Originally Posted by villagetinker (Post 1329255)

All,

As promised, here is the letter I sent to the CDD (we live in) and Jane Tutt, and her reply. Janet, thank for allowing this to be shared.

[Janet Tutt and CDD supervisors]
My wife and I are extremely disappointed in learning of the sudden closing of this facility. My wife is one of the 18,000 that had signed up for courses this spring. She had invested in supplies in anticipation of these classes.

As home owners and permanent residents of The Villages, we expect, no we demand, that efforts be made immediately to bring back the LLLC facility. There must be some intermediate stand between the parties involved to allow this to reopen. As I understand the situation, the LLLC would need to provide some reasonable effort to accommodate the hearing disabled population.

So, how can this be such a big deal, 30 people, maximum number of classes involved at any time, 30 classes, maximum amount of additional ASL interpreters 30. My suggestion, add language to all classes that there may be an additional charge for the ASL person, you would need to determine a suitable way of determining the additional charge, but I am guessing an additional $1 or $2 charge per person per class set aside, would cover the potential cost of the ASL person.

Let’s get together and fix this.

Reply from Janet Tutt:
Good Afternoon,
Thank you for contacting the Supervisors for your District.
As you are probably aware, none of the Districts are involved in the Life Long Learning College or The Villages Charter School so I cannot address some of your questions.
However, I can tell you I have been contacted by the President of the VHA who has expressed the willingness to provide help in any way if there is an opportunity for the VCCDD or SLCDD to provide some option to continue this great program.
It is clear from the newspaper article that The Villages Charter School was more than willing and financially capable of meeting the specific needs requested by the plaintiffs which included interpreters and assisted listening devices. However, I do understand The Villages Charter School is not in a position to monetarily meet the plaintiffs’ additional fiscal demands. As stated in the article, any additional fiscal demands could not come from The Charter School budget without impacting the core purpose of the school.
The VHA has been instrumental in the past in helping to bring about positive and resident beneficial actions by the boards (one example is the successful Project Wide Advisory Committee) and based on their offer and resident input, I understand based on my conversation that the VHA will be asking VCCDD and SLCDD to explore the possibility of providing this type of program. I will be reaching out to Dr. McDaniel the first of the week to secure budgets/financial information regarding the Lifelong Learning College so we will be able to respond to the VHA’s anticipated request and offer to help.
Please let me know if you need anything further.
Janet

My follow-up comment:
It looks like the VHA might be our best agent to restore the LLLC in some form. Let's see what happens in the mid December hearing.

Originally Posted by RickeyD (Post 1329281)

Ms. Tutt's reply: corporate baloney.

Originally Posted by blueash (Post 1328474)

I am horrified but not surprised at the general response to this situation. The law for very good reason requires that public agencies provide services to all citizens in a manner that reasonably allows their participation

These neighbors of ours were unable to utilize the Lifelong Learning College because of a common problem around here, hearing loss. All they asked was that the LLC provide them with a way to learn along side those of us who do not yet have hearing loss, at a reasonable cost to the Charter School which apparently directly or indirectly gets Federal tax dollars as part of its financing.

If the numbers in the paper of 18,000 students a year are correct, for a mere $4 per person they could have covered the cost of interpreters as needed to help our hearing impaired neighbors. That so many on this forum suggest shunning or actively driving these people away because they just wanted to enjoy the same amenities as I can enjoy is so deplorable it needs to be called out. That it took a lawsuit to even attempt to get sign language interpreters in this situation evidences that the defendants preferred to fight rather than accommodate. I am certain that they spent many many years of the cost of providing the service of interpreters on their legal team.

It would have been so much easier, and reflect a concern for the well being of the hard of hearing had the Rohan, Tutt, et al team when first made aware that deaf Villagers wanted to take courses at the LLC had simply said, yes we will get that done. They seem to have installed handicapped lifts in many of the pools so we know that trying to help all of us can sometimes be a goal that is accomplished.

These 32 plaintiffs did NOT take the LLC away from you. They wanted to be with you. The decision to close the LLC lies entirely with the people who run it who could have easily, years ago, or now provide help to the deaf rather than shut the doors.

Originally Posted by Xavier (Post 1329141)

Have you ever seen a person's personality change drastically when all of a sudden they've been given power or authority that they never possessed before? It could be a title change, a uniform change, and/or a leadership change. I'm sure you've all seen this before.

Thirty years ago I was in charge of a break-even, not-for-profit adult education program. The focus of the courses was for individual and community betterment. The program was up-fronted the funding by various public education entities. The understanding was that it was self-supporting and that all funds would be returned at the end of the term. After time, the enrollments grew, the offerings became more diversified and soon we were serving over 9,000 students and the budget grew into the millions. Asking public educational organizations for that much money up-front became very difficult. We were continuously looking to involve businesses and to apply for grant funding from whatever sources were available. If we were diligent and played our cards close to our vest, funding would continue the next term. Putting addition financial burdens on our programs could have had disastrous ramifications.

Enter a real go-getter who was looking to make a name for himself. Someone like the individual I described in my first paragraph. ADA demands went from zero to scores all within one term. Let me take a little aside. I am a lifelong educator and truly believe in inclusiveness. We had no warnings, no discussion, no requests before our program was blindsided. There was no satisfying this person. No accommodations were good enough. None of the actual participants were demanding what-so-ever. They were often embarrassed and wanted to work with us. We later found out that they were sometimes chastised for being cooperative.

To shorten the story and to avoid getting painfully bogged down in details, I brought together a group of leaders in the community to help us figure out what could be done. A problem solving group. I made sure to invite the individual who was the catalyst to our problem. He was much more cooperative in a group setting. We saved our programs, served all members of the community, and taught an important lesson in cooperation.

Xavier

Originally Posted by RickeyD (Post 1329281)

Ms. Tutt's reply: corporate baloney.

Originally Posted by circletrack (Post 1329337)

Of course it was. She has to be very careful what she's says as she was among the defendants deposed in the initial suit. Wouldn't you be careful as well?

What this does show is that the seed has already been planted for the VCDD to step in and consider taking over operations. Now it will be up to those boards to decide if using residents' money to get the school back underway and offer the assistance asked for in the suit is the right thing to do.

Originally Posted by scrapple (Post 1329333)

Thank you!:BigApplause:

Originally Posted by Erijo (Post 1329007)

As I read through all the posts, I came away with the feeling of "if I can't have this, no one can!" Shame on the few who started this suit. Did it accomplish what you wanted? Instead of accommodating your disability, you took away any chance of that. In fact you "punished" every Villager who went to the LLC or planned to, not to mention all the teachers who lose income, and children who lose the opportunity to a better education. Your plea that no one hold it against you will fall on "deaf ears" (if you will). You and your group have caused such heartache, anger, frustration and hard feelings. With that being said, I hope you're happy with yourselves and the outcome of these actions. In my humble opinion, Villagers are so generous and so happy to help. I think a better solution could have been found if you had just asked.

Originally Posted by dillywho (Post 1328984)

I just reread yesterday's article. According to it, Mr. McDaniel was quoted as saying that ...."going back for almost eight years, we've tried to offer reasonable accommodations to these folks, including hearing interpreters and assisted hearing devices for any class they wished to attend. No matter what we offered to meet their special needs, it was never enough."

The suit was filed three years ago, not eight. Maybe it is just now being brought to everyone because of the decision to close. It could be that, instead of trying to "conceal" something, it was hoped that the matter could be resolved to the satisfaction of all. Apparently, the outcome has turned out to be just the opposite.

All in all, such a shame. If what he said is true about the last almost eight years, then it was truly not the lack of accommodation, but something else. I cannot for the life of me, understand why those 32 involved cannot do some accommodating, as well.

Originally Posted by Dr Winston O Boogie jr (Post 1329363)

It was never enough because there was no money involved. Lawyers are not going to take cases on a contingency basis unless there is a chance of damages being rewarded.

Don't let anyone fool you. This is about money. It may even be that many of the plaintiffs are not interested in money, but lawyers are not going to allow a settlement where they don't get paid.

Originally Posted by Dr Winston O Boogie jr (Post 1329363)

It was never enough because there was no money involved. Lawyers are not going to take cases on a contingency basis unless there is a chance of damages being rewarded.

Don't let anyone fool you. This is about money. It may even be that many of the plaintiffs are not interested in money, but lawyers are not going to allow a settlement where they don't get paid.