7 ms·

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

84 points by rahuldottech 7y ago

nerdponx 7y ago
"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. This is quite an act of mental gymnastics.
tick_tock_tick 7y ago
> 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
- slater 7y ago
  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"
  - mikeash 7y ago
    Maybe, and I realize this is crazy, legislators could read the full text of what they vote on.
    - eckmLJE 7y ago
      Or maybe the top-line bill is so important that you just swallow the bitter pill of less important riders, because getting a clean bill seems unlikely / out of your own control.
      - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
        Or you vote against any bill that has riders and make them bring the important bill back up as a clean bill without the riders.
    - UnFleshedOne 7y ago
      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.
  - cosrnos 7y ago
    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.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  "eliminating a provision that allowed..." doesn't seem like the same thing as "caused ... to be prohibited", necessarily.
ergothus 7y ago
> "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 involving the disability. That's, like, the definition of privilege. By framing it in terms of "respect" you just make the matter worse. What was a logistical issue ("voice over phone isn't as smooth, can we improve that?") is now a moral issue of "respect" - which is basically impossible to nail down, and puts everyone on every side of the issue on the defensive.
- hestipod 7y ago
  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.
  - sundvor 7y ago
    They go all the way to the top in a lot of places, sadly.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - bilbo0s 7y ago
    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.
tzakrajs 7y ago
So the argument for why remote callers should not be allowed is because the meeting is a great burden for its participants to commute to it and the burden must be felt by as many people as possible. Maybe we could make everyone happier by allowing remote meetings?
dbg31415 7y ago
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.
- mreome 7y ago
  > The Senate and Assembly set their own rules on how they conduct their meetings. The Senate allows members to phone into committee meetings, but the Assembly does not. Is the Senate somehow a fundamentally different job? Also, there is more to consider then "Not every job is a work-from-home job." This is a duly elected government officer being denied the ability to represent those who elected him.
AdrianB1 7y ago
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.
- santoshalper 7y ago
  The right and obvious solution is to make special accommodations for people with special needs.
  - AdrianB1 7y ago
    That is not right and that is not obvious. First, because "right" means it is right for all, that would imply the same rights and obligations for everyone. Because it is not right, it is not obvious. The only right way is to give equal treatment to everyone.
    - lazyasciiart 7y ago
      Obvious failure modes of "equal treatment to everyone" include six year olds joining the army.
      - modsiw 7y ago
        Oh oh oh. Can I play? Everyone is entitled to enter a restroom or no one is. I can get behind that. No more multi-toilet rooms with stall gaps.
      - hestipod 7y ago
        While I am strongly opposed to child labor and military conscription, a six year old can do a LOT of damage. I'd not want to face a squad of them on my best day.
santoshalper 7y ago
This is a complete smokescreen. The truth is that Jimmy Anderson is a Democrat, and the speaker, Robin Vos, is a Republican. Vos is simply trying to screw over and disenfranchise a Democrat by any means available. Just like Republicans refuse to even consider Democratic justices and constantly try to disenfranchise voters. To a Republican, power is the only thing that matters at any cost. There is no other useful version of this story, just layers of bullshit.
- analog31 7y ago
  I guessed the party of the Representative before reading the article. I was right.
- fencepost 7y ago
  I wouldn't go so far as "Vos is simply trying to screw over and disenfranchise a Democrat by any means available." unless you're a Wisconsin resident monitoring the activity of the legislature and know things that the rest of us don't. My knee-jerk reaction is a less-extreme version of yours, more along the lines of Vos not being willing to do anything that would assist a Democrat but (hopefully) not actively seeking to disenfranchise him. I think that's probably supported by the fairly well-known acrimony between the Republican majority and Democratic minority in Wisconsin's legislature and politics in general (e.g. [Dem elected governor? Strip rights from the governor's office before he's seated!])
  - kaitai 7y ago
    Well, I know some Wisconsin residents who do monitor the activities of the legislature, and their opinions interpolate between yours and the parent's.
  - analog31 7y ago
    I'm a Wisconsin resident, monitoring the activity of the legislature. The partisan acrimony in WI is actually fairly recent, and there is not in fact a consistent party preference in elections that are statewide, such as governor, the US senators, and the president. Aggressive gerrymandering and winner-take-all policy tactics are trends that I've seen rise exponentially in my 20 years in WI.
drivingmenuts 7y ago
If witnesses and legislators are required to be in public for questioning before a committee, doesn't it seem a bit off-putting that one of the participants would be allowed to join from a private location? It could lead to a violation of trust - Anderson is a politician, regardless of how little experience he actually has, and one never trusts a politician to always do the right thing.
- MBCook 7y ago
  He was voted in by the people, I see no reason he shouldn’t get reasonable accommodations. If the people find it so objectionable that he can’t attend meetings in person, they have a remedy. They can simply vote him out. It’s not a lifetime appointment.
- kaitai 7y ago
  Isn't it a bit off-putting that this duly elected representative of the people can't do his job, presumably basically 'cause he can't easily take a piss?
tedmcory77 7y ago
To frame this another way; it’s voter supression.
masonic 7y ago
Actual title: "A Wisconsin lawmaker who's paralyzed isn't allowed to call into meetings; he says that keeps him from doing his job". That's a big difference from the submitter claiming "isn't allowed to participate".
wavepruner 7y ago
I've been partially-to-fully disabled for 15 years now. Discrimination against disabled people is 100% socially acceptable and I don't see it ending anytime soon. It comes from liberals/conservatives/rich/poor/everyone. What almost always happens is this: a person/group will perform whatever mental gymnastics they have to and find a way to blame the disabled person and/or wash their hands. "you lack respect" "you're exaggerating your disability and using it as an unfair advantage" "you're not ready to get back into the workforce" "people will complain that you're accommodated but they aren't" "i just can't afford to help you, but i'm sure the next person will" "too many gaps in your resume" "you need to start at a low-level position and work your way up, but since you are physically incapable of the low-level position you can't work here" At my last workplace I was repeatedly accused of sexism by a female coworker when I tried to set boundaries with her and communicate that I couldn't do all the things she asked me to do. I ended up just leaving because I couldn't get any work done as I had to spend an extraordinary amount of time crafting arguments to defend myself.

84 points by rahuldottech 7y ago

"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. This is quite an act of mental gymnastics.

tick_tock_tick 7y ago

> 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

slater 7y ago
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"
- mikeash 7y ago
  Maybe, and I realize this is crazy, legislators could read the full text of what they vote on.
  - eckmLJE 7y ago
    Or maybe the top-line bill is so important that you just swallow the bitter pill of less important riders, because getting a clean bill seems unlikely / out of your own control.
    - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
      Or you vote against any bill that has riders and make them bring the important bill back up as a clean bill without the riders.
  - UnFleshedOne 7y ago
    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.
- cosrnos 7y ago
  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.
perl4ever 7y ago
"eliminating a provision that allowed..." doesn't seem like the same thing as "caused ... to be prohibited", necessarily.

ergothus 7y ago

> "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 involving the disability. That's, like, the definition of privilege. By framing it in terms of "respect" you just make the matter worse. What was a logistical issue ("voice over phone isn't as smooth, can we improve that?") is now a moral issue of "respect" - which is basically impossible to nail down, and puts everyone on every side of the issue on the defensive.

hestipod 7y ago
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.
- sundvor 7y ago
  They go all the way to the top in a lot of places, sadly.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- bilbo0s 7y ago
  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.

tzakrajs 7y ago

So the argument for why remote callers should not be allowed is because the meeting is a great burden for its participants to commute to it and the burden must be felt by as many people as possible. Maybe we could make everyone happier by allowing remote meetings?

dbg31415 7y ago

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.

mreome 7y ago
> The Senate and Assembly set their own rules on how they conduct their meetings. The Senate allows members to phone into committee meetings, but the Assembly does not. Is the Senate somehow a fundamentally different job? Also, there is more to consider then "Not every job is a work-from-home job." This is a duly elected government officer being denied the ability to represent those who elected him.

AdrianB1 7y ago

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.

santoshalper 7y ago
The right and obvious solution is to make special accommodations for people with special needs.
- AdrianB1 7y ago
  That is not right and that is not obvious. First, because "right" means it is right for all, that would imply the same rights and obligations for everyone. Because it is not right, it is not obvious. The only right way is to give equal treatment to everyone.
  - lazyasciiart 7y ago
    Obvious failure modes of "equal treatment to everyone" include six year olds joining the army.
    - modsiw 7y ago
      Oh oh oh. Can I play? Everyone is entitled to enter a restroom or no one is. I can get behind that. No more multi-toilet rooms with stall gaps.
    - hestipod 7y ago
      While I am strongly opposed to child labor and military conscription, a six year old can do a LOT of damage. I'd not want to face a squad of them on my best day.

santoshalper 7y ago

This is a complete smokescreen. The truth is that Jimmy Anderson is a Democrat, and the speaker, Robin Vos, is a Republican. Vos is simply trying to screw over and disenfranchise a Democrat by any means available. Just like Republicans refuse to even consider Democratic justices and constantly try to disenfranchise voters. To a Republican, power is the only thing that matters at any cost. There is no other useful version of this story, just layers of bullshit.

analog31 7y ago
I guessed the party of the Representative before reading the article. I was right.
fencepost 7y ago
I wouldn't go so far as "Vos is simply trying to screw over and disenfranchise a Democrat by any means available." unless you're a Wisconsin resident monitoring the activity of the legislature and know things that the rest of us don't. My knee-jerk reaction is a less-extreme version of yours, more along the lines of Vos not being willing to do anything that would assist a Democrat but (hopefully) not actively seeking to disenfranchise him. I think that's probably supported by the fairly well-known acrimony between the Republican majority and Democratic minority in Wisconsin's legislature and politics in general (e.g. [Dem elected governor? Strip rights from the governor's office before he's seated!])
- kaitai 7y ago
  Well, I know some Wisconsin residents who do monitor the activities of the legislature, and their opinions interpolate between yours and the parent's.
- analog31 7y ago
  I'm a Wisconsin resident, monitoring the activity of the legislature. The partisan acrimony in WI is actually fairly recent, and there is not in fact a consistent party preference in elections that are statewide, such as governor, the US senators, and the president. Aggressive gerrymandering and winner-take-all policy tactics are trends that I've seen rise exponentially in my 20 years in WI.

drivingmenuts 7y ago

If witnesses and legislators are required to be in public for questioning before a committee, doesn't it seem a bit off-putting that one of the participants would be allowed to join from a private location? It could lead to a violation of trust - Anderson is a politician, regardless of how little experience he actually has, and one never trusts a politician to always do the right thing.

MBCook 7y ago
He was voted in by the people, I see no reason he shouldn’t get reasonable accommodations. If the people find it so objectionable that he can’t attend meetings in person, they have a remedy. They can simply vote him out. It’s not a lifetime appointment.
kaitai 7y ago
Isn't it a bit off-putting that this duly elected representative of the people can't do his job, presumably basically 'cause he can't easily take a piss?

tedmcory77 7y ago

To frame this another way; it’s voter supression.

masonic 7y ago

Actual title: "A Wisconsin lawmaker who's paralyzed isn't allowed to call into meetings; he says that keeps him from doing his job". That's a big difference from the submitter claiming "isn't allowed to participate".

wavepruner 7y ago

I've been partially-to-fully disabled for 15 years now. Discrimination against disabled people is 100% socially acceptable and I don't see it ending anytime soon. It comes from liberals/conservatives/rich/poor/everyone. What almost always happens is this: a person/group will perform whatever mental gymnastics they have to and find a way to blame the disabled person and/or wash their hands. "you lack respect" "you're exaggerating your disability and using it as an unfair advantage" "you're not ready to get back into the workforce" "people will complain that you're accommodated but they aren't" "i just can't afford to help you, but i'm sure the next person will" "too many gaps in your resume" "you need to start at a low-level position and work your way up, but since you are physically incapable of the low-level position you can't work here" At my last workplace I was repeatedly accused of sexism by a female coworker when I tried to set boundaries with her and communicate that I couldn't do all the things she asked me to do. I ended up just leaving because I couldn't get any work done as I had to spend an extraordinary amount of time crafting arguments to defend myself.