of

> children with

> such high behavioral, medical and toileting needs that will

> not have

> a choice since I am not aware of any private schools that

> accept

> these children.

>

> I think that if we all join together and advocate for

> accountability,

> reform in TEA policies and due process we can improve

> public

> education for all special needs children rather than just

> the small

> percentage that would be able to use the vouchers.

>

> Nagla

>

>

>

>

>

> > >

> > > Magnet schools could help address these issues in

> the public

> > > setting. On private placement, I think this

> whole arguement goes

> > > away (for at least 99% of the combatants) if

> vouchers had the

> > > following parameters:

> > >

> > > 1. They're funded from a source other than

> existing school

> funds. I

> > > think the biggest concern that anti-voucher folks

> have is the

> > > reduction of already low education funds to

> support the

> vouchers.

> > > Have them supported by another means, and the

> idea may gain more

> > > traction.

> > >

> > > 2. Have them available to all special education

> students.

> > >

> > > 3. A way for low income families to take

> advantage of them,

> without

> > > having to take on the burden of covering the gap

> between voucher

> > > value and private school tuition.

> > >

> > > Changing topics, did Sentator offer any

> plans to reduce

> the

> > > Medicaid-waiver waiting lists in Texas?

> > >

> > > Thanks - Clay

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

[Guest guest]

Governor :

Office of the Governor

P.O. Box 12428

Austin, Texas 78711-2428

http://governor.state.tx.us/

Senator Shapiro:

1400 Congress Ave # 1E 3

Austin, TX 78701

http://www.senate.state.tx.us/75r/senate/members/dist8/dist8.htm

> > > >

> > > > Magnet schools could help address these issues in

> > the public

> > > > setting. On private placement, I think this

> > whole arguement goes

> > > > away (for at least 99% of the combatants) if

> > vouchers had the

> > > > following parameters:

> > > >

> > > > 1. They're funded from a source other than

> > existing school

> > funds. I

> > > > think the biggest concern that anti-voucher folks

> > have is the

> > > > reduction of already low education funds to

> > support the

> > vouchers.

> > > > Have them supported by another means, and the

> > idea may gain more

> > > > traction.

> > > >

> > > > 2. Have them available to all special education

> > students.

> > > >

> > > > 3. A way for low income families to take

> > advantage of them,

> > without

> > > > having to take on the burden of covering the gap

> > between voucher

> > > > value and private school tuition.

> > > >

> > > > Changing topics, did Sentator offer any

> > plans to reduce

> > the

> > > > Medicaid-waiver waiting lists in Texas?

> > > >

> > > > Thanks - Clay

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

>

[Guest guest]

> Governor and the legislators have a surplus in the budget

> (I believe it is in the billions), maybe it's a good idea to write

> senator Sahpiro and governor letters requesting the use of this

> money to fund an alternate autism education program rather than using

> it for property tax reduction as planed.

>

> In comparison to many other states who put education first and spend

> triple and quadruple what Texas spends on special needs children

> (like Massachusetts for example), Texas is almost dead last. We are

> not a state that values education, never mind special needs

> education. The reality is if vouchers are passed, there will no

> longer be any more special education reform in Texas. The answer to

> all requests for betterment will be use the voucher system, what else

> do you need.

>

Oh..but I disagree....why not property-tax deduction? If there is a surplus

then that means we were over-taxed!

I think the money could come from re-allocating funds and prioritizing

what's important...let's get rid of the fancy football stadiums for

example...why is that a priority? How about all the money spent hiring

flashy law-firms?..

> 3. Private choice is available in HCS and CLASS programs,

> unfortunately many for profit providers having to stay in buisness

> and make a profit, along with poor rates make it so that these

> programs are useless and riddled with abuse in group homes

> etc..Accountability is lacking and meaningful services are rare.

I am not sure I understand your point here but what private choice? There

is a very limited number of agencies to choose from. and decent ones...even

less. In our case, there is one CLASS CDS that we have not tried yet. We

need to get rid of these agencies and let the parents manage their own CLASS

money.

> How will private choice in education be any different?

I will not debate here about the vouchers as I don't know all the

information re: the money to be allocated to the voucher system vs. the

school cost and therapy cost but I know one thing and that is the parents

(and not ARD committee) should be the ones deciding what is best for their

child, especially if they are paying taxes...

[Guest guest]

It seems you can express " How it is NOT going to work " , but can't

provide solutions IMO. Are we supposed to " litigate our way to

FAPE " ?

We are waiting for solutions from the ARC and other lobbyist groups

that protect TEA's money. It seems there is a focus on DENYING

OPTIONS and DENYING FUNDS for individual Special Need families. It

seems that it is okay FOR PROFIT law firms to receive payments, but

not Special Need families. I think that is terrible and the system

should be reformed. How much money is going to these law firm snakes?

At the same time, there are families, yes individual families, that

are going into debt, being litigated against by FOR PROFIT law firms

and you can only suggest throwing more money into the same system.

Many families are quietly leaving public schools, that is they

homeschool or pay private tuition (paying twice - once taxes and then

tuition).

I would argue that allowing legal firms to attack our families year

after year shows that this system is repressive and flawed.

I don't want even ONE family to be attacked by law firms, but this

seems to escape your argument for denying Scholarships.

If there are solutions, then you should present them. We did NOT

get scholarships last legislative session and yet I hope we get more

than we did last session. Scholarships would have stopped this

repressive system. Instead we watch more families receiving the

same silent treatment - litigate, force them out, quietly deny wrong-

doing.

Throwing monkey wrenches into parent initiatives and solutions sure

does NOT help us. Why don't the lobbyists do more to help our

families? Are they seeking to protect something else instead of

really creating change?

> > >

> > > Magnet schools could help address these issues in the public

> > > setting. On private placement, I think this whole arguement

goes

> > > away (for at least 99% of the combatants) if vouchers had the

> > > following parameters:

> > >

> > > 1. They're funded from a source other than existing school

> funds. I

> > > think the biggest concern that anti-voucher folks have is the

> > > reduction of already low education funds to support the

> vouchers.

> > > Have them supported by another means, and the idea may gain

more

> > > traction.

> > >

> > > 2. Have them available to all special education students.

> > >

> > > 3. A way for low income families to take advantage of them,

> without

> > > having to take on the burden of covering the gap between

voucher

> > > value and private school tuition.

> > >

> > > Changing topics, did Sentator offer any plans to reduce

> the

> > > Medicaid-waiver waiting lists in Texas?

> > >

> > > Thanks - Clay

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

"Why don't the lobbyists do more to help our families? "

One thing Senator told me is that we need to have our own Lobbyist or organized group to have someone in Austin.

Non-profit groups cannot do that really - they are limited by their status.

You business minded people and legal people on the list.... what would it take to make Texas Autism Advocacy -- the website --- a PAC or similiar type group where we can have memberships or donations or whatever - to fund paying for someone in Austin?

Texas Autism Advocacy.org and .net are owned by me, and neither is a non-profit.

So - what could we do to be able to get memberships or financial support from all in Texas - toward paying someone something to be in Austin hounding the Legislature about our issues....

Sincerely,

M. Guppy

M. GuppyMy autism journey isn't about waiting for the storm to pass, it's about learning to dance in the rain.... Texas Autism Advocacy: www.TexasAutismAdvocacy.org

"There are some aspects of a person's life that we have no right to compromise. We cannot negotiate the size of an institution. No one should live in one. We cannot debate who should get an inclusive education. Everyone should. We cannot determine who does and who does not get the right to make their own choices and forge their own futures. All must."

Subject: Re: Where Are The Best Services/Schools In The State?To: Texas-Autism-Advocacy Date: Monday, November 10, 2008, 12:04 PM

It seems you can express "How it is NOT going to work", but can't provide solutions IMO. Are we supposed to "litigate our way to FAPE"? We are waiting for solutions from the ARC and other lobbyist groups that protect TEA's money. It seems there is a focus on DENYING OPTIONS and DENYING FUNDS for individual Special Need families. It seems that it is okay FOR PROFIT law firms to receive payments, but not Special Need families. I think that is terrible and the system should be reformed. How much money is going to these law firm snakes?At the same time, there are families, yes individual families, that are going into debt, being litigated against by FOR PROFIT law firms and you can only suggest throwing more money into the same system. Many families are quietly leaving public schools, that is they homeschool or pay private tuition (paying twice - once taxes and then tuition).I would

argue that allowing legal firms to attack our families year after year shows that this system is repressive and flawed.I don't want even ONE family to be attacked by law firms, but this seems to escape your argument for denying Scholarships.If there are solutions, then you should present them. We did NOT get scholarships last legislative session and yet I hope we get more than we did last session. Scholarships would have stopped this repressive system. Instead we watch more families receiving the same silent treatment - litigate, force them out, quietly deny wrong-doing.Throwing monkey wrenches into parent initiatives and solutions sure does NOT help us. Why don't the lobbyists do more to help our families? Are they seeking to protect something else instead of really creating change?> > >> > > Magnet schools could help address these issues in the public > > > setting. On private placement, I think this whole arguement goes > > > away (for at least 99% of the combatants) if vouchers had the > > > following

parameters:> > > > > > 1. They're funded from a source other than existing school > funds. I > > > think the biggest concern that anti-voucher folks have is the > > > reduction of already low education funds to support the > vouchers. > > > Have them supported by another means, and the idea may gain more > > > traction.> > > > > > 2. Have them available to all special education students.> > > > > > 3. A way for low income families to take advantage of them, > without > > > having to take on the burden of covering the gap between voucher > > > value and private school tuition.> > > > > > Changing topics, did Sentator offer any plans to reduce > the > > > Medicaid-waiver waiting lists in Texas?> > > >

> > Thanks - Clay> > > > > > > > >> >>

[Guest guest]

If the 'solution' means vouchers,it's not a viable solution for many

families with children with special needs. Only a very small

percentage of families.

Other solutions have been provided at the last senate educate

committee hearing, I believe the transcript is available on this list

archives.

Solutions included moving due process to SOAH rather than TEA,

holding TEA accountable for better oversight of schools that have

complaints filed against them, mandating appropriate and meaningful

teacher training, providing appropriate parent training in IDEA law,

providing laisons between schools and parents, employing ARD

facilitators when conflicts arise etc.....

We just need parents who want to see public school education

improvements for all special needs children to unite and advocate and

get behind these solutions with the senate education committee.

Respectfully,

Nagla

> > > >

> > > > Magnet schools could help address these issues in the public

> > > > setting. On private placement, I think this whole arguement

> goes

> > > > away (for at least 99% of the combatants) if vouchers had the

> > > > following parameters:

> > > >

> > > > 1. They're funded from a source other than existing school

> > funds. I

> > > > think the biggest concern that anti-voucher folks have is the

> > > > reduction of already low education funds to support the

> > vouchers.

> > > > Have them supported by another means, and the idea may gain

> more

> > > > traction.

> > > >

> > > > 2. Have them available to all special education students.

> > > >

> > > > 3. A way for low income families to take advantage of them,

> > without

> > > > having to take on the burden of covering the gap between

> voucher

> > > > value and private school tuition.

> > > >

> > > > Changing topics, did Sentator offer any plans to

reduce

> > the

> > > > Medicaid-waiver waiting lists in Texas?

> > > >

> > > > Thanks - Clay

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

You are absolutely correct, non-profits cannot legally lobby or hire

a lobbyst.

Nagla

> > > >

> > > > Magnet schools could help address these issues in the public

> > > > setting. On private placement, I think this whole arguement

> goes

> > > > away (for at least 99% of the combatants) if vouchers had the

> > > > following parameters:

> > > >

> > > > 1. They're funded from a source other than existing school

> > funds. I

> > > > think the biggest concern that anti-voucher folks have is the

> > > > reduction of already low education funds to support the

> > vouchers.

> > > > Have them supported by another means, and the idea may gain

> more

> > > > traction.

> > > >

> > > > 2. Have them available to all special education students.

> > > >

> > > > 3. A way for low income families to take advantage of them,

> > without

> > > > having to take on the burden of covering the gap between

> voucher

> > > > value and private school tuition.

> > > >

> > > > Changing topics, did Sentator offer any plans to

reduce

> > the

> > > > Medicaid-waiver waiting lists in Texas?

> > > >

> > > > Thanks - Clay

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Senator was for all those ideas -- moving Due Process independently, mandating a cost/benefit analysis in Due Process situations..

And he asked for parents to give him proposed legislation.

He asked TOPAA to do that - because Louis Geigerman's testimony was about Due Process, Hearing Officers, etc.

He asked for Legislation to present.... If we could get someone to him that we all agree on, that he would pass it through his channels for legal wording, etc -- and propose that legislation......

He even said perhaps "voucher" is not a good word - but definately something that when a parent is in a stalemate with the school - that there is another option for them.......or rather for the student....

We'll hopefully have the video of his remarks up on a website soon....

M. GuppyMy autism journey isn't about waiting for the storm to pass, it's about learning to dance in the rain.... Texas Autism Advocacy: www.TexasAutismAdvocacy.org

"There are some aspects of a person's life that we have no right to compromise. We cannot negotiate the size of an institution. No one should live in one. We cannot debate who should get an inclusive education. Everyone should. We cannot determine who does and who does not get the right to make their own choices and forge their own futures. All must."

Subject: Re: Where Are The Best Services/Schools In The State?To: Texas-Autism-Advocacy Date: Monday, November 10, 2008, 12:30 PM

If the 'solution' means vouchers,it' s not a viable solution for many families with children with special needs. Only a very small percentage of families. Other solutions have been provided at the last senate educate committee hearing, I believe the transcript is available on this list archives.Solutions included moving due process to SOAH rather than TEA, holding TEA accountable for better oversight of schools that have complaints filed against them, mandating appropriate and meaningful teacher training, providing appropriate parent training in IDEA law, providing laisons between schools and parents, employing ARD facilitators when conflicts arise etc..... We just need parents who want to see public school education improvements for all special needs children to unite and advocate and get behind these solutions with the senate education committee.Respectfully,Nagla > > > >> > > > Magnet schools could help address these issues in the public > > > > setting. On private placement, I think this whole arguement > goes > > > > away (for at least 99% of the combatants) if vouchers had the > > > > following parameters:> > > > > > > > 1. They're funded from a source other than existing school > > funds. I > > > > think the biggest concern that anti-voucher folks have is the > > > > reduction of already low education funds to support the > > vouchers. > > > > Have them supported by another means, and the idea may gain > more > > >

> traction.> > > > > > > > 2. Have them available to all special education students.> > > > > > > > 3. A way for low income families to take advantage of them, > > without > > > > having to take on the burden of covering the gap between > voucher > > > > value and private school tuition.> > > > > > > > Changing topics, did Sentator offer any plans to reduce > > the > > > > Medicaid-waiver waiting lists in Texas?> > > > > > > > Thanks - Clay> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> >>

[Guest guest]

If we can get public schools to consistently(across the state)to

actually follow IDEA mandates like for example private placement

option if FAPE is not being provided, to look at what the law says in

terms preparing the students for independent living as much as

possible after high school, and to take that into account that would

solve a lot of problems.

Nagla

> > > > >

> > > > > Magnet schools could help address these issues in the

public

> > > > > setting. On private placement, I think this whole arguement

> > goes

> > > > > away (for at least 99% of the combatants) if vouchers had

the

> > > > > following parameters:

> > > > >

> > > > > 1. They're funded from a source other than existing school

> > > funds. I

> > > > > think the biggest concern that anti-voucher folks have is

the

> > > > > reduction of already low education funds to support the

> > > vouchers.

> > > > > Have them supported by another means, and the idea may gain

> > more

> > > > > traction.

> > > > >

> > > > > 2. Have them available to all special education students.

> > > > >

> > > > > 3. A way for low income families to take advantage of them,

> > > without

> > > > > having to take on the burden of covering the gap between

> > voucher

> > > > > value and private school tuition.

> > > > >

> > > > > Changing topics, did Sentator offer any plans to

> reduce

> > > the

> > > > > Medicaid-waiver waiting lists in Texas?

> > > > >

> > > > > Thanks - Clay

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

" The reality is if vouchers are passed, there will no

longer be any more special education reform in Texas. The

answer to all requests for betterment will be use the voucher system,

what else do you need. "

This is not anywhere close to reality. All one needs to do is to ask

parents in states that offer scholarships for special needs students.

Ask Sandee Winkelman, who has two children under an IEP - one who can

access the Ohio scholarship program, and one who cannot due to ongoing

litigation. She has not had a SINGLE problem in gaining collaboration

with the same ISD and board for her son who can elect a scholarship.

The other child they continue to fight her tooth and nail to the point

of losing their home, BECAUSE THEY CAN. Why are these kind of scare

tactics repeatedly relied upon to allow school districts to maintain

complete control despite all the evidence to the contrary?

I think most agree that scholarships should be available to all

children with special needs who need them. These other successful

scholarship programs started small and then were expanded once all

this rhetoric was proven to be nothing more than rhetoric.

Continuously criticizing a small bill to aim for perfection is not

productive. Things must be accomplished in small steps and have to

start somewhere, instead of trying to let perfect stand in the way of

progress.

Due process reform seems like a great idea. Putting lipstick on a pig

by moving the venue for litigation and allowing more time to raise

claims, doesn't solve the problem that no parent should be forced to

litigation for FAPE. It's like replacing a death sentence with an

option for life in prison. Due process should not be necessary in the

first place. It's a lose-lose, and I speak from experience on this

based on our experience and the many other families I know who have

been through it in this state.

And scholarships are not an issue of property tax reduction. Parents

who pay taxes will be paying their taxes no matter what. It is a

matter of those education dollars being accessed for their own child.

When children are forced out of schools by renegade adminsitrations

abusing their power and ignoring IDEA with NO INCENTIVE TO KEEP THEM,

no amount of teacher training, parent legal training, liaisons,

ombudspersons, will prevent this. It is NOT a training issue or an

advocacy skills issue.

" If we can get public schools to consistently(across the state)to

actually follow IDEA mandates like for example private placement

option if FAPE is not being provided, to look at what the law says in

terms preparing the students for independent living as much as

possible after high school, and to take that into account that would

solve a lot of problems. "

The TEA and our ISD's are well aware of the law. Their partner law

firms make sure they know how to get around these laws. I recently

conducted an information request of private placements over the last

five years in Texas under IDEA. Do you know what came back? Not a

single placement other than disciplinary ones. Not one.

I don't think anyone cares where the money comes from to fund

solutions and options for parents. If it can be outsourced, that's

great. But scholarships are the one way that IDEA compliance may start

to happen in a state like this - by leveling the playing field and

giving parents an ACTUAL voice in the process, as already required

under IDEA. It is an enforcement mechanism of the IDEA, since due

process is not working, and the other current safeguards under IDEA

such as the IEE are being ignored by our ISD's and the TEA. Otherwise,

it will continue to be all smoke and mirrors and illusions of

compliance, with the locked in resources all at the discretion of our

ISD's and the TEA. They have abused this power and proven themselves

untrustworthy. Why should they get to continue to play with children's

lives with a track record like that?

Let them work to earn our trust back and the privilege to education

these children - not have them delivered on a silver platter in the

form of mandated income rationing. And let it happen in time to help

this generation of kids, while the system is improved for all, just as

Sandee has experienced in Ohio, and NY and MASS. has seen in their

public programs since they actually provide private placements in

accordance with IDEA.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Magnet schools could help address these issues in the

> public

> > > > > > setting. On private placement, I think this whole arguement

> > > goes

> > > > > > away (for at least 99% of the combatants) if vouchers had

> the

> > > > > > following parameters:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 1. They're funded from a source other than existing school

> > > > funds. I

> > > > > > think the biggest concern that anti-voucher folks have is

> the

> > > > > > reduction of already low education funds to support the

> > > > vouchers.

> > > > > > Have them supported by another means, and the idea may gain

> > > more

> > > > > > traction.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 2. Have them available to all special education students.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 3. A way for low income families to take advantage of them,

> > > > without

> > > > > > having to take on the burden of covering the gap between

> > > voucher

> > > > > > value and private school tuition.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Changing topics, did Sentator offer any plans to

> > reduce

> > > > the

> > > > > > Medicaid-waiver waiting lists in Texas?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Thanks - Clay

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Yep, it is quite obvious ... anything but provide MONEY, FUNDS, AND

OPTIONS to escape a brutal, denial of services for individual

families. You are very selective in your word choice if you ask me.

I doubt the ARC and this coalition wants to derail the gravy train.

You are advocating keeping it the same, MINIMIZE the damage to

individual families, but year after year your suggestions won't

reform the system.

You are allowing families to be beat down quietly, even though they

believe that the environment that their child is in is harming and

denying them better options/services. There is no way we

can " litigate our way to FAPE " .

The real issue seems to be the protection of the system IMO. This

system allows FOR PROFIT legal firms unlimited access to our taxes.

I say the system should be reformed and defeated with the help of our

legislators this session.

I think your suggestions are just putting lipstick on a pig. The

legal firms will CONTINUE THEIR BILLINGS and individual families will

suffer.

> > > > >

> > > > > Magnet schools could help address these issues in the

public

> > > > > setting. On private placement, I think this whole

arguement

> > goes

> > > > > away (for at least 99% of the combatants) if vouchers had

the

> > > > > following parameters:

> > > > >

> > > > > 1. They're funded from a source other than existing school

> > > funds. I

> > > > > think the biggest concern that anti-voucher folks have is

the

> > > > > reduction of already low education funds to support the

> > > vouchers.

> > > > > Have them supported by another means, and the idea may gain

> > more

> > > > > traction.

> > > > >

> > > > > 2. Have them available to all special education students.

> > > > >

> > > > > 3. A way for low income families to take advantage of them,

> > > without

> > > > > having to take on the burden of covering the gap between

> > voucher

> > > > > value and private school tuition.

> > > > >

> > > > > Changing topics, did Sentator offer any plans to

> reduce

> > > the

> > > > > Medicaid-waiver waiting lists in Texas?

> > > > >

> > > > > Thanks - Clay

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

" I doubt if the Arc and this coalition wants to derail the gravy

train? " ...I have no idea what that means.

The Arc of Texas did host a series of meetings with a variety of

groups interested in special education. The need for open

disclosure of legal fees paid to private attorneys was one of the

key areas highlighted for the next session. Several pro-voucher

advocates were asked to participate; some did and some chose not

to. That's certainly their perogative.

You mentioned Raise Your Hand Texas in an earler post. They awarded

Senator Shapiro an outstanding legislator award for her work in the

last session. So are they friend or foe?

Relating to the posts on non-profit lobbying...true, non-profits can

not hire professional lobbyiests, but their own employees can

certainly lobby on behalf of their constituients.

- Clay

>

> Yep, it is quite obvious ... anything but provide MONEY, FUNDS,

AND

> OPTIONS to escape a brutal, denial of services for individual

> families. You are very selective in your word choice if you ask

me.

> I doubt the ARC and this coalition wants to derail the gravy

train.

> You are advocating keeping it the same, MINIMIZE the damage to

> individual families, but year after year your suggestions won't

> reform the system.

>

> You are allowing families to be beat down quietly, even though

they

> believe that the environment that their child is in is harming and

> denying them better options/services. There is no way we

> can " litigate our way to FAPE " .

>

> The real issue seems to be the protection of the system IMO.

This

> system allows FOR PROFIT legal firms unlimited access to our taxes.

> I say the system should be reformed and defeated with the help of

our

> legislators this session.

>

> I think your suggestions are just putting lipstick on a pig. The

> legal firms will CONTINUE THEIR BILLINGS and individual families

will

> suffer.

>

[Guest guest]

It seems to me that lobbyist groups only want to move the deck chairs

as families move through the icy waters of litigation. Then, once

shipwrecked with debt and having lost time in finding services,

certain people will declare " I told you so " .

The problem with your position is that you want to allow FOR PROFIT

law firms to have unlimited access to taxpayer money. I want the

money instead to go to Special Need families. All these smoke and

mirrors, deflections, selective words and fields of play and lobbyist

tactics seem to be what we will see in the 81st Legislative session.

I am almost positive that is all that is going to take place this

legislative session with what Nagla mentioned, which I understand is

a Coalition effort.

It is quite obvious to me that off-line Advocacy Inc < '

own words of blaming parents who " perceive " a bias> and the ARC want

to allow law firms to go unchallenged. Nothing I hear from the

Coalition will stop the legal firms from CONTINUING THEIR BILLING.

I don't want any families to go into debt anymore in Texas in

fighting for their children's disability rights. I don't want a

Winkelman family story in Texas. I think the ARC and Advocacy Inc

are just trying to keep it from being 10 Winkelman families in Texas,

but if one happens " so be it " . We told you so.

I think this is tragic and wrong. I believe our children deserve the

best defense and that is an OFFENSE.

> >

> > Yep, it is quite obvious ... anything but provide MONEY, FUNDS,

> AND

> > OPTIONS to escape a brutal, denial of services for individual

> > families. You are very selective in your word choice if you ask

> me.

> > I doubt the ARC and this coalition wants to derail the gravy

> train.

> > You are advocating keeping it the same, MINIMIZE the damage to

> > individual families, but year after year your suggestions won't

> > reform the system.

> >

> > You are allowing families to be beat down quietly, even though

> they

> > believe that the environment that their child is in is harming

and

> > denying them better options/services. There is no way we

> > can " litigate our way to FAPE " .

> >

> > The real issue seems to be the protection of the system IMO.

> This

> > system allows FOR PROFIT legal firms unlimited access to our

taxes.

> > I say the system should be reformed and defeated with the help of

> our

> > legislators this session.

> >

> > I think your suggestions are just putting lipstick on a pig. The

> > legal firms will CONTINUE THEIR BILLINGS and individual families

> will

> > suffer.

> >

>