Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Wisconsin lawmaker who's paralyzed isn't allowed to participate in meetings

jsonline.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 65 posts

Re: A Wisconsin lawmaker who's paralyzed isn't allowed to participate in meetings

#11

Post by UnFleshedOne »

mikeash wrote: post #9
slater wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always wonder if that kind of thing is them voting for something obviously good, e.g. "Orphaned kittens of Wisconsin Aid Bill of 2017" that has ostensibly good stuff that of course you'd vote for, but then tucked away in some sub-sub-sub-paragraph in 5pt font there's "oh and legislators can't join committee meetings via the web, ok thx plz sign the bill below"

Maybe, and I realize this is crazy, legislators could read the full text of what they vote on.

I understand usually it is a question of trading influence -- you want those kittens saved, but the guy whose vote you need wants to stick it to web cam manufacturers. Thus the abomonation bills are born.

Re: A Wisconsin lawmaker who's paralyzed isn't allowed to participate in meetings

#12

Post by SilasX »

ergothus wrote: post #4

> "It just comes down to the fact that I think it’s disrespectful for someone to be asking questions over a microphone or a speakerphone when individuals are actually taking the time out of their day to come and testify in person," Vos said. I can see going "hey, voice over phone just doesn't work as smoothly" without considering the disability. But of course, that's the point - they get to consider "normal" as not i…

Reminds me of the recent story where Domino's would rather fight a case to the Supreme Court than take rudimentary steps to make their site usable by the blind.

(And the reporting site isn't any better.)

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/25/dominos-asks-supreme-court-t...

Re: A Wisconsin lawmaker who's paralyzed isn't allowed to participate in meetings

#13

Post by cosrnos »

slater wrote: post #8
tick_tock_tick wrote: post #3

> Vos spokeswoman Kit Beyer noted that Anderson voted for a set of Assembly rules in 2017 that eliminated a provision that allowed Assembly members in some cases to participate in committee meetings through web cameras. whoops

I always wonder if that kind of thing is them voting for something obviously good, e.g. "Orphaned kittens of Wisconsin Aid Bill of 2017" that has ostensibly good stuff that of course you'd vote for, but then tucked away in some sub-sub-sub-paragraph in 5pt font there's "oh and legislators can't join committee meetings via the web, ok thx plz sign the bill below"

In this case it sounds like Anderson knew what he was voting for, as the next paragraph reads

> Anderson voted on those rules a month after he joined the Legislature, at a time when he said he didn’t have a full sense of what his needs would be.

Regardless of the rules in place, exceptions can and should be made for people with disabilities based on their needs.

Re: A Wisconsin lawmaker who's paralyzed isn't allowed to participate in meetings

#14

Post by ergothus »

ip26 wrote: post #7
ergothus wrote: post #4

> "It just comes down to the fact that I think it’s disrespectful for someone to be asking questions over a microphone or a speakerphone when individuals are actually taking the time out of their day to come and testify in person," Vos said. I can see going "hey, voice over phone just doesn't work as smoothly" without considering the disability. But of course, that's the point - they get to consider "normal" as not i…

Vos is talking about members of the public coming to testify in person to their Congress, and saying the people's Congressmen owe it to be present to listen. Didn't sound like it had anything to do with a technical issue.

That's my point. "the people's Congressmen owe it to be present to listen" - Why do they owe it? (more specifically, why is it bad not to?) . Either (1) because if you aren't present the communication is stilted and awkward, meaning the person gets less-quality attention from their rep, or (2) because physical presence is mystically more "respectful".

Focusing on 2 instead of 1 misses the point entirely.

Re: A Wisconsin lawmaker who's paralyzed isn't allowed to participate in meetings

#15

Post by perl4ever »

tick_tock_tick wrote: post #3

> Vos spokeswoman Kit Beyer noted that Anderson voted for a set of Assembly rules in 2017 that eliminated a provision that allowed Assembly members in some cases to participate in committee meetings through web cameras. whoops

"eliminating a provision that allowed..." doesn't seem like the same thing as "caused ... to be prohibited", necessarily.

Re: A Wisconsin lawmaker who's paralyzed isn't allowed to participate in meetings

#16

Post by dbg31415 »

At first I was worried this was something egregious like, "We require people to stand and raise their right hand to vote..." It's just that he wants to be able to phone in to meetings... and I'm not sure that's a reasonable accommodation request. If the rules are that everyone has to be present for a quorum, it's not so much asking for accommodations, as asking for the rules to be re-written. Not every job is a work-from-home job.

Re: A Wisconsin lawmaker who's paralyzed isn't allowed to participate in meetings

#17

Post by AdrianB1 »

What is the right solution:

- make all the meetings remote for anyone?

- make it a job requirement to be physically present? (like going to the office for regular employees)

- make special amendments for some people?

Are there other options?

Not sure how to look at this. I work from home part of the week because I am not interacting with almost anyone in the closest branch of my company, but I assume that going to the office is an obligation in certain cases and not being able to do it would make me unfit for that job. In this case it is not a job, but close enough for me: it is paid by taxpayers money.

Re: A Wisconsin lawmaker who's paralyzed isn't allowed to participate in meetings

#18

Post by sundvor »

hestipod wrote: post #6
ergothus wrote: post #4

> "It just comes down to the fact that I think it’s disrespectful for someone to be asking questions over a microphone or a speakerphone when individuals are actually taking the time out of their day to come and testify in person," Vos said. I can see going "hey, voice over phone just doesn't work as smoothly" without considering the disability. But of course, that's the point - they get to consider "normal" as not i…

I just don't understand how people so heartless and selfish like this exist and are functional. It speaks poorly to society that one can be this way and not shunned. This person thinks their ego and perceived "respect" matters more than anything and a disabled person using accessibility tools is a slight? There is not a single shred of empathy there. It's just inconceivable to me to think like that.

They go all the way to the top in a lot of places, sadly.

Re: A Wisconsin lawmaker who's paralyzed isn't allowed to participate in meetings

#19

Post by bilbo0s »

hestipod wrote: post #6
ergothus wrote: post #4

> "It just comes down to the fact that I think it’s disrespectful for someone to be asking questions over a microphone or a speakerphone when individuals are actually taking the time out of their day to come and testify in person," Vos said. I can see going "hey, voice over phone just doesn't work as smoothly" without considering the disability. But of course, that's the point - they get to consider "normal" as not i…

I just don't understand how people so heartless and selfish like this exist and are functional. It speaks poorly to society that one can be this way and not shunned. This person thinks their ego and perceived "respect" matters more than anything and a disabled person using accessibility tools is a slight? There is not a single shred of empathy there. It's just inconceivable to me to think like that.

Just to add some context here from a Wisconsinite, Vos is one of the cheerleaders of our great Foxconn corporate welfare scheme.

Also, the guy champions a work release program for prisoners that he takes advantage of personally. Which, to my mind, wasn't so terrible. Until I found out that every one of the prisoners, um, "working", for him was a young female inmate.

Wisconsin really is kind of the Florida or Louisiana of the North. The corruption and moral breakdown around here runs deep. Not just the conservatives either, liberals get in on the action too. Just not quite as flagrant.

Lotta work to get to normal around here.

Lotta work.

Re: A Wisconsin lawmaker who's paralyzed isn't allowed to participate in meetings

#20

Post by santoshalper »

AdrianB1 wrote: post #17

What is the right solution: - make all the meetings remote for anyone? - make it a job requirement to be physically present? (like going to the office for regular employees) - make special amendments for some people? Are there other options? Not sure how to look at this. I work from home part of the week because I am not interacting with almost anyone in the closest branch of my company, but I assume that going to th…

The right and obvious solution is to make special accommodations for people with special needs.
Post reply on HN