From: "KWeit" kweit@ocdd.org
To: jcunio@ocdd.org; daynamo@teleport.com; hazelett@zzz.com;
tmkspp@coosnet.com; ajones@spiretech.com;
tkral@oregonrehabilitation.org; joanne@pclpartnership.com;
Edwardsctr@msn.com; marylee.fay@state.or.us; Mike.J.Maley@state.or.us;
jessicalei@co.clackamas.or.us; sstewart@open.org;
pamring@worldnet.att.net; bherrin@resourceconnections.org;
blynch@ocdd.org; marcie.ingledue@arcoregon.org; mtbclarion@comcast.net
Cc: "Jim Wrigley" jwrigley@oradvocacy.org; "Bob Joondeph"
bob@oradvocacy.org

Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 10:10 AM
Subject: Re: Stepping Up


 We alljust received a letter from DAWGS. Just some background information
 for you:

    * HB 2797 A is the bill that we used as the vehicle for the language
      that would direct DHS to redirect any Staley savings to take more
      people off the wait list.  This bill was originally submitted by
      Rep. Donna Nelson and it called for immediate full funding of
 “Universal Access”. She never spoke with us about the bill and we
      never even considered pushing the concept because of the huge
      fiscal implications and the legal agreements on the rollout.  The
      bill never received a hearing, but was immediately sent to Ways
      and Means to die. We were able to pull it out of Ways and Mean and
      did a “gut and stuff” to use it as a vehicle for our concept of
      retaining the funding.

    * We have done nothing that would necessarily support Senator
      Schrader’s comments “about stepping up to the plate once again.” The
 legislative analyst statements, which often become the talking
      points for legislators, reflect the change in the bill from the
      original concept of full funding to simply retaining the savings.

    * The rollout numbers were determined in the Governor’s budget.
      Since this was a budget that originally included some pretty
      significant reductions in services to other populations, we did
      not fight it.  The ultimate number taken off the waitlist is a
      minimum 1,000 new individuals this biennium.

    * Our previous efforts to respond to the concerns, requests for
      information, and criticisms of DAWGS have been ignored.  I believe
      that David has some very valid points to make and advocacy
      pressure is always good…for all of us!

    * I am uncertain about the process for a response, but feel it would
      be best if a unified response came from the Staley Implementation
      Group rather than individual members of the group. I will make
      sure this letter is put on the agenda for the next SIG meeting.

    * I am not sure what meeting in 2006 he is referring to.  I will
      recheck the agreements and let you know.

 Kathryn