Tonight's D17 ABIL forum

concerning health care and other disability-related issues.

Held at the Westside Community Center in Tempe, all four House candidates and both Senate candidates from D17 discussed a number of topics in a forum moderated by Edward L. Myers III, an attorney from the Arizona Center for Disability Law.

The event was sponsored by the Arizona Bridge to Independent Living (ABIL) and was facilitated by Amina Kruck, ABIL's Advocacy Unit Director.

The forum started with the two Senate candidates, Democrat Meg Burton-Cahill and Republican Rose Crutcher squaring off.

For most of their part of the forum, "squaring off" may be overstating the situation somewhat.

While their positions on the issues had slight differences, the differences were mostly in minor details, not basic substance.

Both support increased mental health crisis intervention training for law enforcement personnel; both say that AHCCCS doesn't properly cover oral health care for developmentally disabled adults; both support increased incentives for employment of people with disabilities - both spoke of infrastructure changes/improvements to facilitate this; Rose Crutcher mentioned improvements to Dial-A-Ride, Meg Burton-Cahill talked about housing near light rail. (This statement isn't meant to minimize their consideration of this and the other issues, but it does highlight the relatively minor differences in their positions in regards to disability issues.)

When asked about expanding independent living assistance to reduce institutionalization and dependency, both candidates feel it's a "quality of life issue" and strongly support it. They both spoke about family members and their experiences with institutionalizations due to health problems.

On the question of their opinions of the importance of voting, both candidates, actually, all 6 candidates tonight, support it.

What a shock!

Breaking News: Elected officials and wannabes support voting.

Stop the presses! :)



In her closing, Burton-Cahill called for incentives for caregivers and service workers for the disabled, saying "we expect so much" from caregivers and "give so little." She also spoke of her passion for the work, and how she has grown and matured from her tribulations as a passionate Democrat in a Republican-dominated legislature.

Crutcher closed by agreeing with Burton-Cahill on the topic of expanding programs for caregivers. She also cited her strong advocacy for children in the past and promised that would strongly advocate for the entire district when she is elected.

There was time left in the schedule, so the moderator accepted a few questions from the audience.

The first questioner asked if the candidates knew if there is anyone who is DDD-eligible but doesn't qualify for Arizona long-term care. Both candidates thought yes, but when asked "how many", neither one was sure, but both thought that "one is too many."

On the next question, Meg Burton-Cahill's fire came out a little. A questioner asked for clarification on the "oral health care" issue. In their original answers, both candidates focused on care for children. The questioner was curious about their thoughts on oral health care for developmentally disabled adults.

Crutcher's answer focused on "gaps" in coverage.

Burton-Cahill's answer showed some of the passion and outspokenness that she mentioned earlier.

She observed that while there has been advocacy on this issue in the past, nothing is in place right now because too many in the legislature won't make small investments that yield long-term benefits. [Note - Think 'penny-wise, pound-foolish,' Arizona-style.]


The part of the forum for the candidates for State Representative was somewhat more low-key than their previous forums, but they still found opportunities for "shots across the bow," statements that clearly defined the candidates as partisan candidates.

Both Republicans, Laura Knaperek and Dale Despain, tailored their openings to the audience/sponsors of the forum. Knaperek spoke about her experiences (prior to entering the lege) as director of the Arizona Consortium for Children with Chronic Illness; Despain spoke of his mother-in-law and two grandchildren with disability issues and the associated difficulties.

Democrat Ed Ableser opened with a more conventional general statement of his background and reasons that he is running.

His Democratic ballotmate David Schapira, like the Republicans, spoke of his personal experiences with disability issues, as he was born with cancer, and was well into his teens before the treatments cleared him. He admitted that he was fortunate to have the health insurance coverage that paid for those treaments, but decried the fact that so many Arizonans don't have coverage.

On this one, Schapira wasn't really tailoring his message, as he has spoken of this in other forums. Also, I'm not criticizing either of the Reps for tailoring their openings to the audience, nor am I criticizing Ableser for sticking to a more general bio in his. Both choices are legit rhetorical tactics. One assumes that the audience is a "single-issue" audience; the other assumes not. I couldn't get a read on which was correct.

On the issue of mental health crisis intervention training for law enforcement, Knaperek sounded sympathetic, but since she answered the question as she read from the agenda/info packet that was handed out at the beginning of the forum, she also sounded like she was making it up on the fly.

Sometimes, the best answer is "I don't know, let me look into that."

IMO, anyway.

The other candidates gave varied answers, but all basically supported expanding crisis intervention training.

On the oral care for developmentally disabled adults question, all of the candidates basically supported this, though the Republican candidates were a little ambiguous about it, and focused on preventative care -

Despain: We should "provide as much preventative care as possible."

Knaperek: Noted that "for too long" the state has not covered developmentally disabled adults' preventative dental care.

Schapira thought that covered dental care should be more than "pulling teeth," and that changes are needed.

On this issue, though, Ableser was the most passionate. He used this question as the opportunity to call on the state to strive for comprehensive health care in the state.

[Note: in this answer, he cited Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. For the first time since I started taking classes at SCC, a general education class (Psych101) actually benefitted me. I understood the reference. Whooo hooo!! :) ]

Regarding the issue of incentives for employing persons with disabilities, all of the candidates supported them, but the distinction between the Democrats and Republicans became very visible here.

Ableser stated that the disabled aren't treated fairly, something that should be addressed.

Despain actually illustrated the mindset that is at the root of this in his answer.

Despain thought that Basha's and Fry's do a good job of accomodating disabled employees.

[I could be wrong about this (I don't read minds), but I'm pretty sure that the disabled community and their advocates aspire for careers for the disabled other than "bagger", "courtesy clerk" and "mop jockey" . ]

Knaperek chimed in with "the legislature is more receptive than ever on disability issues."

[Personal comment: Yup, they are. Help for the disabled community is high on the lege's list of priorities. Right after tax cuts for the wealthy, tax cuts for corporations, passing unfunded mandates like requiring all public classrooms to have American flags in them, and going to lunches paid for by lobbyists.]

Schapira observed that 72.6% of the disabled are unemployed, yet we have billions of dollars in subsidies for oil companies, but bupkas for this.

Partisan differences were also in evidence in the candidates' answers to the question about expanding independent living assistance to the disabled.

Knaperek noted that Arizona isn't "institutionalizing" any longer, and supports providing services at the home and neighborhood levels.

Ableser supports Centers for Independent Living. Echoing something said by Meg Burton-Cahill during the first part of the evening, he thinks that "investing" in the community is a better long-term choice than short-sighted tax cuts.

Despain responded in the taxes vein, stating that the economy should be strong before spending money on this.

Schapira, also on taxes, thought that the tax cuts of the last legislative session should have been temporary rebates, not permanent cuts.

On the importance of voting question, the candidates for State Rep gave fairly similar answers, with a couple of exceptions:

Ableser cited Clean Elections, saying that is allowed "anyone to run" for office, affording the opportunity to turn the less reasoning members of the lege [my words, not Ed Ableser's] out of office.

He cited the example of Russell Pearce. It seems that during a hearing about funding for elevators at ASU, the benefit to disabled students was cited as a reason to support the funding proposal.

Rep. Pearce responded by suggesting that any classes with disabled students be held on the first floor.

Knaperek took the opportunity during her answer period to defend Pearce as someone who has helped the disabled community during his time as chair of the Appropriations Committee.

The candidates' closings were pretty straightforward -

Despain cited his family background as reason that the issues of the disabled community are "not abstract" to him.

Schapira assured the audience that the issues affecting them will be at the "forefront of his legislative agenda."

Knaperek launched into a long bit about why everybody should vote for her. For a moment, I thought she was going to fall into her habit (from previous campaigns) of throwing the other Rep candidate under the bus, but she closed with a strong appeal to those present to vote for both her and Despain.

Ableser called for a change in the priorities of the legislature, that investments in the community now will reap great rewards in the future. He finished by asking to vote for both him and Schapira.

Overall impressions:

None of the candidates screwed up at the forum, though I held out hope when Laura Knaperek started with her defense of Russell Pearce. Unfortunately, she kept the defense specific to the area of disability issues. :(

The differences between the two slates of candidates was best highlighted by the Democrats' call to "invest now" versus the Republicans' call to "wait until the economy is stronger."

So far as the candidates know, and so far as I know, this was the last D17 forum scheduled for this cycle. If you are interested in viewing a general forum online, Clean Elections has theirs available here.

Later!