
A Wisconsin lawmaker who's paralyzed isn't allowed to participate in meetings - rahuldottech
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2019/07/29/leaders-wont-let-lawmaker-who-uses-wheelchair-phone-into-meetings/1830851001/
======
ergothus
> "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
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
They go all the way to the top in a lot of places, sadly.

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

~~~
eckmLJE
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
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.

------
tzakrajs
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?

------
santoshalper
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.

~~~
fencepost
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!])

~~~
analog31
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.

------
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.

~~~
cortesoft
> make special amendments for some people?

This one. You make reasonable accommodations for people who can't follow the
normal rules. This is how the ADA is worded - employers have to make
reasonable accommodations as long as it doesn't prevent the person from doing
their job.

~~~
AdrianB1
How do you define reasonable?

How do you justify making accommodations just for some people? Why not for
all? Rights should be equal, not based on any discriminatory criteria.

~~~
cortesoft
So are you against handicap parking?

You define reasonable by using reason. You examine the situation and try to
see if you can make an accommodation for the person that lets them do their
job while not sacrificing performance. If you can, you do it.

You justify making these accommodations because you realize that there are
some people who have conditions that make following the same routines that
most people do impossible. We also realize that if you let everyone have those
accommodations, it will not be sustainable, so you grant special rights to
certain people based on this.

The handicap parking is a perfect example. Or pre-boarding flights for people
in wheelchairs. Obviously you can't give everyone handicap parking, because
that is the same as giving no one handicap parking. Some people can't travel
as far, so we let them get the spots up front.

Same with pre-boarding. If everyone pre-boarded, it would just be boarding.
But we also know that some groups need more time and space to board, like
people in wheelchairs. So we let them board early.

I never understand this attitude that we aren't allowed to accommodate people
who have hardships because it is unfair on people without those hardships.
Like, what? The unfair part is that they HAVE the handicap in the first place,
we are just trying to make it a little more fair.

Life isn't fair, so we make laws that are a little unfair in the opposite
direction to try to even it out.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
You're comparing two different things though. Not everyone can have the
closest parking space, but couldn't everyone attend the meeting remotely?

If you add the capability to do it then I can give you a thousand reasons why
someone should need it. They could be photosensitive and need to avoid
sunlight, or agoraphobic, or have children they can't leave home alone, or
follow a religion that requires them not to look upon an uncovered woman who
is not their wife. They could be poor and unable to afford the travel, or live
far away from the meeting place.

By the time I'm done listing reasons, there won't be anybody left without one.

The same is true for parking spaces, but giving everyone the closest parking
space is not an option. How is allowing anyone to attend remotely not an
option?

~~~
cortesoft
For this particular case, I don't know. Someone who set the policy would have
to articulate why they thought it was important. Once they have articulated
that, we can decide where the line should be for who gets the exemption and
who doesn't.

It is not an absolute formula. You have to use judgement, and sometimes you
are going to get it wrong on the boundaries.

------
wavepruner
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.

------
tedmcory77
To frame this another way; it’s voter supression.

------
masonic
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_".

------
drivingmenuts
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
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.

------
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.

~~~
mreome
> 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.

