“I guess truth can hurt you worse in an election than about anything that can happen to you.”

- Will Rogers

Allen Vaught is having a rough week. While shaking hands and providing answers to early voters, Allen Vaught learned that the autism and special needs families of District 107 are not happy – not happy at all. Only this week instead of simply reading about it in emails, blogs and hearing it from a former supporter who is now in his opponent’s ad, Allen Vaught finds himself face-to-face with parents who know that “Allen Vaught said no” when asked to provide real-life education answers for special needs children.

You may see the comments of Vaught’s new PR guy, Vince Leibowitz, at Capitol Annex. And Vince? Do your research, please – Bill Keffer has never taken money from James Leininger, and it has never been offered.

I was going to post a lengthy response, but someone beat me to it and covered most of the bases. Instead, I will leave you with two action alerts.

1. Vote against Allen Vaught
2. If you see him at the polling locations, ask him why he hates autistic children. If he answers, please come back and tell me his response.

Early voting locations: http://www.dalcoelections.org/nov42008/EVLocations.htm

November 4 voting locations: http://www.dalcoelections.org/voters.asp

Response to Vaught/Leibowitz

My old pal Vince, have you forgotten everything I taught you last session? There is so much wrong with your reporting in this post, both factually and from a humanitarian standpoint, I don’t know where to start.

1) First of all, it is not PC to call anything autism a “warm fuzzy.” We’ve been over this.

2) Second, I can assure you two years ago Senator Shapiro’s political aspirations and the possibility that she may one day make a bid for the U.S. Senate had nothing to do with SB 1000. What it did come out of was my dear friend chasing her down in a parking lot, choking back tears during her impassioned plea to find a way to provide an appropriate education program for her non-verbal 8 year old son. Watch the hearing from March 2007 if you have any doubt. Shapiro couldn’t get through the session without tears herself. So if you want to stick with your story, give the lady an Oscar or cut out the crap already. It stinks even worse two years later.

3) I also happen to be personal friends with the “plaything” in Keffer’s ad. You want to know what Vaught did? Strung her along, offered to help, emailed her daily, and then cut her off once he accepted a large chunk of change for the anti-voucher Texas Parent PAC. Then he attempted to keep this from coming back and biting him, and perhaps to derail this very ad from its logical and probable development, by offering her an under-the-table voucher to any program in his district. She said, “Thanks but no thanks, that isn’t going to get it done for the rest of the kids being silently cleansed from our public schools.”

3) You want to know what Keffer did? Helped develop the Texas Virtual Academy, which brought her kid some much needed options and got him BACK IN PUBLIC SCHOOL. Is that using them? If so, any mom would gladly prostitute themselves for that kind of result.

4) Insurance is a non-issue here. HB 1919 was passed and heralded as the saving grace for children with autism last session. In fact, it was part of the “autism package” that the anti-voucherists used to distract from the fact they weren’t doing anything to help these children educationally. A lot of nothingness, smoke and mirrors, that are not getting the job done while thousands more children with autism watch the clock run out on their chance at becoming contributing members of society due to the outright refusal of our Texas ISD’s to meet their needs (whether you call it a funding problem or siphoning our tax dollars to the private law firms, prioritizing football and fully-funded housing for Superintendents over the needs of the kids, the end result is the same). It’s not helping. HB 1919 is limited to fully-funded plans regulated by the state and the age limitations cutting off benefits at age 6 have resulted in a law that has yet to pay out any meaningful benefits to the community.

5) Which means education is our only hope. But what happens to the kids with autism when our public schools refuse to acknowledge their diagnosis, address their needs, and punish them for acting out due to overwhelming inappropriate settings or the symptoms of their disability? What happens when they don’t provide the basic supports and minimally trained staff to enable them to function in that setting, much less be successful? What happens when they staff their child’s IEP meetings with attorneys and they refuse to provide parental safeguards such as an independent evaluation, and sue that child and his family instead? Can’t happen? Wouldn’t happen? It happened to me.

I credit you, Vince, for planting the seeds that hatched an idea that I have been working hard on ever since to take roots in our Legislature – a children’s legal defense fund. It would be revolutionizing in that public schools would no longer hold all the advantages of unlimited resources parents can’t touch. Let the schools set one dollar aside for every dollar they spend fighting to deny these kids’ their federal rights and make those matching funds available to the families. It still doesn’t solve the problem that families have so few competent special ed attorneys to go up against the industry of school defenders, or that our federal P&A has taken the position to refuse help to all the children who have been forced out of the public schools and only want their help to get them back in, or the simple fact that those families are the last ones who should be dragged into litigation from a time, energy and resource standpoint. But it would finally give parents SOME ability to go toe-to-toe with the ISD’s and their well-funded law firms courtesy of our tax dollars ($58 million in the last reported year) and would serve as a self-imposed spending cap on those districts who love to throw money at the firms to fight precedent that they might actually have to help a second child if they help one.

I’m sure someone else can post about all the inaccuracies in your legislative recap about SB 100. My hands are tired. As for Vaught, he signed onto an “anti-voucher” agreement in the House that made SB 1000 coming to a vote moot. He broadcasted his intent to vote against the bill. My friend asked him for help for her child and HE SAID NO. Keffer got her kid back in public school.

Any questions?

And please, FOR THE LOVE OF TEXAS, quit with the voucher-scheme garbage. It’s pathetic, it’s desperate, it’s inaccurate and you’re better than that. Keffer merely met a parent who was grateful her child was helped by him bringing educational options to her and who was burned by his opponent who fought to keep them tethered to the brick and mortar Dallas ISD that just about did her kindergartener in. If that’s inconvenient for Vaught and your party, too bad. Go cry to the Texas Parent PAC.

Remember, families:

1. Vote against Allen Vaught
2. If you see him at the polling locations, ask him why he hates autistic children. If he answers, please come back and tell me his response.

Early voting locations: http://www.dalcoelections.org/nov42008/EVLocations.htm

November 4 voting locations: http://www.dalcoelections.org/voters.asp