Archives for April 2004

This originally appeared in The Tactile Mind Weekly in Trudy’s ON HAND column.

Over $8,000.

That’s how much I’d have to pay as a small business owner for an exhibition booth at each of the various expos and conferences this year alone. With booth rates varying from $350 to $800 for deaf-owned businesses (and not much cheaper for nonprofit agencies), that’s a staggering price.

That doesn’t include airfare, hotel, lodging, and transportation, either. Even if I wanted to go to these conferences and expos only as an attendee, I’d pay regular rates of well over $500, plus airfare, transportation, lodging and meals.

Though the return on such booths and marketing may be high–new clients bring more money–deaf-owned businesses still often can’t go to conferences because of the costs of registration and lodging, not to mention all the other little expenses that add up. Most people don’t exactly want to bunk up with 10 other people sleeping on the floor in order to pay for a week’s worth of rooms.

I certainly understand the ramifications of such high costs. I wonder, though, how we can make these conferences more accessible to small businesses or deaf-run organizations that would really benefit from the events yet can’t afford them. Many conferences and expos do not allow booth sharing, where two businesses or individuals share the cost of one booth. For example, some deaf artists live from paycheck to paycheck, yet these conferences are their main source of making money by selling their art. How can they afford booths if they’re already financially strapped and can’t share their booth with other artists? It’s a Catch-22 situation.

I think it is possible to find cheaper booth rates by using less pricey hotels or locations. For instance, the Intertribal Deaf Council conference rates are amazing. Booths are only $175 to $225, and registration fees are only $75 for members. And the fees include meals, craft materials, and a museum tour. Lodging is between $5 (yes, $5) and $50. Their booths are also in the area of where the workshops will be held, so exhibitors will be able to benefit from the workshops.

Even so, some feel that utilizing cheaper locations may downgrade the professional image or ‘class’ of such events. Others also ask if it’s really the responsibility of organizations and expos to make booths less expensive for small businesses or organizations. Or is the name of the game for business owners to spend money to make money? What about scholarships–is it possible to create a fair process in place to determine who gets financial assistance? Yet, on the other hand, would it be appropriate to give scholarships to people in order to help them make money?

It’s a complicated issue, one that needs to be addressed not only by conference and expo planners, but by deaf-owned businesses, too. After all, aren’t we supposed to be helping each other in the community?

Copyrighted material. This article can not be copied, reproduced, or redistributed without the written consent of the author.

This originally appeared in The Tactile Mind Weekly in Trudy’s ON HAND column.

I’m frustrated.

More than a year ago, I wrote a piece for NAD’s Members Only Area about the demise of publications in the deaf community. One of the things I wrote in that article was that people seemed to think that running a publication was easier than cutting bread. That’s one of the reasons so many publications come and go.

When a new newspaper appeared last October, I was cautious. According to an insider, they created, planned, and launched the paper in a month’s time–way too fast for any new publication. I decided to give the newspaper a chance, though, especially since I had worked with the editor in the past. After a few months, I ended my contract with them. With unbelievable runarounds, late paychecks, lack of communication, and a million other things–I figured I had better things to do with my time.

Two months later, they were still publishing articles I had turned in more than six months prior. Today, the newspaper has lost almost all of its original section editors and has gone through several administration changes. The contents of the newspaper are easily read through in a matter of minutes and filled with opinionated or poorly researched articles. While I’m happy to not be writing for a newspaper with only 1,100 paid subscribers, I’m also disappointed. I had high hopes for the newspaper, because we do need such a publication.

Maybe if they had taken more time in launching the newspaper–instead of trying to capture the market–they could have planned better, recruited better staff, and had writers and editors more familiar with deaf journalism (which is different from mainstream journalism). While I understand that every start-up project has room for improvement, I think if they had simply taken time out to learn the ropes, the newspaper would have a lower turnover and better contents–and ultimately, better subscriber numbers.

Now there’s another online magazine being launched. When I saw it, my immediate response was: “Let’s see how long this one lasts.” And that frustrates me.

Why are we now at a point where we meet new publications with great skepticism and little trust? The answer is, of course, because of previous newspapers and magazines that have ripped subscribers off.

When Silent News suddenly shut down nine months after I left, I waited with bated breath to see if subscribers would be refunded their money, especially those who had supported the paper for more than 30 years. They didn’t get their money back. I get asked every day, two years later, what happened. I wish I knew–I left long before the paper shut down–but I’m frustrated to think that loyal, dedicated subscribers, including my own family, lost money to a deaf publication.

When I started editing Deaf Success Magazine a few months after it launched, one of the terms of my part-time contract was that if the magazine ever shut down, *they would refund money to subscribers*. When my paychecks began arriving as much as a month late, and issues weren’t arriving to our 4,000 subscribers–I knew it was time to resign. Sure enough, they soon shut down. No money was refunded to anyone, and I’m still owed some money. I still have no idea what happened to the publication–again.

But what frustrates me even more is that subscribers–and writers–are consistently left in the dark.

When an issue is late, subscribers must be notified. When something comes up that delays or cancels publication, subscribers must be notified. When a publication temporarily or permanently suspends printing–and there are plenty of them: Silent News, Deaf Success, several e-zines/websites, Deaf Life, Capital D–subscribers must be notified, and refunded their money.

Yet they aren’t. And nobody is ever told what happened. This is so, so wrong.

With the lack of respect for subscribers and writers, I now choose to not work for any deaf publication, except for the occasional article. And I’m not alone–many of the deaf community’s top writers have made the same decision.

It’s too bad, really.

On a different note: Congratulations to TTMW for reaching its first anniversary! I’m proud to have been part of the publication.

Copyrighted material. This article can not be copied, reproduced, or redistributed without the written consent of the author.

This originally appeared in The Tactile Mind Weekly in Trudy’s ON HAND column.

Last February, I met with a state representative from my town to ask her to sponsor a proposed amendment to an existing bill. Although the majority of people in Minnesota are white, we also have a large population of Hmong, Somalian, and Hispanic immigrants. So this bill requires doctors’ offices here to provide them with spoken language interpreters, regardless of how many employees the doctor’s office has.

This bill, however, doesn’t cover ASL interpreters if the doctor’s office has less than 15 employees.

This representative, Rep. Bourdreau–a staunch Republican who has a deer’s head mounted in her St. Paul office–agreed to meet with the director of the Minnesota Commission Serving Deaf and Hard of Hearing People and me for fifteen minutes.

Almost immediately, Bourdreau told us the amendment wouldn’t be possible for a number of reasons, mainly money. I pointed out that the bill already existed; that it’d only be an addition of the words “and sign language” to the bill. She repeated that it wouldn’t be possible. “Besides,” she said (and I’m paraphrasing), “Deaf people can always write back and forth with doctors, while these immigrants can’t. We have to give immigrants access, too.”

I told her about how a CODA once told me about her deaf mother’s visit to the doctor’s for headaches and other ailments. The doctor told the mother, “It’s all in your head.” The mother came home and told her daughter, “See? I told you! He said it was all in my head!” She had taken the doctor’s comments literally instead of realizing that he was saying her ailments were not real.

I also threw the third/fourth grade reading level statistic at Bourdreau, explaining that even perfectly intelligent deaf people in my own family had difficulties with written English. I added that it’d be unrealistic for me to take time out from my medical situation–especially if it was an urgent or emergency situation–to see if a doctor’s office had 15 employees or more. “How come I have less rights as a tax-paying, working US-born citizen than an immigrant who can hear?” I asked.

She nodded, but still insisted that deaf people could write back and forth with doctors instead of using interpreters, and again refused to sponsor the bill.

I still am astonished by her comment about writing back and forth. She lives in Faribault, which has a large population of deaf people, and of course has the Minnesota State Academy for the Deaf. And she still had this much ignorance?

We know who I’ll be voting for in the next election. And it *won’t* be for Bourdreau.

UPDATE: Bourdreau did lose the election.

Copyrighted material. This article can not be copied, reproduced, or redistributed without the written consent of the author.