Thanks, VT. But I'm a little confused by Ms. Tutt's response. It reads as though she was unaware of this 8 year long issue until she saw the same barebones DS article the rest of us did on Friday. I find that hard to believe since apparently the RLG's were sued at first. She then cites the article, and states that the LLLC offered ASL interpreters for any applicable class, which suggests the plaintiffs were more interested in "damages" ($$$$) than in participation. Finally, she seems to suggest that financial responsibility in any plan of correction might fall to the VHA, since they "volunteered" to help, no mention of TVLSI funds. What is your take on that response????
|