See Hear Talkpermalink
The Sickening Double Standards of RNID.
- First
- « Previous
- Next »
- Last
-
On February 1st of this year, John Low, CEO of RNID made a speech at
society.guardian.co....
in which he stresses the importance of, inter alia, accountability, transparency and the interests of the beneficiaries. There are many quotes which show this, including:
‘Closeness to the user’
‘From public accountability to legal regulation, we need a revolution in the way charities are run and communicate to anticipate these developments.’
‘Ensuring user voice as well as plurality of choice in service provision will remain crucial,’
‘Public trust is based largely on the perception of charities as independent bodies outside the remit of government and with no interest other than to serve their beneficiaries’
‘This is not a new dilemma for the sector, but as the public becomes more aware of the greater role, will it expect greater accountability? Organisations will have to do better at explaining why they still need public support for their activities when the bulk of their funding comes from the state. Impact reporting, a novelty in much of the sector, will have to become the norm if we are to justify what we do to a potentially more sceptical and demanding public. We need to look at further strengthening of governance arrangements to ensure the beneficiary's interests not financial margins remain the drivers for development.’
All the right noises, I’m sure you will agree, yet about 3 weeks later the RNID closed it’s general forum on it’s own website. There were a number of criticisms of Low and RNID on this forum, there were requests that RNID discuss issues with deaf people, including members – they were ignored. There were various discussions on how members could gain a voice in the trusteeship to have their voice heard – now gone and can no longer be discussed there. And this is leaving aside the fact that the forum was very useful for deaf people to help other deaf people on various issues, including DLA applications.
This can only expose the dreadful double standards of RNID, who, far from standing naked before us, are cutting deaf people off and doing as they please. -
I can't understand why anyone is at all surprised. I used to go to the forums with the aim of asking for advice. I would then see people having a go at each other in a very personal way, or otherwise, having a go at RNID, and it would put me off from taking part. Occasionally, there would be some nuggets of advice up there, but I was put off by all the other stuff. I think it's a real shame, but I can't blame them!
This is a reply to this message.
-
This was my sarcastic response (via my deaf-blog) to that article in the Guardian.
A view from the other end of the telescope
"Charities reach the fork in the road" - published in the Guardian Newspaper on Wednesday 1 Feb 2006 - is an interesting article in which John Low discusses charities like the RNID reaching a fork in the road and becoming service provision agencies whilst it continues to try and retain its status quo as an independent voluntary organisation that represents "the user voice and gives plurality of choice".
Its my belief the RNID is viewed as acting in the guise of a voluntary charity organisation - with membership voting and elected trustees and so on - but to a degree or extent IS perceived in the eyes of the public to be a mainstream government agency - unofficially "commissioned" as an extension of "welfare, health and social security" departments to purportedly advocate our rights, issues, equipment needs, communication needs, case-work services, and taking over the role of service provision on our behalf - and its traditional role as a voluntary charitable organisation reached the fork in the road a long time ago.
The RNID has itself to blame for this process of transformation and increased accountability by its public watchdogs - it has a rather extraordinary talent for taking over the majority of services - and showing little restraint in its over-expansion, even to the point of adopting tactics to undermine and extract the services other smaller voluntary organisations set up to serve the BSL community that the RNID in my opinion has neglected and failed to address in the history of its own campaign remit.
It's main purpose as a charitable voluntary organisation serving its beneficiaries is being brushed aside more as the RNID appears to be focusing more on providing the government with cheaper alternatives - and failing in its duty of care to provide equal representation in its overall campaign remit. Its campaigns optimising residual hearing dependant on quality of auditory/oral feedback and speech development and working on latest product development and innovative technology are within themselves addressing the needs of a large sector of its beneficiaries - but fail to address the complex issues Deaf people face in their every-day lives : especially with regard to bi-lingual education, employment, and rights of the BSL user to be fairly represented in the mainstream of society - a consequence of this past negligence and other contributing factors - especially the neglect of the underlying issues embedded and rooted deep in the perspectives and history of deaf sign language users has led to the emergence of campaigns run by other self determined voluntary organisations such as the Federation of Deaf People (FDP) and the British Deaf Association (BDA) and the remarkable historical recognition of BSL as a language.
The traditional tenets of empowering deaf people to assert their own voice of knowledge and speak from the wisdom from their own experiences, to be more than merely financial contributors or donor members, to be able to represent their own causes and to enlighten mainstream society, and also to be promoted within the ranks of the hierarchy of a "voluntary charitable organisation" to take up posts in senior management roles have been more or less forsaken for the sake of the RNID's competitive streak - by bidding over zealously for the majority of public investment - some of which could be otherwise allocated to smaller organisations with an genuine interest in using the funding not only to provide the services but also to generate employment for deaf people, and raise mainstream public awareness of BSL.
When sign language became officially recognised as a language by the government the RNID reared its culturally ignorant head and logged onto the fact that there was MONEY to be made through sign language initiatives, and went into overdrive in bidding for financial contributions to develop service provision in this (historically) neglected sector.
I find it extraordinary that John Low, CEO of the RNID and Chair of Acevo - Association of chief executives of voluntary organisations allowed the RNID to take over the internet domain name of BSLVRS the British Deaf Association had widely advertised for the launching of its own intended Video Relay Service, and to add insult to injury, ensured that anyone attempting to log in to use the BDA's own VRS were re-directed to the RNID's own VRS. The BDA have now changed the domain name of its own video relay services to SIGNVRS. This attempt to hijack the services of a smaller voluntary member led Deaf organisation to the British Sign Language community demonstrates a distinctive lack of respect and non willingness to allow other organisations the chance to run their own services where the beneficiaries come before margins of profit.
Actions speak louder than words and this kind of big city corporation shark attack on smaller organisations blurs the impact of its campaigning edge and indicates that financial margins are the main drivers for development. In this respect, the RNID needs to revolutionise its thinking and change its policies (and attitudes).
This is a reply to this message.
-
I can't understand why anyone is at all surprised. I used to go to the forums with the aim of asking for advice. I would then see people having a go at each other in a very personal way, or otherwise, having a go at RNID, and it would put me off from taking part. Occasionally, there would be some nuggets of advice up there, but I was put off by all the other stuff. I think it's a real shame, but I can't blame them!
None of the above, is why the RNID stated was the reason for the shutting down. They just said they wanted to spend more time on the rest of the site (People who are happy to grovel to them presumably). They gave no hint/warning or anything, as for people having a go that's what forums are for, the orginal RNID blurb was to encourage us that we could inter-act with each other about deaf and HI issues, next you'll be saying the Deaf-UK is all sweetness and light ? By comparison the RNID were real pussies !
The RNID shut down the forum for two reasons, 1, forum participants were getting more requests for help than their main site was ! and 2, they couldn't respond to criticisms they ignore deaf people, and didn't like people logging in to see they aren't perfect, so they shut us out instead. The RNID service HEARING Interests ! (1,060 hearing staff cannot be wrong can it ?). Heaven forbid they actualy hire or train deaf people. Where it counts at exec level there's NONE.
This is a reply to this message.
-
Well said, Ruthie and MM, I would just like to add that whatever criticism RNID came in for, they could and should have taken it on the chin - they *chose* to enter the heated kitchen!
They are supposed to put deaf people first, that is what they claim to do when they talk about their beneficiaries. There's no question that the forum was valuable and wanted, yet because they think that evading just criticism is more important than what deaf people want, it is now gone and everyone can see what RNID's priorities *really* are!This is a reply to this message.
-
I thought I would just bump up this thread to remind people of what RNID have gone on public record as saying on accountability, which they now appear to be reneging on (see draft letter to RNID trustees thread.)
This is a reply to this message.
-
I think it is right to keep throwing these statements in their faces. It will teach them not to make extravagant statements that they can't back up.
For example the RNID claims to be the largest organisation representing deaf people.
This is not true. They do not represent all deaf people, they represent what they think deaf people want. We generally don't get asked, except in some tick-box questionnaire and we all know how those can be fiddled, I hope.
Tim's attempts to make contact with the RNID Trustees are significant. It seems pretty obvious that the RNID doesn't really want members to become too closely involved.
Otherwise how can their apparently obstructive attitude towards talking to their members be justified?
Why don't they want Trustees to communicate with the people who elected them?
If they really wanted to help deaf people in any way possible, why do they not open up and talk to their members?
I think the answers to this may well be that the RNID HQ is a bit of a gravy train. I think the management pay themselves large sums of money for not doing very much.
Meanwhile, at the coal face there are loads of great and committed workers all beavering away on a pittance and under some quite restrictive practices.
I think the answer, since the RNID is so sensitive to publicity is to show them up. Tell people what is really happening in their name, encourage them to look behind the glossy PR interface for the reality.
If the RNID say one thing and do another as they frequently do, then that should be drawn to public attention. I think that for too long in the past nobody has challenged these people to back up their extravagant claims and so they have become a smug and complacent part of the Establishment. We can do something about it if we all join in.This is a reply to this message.
-
Indeed, Andy.
If RNID are going to make extravagant claims about their accountability, they should not complain when collectors come knocking on their door expecting them to make good on those claims.
This is a reply to this message.
- First
- « Previous
- Next »
- Last
Live community panel
Vote
Vote
© MMIX