[FEAT BC Admin]

In this topic area, discussion is about the fight to secure Government funding for your A.B.A. treatment program. It is also the place to talk about your thoughts and ideas about how to establish new Government programs specifically designed for autism treatment.

This is the place to hear input from parents who have fought for funding and won, as well as those who have fought for funding and would like to share their horror stories. There is a tendency to not share success stories once funding is secured. Please fight that tendency. By sharing our experience, we all become stronger.

 

---

—-By FEAT BC (Freeman) on Saturday, January 3, 1998 – 03:16 pm:

-Hi everyone!

These are some things to think about in your dealings with government to help you to obtain support for your child’s Autism Treatment Program. These are my personal opinions and do not represent those of FEAT of BC or any other organization.

Many of these observations are based on my personal experiences (and I believe it poetic justice to help every parent avoid being systematically abused by their social worker the way I was).

Good luck to everyone! (Let’s all pull back the curtain on the Wizard of OZ).

Sabrina

 

---

How To Fight for Funding for Autism Treatment and Appropriate School Placement

1. Establish a Paper Trail

Always take notes, documenting major points of all conversations with government and school officials.

This includes casual, in person conversations with social workers as well as ALL telephone conversations. All key points of discussion must be written down in your notes including the date and time of the discussion. This includes what was agreed upon, as well as what was not agreed upon.

Then the notes should be used to write a letter recapping the substance and content of the conversation. This letter must then be mailed or faxed to the person with whom you had the conversation. In addition, a copy must be kept in your file (see section on the icci game).

Why?

It is important to formalize the interaction between you and Government officials. In addition, everyone is put on notice that they must closely adhere to their responsibilities, regulations and laws., Furthermore, they must then consider the paper trail you have created. This lets everyone know that the interaction can become public and that any abuses of power and authority can be formally appealed and/or publicized.

In other words, they canit use discretion unfairly under the cloak of secrecy.

2. Submit all Requests in Writing

All your requests for your child must be submitted formally in writing with a copy included in your file and a copy, if necessary, sent to their immediate superiors.

3. Set Deadlines for Action

All formal requests for action must have a reasonable deadline set for that action. If no action or response is received by the deadline you have set (two weeks for example), then you will interpret the lack of response as a formal declination (a formal NO) of your requests.

Why Set Deadlines?

When bureaucrats do not want to do something, they will stall by ignoring you and your request. (As an aside, in the study of the bureaucracy, this is known as ithe power to do nothingi). They can string you along for years. When you have determined that the person you are interacting with is not inclined to help you or is not dealing in good faith, then you must take the initiative and formally label his/her behavior as obstructionist and de facto as a declination (a NO to your requests). This allows you to move to the next level of authority on your timetable to present your case. This takes the power to do nothing away from the bureaucrat with whom you are dealing. Simple stated, a bureaucrat who stalls and does nothing becomes irrelevant (use your invisible spray) and you move on to the next level of authority.

How to icci?

A cc. is a copy of your letter sent to someone other than the person you are writing. You put the cc. at the bottom left-hand corner of your letter followed by 2 spaces and the name of the person or people to whom you want to send a copy of the letter.

Who to icci to?

Sometimes it is best not to icci at all, especially in the early stages of the relationship (for example, your first letter to a social worker requesting assistance). This gives them the opportunity to do the right thing and does not present you as an overly combative person. When you start to run into problems, it is a good idea to send the icci to the 2 immediate superiors of the person you are having problems with. We do not recommend icciing all the way up the chain of command, since you want to give them a chance to solve the problem at the local level.

Why send a icci copy?

The reason for playing the icci game is that you want your interactions with the official to be known to his superior and possibly to other organizations so that 1) their action or inaction becomes a matter of record and 2) the individual knows he is being monitored. This helps minimize abuses of power and authority and helps encourage the official to meet their obligations and do the right thing.

What is the sequence of letters?

Find out the chain of command of the particular bureaucracy you are battling.

TOP

Minister
Deputy Minister
Children’s Ministry’s local region chain of command, all the way down to the District Supervisor
and Social Worker
Contacts can be found at the government directory: http://www.dir.gov.bc.ca/

BOTTOM

Start at the bottom and climb. At the Regional Operating Officer (ROO) level (once you have been declined) you have to decide whether to jump up to the top, threaten and then go to the media, or both. A word of wisdom: DO NOT BLUFF. If you are not willing to go all the way, they will ‘smell’ this. You must be prepared to take it right up to the Minister and beyond.

Documentation from Experts:

In your arsenal to fight for your child, it is wise to get his/her pediatrician and/or psychiatrist to write a letter on your childis behalf. In addition, any other experts who know your child and are sympathetic to what you are trying to do should become involved.

When to hire a lawyer?

If money is not an issue, you can hire a lawyer when you get to the area manager level. Make sure that you have a paper trail so the lawyer has something to work with. Also, have the lawyer give F.E.A.T. of B.C. a call, and we will send him/her information that will help.

If money is an issue (as it is for most of us running autism treatment programs), you might want to hire a lawyer once you have been turned down by the Minister.

How to hire a lawyer?

The type of lawyer needed is a litigator, or trial lawyer. S/he does not need to be an expert in autism, or special needs; s/he needs to be experienced in suing governments, and enjoys being in court. Word of mouth is a good way to find a lawyer.

Topic

[Andrew Kavchak]

Hi Folks,
I just realized from a press release posted on the http://www.canadaautism.com website, that there was an exchange between Mr. Lunney and the federal Minister of Health in the House of Commons on November 23. Below is a copy of the relevant passage from the Hansard for that day.
Merry Christmas everyone!
Andrew (Ottawa)

Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, CPC): Mr. Chair, it has been a long night for everybody. I am glad to be able to participate in this debate.

I want to bring up an issue that we started the day with today. It is a very important issue for quite a segment of our population. It has to do with the subject of autism.

This morning we had the Autism Society of Canada here. We had alarming statistics being brought forward. We have seen at least a tenfold increase in the last 10 years and in some areas the numbers are even a hundredfold and more. We know that autism used to be so rare and now in many classes there are two or three children with autism, at least in British Columbia where my wife is a counsellor in the elementary system. It is a huge problem.

The families of autistic children have of course suffered a great disappointment with the Supreme Court decision on treatment that has just come down. That particular treatment option deals with behavioural modification, a very intensive behavioural analysis. It costs about $50,000 to $60,000 per child.

More needs to be done to head this off early and intervene early so that we can prevent this catastrophe for families and for these children. That being said, I wanted to highlight that and ask the minister where the health ministry is going with this.

Just recently in the last weeks the New York senate commended and honoured Dr. Joan Fallon for a new study. It was the patenting of a process for early identification of these children and it involves a simple stool test. It has to do with pancreatic enzyme deficiency. This is very promising in the treatment of these children, with enzyme treatment improving their function.

What is the ministry doing to help head off this problem of autism? Are we doing something? Is there a strategy? Are we putting money through the CIHR or some other agency into identifying the cause of autism for these children and the appropriate treatment? By the way, Dr. Joan Fallon is a chiropractor. Along with the enzymatic treatment she does use manipulation of these kids as well. Is there a strategy and is something being planned?

Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh: Mr. Chair, this is obviously again a very difficult issue. In health care we deal with difficult issues from time to time. I was in fact part of the government in British Columbia when the case that recently came before the Supreme Court was decided. The case originated in British Columbia. I believe I was the attorney general. I had to deal with that difficult issue then.

I have said that I am happy, prepared and willing to meet with the parliamentarians who are trying to argue for a national strategy on this issue, with Senator Munson and others from all political parties. I will be meeting with them. I will be listening to them. I am happy to actually listen to the provinces from across the country.

I spoke to a constituent of mine several weeks ago during one of my constituency days. He has a 12 year old or 13 year old autistic child. The man was in tears. There was not much I could do as a federal politician. These are provincial jurisdictions and the provinces and territories make difficult decisions and difficult choices.

But I am prepared to take a leadership role at least in terms of coordinating our response across the country and discussing what we collectively as leaders in different levels of government can do.

Mr. James Lunney: Mr. Chair, a lot of serious concerns have been raised about what is causing this escalating epidemic, really, of autism; that is probably not the right terminology, but the numbers are escalating unbelievably.

There are concerns about the repeated use of antibiotics for childhood ear infections. That may be a root cause. There are concerns about the vaccines that are administered, about the thimerosal or the mercury that is used in the vaccines. Some states in the U.S. have demanded that they start producing vaccines without mercury derivatives, which are highly neurotoxic.

I hope that there is someone, and why should it not be Canada, leading the world in actually addressing these issues, finding out if there is a root issue, doing some proper studies and making sure we get appropriate intervention for these children. Why should it not be Canada?

That being said, I want to go on to another issue that I believe is very important. We had a little talk today about health promotion and prevention by the member for Brampton—Springdale and the member for Dartmouth–Cole Harbour.

I want to say on the Food and Drugs Act, subsections 3(1) and 3(2) and schedule A, which continue to obstruct delivery of natural health products, that we understand the justice department has indicated that these sections are not constitutional, that they will not stand a constitutional challenge. There is a private member's bill that would change this.

The transition team asked for changes to this law. Is the minister prepared to acknowledge these sections are not constitutional and adopt the provisions of Bill C-420 to change the way we regulate natural health products?

Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh: Mr. Chair, I want to say I appreciate the member's concern about autism. He shared some of the statistics that he had with me on the plane ride here to Ottawa early this week.

On the issue that the member raises, I am not aware of the details and the constitutionality or not of the provisions that he speaks of. I will be happy to take a look at them and speak to him in the fullest possible way I can.

[Stephen Paperman]

Having read the press release issued by ACT-BC and been frankly appalled by its implications, I have done some research and spoken to some friends who are employed in certain government offices, as well as some former colleagues of mine. The inescapable conclusion I have been able to reach is that whomever wrote this press release has his or her head shoved so far up the government rectum they can count the fillings in Linda Reid's mouth. I will not bother to address each and every piece of unmitigated bovine feces which are contained in this epic waste of paper, but certain lines are just too blatant to ignore:

"Now it is time for FEAT to turn a new page and make an effort to work with other parent-based organizations to push for strong federal legislation to protect the interests of all children with disabilities."

It should be noted that FEAT is the only organization in British Columbia which has ever pushed for strong federal legislation to protect the medical needs of children with autism. Other disabilities have their own societies and advocacy groups and they are not relevent to this debate.

"Now is the opportunity to reform itself (ASBC) by recruiting a board that truly reflects the diversity of perspectives from around the province and employing an Executive Director who does not also hold a position on the board, in the interests of transparency and good governance."

I am informed that Ms. Pugh and Ms. Shumann are both former employees of ASBC. I have been shown records of their involvement in an attempt to overthrow the democratically elected board of ASBC using the worst kind of scare tactics. Their attempt failed. I am also informed that there was some kind of investigation involving Ms. Pugh shortly before her resignation from her employment at ASBC, involving complaints from staff members, though I don't have much detail about that at present. I am also informed that Ms. Shumann quit her position at ASBC with no notice whatsoever, with no attempt at an orderly transition by training a replacement or any other reasonable exit strategy. Make of that what you wish.

"• The allegation that the Ministry financially rewarded people who “supported the government’s failed attempt to defeat families in the B. C. Supreme Court” is false. In fact, no one on ACT’s volunteer Board or Advisory Council receives any financial benefit at all from the contract, and no one employed by ACT supported the government’s appeal of the Auton case in any way."

From what I can see of the official records I have been shown, ACT-BC has two employees, Ms. Pugh and Ms. Shumann. So it could perhaps be said that no one on the board of ACT is receiving benefit from the service provider list contract. A closer look at their board and advisory board reveals a large number of names of people who are either service providers themselves, employees of service providers or who otherwise receive government funding all related to the government's pitiful excuse for autism services. I suggest anyone who is interested might want to examine these names and trace their connections themselves. It is an illuminating list. To say the list, there is a clear and obvious conflict of interest in the group running the service providers list being run by service providers and government employees.

"Clair Schuman, ACT’s Executive Director, was a parent representative on a committee of the Canadian Association for Community Living who was intervenors at the Supreme Court of Canada in support of the families not the government. We are concerned that in the files provided to us by ASBC supporting documentation to verify credentials for many of the Service Providers on the list is lacking. Extremely serious is that ASBC did not follow-up with those service providers who have not provided a criminal record check, in the interests of protecting our children. Receiving those checks is a priority for ACT."

I am told that the service providers list in its current form was the responsibilty of Ms. Schumann herself when she was employed at ASBC. Interesting.

"In the past 19 months, ACT has provided over 15,000 hours of training to parents and professionals on a wide-range of autism related issues."

This is perhaps the most interesting situation to me. For 19 months, ACT-BC apparently was a private company operated by Deborah Pugh. I can locate no corporate records or registered company, so I can only assume it was a private proprietorship. Suddenly, about a month ago, an application was made to register ACT-BC as a society, and it was so registered a week later. Strangely, after running this private business for 19 months which promoted a variety of service providers, the business transmogrifies into a "society" in which Deborah Pugh and Clair Shumann are paid employees, but not board members. Also strangely this business which supplied income to a variety of service providers now finds itself controlling which service providers can avail themselves of government funds.

Indeed, this whole situation reeks. As we used to say in Ottawa on the staff of Frank magazine, we have some prime candidates for the award of Government Fartcatcher of the Year. I will leave it to you to place the names on the award.

I will post further information as I receive it.

S.P.

[Mike & Jean]

Following is an excerpt from ACTBC's diatribe response to the recent F.E.A.T. of B.C.'s press release:

"While ACT understands that both ASBC and FEAT have experienced a stunning blow from the Supreme Court decision we call on ASBC and FEAT to re-assess their current focus on alleging conspiracies on the part of service providers and government bureaucrats."

The Supreme Court of Canada's decision is a "stunning loss" to 'all' Canadians affected with autism, not just the Autism Society of B.C. or F.E.A.T. of B.C. This is a "stunning choice of words" which reveals ACTBC's true purpose – to be the official MCFD "mouthpiece" for autism policy,and
not a "parent-based", membership supported organization, with a thirty year history.

As far as alleged conspiracies, I would encourage readers to cross reference the Provincial Governments Public Accounts publications with names found on the ACTBC website. No doubt as we proceed towards the May election more light will be shed on the 'conspiracy theories' by insightful and already curious journalists who have followed the exploits of MCFD with great interest.

Regards,
Jean

[Monika Lange]

With respect to Isaac's comments about anything we post going straight to senior Government hacks… Good, I'm happy to hear my previous comments about Minister Linda Reid were fast tracked straight to her. Sometimes it's great to exact your pound of flesh. How absolutely horrendously evil that the Government insists on getting theirs from handicapped helpless children. Michael Smyth called it "winning ugly". The BC Government's stand on this is the dirtiest ugliest fighting I have seen in my life.

[Isaac]

Globe and Mail, Monday, Dec. 20, 2004

Don't look to courts for social justice
By ALLAN HUTCHINSON

Last week's Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage has put the Constitution and the court firmly back in the public limelight. Wherever one
stands, most will concede that the court is adept at playing politics. Yet, for all its formal and subtle virtues, the constitutional game is (or ought to be) about the substance of what is decided.

If the same-sex ruling puts in question the Supreme Court's legitimate role, other decisions serve to underline the particular cut of the judiciary's
substantive politics. In terms of winners and losers, it can now be safely reported that we have managed to craft (or, at least, the courts have) a screwed-up Constitution. The promise of a People's Charter is only a fleeting memory.

The fact that the Supreme Court has accorded constitutional status to tobacco corporations and denied it to autistic children should cause everyone to question the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There can be no starker evidence that we have gone wildly astray in our efforts to protect and advance ordinary people's rights.

The Charter is supposed to enshrine those values that we believe are so fundamental to Canadian society that they should be beyond the vagaries and vanities of the democratic process. While those commitments are never beyond controversy, most agree that these values are intended to be constitutive of a "free and democratic society." So how did we recognize the advertising freedoms of RJR-Macdonald and ignore the funding pleas of autistic children's parents?

When the two decisions are approached separately, they each have a modicum of sense and justification, at least in lawyers' frames of reference. They rely on some basic legal principles and established constitutional categorizations. Yet, this should serve to heighten our suspicions — legalistic formulations do not for social justice make.

In the Charter's early days, the Supreme Court decided that corporations count as an "everyone" in the constitutional rush to legislative judgment; they could claim basic rights and freedoms. Having sown the wind, the court reaped the whirlwind in the early 1990s when it upheld the tobacco companies' challenge to legislative efforts to curb their "freedom of expression" by demanding explicit warnings on their products.

The basic rationale was that "expression" was such a fundamental activity in a democracy that it must be protected even in dubious circumstances. Why this applied to so-called commercial speech as much as to political expression was unexplained. In short, the court seemed to feel that the cost of constitutionally protected advertising was the price of democratic justice.

Fast forward to a couple of weeks ago. The Supreme Court decided that autistic children had no constitutional right to require British Columbia to
finance expensive therapy for them. The court was sympathetic to the children and their parents (and hoped that the province would reconsider)
but held that health policy was not part of the Constitution. The court determined it was a matter for fiscal calculation by politicians, not constitutional principle by lawyers.

Such a decision sounds reasonable on its own terms. That is, until it is viewed against the court's findings in the tobacco-advertising cases. By
what logic can it be argued that the commercial rights of tobacco companies are more deserving of constitutional protection than that of autistic
children? Ironically, the cost of the children's requested therapy was meagre compared to the cost of treating smoking-related illnesses. But the
point is that autistic children are seen to count for less than tobacco companies in the constitutional scheme of things. And, thus, they count for less in the calibrations of democratic decision-making.

As if to add insult to injury, the courts come to this pass not as a
conclusion of contested political judgment, but as a purported constitutional fact. This is a lamentable state of affairs. Autistic children or multinational corporations?

Of course, constitutionalizing health care and putting funding decisions in judges' hands is not the way to go. But, at a minimum, it behooves the
courts to revisit the constitutional indulgences granted to corporations. If we are to reclaim the Charter's promise of social justice, we must be
prepared to do something. The fate of more than autistic children is riding
on it.

Allan C. Hutchinson is associate dean at York University's Osgoode Hall Law School.

[Sabrina Freeman]

To ACT-BC:

Me thinks thou doth protest too much!

Regards,

Sabrina

[Isaac]

Well folks, since a "little bird" put government droppings on this chat board tonight regarding ACT-BC's conversation on the government's gutting of Autism Society of British Columbia funding, within hours of the SCC ruling — complicit with Children's Assistant Deputy Minister Robin Syme — I suppose it's only fair and balanced to post the FEAT-BC press release of 12.20.04 that predates. Here it is for everyone's review.

Please feel free to post your thoughts on this topic to the FEAT BC discussion board. They'll get to Victoria's senior Ministry of Poverty hacks MUCH faster then by Canada Post.

Regards,
Isaac (Miki's Dad)
FEAT BC

For immediate release — December 20, 2004

Government's retribution decisive after high court Auton ruling
Assistant Deputy Minister Syme takes swift vengeance, pulls funds from BC Autism Society

Mere days after the Supreme Court of Canada ruling in the landmark Auton autism case, Children's Assistant Deputy Minister Robin Syme has been quick to take revenge on all people with autism in B.C., by cancelling government funding for the Autism Society of B.C. (A.S.B.C.) – a thirty-year-old organization that represents and offers important supports for all British Columbians afflicted with autism. In shocking contrast to the deceptively soothing words of Attorney General Geoff Plant, who claims that the end of the Auton case does not mean open season on British Columbians suffering with autism, Assistant Deputy Minister Syme's reply to the Auton case is to seek retribution by starving the Autism Society, now that autistic children's protection from lower court decisions is gone. In targeting A.S.B.C. first, Syme has opened a campaign of punishing those who gave moral support to the families who sued government for medically necessary autism treatment. After pulling funding from the A.S.B.C., Syme is now using the money to reward her friends – the same people who supported the government's failed attempt to defeat families in B.C. Supreme Court now receive a large contract from Syme's ministry. This is the true face of the Ministry, not Geoff Plant's superficial, misleading assurances that government cares about children with autism.
It is unusual to focus on a single civil servant for special consideration, but where autism policy in B.C. is concerned, it is impossible to have a full and complete picture of the autism struggle without knowledge of the leading role played by Assistant Deputy Minister Robin Syme. It was she who led the government charge against families in the Auton court case under the NDP government. She remains the chief autism policy czar under the Liberal government. Her level of power and influence over persons with autism is extraordinary. It is undeniable that Syme's misguided autism policies politically damaged the NDP government and now threaten to damage support for the present government amongst those who have compassion for the vulnerable and disabled of B.C.
A striking example of Syme's hubris is her recent interference in the operation of a supposedly independent society: The A.S.B.C. sent a questionnaire to all autism treatment providers in B.C. to determine their level of qualifications and expertise (https://featbc.org/asbc.pdf), this to ensure that British Columbians suffering with autism have the knowledge necessary to make a good and informed choice in autism treatment provider. Robin Syme took the unprecedented step of quashing A.S.B.C.'s important effort to protect persons with autism from substandard, harmful service providers. The Assistant Deputy Minister wrote a letter forcefully directing autism service providers to not disclose any information about their credentials to provide treatment to children with autism (https://featbc.org/syme.pdf). In short, Syme has used her government's power to withhold key information from children who desperately need high quality autism treatment. In the fall of 2000, Gordon Campbell said this:
• "The NDP decision to appeal the recent ruling of Madam Justice Allan reflects a government that has consistently failed to act in the best interests of children." – Gordon Campbell, October 18, 2000, in a letter to a concerned parent
Robin Syme is the senior civil servant responsible for this "consistent" failure, and she is still in charge of autism failure under the Liberal government. The Premier is either unaware of Syme's harmful role in autism policy or he is unwilling to do anything about her. If the former, then media clippings on his desk may help fix the autism problem in B.C. If the latter, then some courage on the part of the Premier is required to "clean house" at the Children's Ministry, or generations of children with autism will assuredly continue to suffer in B.C., for years to come.

– 30 –

For more information on medically necessary autism treatment and fallout from the Auton case,
please call Dr. Sabrina Freeman at (604) 534-6956
Email: skfreeman@featbc.org | Website: http://www.featbc.org

[Deleted User]

A little bird sent this to me…

ahhh, the stench in the air thickens.

For immediate release: December 21, 2004

FEAT-BC’s December 20th press release attacking the integrity of ACT – Autism Community Training is permeated by a conspiracy theory that cannot be supported by the facts. FEAT has done important work in bringing to the attention of the public the right of children with autism to intensive early intervention but it is a cause of concern that Sabrina Freeman, FEAT’s Executive Director, finds it so difficult to turn a new page and move on from the defeat in the Supreme Court of Canada. Now it is time for FEAT to turn a new page and make an effort to work with other parent-based organizations to push for strong federal legislation to protect the interests of all children with disabilities.

While it is disappointing for the Autism Society of British Columbia (ASBC) to have lost government funding to ACT, the current board has long expressed discomfort at receiving government funding. Now is the opportunity to reform itself by recruiting a board that truly reflects the diversity of perspectives from around the province and employing an Executive Director who does not also hold a position on the board, in the interests of transparency and good governance.

To provide the facts about the ASBC’s failure to win the contract to provide information and training to parents, ACT offers the following corrections:
• The contract went out to public tender last summer in the same process used in all government contracts.
• ACT- Autism Community Training was in negotiation with the Ministry for Children and Family Development from early October. Our proposal was comprehensive, well-written and demonstrated the wide-ranging knowledge of the two principals Clair Schuman and Deborah Pugh. It was supported in writing by leading parent advocates from across BC.
• MCFD couriered the final version of the contract the day before the Supreme Court decision and Clair Schuman’s, ACT’s Executive Director signed it the day of the decision. Anyone with any knowledge of how slow government works in Victoria cannot seriously believe that MCFD was able to generate a contract and have it signed the day of the SCC decision.
• The allegation that the Ministry financially rewarded people who “supported the government’s failed attempt to defeat families in the B. C. Supreme Court” is false. In fact, no one on ACT’s volunteer Board or Advisory Council receives any financial benefit at all from the contract, and no one employed by ACT supported the government’s appeal of the Auton case in any way. The staff of ACT and several of the ACT Board are parents of children with autism. It is patently absurd to suggest that they are out to “defeat families”. Further evidence of this is in ASBC’s own archives. In October 2000, Deborah Pugh, who was then the Executive Director of ASBC wrote in the Autism BC newsletter: “The judgement of Madame Justice Allan of the Supreme Court of British Columbia in late July, the Auton decision, is undoubtedly the most positive development in the history of autism in this province.” Moreover, Clair Schuman, ACT’s Executive Director, was a parent representative on a committee of the Canadian Association for Community Living who was intervenors at the Supreme Court of Canada in support of the families not the government.

In the interests of setting the record straight about ASBC sudden interest in upholding the right of parents to more information about those on the qualified service providers list that it has run for 2.5 years, it is only proper to address the claim that MCFD’s Assistant Deputy Minister “forcefully directed service providers to not disclose [to ASBC] any information about their credentials”:

continued
• The ADM informed service providers in writing that they were not obliged by the Ministry to provide information to ASBC, as a letter and questionnaire from ASBC had falsely implied. In particular, they were not required to answer questions that were not related to their qualifications as autism consultants, such as questions about their income. They are completely free to respond to the questionnaire if they so wish. ASBC has been asked to post their letter to service providers on their website, and the government’s response, so that observers can judge for themselves, but that has not happened.
• Long before ASBC issued it questionnaire, ACT had developed a Service Provider Profile, as part of our proposal, in response to the complaints from parents from around the province that so little information was available on the ASBC website, beyond a list of names and addresses – many of them seriously inaccurate or outdated. MCFD readily accepted ACT’s proposal to collect and publish more detailed information than ASBC had ever provided about the education, training, and experience of service providers. It is obvious that this information is desperately needed by families, what is not clear is why it had not already been done by ASBC.
• Soon ACT will be sending out this profile to service providers to give them the opportunity to better describe their credentials, specialties, services and fees. Meanwhile ACT is working to revise the contact information on the list that ASBC has had for over two years – roughly 90 percent of the entries have required updating. We are concerned that in the files provided to us by ASBC supporting documentation to verify credentials for many of the Service Providers on the list is lacking. Extremely serious is that ASBC did not follow-up with those service providers who have not provided a criminal record check, in the interests of protecting our children. Receiving those checks is a priority for ACT.

It would appear from the information above that ASBC’s interest in running the “Qualified Service Providers List” has lacked a commitment to provide a strong service to families within the context of their contract with government. This may be because many in leading positions in FEAT and ASBC felt able to assess qualifications independently of this list but there are many families who complain that they feel lost once their child has received a diagnosis and that the information available for ASBC is not sufficiently helpful.

ACT is committed to supporting all parents to learn how to assess the qualifications of service providers by making this information easily assessable so that parents can be assured that minimum standards have been documented and that criminal record checks have been received. With our strong board and staff and with the support of our outstanding advisory council, ACT will be able to make great progress in the months ahead. In the past 19 months, ACT has provided over 15,000 hours of training to parents and professionals on a wide-range of autism related issues. We are absolutely committed to raising the standard of professional development in this province and we believe we can do this as an independent not-for-profit society open to diverse opinions and grounded in the research that is transforming the lives of children with autism.

While ACT understands that both ASBC and FEAT have experienced a stunning blow from the Supreme Court decision we call on ASBC and FEAT to re-assess their current focus on alleging conspiracies on the part of service providers and government bureaucrats. With a provincial election looming, it is a necessity for parent-based organizations to work together to push for government commitment to continue funding and to increase it so that it truly covers the real costs of providing effective therapy for our children.

Media who wish to contact ACT – Autism Community Training’s Executive Director, Clair Schuman, urgently, may call: 604-812-3772. Currently ACT is interviewing prospective employees so we would appreciate general enquires to wait until we are up and running in January. Clair can be reached by email at: cschuman@autismcommunitytraining.bc.ca For more information on ACT’s training program and our staff, board, and advisory council see: http://www.actbc.ca

[Jeff and Robin]

Nancy,

That is awesome. Was there TV coverage as well? If so, let us know on the Chat when this will be on the telly. Looking forward to some great pics to be posted by Loriane. For those of you who have not already reached this conclusion by reading her posts, Nancy is an extremely articulate and saavy advocate who is extremely competent at presenting our position to the media.

Bravo!

[Loriane Frewing]

Wow, I agree, that meeting with Mark Warawa couldn't have gone better. You parents were amazing. Your stories gave all the important points. The cross section of people and situations was just great. The children were the best and told their own stories by their presence and participation. I know it must have been hard for you all to be there but I hope you sense the value you gave to the meeting and to all other families that this could potentially help.

Thank you Nancy! Your summary was great and your specific points for Mark and his party to take care of was excellent. You should post your talk.

I will get those pictures I took developed tonight (I hope) and get them on the web as soon as possible. It was so good to meet you all after all out emailing back and forth! I hope now you can relax and enjoy Christmas a bit.

Loriane, the grandma.

[Author]

Replies