Robert G. Sanderson
Community Center of the
Deaf & Hard of Hearing
Compiled & Written by Jodi Becker Kinner
Edited by Valerie G. Kinney
Published in 2012
Updated in 2022
Edited by Valerie G. Kinney
Published in 2012
Updated in 2022
Acknowledgement
I'm grateful to Eleanor McCowan for making me work on the Utah Deaf History project, which I gladly accepted. None of this would have happened if it hadn't been for her request.
We incorporated further information from Dr. Robert G. Sanderson's "A Brief History of the Origins of the Robert G. Sanderson Community Center of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing" book. Thank you, Dr. Sanderson, for making my job a lot easier.
Thanks to Marilyn T. Call for taking the time to review this material.
I sincerely appreciate W. David Mortensen's enthusiastic support while working on this project.
Valerie G. Kinney's invaluable assistance in editing and providing consultation direction while preparing this paper is recognized and gratefully appreciated.
Finally, I am indebted to my husband, Duane Kinner, and my children, Joshua and Danielle, for their unwavering support and patience while we worked to complete this project.
We incorporated further information from Dr. Robert G. Sanderson's "A Brief History of the Origins of the Robert G. Sanderson Community Center of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing" book. Thank you, Dr. Sanderson, for making my job a lot easier.
Thanks to Marilyn T. Call for taking the time to review this material.
I sincerely appreciate W. David Mortensen's enthusiastic support while working on this project.
Valerie G. Kinney's invaluable assistance in editing and providing consultation direction while preparing this paper is recognized and gratefully appreciated.
Finally, I am indebted to my husband, Duane Kinner, and my children, Joshua and Danielle, for their unwavering support and patience while we worked to complete this project.
Note
This webpage is not intended to be a duplicate of Dr. Robert G. Sanderson's "A Brief History of the Origins of the Robert G. Sanderson Community Center of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing" book. The goal of this history is to fill in the gaps, such as the Utah Deaf community's battles with state authorities' decision-making process regarding the community center for the deaf, the objections of Dr. Grant B. Bitter, a hard-core oralist, to the services being provided by the community center for the deaf, and W. David Mortensen's strong advocacy for the community center. The purpose of this post is to help readers get a better understanding of how Deaf leaders overcome obstacles to establish the Robert G. Sanderson Community Center of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing.
A Gathering Place of their Own
In his book "A Brief History of the Origins of the Robert G. Sanderson Community Center of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing," Dr. Robert G. Sanderson recalls that the idea of a deaf meeting place first surfaced during the Utah Association of the Deaf convention in 1946. He was living in his home state of Nevada at the time, and he attended his first convention, where he observed Deaf people discussing how much fun it would be to have their own "Club for the Deaf," where they could choose their own rules and gather whenever they wanted. The Utah Deaf community was aware that deaf clubs could be found in most major cities. As a result, they questioned, "Why not Utah?" "Why not Salt Lake City?" you might wonder. "Why not, Ogden?" says the narrator (Sanderson, 2004).
He stated the Utah Deaf community has gotten together for years for socials, parties, sporting events, and other activities. "Why do we have to beg for time and space all the time?" they wondered as they gathered. They had to take whatever time, date, and place were available, not necessarily the ones they wanted. They booked a hotel ballroom, a utility auditorium, the Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind gymnasium, and the Murray B. Allen Center for the Blind. "In by seven, leave by nine," and "pay the janitor extra after nine" were among the strict rules imposed. Despite the fact that the Utah Deaf community wished they had their own gathering place, they appreciated the Blind individuals and their leaders' cooperation utilizing their facility (Sanderson, 2004).
He stated the Utah Deaf community has gotten together for years for socials, parties, sporting events, and other activities. "Why do we have to beg for time and space all the time?" they wondered as they gathered. They had to take whatever time, date, and place were available, not necessarily the ones they wanted. They booked a hotel ballroom, a utility auditorium, the Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind gymnasium, and the Murray B. Allen Center for the Blind. "In by seven, leave by nine," and "pay the janitor extra after nine" were among the strict rules imposed. Despite the fact that the Utah Deaf community wished they had their own gathering place, they appreciated the Blind individuals and their leaders' cooperation utilizing their facility (Sanderson, 2004).
Robert G. Sanderson
Possible Factors that Prevented Activism
With this in mind, Dr. Sanderson offered his theory that the Deaf community was denied the "club for the deaf" due to four possible factors. 1. The deaf adult population was insufficient to maintain a financially independent facility. 2. The dominant religion, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, actively discouraged the use of alcohol among the Deaf adult population. To support the club, activists in other states would sell alcohol. 3. To make a living and maintain a family, many Deaf people had an "eight to five" production job, which left them with little time to interact with high-level professionals in education, community agencies, or the legislature. Many of them couldn't afford to lose their jobs in order to get into politics. Only a small percentage of Deaf professionals were paid to participate in non-work-related community activities. 4. There was a lack of trained Deaf leaders who could communicate Deaf people's needs to the hearing majority with the authority and money to make things happen (Sanderson, 2004).
Furthermore, Deaf people showed leadership qualities as officers in many deaf organizations, including the Utah Association of the Deaf, local divisions of the National Fraternal Society of the Deaf, Utah Athletic Club of the Deaf, and others, according to Dr. Sanderson. They lacked specific training, however, to help them reach a higher level, overcome their fear, and meet and speak with the leaders of the hearing power structure (Sanderson, 2004).
These were most likely the reasons why an independent deaf club, a county or state-supported deaf center akin to the Murray B. Allen Center for the Blind in Salt Lake City, had not been established (Sanderson, 2004).
Furthermore, Deaf people showed leadership qualities as officers in many deaf organizations, including the Utah Association of the Deaf, local divisions of the National Fraternal Society of the Deaf, Utah Athletic Club of the Deaf, and others, according to Dr. Sanderson. They lacked specific training, however, to help them reach a higher level, overcome their fear, and meet and speak with the leaders of the hearing power structure (Sanderson, 2004).
These were most likely the reasons why an independent deaf club, a county or state-supported deaf center akin to the Murray B. Allen Center for the Blind in Salt Lake City, had not been established (Sanderson, 2004).
Trained Utah Deaf Leaders
Things were about to change when Utah Deaf leaders, including Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, who moved to Utah from Nevada in 1947, observed two national Deaf leaders, Gallaudet College graduates Dr. Boyce R. Williams and Dr. Malcolm Norwood, being able to communicate with hearing leaders of the power structure. As the director of the Office of Deafness in the Vocational Rehabilitation Administration under the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Dr. Williams, who was a good friend of Robert Sanderson, reached the administration's highest levels with a convincing message. He also raised public attention to the concerns of Deaf and hard of hearing people, who had received little attention for years, as other people with disabilities in the United States received more attention. Dr. Norwood, as the director of the Office of Deaf Captioned Films, went above and beyond to educate top-level officials in the Department of Education about the importance of captioned films for Deaf people (Sanderson, 2004).
Similarly, Dr. Williams and Dr. Norwood went to considerable lengths to meet accessibility needs that would benefit the general Deaf population, especially the Utah Deaf community. At the same time, they inspired Utah Deaf leaders to expand their legislative leadership and communication skills in order to fulfill the needs of the Deaf adult population. It has to do with the history of the Robert G. Sanderson Community Center for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, since Dr. Williams and Dr. Norwood served as models for Utah Deaf leaders. They held workshops on various aspects of deaf issues at the local, regional, and national level. Some Utah residents went to learn more about themselves and their personal needs (Sanderson, 2004).
Similarly, Dr. Williams and Dr. Norwood went to considerable lengths to meet accessibility needs that would benefit the general Deaf population, especially the Utah Deaf community. At the same time, they inspired Utah Deaf leaders to expand their legislative leadership and communication skills in order to fulfill the needs of the Deaf adult population. It has to do with the history of the Robert G. Sanderson Community Center for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, since Dr. Williams and Dr. Norwood served as models for Utah Deaf leaders. They held workshops on various aspects of deaf issues at the local, regional, and national level. Some Utah residents went to learn more about themselves and their personal needs (Sanderson, 2004).
Dr. Boyce Williams @ Gallaudet University Archives
Dr. Boyce R. Williams' letter, 1964
Boyce R. Williams (center) received the first Daniel T. Cloud Memorial Award for Leadership in a special ceremony in conjunction with commencement exercises at San Fernando Valley State College. Dr. Ray L. Jones, (left) Director of the Leadership Training Program in the Area of the Deaf which sponsors the award, made the presentation. Robert Sanderson (right) president of the National Association of the Deaf, was present for the ceremony. The Utah Eagle, November 1968
The National Leadership Training Program in the Area of the Deaf was created at San Fernando Valley State College (later renamed California State University at Northridge) in California in 1962 thanks to a funding from the Rehabilitation Services Administration. This college was the first in the US to hire full-time sign language interpreters in a graduate program. Many people who are deaf and hard of hearing applied. There were five people who were deaf and ten people who were hearing. One of the Deaf applicants to join the LTP Class of 1965 was Robert G. Sanderson of Utah (The UAD Bulletin, Winter 1964; Sanderson, 2004).
Dr. Malcolm Norwood, director of the Office of Captioned Films for the Deaf
Observation of the National Deaf Club
Meanwhile, other Deaf people were still trying to find a means to form a Deaf club. There was a lot of talk but not much action. Leaders lacked "know-how." They considered forming a Deaf club and a service agency to address the social, educational, and economic issues that Deaf individuals faced. The Deaf Club would be modeled after existing clubs in large cities (Sanderson, 2004).
While serving as president of the National Association of the Deaf, Dr. Sanderson visited clubs that centered on social interaction needs, such as cards, captioned movies, sports, chatting, parties, and so on. The clubs' primary sources of revenue were liquor and food sales. Some of these clubs had purchased their own, run-down structures. According to Dr. Sanderson, many of the members of these groups complained about a lack of deaf jobs, mental health services, and other needs. He noticed that, aside from providing a meeting space, club leaders lacked the necessary training to directly address the needs of the Deaf people they served. He also observed that Deaf people's newsletters and publications from all around the country failed to mention the need for comprehensive Deaf centers. Professional publications, on the other hand, routinely published papers emphasizing the need for psychiatrists, psychologists, and social workers who were fluent in sign language and could effectively communicate with Deaf people. Through the Rehabilitation Services Administration, Dr. Sanderson became close friends with Dr. Boyce Williams, with whom he arranged and financed a series of workshops to address these issues. In each state, a nationwide deaf rehabilitation program was to be established (Sanderson, 2004; Stewart, DHSHH, April 2012).
While serving as president of the National Association of the Deaf, Dr. Sanderson visited clubs that centered on social interaction needs, such as cards, captioned movies, sports, chatting, parties, and so on. The clubs' primary sources of revenue were liquor and food sales. Some of these clubs had purchased their own, run-down structures. According to Dr. Sanderson, many of the members of these groups complained about a lack of deaf jobs, mental health services, and other needs. He noticed that, aside from providing a meeting space, club leaders lacked the necessary training to directly address the needs of the Deaf people they served. He also observed that Deaf people's newsletters and publications from all around the country failed to mention the need for comprehensive Deaf centers. Professional publications, on the other hand, routinely published papers emphasizing the need for psychiatrists, psychologists, and social workers who were fluent in sign language and could effectively communicate with Deaf people. Through the Rehabilitation Services Administration, Dr. Sanderson became close friends with Dr. Boyce Williams, with whom he arranged and financed a series of workshops to address these issues. In each state, a nationwide deaf rehabilitation program was to be established (Sanderson, 2004; Stewart, DHSHH, April 2012).
Utah Association for the Deaf Officers Becomes Activists
Deaf Utahns did not want to be left behind while all of this was going on at the national level, so they launched a lobbying effort to secure rehabilitative programs for Deaf Utahns. Encouraged by national developments and obvious local needs, a number of Deaf Utahns became advocates. Officers of the Utah Association of the Deaf, Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, Eugene W. Petersen, and G. Leon Curtis, were among the activists at the time (Sanderson, 2004).
Officers and members of the Utah Association of the Deaf proposed the services to deaf adults. The three officials, Sanderson, Petersen, and Curtis, began tentative efforts in 1962 to establish an office that would serve the Deaf people of Utah full-time. They were concerned about Deaf adults' inability to receive services. Their goal was for the state of Utah to provide them with more adequate social services. Due to communication barriers (The UAD Bulletin, Winter 1965), it was practically impossible for Deaf adults to receive necessary and available services.
Officers and members of the Utah Association of the Deaf proposed the services to deaf adults. The three officials, Sanderson, Petersen, and Curtis, began tentative efforts in 1962 to establish an office that would serve the Deaf people of Utah full-time. They were concerned about Deaf adults' inability to receive services. Their goal was for the state of Utah to provide them with more adequate social services. Due to communication barriers (The UAD Bulletin, Winter 1965), it was practically impossible for Deaf adults to receive necessary and available services.
Eugene W. Petersen. The Utah Eagle, April 1955
Deaf leaders requested that the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation develop services for the Adult Deaf for the State of Utah, with personnel dividing their time between vocational rehabilitation and straight social services geared to address the needs of Deaf adults. Counseling and interpreting, as well as adjustment assistance in areas like legal, personal, social, emotional, marriage and family, financial, and educational services, were all included in their vision of social services. It was also suggested that the accessible services be staffed by qualified personnel who had a full understanding of Deaf adults and could effectively communicate with them in order to prevent or alleviate major issues and deprivations faced by the Utah Deaf community. The leaders also stressed that the proposed agency would not get involved in personal problems unless requested by the people involved, and then only if the issues were clearly beyond their ability to handle on their own. Deaf leaders would not try to replace, duplicate, or sway the activities of existing Utah Deaf community organizations (The UAD Bulletin, Spring 1965).
G. Leon Curtis. UAD Bulletin, Winter 1964
As a result, UAD advocated for a study of Deaf adults' challenges in the social service system, emphasizing the importance of documenting the need for services to Deaf adults and carefully evaluating how such services may be provided efficiently and economically (The UAD Bulletin, Fall 1963).
Sanderson, Petersen, and Curtis quickly devised a plan to approach the Salt Lake Area United Fund for help in creating services for the deaf. Sanderson was about to leave Utah for California's National Leadership Training Program in the Deaf Area. The ball was left in the hands of Petersen and Curtis (Sanderson, 2004).
Sanderson, Petersen, and Curtis quickly devised a plan to approach the Salt Lake Area United Fund for help in creating services for the deaf. Sanderson was about to leave Utah for California's National Leadership Training Program in the Deaf Area. The ball was left in the hands of Petersen and Curtis (Sanderson, 2004).
Did You Know?
Most deaf adults had been exposed to hearing aids, lip reading, and speech training for a long time by 1963. They rarely react to those kinds of vocational rehabilitation services. Instead, they were in desperate need of additional personal adjustment services, such as vocational training, counseling, and placement. They were uninterested in speech and hearing centers. Many professionals mix up the deaf with the millions of hard of hearing consumers. The latter mostly communicated through their ears. They weren't a distinct group. It was a slow process for them to lose their hearing. Their speech and language had been established normally and were close to normal. Auditory training, hearing aids, lip reading, and speech correction were the most common treatments they sought (The UAD Bulletin, Fall 1963, p. 3).
The Community Services Council Forms
In this case, the United Fund staff were very interested in the concerns raised by the Deaf leaders, so they referred the matter to the Community Services Council, the fund's coordinating agency, for further study. In March 1963, the Community Services Council approved the referral as a project. A Community Services Council committee was tasked with investigating all community agencies to see whether any of them could deliver the needed services (The UAD Bulletin, Fall 1963).
The Community Services Council appointed a representative committee of fourteen Deaf and hearing people to look into the challenges that Deaf adults face and how they may be wrapped into an existing agency that represents a diverse range of community interests. Larry W. Blake served as the committee's chairman. Members of the committee included G. Harold Bradley, Philip R. Clinger, Marguerite Davis, Clarence O. Fingerle, Vera Gee, Madeleine Helfrey, C. Russell Neale, R. Elwood Pace, Eugene W. Petersen (Deaf), Eula Pusey (interpreter), Brigham E. Roberts, Ray G. Wenger (Deaf), and Jerry Westberg (Deaf) (The UAD Bulletin, Fall 1963; The UAD Bulletin, Spring 1964; Sanderson, 2004).
The Community Services Council appointed a representative committee of fourteen Deaf and hearing people to look into the challenges that Deaf adults face and how they may be wrapped into an existing agency that represents a diverse range of community interests. Larry W. Blake served as the committee's chairman. Members of the committee included G. Harold Bradley, Philip R. Clinger, Marguerite Davis, Clarence O. Fingerle, Vera Gee, Madeleine Helfrey, C. Russell Neale, R. Elwood Pace, Eugene W. Petersen (Deaf), Eula Pusey (interpreter), Brigham E. Roberts, Ray G. Wenger (Deaf), and Jerry Westberg (Deaf) (The UAD Bulletin, Fall 1963; The UAD Bulletin, Spring 1964; Sanderson, 2004).
Ray G. Wenger, member of the Community Services Council committee
The committee met on a weekly basis during the year of 1963. They spent a lot of time researching the issues that Deafadults faced. The committee's conclusions were compiled into a report titled "Services to the Adult Deaf, Salt Lake Area." The committee's report drew widespread attention, and roughly 100 copies were requested for a national workshop for social workers held in Berkeley, California on November 18–22, 1963. (Sanderson, 2004).
Jerry Westberg, member of the Community Services Council committee
The following are some of the issues raised by the Community Services Council in servicing Deaf adults:
While communication barriers were identified, the majority of the twenty-seven agencies that responded indicated that the Deaf population had access to the full range of services available. Communication barriers, however, limited the kind and quality of services that could be provided (The UAD Bulletin, Fall 1963).
According to the Utah Association for the Deaf, "The handicap of deafness lies in the communication barrier it imposes and involves more than speech and lip reading lessons." The greatest disadvantage of deafness is not so much the inability to speak and hear as it is the mental starvation that comes with a lack of language. Every step in deaf education is based on the necessity of developing a working vocabulary, which requires a significant amount of time spent on the development of oral speech and lip reading. As a result, regardless of the methods used in their education, Deaf children are three to four years behind their hearing peers. This language deficiency is carried over into adult life and accentuated by the deprivation of normal auditory stimuli such as radio, television, forums, theater, screen, conversation, and so on," UAD continued. Consequently, the average Deaf adult is below the norm in his grasp of the social, economic, and political facts of life and in his appreciation of the cultural and humanitarian facets of modern society (The UAD Bulletin, Fall 1963, p. 3).
Following the study, it became evident that the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation would be the best place to implement effective deaf services. This division provided statewide services through local district offices, as well as access to a wide range of specialized professionals who were familiar with working with people with disabilities (The UAD Bulletin, Winter, 1965).
- It is difficult for a deaf person to communicate with family, friends, and professional people.
- A deaf person cannot understand details regarding arrangements and plans of action.
- It is difficult to train a deaf person because of the communication barrier.
- Counseling services are essentially verbal understandings. The success of which is contingent upon freedom of communication. This is impaired in work with the deaf.
- The absence of free, spontaneous communication presents a problem. Several adult deaf consumers known to agencies in recent years have not remained in counseling for an extended period of time.This may be due to limited skills in working with the deaf or what has been noted as the deaf person’s unwillingness to be introspective or to become involved in a casework relationship.
- The communication barrier limits the social activities in which the deaf may participate.
- Training the deaf in lipreading is difficult.
- It is difficult to obtain family health information in the cases found by public health nurses.
- Deaf parents have difficulty training their hearing children in speech. Discipline problems arise because of the breakdown in communication between parent and child.
- The communication barrier makes it difficult to administer hearing evaluations.
- Deaf people do not know how to use community resources through which health and welfare services are available (The UAD Bulletin, Fall 1963, p. 4).
While communication barriers were identified, the majority of the twenty-seven agencies that responded indicated that the Deaf population had access to the full range of services available. Communication barriers, however, limited the kind and quality of services that could be provided (The UAD Bulletin, Fall 1963).
According to the Utah Association for the Deaf, "The handicap of deafness lies in the communication barrier it imposes and involves more than speech and lip reading lessons." The greatest disadvantage of deafness is not so much the inability to speak and hear as it is the mental starvation that comes with a lack of language. Every step in deaf education is based on the necessity of developing a working vocabulary, which requires a significant amount of time spent on the development of oral speech and lip reading. As a result, regardless of the methods used in their education, Deaf children are three to four years behind their hearing peers. This language deficiency is carried over into adult life and accentuated by the deprivation of normal auditory stimuli such as radio, television, forums, theater, screen, conversation, and so on," UAD continued. Consequently, the average Deaf adult is below the norm in his grasp of the social, economic, and political facts of life and in his appreciation of the cultural and humanitarian facets of modern society (The UAD Bulletin, Fall 1963, p. 3).
Following the study, it became evident that the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation would be the best place to implement effective deaf services. This division provided statewide services through local district offices, as well as access to a wide range of specialized professionals who were familiar with working with people with disabilities (The UAD Bulletin, Winter, 1965).
Larry W. Blake & G. Leon Curtis. UAD Bulletin, Fall 1965
The Community Services Council presented their findings to the State Board of Education after two months of consideration. A supplemental budget request for this modest but expanded program of services for Deaf adults in Utah was approved. The leadership of the Division of Rehabilitation recognized the lack of accessible services for Deaf adults and enthusiastically supported this plan (The UAD Bulletin, Spring 1965).
Did You Know?
The Utah Association for the Deaf was not listed in the agency services listing for Deaf people in 1963 because it was a membership organization rather than an agency incorporated to provide professional services to a specialized clientele. It also served many of the social and recreational needs of deaf adults through its activities as a membership organization, and it ran a public information program to promote a better understanding of deafness (The UAD Bulletin, Fall 1963, p. 4).
Lobbying the 1965 Utah State Legislature
for Services to the Deaf Adults
for Services to the Deaf Adults
Some local Deaf leaders realized at this time that forming an ideal "deaf club" was not financially possible (Sanderson, 2004). The Community Services Council Committee focused on working with the Utah legislature to secure funding for the Office of Rehabilitation Services' services. Several UAD officers and members took time off work during the 1965 Utah State Legislature session to accompany UAD president G. Leon Curtis to the Capitol for conversations with Governor Calvin L. Rampton, to ensure his support for financing, and to lobby the legislature. Eugene W. Petersen, Joseph B. Burnett, Ned C. Wheeler, and Eula Pusey, an interpreter and a strong advocate for the Utah Deaf community, were all instrumental in this effort (Curtis, The UAD Bulletin, Spring 1965; Sanderson, 2004).
Joseph B. Burnett
However, the Legislative Budget Committee received excessive budget requests, resulting in the state's inability to support all requests. The committee had to make some cuts, and the funding for deaf services was eliminated (The UAD Bulletin, Spring 1965).
UAD had no intention of giving up. They worked tirelessly to persuade the legislators that the funding should be reinstated. To accomplish this, Deaf leaders met with members of the State Legislature. A bill was drafted and introduced by Representatives Della L. Loveridge (D-Salt Lake), Nathaniel D. Clark (D-Ogden), and Earl H. Whittaker (R-Circleville). Governor Rampton was in attendance, as were a handful of legislators and senators. A large number of Deaf people wrote letters to their local legislators requesting their support (The UAD Bulletin, Spring 1965).
The bill was never put up for a vote, but the plan worked when the powerful Joint Appropriations Committee looked into it again and found a way to get a portion of the funds requested (The UAD Bulletin, Spring 1965).
UAD had no intention of giving up. They worked tirelessly to persuade the legislators that the funding should be reinstated. To accomplish this, Deaf leaders met with members of the State Legislature. A bill was drafted and introduced by Representatives Della L. Loveridge (D-Salt Lake), Nathaniel D. Clark (D-Ogden), and Earl H. Whittaker (R-Circleville). Governor Rampton was in attendance, as were a handful of legislators and senators. A large number of Deaf people wrote letters to their local legislators requesting their support (The UAD Bulletin, Spring 1965).
The bill was never put up for a vote, but the plan worked when the powerful Joint Appropriations Committee looked into it again and found a way to get a portion of the funds requested (The UAD Bulletin, Spring 1965).
Ned C. Wheeler
In an increasingly complex world, the government acknowledged the difficulties experienced by Deaf and hard of hearing adults. They complied by allocating $10,000 to the Department of Public Instruction for "straight" social services for people who are deaf or hard of hearing (UAD Bulletin, Spring 1965; Sanderson, 2004). It was a significant sum at the time, and it would bring matching money from the federal government totaling $26,713 to the Office of Rehabilitation Services for a new office (The UAD Bulletin, Fall 1966).
In the end, UAD successfully lobbied for better services for Deaf individuals. The road to the United Fund, the Community Services Council, and the State Legislature was long and hard work. UAD made friends with the hearing community along the way.
In light of this, UAD stated that they did not want special treatment for the deaf. They desired equal treatment in exchange for equal contributions. Deaf people would be at a disadvantage in a complicated and competitive world and would need support from the deaf services (The UAD Bulletin, Spring 1965).
In the end, UAD successfully lobbied for better services for Deaf individuals. The road to the United Fund, the Community Services Council, and the State Legislature was long and hard work. UAD made friends with the hearing community along the way.
In light of this, UAD stated that they did not want special treatment for the deaf. They desired equal treatment in exchange for equal contributions. Deaf people would be at a disadvantage in a complicated and competitive world and would need support from the deaf services (The UAD Bulletin, Spring 1965).
Robert G. Sanderson Appointed as the First State
Coordinator of Services to Deaf People in the United States
Coordinator of Services to Deaf People in the United States
When funding became available on July 30, 1965, the Utah Merit System Council announced the creation of a new position in the Department of Public Instruction: Coordinator, Adult Deaf Services. At the time, Dr. Vaughn Hall was the State Administrator for the Division of Rehabilitation (Sanderson, 2004).
Robert G. Sanderson.
UAD Bulletin, Winter 1965
According to the Utah Deaf community, Robert G. Sanderson, who was still president of the National Association of the Deaf and had recently finished his master's degree in Educational Administration in California, was a fortunate choice. Sanderson applied for the position when it became available and was hired with significant support from the Deaf community. His office was located at the Atlas Building, 36 West Second South in Salt Lake City, and he was designated as the first state coordinator of services to Deaf people in the United States on November 15, 1965 (Sanderson, 2004). He spearheaded advocacy efforts to establish a community center for the deaf and created a specialized rehabilitation unit for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing while working in this position.
Finally, in the Division of Rehabilitation, deaf services were established, with a Deaf man, Dr. Sanderson, at the helm. Utah's rehabilitation approach was imitated by Dr. Boyce Williams, Dr. Mary Switzer, and others in Washington, D.C. Other state rehabilitation departments quickly adopted the positions and responsibilities as a model (Sanderson, 2004). Without the community's support, Dr. Sanderson would not have been able to win the position.
Over the course of his career, Dr. Sanderson served as a "rehab man," a counselor, a coordinator, and a director. He was known as the "Father of Vocational Rehabilitation" and was a pioneer in the field.
Finally, in the Division of Rehabilitation, deaf services were established, with a Deaf man, Dr. Sanderson, at the helm. Utah's rehabilitation approach was imitated by Dr. Boyce Williams, Dr. Mary Switzer, and others in Washington, D.C. Other state rehabilitation departments quickly adopted the positions and responsibilities as a model (Sanderson, 2004). Without the community's support, Dr. Sanderson would not have been able to win the position.
Over the course of his career, Dr. Sanderson served as a "rehab man," a counselor, a coordinator, and a director. He was known as the "Father of Vocational Rehabilitation" and was a pioneer in the field.
One-Year Anniversary of Services to Deaf Adults
The Services for Deaf Adults celebrated their one-year anniversary in the fall of 1966. Dr. Sanderson and his "team," which included Mildred Richardson, a secretary, struggled to keep up with the mounting workload. In past years, the Utah Division of Rehabilitation served an average of eleven Deaf and hard of hearing people per year. By the time Dr. Sanderson got the job, word had gotten around that there was someone behind the counter who spoke their language, and his caseload had grown to ninety-four consumers. Many Deaf and hard of hearing consumers in need of assistance had previously been held back due to communication barriers. Dr. Sanderson was able to overcome this stumbling block; there was plenty of work to keep a vocational rehabilitation counselor occupied (The UAD Bulletin, Fall 1966).
He played a double role in a combination of social services and rehabilitation services. The new job of Dr. Sanderson was challenging. He wore several hats by taking on tasks in the realms of rehabilitation, counseling, training, job placement, adult education, and sign language workshops, as well as advocating for captioned films (The UAD Bulletin, Fall 1966).
Dr. Sanderson found his employment to be the most rewarding of his varied career, despite many obstacles and occasional frustrations. In the Fall 1966 issue of the UAD Bulletin, he noted, "I enjoy working with these people. The great majority are capable, self-reliant, and a credit to the community. Some of them need guidance, some additional training, others may need only a chance; they all need more understanding. The one thing they don’t need or want is sympathy. The office is here to work with deaf adults and to help when needed. But it was not and never was intended to be done for them" (The UAD Bulletin, Fall 1966).
He played a double role in a combination of social services and rehabilitation services. The new job of Dr. Sanderson was challenging. He wore several hats by taking on tasks in the realms of rehabilitation, counseling, training, job placement, adult education, and sign language workshops, as well as advocating for captioned films (The UAD Bulletin, Fall 1966).
Dr. Sanderson found his employment to be the most rewarding of his varied career, despite many obstacles and occasional frustrations. In the Fall 1966 issue of the UAD Bulletin, he noted, "I enjoy working with these people. The great majority are capable, self-reliant, and a credit to the community. Some of them need guidance, some additional training, others may need only a chance; they all need more understanding. The one thing they don’t need or want is sympathy. The office is here to work with deaf adults and to help when needed. But it was not and never was intended to be done for them" (The UAD Bulletin, Fall 1966).
Robert G. Sanderson (center), mid 1960s
The Growth in Rehabilitation Service
According to Eugene Petersen, president of the Utah Association for the Deaf, the Rehabilitation Services had been beneficial to Deaf adults in Utah over the previous two years, from 1965 to 1967. Under Rehabilitation Services, the number of new consumers assisted or receiving help had increased to 135 with 15 or 16 more on the waiting list. The Utah State Legislature was impressed, and funds were granted for a second counselor and office support. A bill providing interpreters for deaf people in court was also passed by the legislature. As a service coordinator, Dr. Sanderson no longer needed to search for an interpreter in court (The UAD Bulletin, Spring-Summer 1967).
The majority of the consumers were new to UAD. They didn't use sign language and were unlikely to become members of the Utah Deaf community, but they were deaf and needed assistance. They were now receiving the kind of understanding and assistance they needed (The UAD Bulletin, Spring-Summer 1967).
At the time, many of these people had multiple disabilities (UAD Bulletin, Spring-Summer 1967). The number of young deaf adults seeking rehabilitation treatments has increased. Training, counseling, and placement were all quite challenging (UAD Bulletin, Fall, 1966). Over a third of the students at the Utah School for the Deaf had multiple disabilities (The UAD Bulletin, Spring-Summer 1967).
The majority of the consumers were new to UAD. They didn't use sign language and were unlikely to become members of the Utah Deaf community, but they were deaf and needed assistance. They were now receiving the kind of understanding and assistance they needed (The UAD Bulletin, Spring-Summer 1967).
At the time, many of these people had multiple disabilities (UAD Bulletin, Spring-Summer 1967). The number of young deaf adults seeking rehabilitation treatments has increased. Training, counseling, and placement were all quite challenging (UAD Bulletin, Fall, 1966). Over a third of the students at the Utah School for the Deaf had multiple disabilities (The UAD Bulletin, Spring-Summer 1967).
Robert G. Sanderson, Coordinator
of the Deaf Services. UAD Bulletin, Summer 1968
It was thought that UAD would not be needed and that the state would care for Deaf individuals. Dr. Sanderson argued that anyone who believes the "state will take care of us" is mistaken. It was expected that it would "give them all they desired" and "do more to help deaf people." The rehabilitation philosophy was to work with people rather than against them (The UAD Bulletin, Spring-Summer 1967).
Dr. Sanderson responded by noting that individuals who were willing to work hard for themselves received the most out of their assistance. Learning a trade or going to school might take a long time and be challenging for Deaf people. Those who failed to find a suitable job usually gave up or dropped out; those who were successful in obtaining employment in the trade they desired were those who stayed with it and gained the necessary skills and competencies. He emphasized that the type of assistance provided in the deaf rehabilitation program would not lead to dependency. The purpose was to assist Deaf individuals gain independence and to enable them to share community resources more equitably. Adult education programs, for example, sponsored by the community, attempted to assist Deaf people in overcoming educational deficiencies that rendered them dependent. The rehabilitation program gave them the necessary training to enable them to become self-sufficient. In this context, Utah was not alone; other states had similar issues (The UAD Bulletin, Spring-Summer 1967).
Dr. Sanderson stressed the necessity of the National Association of the Deaf and the Utah Association for the Deaf continuing to work proactively to aid a portion of the Deaf population that can not always help itself, particularly individuals with multiple disabilities. The number of people with multiple disabilities had climbed, and volunteer organizations must continue to bring their unique needs to the attention of government agencies. The Utah School for the Deaf was well aware of the issues confronting these exceptional children, and a partnership between USD and rehabilitation services was formed (The UAD Bulletin, Spring-Summer, 1967).
Dr. Sanderson responded by noting that individuals who were willing to work hard for themselves received the most out of their assistance. Learning a trade or going to school might take a long time and be challenging for Deaf people. Those who failed to find a suitable job usually gave up or dropped out; those who were successful in obtaining employment in the trade they desired were those who stayed with it and gained the necessary skills and competencies. He emphasized that the type of assistance provided in the deaf rehabilitation program would not lead to dependency. The purpose was to assist Deaf individuals gain independence and to enable them to share community resources more equitably. Adult education programs, for example, sponsored by the community, attempted to assist Deaf people in overcoming educational deficiencies that rendered them dependent. The rehabilitation program gave them the necessary training to enable them to become self-sufficient. In this context, Utah was not alone; other states had similar issues (The UAD Bulletin, Spring-Summer 1967).
Dr. Sanderson stressed the necessity of the National Association of the Deaf and the Utah Association for the Deaf continuing to work proactively to aid a portion of the Deaf population that can not always help itself, particularly individuals with multiple disabilities. The number of people with multiple disabilities had climbed, and volunteer organizations must continue to bring their unique needs to the attention of government agencies. The Utah School for the Deaf was well aware of the issues confronting these exceptional children, and a partnership between USD and rehabilitation services was formed (The UAD Bulletin, Spring-Summer, 1967).
Did You Know?
In 1965, the number of deaf children with multiple disabilities was rising, and whether educational authorities liked it or not, the day would come when these children would take over numerous residential schools. This may be true for deaf children with multiple disabilities, but it also means that deaf children with normal minds and skills were pushed into oral day schools, where their educational birthright was all too often lost for the sake of integration (The UAD Bulletin, Spring 1965).
Beth Ann Stewart Campbell’s
New Role in the Deaf Section
New Role in the Deaf Section
The only two personnel in the deaf unit in 1967 were Dr. Sanderson and his secretary, Linda Campbell (Stewart, DSDHH April 2012).
Three years later, in 1970, Beth Ann Stewart Campbell began working as a rehabilitation assistant in the Services to the Deaf Section of the Division of Adult Education and Training. In 1969, the Utah Association for the Deaf in Salt Lake City, Utah, passed a resolution at the convention that resulted in her employment. She was hired because a female counselor was requested to deal with consumers who preferred to speak with a woman than a man (UAD Bulletin, Fall-Winter 1970-71).
Three years later, in 1970, Beth Ann Stewart Campbell began working as a rehabilitation assistant in the Services to the Deaf Section of the Division of Adult Education and Training. In 1969, the Utah Association for the Deaf in Salt Lake City, Utah, passed a resolution at the convention that resulted in her employment. She was hired because a female counselor was requested to deal with consumers who preferred to speak with a woman than a man (UAD Bulletin, Fall-Winter 1970-71).
Beth Ann Stewart Campbell. Photo by Robert L. Bonnell
She worked as an assistant to Dr. Sanderson and Jack White, a son of Deaf parents Jack and Vida White and Provo Rehabilitation Counselor. Consumer intake, interpretation, job placement, case reporting, follow-up, and work adjustment counseling were among her responsibilities (UAD Bulletin, Fall-Winter 1970-71).
Campbell was well-known among Utah Deaf community as the daughter of Arnold and Zelma Moon, who were also deaf (UAD Bulletin, Fall-Winter 1970-71). Her interpreting responsibilities grew significantly throughout the years while she worked at the rehabilitation office (Beth Ann Campbell, personal communication, September 20, 2012).
Campbell was well-known among Utah Deaf community as the daughter of Arnold and Zelma Moon, who were also deaf (UAD Bulletin, Fall-Winter 1970-71). Her interpreting responsibilities grew significantly throughout the years while she worked at the rehabilitation office (Beth Ann Campbell, personal communication, September 20, 2012).
Feasibility Study for a Community Center for the Deaf
While working for the Office of Rehabilitation Services, Dr. Sanderson had a vision for a deaf community center and spearheaded the effort to make it a reality. For several years, he continued to have in-depth discussions with Deaf and hearing community leaders about what a deaf community center should be and what services it should provide.
In June 1975, Dr. Sanderson's perseverance paid off when the first spark of an idea for a community center was born. Dr. Walter D. Talbot, Superintendent of Public Instruction for the Utah State Office of Education, created a committee to look into the feasibility and desirability of creating a deaf community center in Utah, similar to the Murray B. Allen Center for the Blind and Visually Impaired. Dr. Sanderson was appointed as chairman. The committee included four Deaf members, W. David Mortensen, Lloyd H. Perkins, Dora B. Laramie, and Ned C. Wheeler, as well as Dr. Harvey Hirschi, Administrator, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation; Dr. Jay J. Campbell, Deputy Superintendent of the Utah State Office of Education; and Dr. Charles C. Schmitt, Facilities Coordinator, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation (UAD Bulletin, December 1975; Sanderson, 2004).
In June 1975, Dr. Sanderson's perseverance paid off when the first spark of an idea for a community center was born. Dr. Walter D. Talbot, Superintendent of Public Instruction for the Utah State Office of Education, created a committee to look into the feasibility and desirability of creating a deaf community center in Utah, similar to the Murray B. Allen Center for the Blind and Visually Impaired. Dr. Sanderson was appointed as chairman. The committee included four Deaf members, W. David Mortensen, Lloyd H. Perkins, Dora B. Laramie, and Ned C. Wheeler, as well as Dr. Harvey Hirschi, Administrator, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation; Dr. Jay J. Campbell, Deputy Superintendent of the Utah State Office of Education; and Dr. Charles C. Schmitt, Facilities Coordinator, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation (UAD Bulletin, December 1975; Sanderson, 2004).
Dr. Walter D. Talbot
Dr. Walter Talbot, the State Superintendent of Instruction, received a 47-page feasibility report of the research with recommendations on December 1, 1975. (UAD Bulletin, December 1975). Governor Calvin L. Rampton wrote to Dr. Sanderson in support of a deaf community center, along with members from the National Association of the Deaf, Utah Association for the Deaf, Utah Athletic Club for the Deaf, and the Parent-Teacher-Student Association of the Utah School for the Deaf (Sanderson, 2004).
Dr. Jay J. Campbell.
UAD Bulletin, June 1973
Deaf Members of the Feasibility Study
for a Community Center for the Deaf Committee
for a Community Center for the Deaf Committee
W. David Mortensen
Lloyd H. Perkins
Dora B. Laramie
Ned C. Wheeler. The Utah Eagle, Feb 1972
Throughout the legislative process, Dr. Talbot made several visits to the legislative committee dealing with capital funding, accompanied by Dr. Sanderson and his interpreter, Beth Ann Stewart Campbell. Governor Rampton was a huge help in this process because he was so enthusiastic about it (Sanderson, 2004).
Utah Governor Calvin L. Rampton Source: Wikipedia
A bill had finally passed all of the legislative committees. Governor Rampton had the bill on his desk at the end of the official legislature in February 1977, at 12 a.m. He was ready to sign it when he discovered that the word "deaf" had been mistakenly replaced with "blind"! He couldn't fix it because it was past the legislature's midnight closing time (Sanderson, 2004).
Dr. Sanderson learned from the Legislative Research Staff that bills and resolutions that "failed" or did not pass may not have been filed or archived. To put it another way, the bill didn't make it through the legislative process. No one notified him of the status of such legislation, and he received no personal explanation as to how the mix-up occurred. He believed it was a Freudian slip on the part of some bill sponsor or legislator, who was thinking about blind people because they were more visible than the deaf. In any case, Dr. Sanderson was unable to find any proof to back up the story. When the Deaf leaders discovered that the law had failed due to a misunderstanding, they were devastated. They testified on behalf of the Utah Deaf community center in several parliamentary committees for weeks (Sanderson, 2004).
The Utah State Board of Education minutes, which included the studies, resolutions, and bills for the legislature in 1975, 1976, 1977, 1980, and 1981, were nowhere to be found! A center was also not included in State Superintendent Talbot's 1976 budget. Since the yearly minutes books were quite thick, perhaps the Deaf leaders missed something! Nonetheless, the UAD Bulletin and Silent Spotlight have proven to be valuable resources for tracking the center's progress over time (Sanderson, 2004).
Dr. Sanderson learned from the Legislative Research Staff that bills and resolutions that "failed" or did not pass may not have been filed or archived. To put it another way, the bill didn't make it through the legislative process. No one notified him of the status of such legislation, and he received no personal explanation as to how the mix-up occurred. He believed it was a Freudian slip on the part of some bill sponsor or legislator, who was thinking about blind people because they were more visible than the deaf. In any case, Dr. Sanderson was unable to find any proof to back up the story. When the Deaf leaders discovered that the law had failed due to a misunderstanding, they were devastated. They testified on behalf of the Utah Deaf community center in several parliamentary committees for weeks (Sanderson, 2004).
The Utah State Board of Education minutes, which included the studies, resolutions, and bills for the legislature in 1975, 1976, 1977, 1980, and 1981, were nowhere to be found! A center was also not included in State Superintendent Talbot's 1976 budget. Since the yearly minutes books were quite thick, perhaps the Deaf leaders missed something! Nonetheless, the UAD Bulletin and Silent Spotlight have proven to be valuable resources for tracking the center's progress over time (Sanderson, 2004).
Utah State Board of Education Adopts a Policy on Deaf
The Utah State Board of Education agreed on June 15, 1976, to establish a policy statement that resulted in the decentralization of counselors for deaf vocational rehabilitation consumers after a lengthy debate. Counselors who had previously worked at the state school office were relocated to the vocational rehabilitation offices in Ogden, Salt Lake City, and Provo under the new policy. Consumers at those offices might choose between "total communication" and "oralist" counselors. The change was made when oralists complained that they didn't have a clear choice in choosing their counselors, according to Dr. Vaughan Hall, associate state superintendent. Additionally, numerous oralists testified that they were hesitant to visit the state school office's office of vocational rehabilitation [Utah School for the Deaf] for fear of not receiving the services they desired. Totalists, on the other hand, were opposed to the new policy and expressed fear that it would weaken the services provided to consumers seeking vocational rehabilitation. Dr. Vaughan explained that the new approach would not reduce services; rather, he believes it would provide consumers more options and allow counselors to better adapt services to meet the needs of consumers (The Salt Lake Tribune, June 16, 1976).
On June 16, 1976, W. Daivd Mortensen, president of the Utah Association for the Deaf, issued an article in which he discussed his thoughts on the Board of Education's recent decision. He stated the following:
On June 16, 1976, W. Daivd Mortensen, president of the Utah Association for the Deaf, issued an article in which he discussed his thoughts on the Board of Education's recent decision. He stated the following:
Dr. Vaughan Hall. UAD Bulletin, Summer 1968
Won’t Listen
“The Board of Education is making a serious mistake in listening to the wrong people in its plan to “decentralize” services to deaf people. Never once did they invite the input of the deaf people of the community itself. They listened only to people who do not understand the implications of deafness. People who do not know nor understand what it means to live in deafness everyday. They listened to people into their ivorytowers who are far removed from the reality of life.
Never once did the Board of Education or personnel connected with it ask the deaf community nor make a survey of the services provided to the deaf to see if the present organization was satisfactory. The deaf community asked for services years ago and has been happy with the services rendered. Why change without asking the consumer if he likes what he’s getting?
The deaf people are tired of paternalism, of being told by hearing people and educators that all we need is more speech and lip reading. We express to them – that such concepts deny deafness – and mislead people who have deaf children who will one day be as we are – deaf adults!
Apparently, the Board of Education is turning its back on deaf people, upon the mass of experience, and is listening only to those who have axes to grind. It was the deaf community that forced the board to take a hard look at its educational programs at the deaf school; to take another look at the conditions in school dormitories and to evaluate them.
If it were not for the alertness of the deaf people then parents of deaf children would continue to receive a less than adequate program for their children. When deaf people speak, we speak with knowledge and experience, and perception that no hearing person can experience.
We believe the Board of Education should retain its Unit of Services to the Deaf as it is presently made up, and if needed, add another counselor to work exclusively with those deaf who are, by personal choice, oral in philosophy. We support the desires of such deaf people when they express themselves but no when others paternalistic step in and try to do for them” (Mortensen, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, June 16, 1976).
It was speculated that Dr. Grant B. Bitter, an active and vocal oral advocate and then professor of the University of Utah's Oral Training Program, as well as coordinator of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Deaf Seminary for the State of Utah, would be involved in the new changes.
Never once did the Board of Education or personnel connected with it ask the deaf community nor make a survey of the services provided to the deaf to see if the present organization was satisfactory. The deaf community asked for services years ago and has been happy with the services rendered. Why change without asking the consumer if he likes what he’s getting?
The deaf people are tired of paternalism, of being told by hearing people and educators that all we need is more speech and lip reading. We express to them – that such concepts deny deafness – and mislead people who have deaf children who will one day be as we are – deaf adults!
Apparently, the Board of Education is turning its back on deaf people, upon the mass of experience, and is listening only to those who have axes to grind. It was the deaf community that forced the board to take a hard look at its educational programs at the deaf school; to take another look at the conditions in school dormitories and to evaluate them.
If it were not for the alertness of the deaf people then parents of deaf children would continue to receive a less than adequate program for their children. When deaf people speak, we speak with knowledge and experience, and perception that no hearing person can experience.
We believe the Board of Education should retain its Unit of Services to the Deaf as it is presently made up, and if needed, add another counselor to work exclusively with those deaf who are, by personal choice, oral in philosophy. We support the desires of such deaf people when they express themselves but no when others paternalistic step in and try to do for them” (Mortensen, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, June 16, 1976).
It was speculated that Dr. Grant B. Bitter, an active and vocal oral advocate and then professor of the University of Utah's Oral Training Program, as well as coordinator of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Deaf Seminary for the State of Utah, would be involved in the new changes.
W. David Mortensen. Photo by Robert L. Bonnell
Reorganization of the Services to the Deaf Office
The Utah State Board of Education decided again on June 15, 1978, to break up the Office of Services to the Deaf. The change was supposed to go into effect right away. The Deaf community was outraged by this decision. They were unsure how this move would effect numerous Deaf services because they had not seen the most recent policy statement or the new organizational chart (The Silent Spotlight, June 1978).
Dr. Walter Talbot, the State Superintendent of Education, assured the Utah Deaf community that the State Board of Education's action on deaf reorganization simply protected all Deaf consumers the right to choose a counselor who signed or did not sign. As a result, Dr. Sanderson was given more responsibilities: he was in charge of the entire Rehabilitation Services to the Deaf program, as well as the training of all counselors and supervisors who worked with Deaf consumers. The decision also allowed for the addition of a deaf counselor in the Salt Lake area (The Silent Spotlight, June 1978).
Dr. Walter Talbot, the State Superintendent of Education, assured the Utah Deaf community that the State Board of Education's action on deaf reorganization simply protected all Deaf consumers the right to choose a counselor who signed or did not sign. As a result, Dr. Sanderson was given more responsibilities: he was in charge of the entire Rehabilitation Services to the Deaf program, as well as the training of all counselors and supervisors who worked with Deaf consumers. The decision also allowed for the addition of a deaf counselor in the Salt Lake area (The Silent Spotlight, June 1978).
Since 1965, when the Utah State Board of Education established the Services to the Deaf Office in Salt Lake City, this has taken good steps forward in identifying a need and making services available in an accessible manner with staff who can communicate with the deaf (The Silent Spotlight, June 1978).
After thirteen years, the deaf unit had expanded to three offices with a director, four counselors, and an interpreter for the deaf. The personnel had a positive working relationship, a good understanding of deafness, and the ability to communicate using voice, sign language, or, in rare cases, incredibly basic gestures. Deaf consumers might get financial assistance, hearing aid evaluations, marriage counseling, sign language education, speech therapy, career training, and a variety of other services (The Silent Spotlight, June 1978).
There was a part of the population that not only couldn't hear, but also couldn't effectively communicate their needs. Their needs were met by the Services to the Deaf Office (The Silent Spotlight, June 1978).
Counselors in these three offices acted as goodwill ambassadors, assisting Deaf consumers in finding employment. Businesses, government agencies, and hospitals offered sign language classes so that employees could work with or serve the Deaf people; occupations became available to the Deaf people, removing barriers that had kept them in low-paying jobs. These counselors also spoke to civic groups, informing them about the special issues that the Utah Deaf community faces (The Silent Spotlight, June 1978).
The Utah State Board of Education approved a restructuring of the Office of Services to the Deaf. Counselors from the Services to the Deaf Office would now report to district supervisors. Norman Roberts of Ogden, Gene Stewart of North Salt Lake, Jim Hilber of Central Salt Lake, and Jack White of Provo were the counselors. Dr. Sanderson continued to manage all deaf unit activities to ensure that all Deaf and hard of hearing people, regardless of their educational background, were treated equally (The Silent Spotlight, June 1978).
After thirteen years, the deaf unit had expanded to three offices with a director, four counselors, and an interpreter for the deaf. The personnel had a positive working relationship, a good understanding of deafness, and the ability to communicate using voice, sign language, or, in rare cases, incredibly basic gestures. Deaf consumers might get financial assistance, hearing aid evaluations, marriage counseling, sign language education, speech therapy, career training, and a variety of other services (The Silent Spotlight, June 1978).
There was a part of the population that not only couldn't hear, but also couldn't effectively communicate their needs. Their needs were met by the Services to the Deaf Office (The Silent Spotlight, June 1978).
Counselors in these three offices acted as goodwill ambassadors, assisting Deaf consumers in finding employment. Businesses, government agencies, and hospitals offered sign language classes so that employees could work with or serve the Deaf people; occupations became available to the Deaf people, removing barriers that had kept them in low-paying jobs. These counselors also spoke to civic groups, informing them about the special issues that the Utah Deaf community faces (The Silent Spotlight, June 1978).
The Utah State Board of Education approved a restructuring of the Office of Services to the Deaf. Counselors from the Services to the Deaf Office would now report to district supervisors. Norman Roberts of Ogden, Gene Stewart of North Salt Lake, Jim Hilber of Central Salt Lake, and Jack White of Provo were the counselors. Dr. Sanderson continued to manage all deaf unit activities to ensure that all Deaf and hard of hearing people, regardless of their educational background, were treated equally (The Silent Spotlight, June 1978).
Jim Hilber, Counselor of the Central Salt Lake area.
UAD Bulletin, November 1973
All incoming applicants were screened by the supervisor so that everyone had a choice of counselors. There was an option between a counselor who did not utilize sign language but instead communicated through speech and one who could connect with consumers in any method they wanted—sign language, speaking, writing notes, and so on (The Silent Spotlight, June 1978).
W. David Mortensen, president of the Utah Association of the Deaf, expressed concern that district supervisors lacked the knowledge, training, and ability to deal with Deaf adults and their issues, and that Deaf adults would no longer be able to find appropriate services through a counselor trained to serve the Deaf population. Conversly, these counselors' years of experience and knowledge would be thrown out the window (The Silent Spotlight, June 1978).
W. David Mortensen, president of the Utah Association of the Deaf, expressed concern that district supervisors lacked the knowledge, training, and ability to deal with Deaf adults and their issues, and that Deaf adults would no longer be able to find appropriate services through a counselor trained to serve the Deaf population. Conversly, these counselors' years of experience and knowledge would be thrown out the window (The Silent Spotlight, June 1978).
Gene Stewart, Counselor of the North Salt Lake area.
UAD Bulletin, Winter 1970
Other states recognized the Utah Services to the Deaf Office as an effective model of services to Deaf people at the time. While a few criticisms had surfaced, they were much outnumbered by the numerous people who had benefited from the ease with which services could be accessed. UAD knew that such a model would not be expected to be phased out due to a few complaints. They also recognized the hesitancy of Deaf people, whose primary form of communication was speech. UAD indicated that there were various general counselors who could work with these individuals who just wanted to communicate through speech (The Silent Spotlight, June 1978).
Breaking up the deaf unit, according to UAD, would not provide favorable results. It could only injure Deaf persons and parents who sought help for their Deaf children, causing justifiable frustration. They had yet to see how such a restructuring could improve service delivery to Deaf children and adults with unique needs (The Silent Spotlight, June 1978).
The Utah State Board of Education, according to UAD, should never have taken this step backward. It requested that each member of this board speak with Deaf people and inquire about their opinions of the Deaf Office's services. It reminded them that the Deaf taxpayers would be the ones to suffer the most as a result of this decision—and that they, too, vote in elections (The Silent Spotlight, June 1978).
Breaking up the deaf unit, according to UAD, would not provide favorable results. It could only injure Deaf persons and parents who sought help for their Deaf children, causing justifiable frustration. They had yet to see how such a restructuring could improve service delivery to Deaf children and adults with unique needs (The Silent Spotlight, June 1978).
The Utah State Board of Education, according to UAD, should never have taken this step backward. It requested that each member of this board speak with Deaf people and inquire about their opinions of the Deaf Office's services. It reminded them that the Deaf taxpayers would be the ones to suffer the most as a result of this decision—and that they, too, vote in elections (The Silent Spotlight, June 1978).
John A. (Jack) White, counselor of the Provo area.
UAD Bulletin, Winter 1970
W. David Mortensen as a Spokesman
at the Utah State Capitol
at the Utah State Capitol
In June 1978, the Utah State Board of Education proposed a budget for the next legislature that would support a complete community center for the deaf. As a result, Deaf people who were not Division of Rehabilitation consumers may be eligible for a range of programs. It was hoped that the future center's services would be accessible to all Deaf individuals in the community, including those who were hard of hearing. Speech and hearing conservation services would also be provided, benefiting both the oral deaf and hard of hearing people (The Silent Spotlight, June 1978).
W. David Mortensen presented a request for assistance in building a comprehensive community center for the deaf and a state commission for the deaf to the Joint House Senate Committee on Social Services at the State Capitol during the same month. He underlined in his presentation that the policy set by Dr. Vaughn Hall of the Division of Rehabilitation in collaboration with the Utah State Board of Education limited services to the deaf to rehabilitation services exclusively. Many services that had been provided by the Services to the Deaf office for the previous thirteen years were effectively removed as a result of this. Mortensen delivered a compelling statement to the committee, emphasizing the necessity for a deaf center and commission that would serve all Deaf people, not only rehabilitation consumers (The Silent Spotlight, June 1978; Sanderson, 2004).
W. David Mortensen presented a request for assistance in building a comprehensive community center for the deaf and a state commission for the deaf to the Joint House Senate Committee on Social Services at the State Capitol during the same month. He underlined in his presentation that the policy set by Dr. Vaughn Hall of the Division of Rehabilitation in collaboration with the Utah State Board of Education limited services to the deaf to rehabilitation services exclusively. Many services that had been provided by the Services to the Deaf office for the previous thirteen years were effectively removed as a result of this. Mortensen delivered a compelling statement to the committee, emphasizing the necessity for a deaf center and commission that would serve all Deaf people, not only rehabilitation consumers (The Silent Spotlight, June 1978; Sanderson, 2004).
W. David Mortensen
Back to Square One
The Deaf leaders had to start over in order to acquire funds for the new community center for the deaf (Sanderson, 2004). W. David Mortensen, the new president of the Utah Association for the Deaf, was one of the leaders who was the most visible, active leader and spokesperson during the legislative process. He initially attended Dr. Sanderson's legislative meetings and quickly picked up on the legislative process. He spent the next several years pushing the legislators and working tirelessly to ensure that money was appropriated to fund the deaf community center.
While Dr. Sanderson worked at the Services to Deaf Adults, UAD President Mortensen rolled up his sleeves and continued to work on another bill. It would be another two years before the bill was ready to be sent back to the legislature. A request for their assistance in establishing a community center was granted in 1979. The next step was to secure a facility.
While Dr. Sanderson worked at the Services to Deaf Adults, UAD President Mortensen rolled up his sleeves and continued to work on another bill. It would be another two years before the bill was ready to be sent back to the legislature. A request for their assistance in establishing a community center was granted in 1979. The next step was to secure a facility.
Lobbying the 1980 Utah State Legislature for a Building
for the Community Center for the Deaf
for the Community Center for the Deaf
In September 1979, the Utah State Board of Education set aside $2.5 million from a $15.1 million budget for the construction and remodeling of the Deaf Center. While the facility was listed top on the building priority list, the board was ready to submit the request to the State Building Board and the 1980 Legislature (UAD Bulletin, September 1979).
Governor Scott Matheson, however, pushed the community center for the Deaf from 6th to 11th place on the building appropriations list during the legislative process in January 1980. The center of the Utah Deaf community was in jeopardy of being lost. UAD President Mortensen urged people to support the center by contacting their local legislators and members of the appropriations subcommittee. The center, on the other hand, did not make it to the top of the priority list (UAD Bulletin, January 1980).
In May 1980, while work on moving the center for the deaf to top priority was still underway, an architectural firm in Ogden submitted preliminary drawings for the center for the deaf to the State Building Board. It was predicted that the land and building would cost $3.4 million, with inflation pushing the price up (UAD Bulletin, May 1980).
Governor Scott Matheson, however, pushed the community center for the Deaf from 6th to 11th place on the building appropriations list during the legislative process in January 1980. The center of the Utah Deaf community was in jeopardy of being lost. UAD President Mortensen urged people to support the center by contacting their local legislators and members of the appropriations subcommittee. The center, on the other hand, did not make it to the top of the priority list (UAD Bulletin, January 1980).
In May 1980, while work on moving the center for the deaf to top priority was still underway, an architectural firm in Ogden submitted preliminary drawings for the center for the deaf to the State Building Board. It was predicted that the land and building would cost $3.4 million, with inflation pushing the price up (UAD Bulletin, May 1980).
Utah Governor, Scott M. Matheson @ historytogo.utah.gov
The Social Services Committee met at the Capitol in late July 1980 and expressed its support for the deaf center. Representative Charles Doane, R-Salt Lake City, suggested that the State Building Board and the Appropriations Committee make the funding of the deaf center a high priority item. There was only one vote against it. It was the most important item in the Utah State Board of Education's budget, and it was scheduled to be discussed in January 1981 at the legislature (The UAD Bulletin, August 1980).
The Utah Association for the Deaf urged Utah Deaf community to contact their local legislators and ask them to support financing for the deaf center. They reasoned that establishing a center in Salt Lake City, where the majority of Deaf people resided, would be logical. It was designed to serve as a state-wide center in one location, with individuals living outside of Salt Lake City finding it worthwhile to travel to Salt Lake City. UAD went above and beyond to get legislative financing for the deaf community center (UAD Bulletin, August 1980).
In September 1980, UAD President Mortensen alerted the Utah Deaf community that the state committees were meeting to hear proposals for a deaf community center, which was on the agenda for discussion this fall. He urged the Deafcommunity in Utah to meet with their local legislators and request that they support financing for the deaf center. However, he became aware that a few Deaf people were hostile towards the center, albeit the reasons for this were unclear. It's possible that these individuals desired a clubhouse where they could establish a private membership club and a bar. He told them that the deaf center would contain practically everything a Deaf people could desire, with the exception of drinking. The clubhouse would only meet a few demands and would be in no way comparable to the center's facilities and services. He highlighted the necessity of teamwork and cooperation, as well as focusing on one task at a time before moving on to other things they needed or wanted (UAD Bulletin, September 1980).
The Utah Association for the Deaf invited several state legislators to the UAD October Funfest at the Utah School for the Deaf in Ogden on October 11, 1980 (UAD Bulletin, October 1980).
UAD encouraged the Utah Deaf community not to vote for Initiatives A and B in November 1980. That way, the deaf center would be certain to get enough tax money to fund its projects. Otherwise, the amount of money available for projects and the deaf center would be reduced (UAD Bulletin, November 1980).
Deaf leaders continued to actively assist the Utah State Board of Education in its efforts to win funds for the comprehensive community center for the deaf through the legislature in December 1980. (UAD Bulletin, December 1980).
The proposed deaf community center was unfortunately not funded in April 1981. In March 1981, despite UAD's efforts to encourage the Utah Deaf community to contact their local legislators, not all did so. The Republican-controlled legislature prioritized the need for a dairy barn at Utah State University over the needs of Deaf residents with very little effort from the Deaf community. The community center was pushed below the financial threshold by the dairy barn. The legislature even prioritized the purchase of the Utah State Board of Education building before its option expired in December 1980. Dr. Walter D. Talbot, State Superintendent, continued to advocate for the center, and in July 1981, the Utah Association for the Deaf issued a resolution in support of it! (UAD Bulletin, March 1981; UAD Bulletin, April 1981; Sanderson, 2004).
The Utah Association for the Deaf urged Utah Deaf community to contact their local legislators and ask them to support financing for the deaf center. They reasoned that establishing a center in Salt Lake City, where the majority of Deaf people resided, would be logical. It was designed to serve as a state-wide center in one location, with individuals living outside of Salt Lake City finding it worthwhile to travel to Salt Lake City. UAD went above and beyond to get legislative financing for the deaf community center (UAD Bulletin, August 1980).
In September 1980, UAD President Mortensen alerted the Utah Deaf community that the state committees were meeting to hear proposals for a deaf community center, which was on the agenda for discussion this fall. He urged the Deafcommunity in Utah to meet with their local legislators and request that they support financing for the deaf center. However, he became aware that a few Deaf people were hostile towards the center, albeit the reasons for this were unclear. It's possible that these individuals desired a clubhouse where they could establish a private membership club and a bar. He told them that the deaf center would contain practically everything a Deaf people could desire, with the exception of drinking. The clubhouse would only meet a few demands and would be in no way comparable to the center's facilities and services. He highlighted the necessity of teamwork and cooperation, as well as focusing on one task at a time before moving on to other things they needed or wanted (UAD Bulletin, September 1980).
The Utah Association for the Deaf invited several state legislators to the UAD October Funfest at the Utah School for the Deaf in Ogden on October 11, 1980 (UAD Bulletin, October 1980).
UAD encouraged the Utah Deaf community not to vote for Initiatives A and B in November 1980. That way, the deaf center would be certain to get enough tax money to fund its projects. Otherwise, the amount of money available for projects and the deaf center would be reduced (UAD Bulletin, November 1980).
Deaf leaders continued to actively assist the Utah State Board of Education in its efforts to win funds for the comprehensive community center for the deaf through the legislature in December 1980. (UAD Bulletin, December 1980).
The proposed deaf community center was unfortunately not funded in April 1981. In March 1981, despite UAD's efforts to encourage the Utah Deaf community to contact their local legislators, not all did so. The Republican-controlled legislature prioritized the need for a dairy barn at Utah State University over the needs of Deaf residents with very little effort from the Deaf community. The community center was pushed below the financial threshold by the dairy barn. The legislature even prioritized the purchase of the Utah State Board of Education building before its option expired in December 1980. Dr. Walter D. Talbot, State Superintendent, continued to advocate for the center, and in July 1981, the Utah Association for the Deaf issued a resolution in support of it! (UAD Bulletin, March 1981; UAD Bulletin, April 1981; Sanderson, 2004).
Dr. Robert G. Sanderson
Appointed to Dr. Powrie V. Doctor Chair
Appointed to Dr. Powrie V. Doctor Chair
Gallaudet College announced in July 1981 that Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, director of Services to the Deaf Office in Utah, had been appointed to fill the Dr. Powrie V. Doctor Chair for the academic year 1981–82. He was the fourth recipient (UAD Bulletin, July 1981; Sanderson, 2004).
On August 24, Dr. Sanderson and his wife, Mary, left Utah for his new employment. From then until the end of May, he took an educational leave of absence from the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation. Mary also took a one-year leave of absence from the United States Forest Service (UAD Bulletin, July 1981).
Dr. Sanderson's research focused on Deaf people's social rehabilitation, as opposed to vocational rehabilitation. Aside from studying and writing, he taught one or two counseling classes. He also traveled to other rehabilitation agencies to collect data. In June 1982, both Dr. Sanderson and Mary returned to their respective work (UAD Bulletin, July 1981).
On August 24, Dr. Sanderson and his wife, Mary, left Utah for his new employment. From then until the end of May, he took an educational leave of absence from the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation. Mary also took a one-year leave of absence from the United States Forest Service (UAD Bulletin, July 1981).
Dr. Sanderson's research focused on Deaf people's social rehabilitation, as opposed to vocational rehabilitation. Aside from studying and writing, he taught one or two counseling classes. He also traveled to other rehabilitation agencies to collect data. In June 1982, both Dr. Sanderson and Mary returned to their respective work (UAD Bulletin, July 1981).
Dr. Robert G. Sanderson working in his office
UAD President Mortensen requested a meeting with Governor Matheson while Dr. Sanderson was out of the state, but the governor was unable to meet with him. Governor Matheson sent his aide, Tony Mitchell, to meet with Mortensen, as well as Valerie (Kinney) Platt, UAD secretary, and Alden Broomhead, a member of the UAD board of directors. They conveyed their concerns about the legislature's previous failures to pass funding for a deaf community center and the "cows before deaf people" rejection. After discussing the failure to acquire funds for a deaf center, Mitchell told Boren that he needed to find $500,000 from the Division of Rehabilitation budget and start looking for a location (Sanderson, 2004).
Valerie G. Kinney
Resignation of Dr. Walter D. Talbot Takes Utah Deaf community by Surprise
On January 15, 1982, Utah Association for the Deaf was caught off guard when Superintendent of Utah Public Education Dr. Walter D. Talbot announced his resignation, effective June 30, during a Utah State Board of Education meeting. Dr. Talbot had been a long-time supporter of the Utah Deaf community, especially the deaf community center (UAD Bulletin, February 1982).
Lobbying the 1982 Utah State Legislature for the Community Center for the Deaf
While several questions arose, such as the appointment of a director, the formation of an administrative board, and renovation plans, the UAD officials and members wasted no time in meeting with Dr. Walter Talbot to get things started (UAD Bulletin, March 1982).
Progress on Community Center for the Deaf
The Public Education Appropriations Committee at the Capitol decided on January 14, 1982, to suggest that a Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints building in Midvale be transformed into a deaf center. The purchase price was set at $110,000, with an additional $30,000 for remodeling. This used church building, which was built in 1929, was appraised by the State Building Board. Meanwhile, they were negotiating the final purchase price with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints before presenting the proposal to a legislative committee during the current legislative session (UAD Bulletin, February 1982).
Funding for the Center for the Deaf Approved
During the last days of the 1982 Utah Legislature, a measure specifying the funded projects under the State Building Board was passed. It included a line item for a deaf center worth $200,000. The Utah Association for the Deaf had been lobbying for years to acquire funding for the center, so this was a pleasant development (UAD Bulletin, March 1982).
Many questions arose for the Utah Association for the Deaf, including the selection of a director, the formation of an administrative board, and remodeling plans, all of which were resolved within a month. Meanwhile, UAD executives and members met with Dr. Walter Talbot, the superintendent of public education, to get the process started (UAD Bulletin, March 1982). On March 19, 1982, the Utah State Board of Education put the community center for the deaf on the agenda, and a list of Deaf residents was approved to create a committee to oversee the center, which was to be located in the former Latter-day Saints Ward in Midvale. The Center immediately began advertising for the positions of director and secretary (UAD Bulletin, April 1982).
George Gavros, Peter Green, Dennis Platt, Fred Bass, Robert Welsh, Dora Laramie, Richard Snow, Janny Scheeline, William Sevy, Celia May Laramie Baldwin, Lynn Losee, and Dave Mortensen were among the committee's Deaf members (UAD Bulletin, April 1982).
Many questions arose for the Utah Association for the Deaf, including the selection of a director, the formation of an administrative board, and remodeling plans, all of which were resolved within a month. Meanwhile, UAD executives and members met with Dr. Walter Talbot, the superintendent of public education, to get the process started (UAD Bulletin, March 1982). On March 19, 1982, the Utah State Board of Education put the community center for the deaf on the agenda, and a list of Deaf residents was approved to create a committee to oversee the center, which was to be located in the former Latter-day Saints Ward in Midvale. The Center immediately began advertising for the positions of director and secretary (UAD Bulletin, April 1982).
George Gavros, Peter Green, Dennis Platt, Fred Bass, Robert Welsh, Dora Laramie, Richard Snow, Janny Scheeline, William Sevy, Celia May Laramie Baldwin, Lynn Losee, and Dave Mortensen were among the committee's Deaf members (UAD Bulletin, April 1982).
Deaf Members of the
Community Center for the Deaf Committee
Community Center for the Deaf Committee
Pete Green
Dennis Platt
Robert Welch. The Utah Eagle, April 1955
Dora B. Laramie
Richard Snow
Lynn Losee
Celia May Laramie Baldwin
Search for a New Location
The following step was to search for a location. The original plan was to find a site in Midvale, but none of the options were suitable owing to parking issues. One was discovered in an abandoned city dump (Sanderson, 2004)!
Midvale had a historic church belonging to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Despite the fact that the structure was small and lacked a much-needed gymnasium, Dr. Sanderson, Gene Stewart, Beth Ann Stewart Campbell, Norman Williams, and Robert Lunnen all agreed it would suffice as a starting point with some remodeling. The purchase of a chapel to be used as a deaf center was made possible by a $200,000 appropriation from the 1982 Legislature (Sanderson, 2004).
Midvale had a historic church belonging to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Despite the fact that the structure was small and lacked a much-needed gymnasium, Dr. Sanderson, Gene Stewart, Beth Ann Stewart Campbell, Norman Williams, and Robert Lunnen all agreed it would suffice as a starting point with some remodeling. The purchase of a chapel to be used as a deaf center was made possible by a $200,000 appropriation from the 1982 Legislature (Sanderson, 2004).
The building manager for all state-owned facilities, the Division of Facilities Construction and Management, began planning with an architect, and a deal was reached between Rehabilitation Services, the Utah State Board of Education, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Sanderson, 2004).
Before the construction and remodeling of the Midvale building began in October 1982, Dora Laramie, a teacher at the Utah School for the Deaf, and her husband, George, both long-time members of the Utah Deaf community, met with Dr. Sanderson and told him about a large church in Bountiful that had been vacant for a while. Because it had a gym and several meeting spaces, they thought it would be better suited to the needs of the local community. It simply required minor repairs before it could be used right away (Sanderson, 2004).
Before the construction and remodeling of the Midvale building began in October 1982, Dora Laramie, a teacher at the Utah School for the Deaf, and her husband, George, both long-time members of the Utah Deaf community, met with Dr. Sanderson and told him about a large church in Bountiful that had been vacant for a while. Because it had a gym and several meeting spaces, they thought it would be better suited to the needs of the local community. It simply required minor repairs before it could be used right away (Sanderson, 2004).
George Laramie
After Dora and George Laramie brought it to his notice, Dr. Sanderson discussed the Bountiful church with his supervisor, Dr. Harvey Hirschi, Acting Administrator of Rehabilitation Services. He was a strong supporter of the building and immediately requested that the Midvale proceedings be halted. As word of the center's relocation from Midvale to Bountiful spread, the Utah Deaf community and the Division of Rehabilitation Services expressed interest. Dr. Talbot's successor, State Superintendent Kim R. Burningham, advised the Utah State Board of Education that the center would now be housed in a much nicer and larger empty church in Bountiful rather than the Midvale facility. The board of directors approved the change (Sanderson, 2004).
State Superintendent Kim R. Burningham @ The Salt Lake Tribune
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints eventually decided to sell the Bountiful church building in exchange for the Midvale church building. In total, the Midvale building was anticipated to cost $525,000 to purchase and renovate. The overall cost of the Bountiful building was $333,000, which included the purchase, renovation, real estate charge, and architect fee. A saving of $191,000 was made while creating a more appropriate building (Sanderson, 2004).
Deaf Dedicates "Home of Their Own"
After a long wait and a lot of patience since the 1975 Feasibility Study for a Community Center for the Deaf, the Utah Community Center for the Deaf (UCCD) was officially opened in January 1983 at the Bountiful 33rd LDS Ward Chapel at 388 North 400 South (Sanderson, 2004). "The study determined that the deaf people of Utah had certain particular, well-defined requirements," said W. David Mortensen, president of the Utah Association for the Deaf and the state's only Deaf social worker for the deaf (The Salt Lake Tribune, May 29, 1983).
After years of often frustrating efforts to make their needs known to the legislature, members of the Utah Deaf community staged a ribbon-cutting ceremony on June 9, 1983, to dedicate the renovated UCCD as a "home of their own." At the ribbon-cutting ceremony, both Dr. Sanderson and Mortensen stressed the importance of communication. According to Dr. Sanderson, "Deaf and hard of hearing people cannot be effectively supported unless there is free and simple communication between them and the professionals and paraprofessionals who serve them," "The form of communication is left up to the individual," he added, "and the supporting professionals fulfill the expressed desires." "Deaf people need a place to go where they know they can get understanding and help whenever they want or need it," Mortensen said. They need confidence and faith in the people they turn to for help, which they don't always obtain in situations where people, no matter how earnest, are unable to communicate successfully in the mode requested by the individual at his language understanding level (The Salt Lake Tribune, May 29, 1983).
The UCCD was expected to serve 78,000 Deaf and hard of hearing people in Utah at the time, with 10,000 of them estimated to be totally deaf for communication purposes (The Salt Lake Tribune, May 29, 1983). UCCD also aimed to alleviate the challenges faced by the deaf, hard of hearing, and deaf people with multiple disabilities by providing social and recreational activities (The Salt Lake Tribune, May 29, 1983).
Dr. Sanderson said, "It was a dream of many years come true, with much appreciation to the Utah State Board of Education, Rehabilitation Services, and the Utah State Legislature" (Sanderson, 2004).
After years of often frustrating efforts to make their needs known to the legislature, members of the Utah Deaf community staged a ribbon-cutting ceremony on June 9, 1983, to dedicate the renovated UCCD as a "home of their own." At the ribbon-cutting ceremony, both Dr. Sanderson and Mortensen stressed the importance of communication. According to Dr. Sanderson, "Deaf and hard of hearing people cannot be effectively supported unless there is free and simple communication between them and the professionals and paraprofessionals who serve them," "The form of communication is left up to the individual," he added, "and the supporting professionals fulfill the expressed desires." "Deaf people need a place to go where they know they can get understanding and help whenever they want or need it," Mortensen said. They need confidence and faith in the people they turn to for help, which they don't always obtain in situations where people, no matter how earnest, are unable to communicate successfully in the mode requested by the individual at his language understanding level (The Salt Lake Tribune, May 29, 1983).
The UCCD was expected to serve 78,000 Deaf and hard of hearing people in Utah at the time, with 10,000 of them estimated to be totally deaf for communication purposes (The Salt Lake Tribune, May 29, 1983). UCCD also aimed to alleviate the challenges faced by the deaf, hard of hearing, and deaf people with multiple disabilities by providing social and recreational activities (The Salt Lake Tribune, May 29, 1983).
Dr. Sanderson said, "It was a dream of many years come true, with much appreciation to the Utah State Board of Education, Rehabilitation Services, and the Utah State Legislature" (Sanderson, 2004).
Home of the First Utah Community Center for the Deaf
Dr. Sanderson was named the first director of the Utah Community Center for the Deaf by Dr. Harvey Hirschi a year before it opened in Bountiful. In 1982, three staff members, Beth Ann Stewart Campbell, Norman Williams, and Robert Lunnen, were hired (UAD Bulletin, July 1982; Sanderson, 2004).
Utah Community Center for the Deaf in Bountiful Utah, 1983.
Pencil drawing by Robert Winkelkotter
The UCCD offered vocational rehabilitation, counseling, interpreting services, telecommunications, information and referral, a deaf library, training programs, volunteer services, peer support, and classes, among other things (Sanderson, 2004).
The UCCD gathered the best literature and research materials on deafness in the state, as well as equipment, photographs, and a printing laboratory, to retrain displaced deaf workers (The Salt Lake Tribune, May 29, 1983). On December 5th, 1983, Robert J. Welsh, a Deaf man with a booming color separation and photography business, gave a class to help Deaf people find work. His laboratory and furniture were set aside in one of the upper level rooms (Sanderson, 2004).
The UCCD was the state center for social activities in addition to providing rehabilitation, adult education, and retraining (The Salt Lake Tribune, May 29, 1983). The 22,000-square-foot community center provided a space for physical recreation, socializing, and other activities. Parties were held. Basketball, archery, volleyball, and movies were among the activities that took place. The kitchen was frequently used (Sanderson, 2004).
After the improvements were completed, the Utah Association for the Deaf, as well as several community organizations for the deaf and hard of hearing, including Self Help for the Hard of Hearing, were able to use the office space. They were finally able to store their items and continue their organizations' activities (Sanderson, 2004).
Deaf people from the Ogden and Salt Lake communities volunteered to help make the UCCD more welcoming. They finally had their own meeting place, and they didn't have to bother about planning events elsewhere.
The UCCD gathered the best literature and research materials on deafness in the state, as well as equipment, photographs, and a printing laboratory, to retrain displaced deaf workers (The Salt Lake Tribune, May 29, 1983). On December 5th, 1983, Robert J. Welsh, a Deaf man with a booming color separation and photography business, gave a class to help Deaf people find work. His laboratory and furniture were set aside in one of the upper level rooms (Sanderson, 2004).
The UCCD was the state center for social activities in addition to providing rehabilitation, adult education, and retraining (The Salt Lake Tribune, May 29, 1983). The 22,000-square-foot community center provided a space for physical recreation, socializing, and other activities. Parties were held. Basketball, archery, volleyball, and movies were among the activities that took place. The kitchen was frequently used (Sanderson, 2004).
After the improvements were completed, the Utah Association for the Deaf, as well as several community organizations for the deaf and hard of hearing, including Self Help for the Hard of Hearing, were able to use the office space. They were finally able to store their items and continue their organizations' activities (Sanderson, 2004).
Deaf people from the Ogden and Salt Lake communities volunteered to help make the UCCD more welcoming. They finally had their own meeting place, and they didn't have to bother about planning events elsewhere.
Dream Becomes a Nightmare
The Utah Community Center for the Deaf was quickly met with a slew of difficulties. While working as the director, Dr. Sanderson noticed a flood on the east side of the building caused by a neighbor's sprinkler system. The parking lot got quite packed when people gathered for parties or other activities. The upper floor's air conditioning was poor in the summer, while an outdated coal-fired heater caught fire in the winter. Security became a concern after the facility was broken into and some items were stolen. It was necessary to rekey all of the doors. Maintenance became extremely expensive when numerous repairs were required. After the first thrill had worn off, commuting from a distance became a challenge (Sanderson, 2004).
When melting snow caused massive mudslides from the mountains and slammed 400 North Street, the Deaf community's dream turned into a nightmare. The mudslide was about three feet deep. Several homes' basements, which were lower than the street level, were filled to the brim with mud. Because it was taller on the south side of the street and had a four-foot retaining wall along the sidewalk, the mud missed the Utah Community Center building. The 1983 mudslide was described as a "one in a hundred year" event (Sanderson, 2004).
When melting snow caused massive mudslides from the mountains and slammed 400 North Street, the Deaf community's dream turned into a nightmare. The mudslide was about three feet deep. Several homes' basements, which were lower than the street level, were filled to the brim with mud. Because it was taller on the south side of the street and had a four-foot retaining wall along the sidewalk, the mud missed the Utah Community Center building. The 1983 mudslide was described as a "one in a hundred year" event (Sanderson, 2004).
The Utah Community Center for the Deaf
Officially Dedicated
Officially Dedicated
The Advisory Council for the Deaf had spent months planning for the dedication. On November 5, 1983, the Utah Community Center for the Deaf was dedicated. According to Celia May Baldwin, the dedication chairwoman, roughly 325 people attended the spectacular celebration (UAD Bulletin, June 1983).
Irregularities, a group that put on a humorous show of bizarre and odd fashion shows, donated the amount they were paid for their performance plus a bonus. The Utah Association for the Deaf was grateful for their time and generosity, which came as a complete surprise (UAD Bulletin, June 1983).
Irregularities, a group that put on a humorous show of bizarre and odd fashion shows, donated the amount they were paid for their performance plus a bonus. The Utah Association for the Deaf was grateful for their time and generosity, which came as a complete surprise (UAD Bulletin, June 1983).
The Utah Community Center for the Deaf
Continues to Operate
Continues to Operate
Throughout the next two years, many activities were held at the gym. It was business as usual at the Utah Community Center for the Deaf. The Utah Association for the Deaf set up an official office in the center and hired Valerie G. Kinney as a part-time business manager. This office was probably the first in the nation for any state association of the deaf (Sanderson, 2004).
Valerie G. Kinney
Beth Ann Stewart Campbell was successful in obtaining sponsorships and donations from local service clubs to supply the Utah Community Center of the Deaf with much-needed items that the state could not offer (Sanderson, 2004).
The Text Teletype, sometimes known as TTY, was widely utilized by the Utah Deaf community before Sorenson Communication, Inc. came along. Instead of speaking, conversations were typed, allowing for immediate communication with anyone using a similar device. In 1964, Deaf physicist Robert Weitbrecht invented the first TTY. The TTY business at UCCD was busy fixing outdated teleprinter equipment for Deaf customers. When Sorenson Communications Inc. developed a videophone, it also provided a free video relay service. In 2003, Salt Lake City became the first city to implement a video relay service (Sanderson, 2004).
The Text Teletype, sometimes known as TTY, was widely utilized by the Utah Deaf community before Sorenson Communication, Inc. came along. Instead of speaking, conversations were typed, allowing for immediate communication with anyone using a similar device. In 1964, Deaf physicist Robert Weitbrecht invented the first TTY. The TTY business at UCCD was busy fixing outdated teleprinter equipment for Deaf customers. When Sorenson Communications Inc. developed a videophone, it also provided a free video relay service. In 2003, Salt Lake City became the first city to implement a video relay service (Sanderson, 2004).
Dr. Robert H. Weitbrecht @ Ultratec, Inc.
who repaired teleprinter machines for the military during World War ll, acquired a fondness for the antique equipment provided to the UCCD by Western Union, AT&T Mountain States Telephone, and other local businesses (Sanderson, 2004).
Norman Williams, a Deaf man who graduated from Utah School for the Deaf in 1962, was half of the team that maintained the TTY machines for the Utah Deaf community. Not only that, but as a handyman, he provided a variety of skills to the center; he was a talented craftsman, builder, electrician, mechanic, and mechanic (Sanderson, 2004).
Norman Williams, The Utah Eagle, 1962
Supporting this mission, according to Dr. Sanderson, was one of Utah's Rehabilitation Services' greatest accomplishments since it allowed all Deaf and hard of hearing people in the state to communicate. Rehabilitation counselors and social workers had limited choices for communication prior to the invention of the TTY because they couldn't use a regular phone with Deaf people. They would frequently have to drive to the consumers' homes and hope to find them there. Counselors were able to speak with consumers more easily thanks to the TTY (Sanderson, 2004).
Did You Know?
Under the supervision of Beth Ann Stewart Campbell at the Utah Community Center for the Deaf in Bountiful, Norman Williams ordered the circular tables (in pieces) for the conference room from the state penitentiary for $2,000.00 in 1984. He maintained that Deaf-friendly oval and round tables were the best options since they allowed Deaf and hard of hearing people to see each speaker (Norman Williams, personal communication, April 12, 2012). According to W. David Mortensen, Beth Ann loved to brag about her office and the tables made by state prison inmates, as well as the tables in the conference room (W. David Mortensen, personal communication, April 3, 2012).
Round tables made by prisoners in the Marilyn T. Call Conference room
Dr. Grant B. Bitter Criticizes
the Utah Community Center for the Deaf
the Utah Community Center for the Deaf
While the Utah Community Center for the Deaf still utilized and operated its facility for both rehabilitation services and recreation services, on January 2, 1985, Dr. Grant B. Bitter, an ardent oral advocate, frowned upon the services they provided. He criticized how the Utah Community Center for the Deaf offered recreation activities and how the UCCD counselors worked with the oral deaf population in the rehabilitation services and its connection with the Utah Association for the Deaf. He wrote as follows:
"No currently employed rehabilitation counselors for the deaf should be appointed as director for the Center for the Deaf…unless it is entirely separate from rehabilitation services; then the center should be supported by private funds and contributions as a “recreation center” for the Deaf community. Under those circumstances it should not be supported by public tax dollars. If the center is to be a place where all hearing impaired persons may go for appropriate services in meeting individual needs then it must be divested from any relationship to UAD, or any other organization of a special interest nature, and be entirely free from these groups to pressure special interest decisions or control.”
"No currently employed rehabilitation counselors for the deaf should be appointed as director for the Center for the Deaf…unless it is entirely separate from rehabilitation services; then the center should be supported by private funds and contributions as a “recreation center” for the Deaf community. Under those circumstances it should not be supported by public tax dollars. If the center is to be a place where all hearing impaired persons may go for appropriate services in meeting individual needs then it must be divested from any relationship to UAD, or any other organization of a special interest nature, and be entirely free from these groups to pressure special interest decisions or control.”
Dr. Grant B. Bitter. The Utah Egale, October 1962
Dr. Bitter also underlined the need to take into account the real needs of the Utah Deaf community and meet suitable individual needs, just as it would be with oral Deaf people. He used uppercase letters in his writing.
“NO PROGRAMS FROM ANY OFFICE SHOULD MANIPULATE, PROMOTE, OR OTHERWISE INFLUENCE THINKING OF CLIENTS OR POTENTIAL CLIENT TOWARD EITHER SIGN LANGUAGE OR THE ORAL, AURAL/ORAL APPROACH. COUNSELORS ARE TO ASSIST IN PROVIDNG APPROPRIATE SUPPORT SYSTEMS, REASONABLY, IN ORDER THAT CLIENTS MIGHT BE GAINFULLY EMPLOYED REALISTICALLY AND PRODUCTIVELY, WITHOUT INTIMIDATION AND PRESSURE. COUNSELORS MUST NOTGIVE INFORMATION FALSELY IN AN EFFORT TO PROMOTE ONE’S OWN WAY OF THINKING. HERE ARE SOME THAT HAVE BEEN USED TO PROMOTE SIGN LANGUAGE:”
Dr. Bitter accused the Utah Association for the Deaf and rehabilitation counselors, Gene Stewart, Jim Hilber, and Beth Ann Stewart Campbell, of not respecting those options for educational and social programs for the oral deaf population, and that there was little evidence that they worked cooperatively with divergent points of view to preserve the integrity of alternative programs in Utah, as shown above (Bitter, 1985).
Isn't it ironic that Dr. Bitter was given power and influence over the University of Utah, Utah School for the Deaf, and Deaf Seminary of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, even though he believed UAD should cut ties with the UCCD? He had no notion that it was UAD's proposal to establish a community center for the deaf, and they worked tirelessly to make it a reality. Why did Dr. Bitter complain about the way UCCD served the oral deaf community when they had the option of choosing between a "total communication" or "oralist" counselor, as established in 1976 and 1978?
Furthermore, why can't deaf people enjoy the same recreational options as hearing people in their local recreation center?
“NO PROGRAMS FROM ANY OFFICE SHOULD MANIPULATE, PROMOTE, OR OTHERWISE INFLUENCE THINKING OF CLIENTS OR POTENTIAL CLIENT TOWARD EITHER SIGN LANGUAGE OR THE ORAL, AURAL/ORAL APPROACH. COUNSELORS ARE TO ASSIST IN PROVIDNG APPROPRIATE SUPPORT SYSTEMS, REASONABLY, IN ORDER THAT CLIENTS MIGHT BE GAINFULLY EMPLOYED REALISTICALLY AND PRODUCTIVELY, WITHOUT INTIMIDATION AND PRESSURE. COUNSELORS MUST NOTGIVE INFORMATION FALSELY IN AN EFFORT TO PROMOTE ONE’S OWN WAY OF THINKING. HERE ARE SOME THAT HAVE BEEN USED TO PROMOTE SIGN LANGUAGE:”
- Learning sign language will not affect your use of spoken language. That statement must be qualified considerably. Which hearing impaired person will it not affect? Obviously, the “deafened” adult such as Dave Mortensen, Paul Chamberlain, Robert Sanderson, etc…persons who have developed oral language (spoken, written) before losing their hearing and who continue to use their spoken and written language daily in their work will retain that ability. However, most children who are prelingually hearing impaired if they have been educated orally and then learning sign language will lose a great deal of proficiency. Those who attempt to use a mix of sign language and oral language will use pre-dominantly the sign language modality. The phenomenon is demonstrated by research.
- To use spoken language is to deny your deafness or to not use sign language is to deny your deafness, or if you don’t sign, you deny your deafness.
- Deafness is your heritage.
- Speechreading is impossible (“40% look alike sounds on the lips, etc). This is a myth…..some research indicates that hearing impaired person who are visual oral (speechreading) as their primary mode of communicating, will comprehend about 95% of the concepts).
- Total communication really includes the oral approach. Such a statement is most commonly used and is not true. In reality don’t make of sign language something it is not and cannot do. It has its place for those who prefer that system of communication, but total communication is a philosophy not a method. It is a “supermarket” term. Sign language has many limitations. It isolates and segregates, creates dependency rather than functional independence and creates a psychological/emotional conditioning that is resistant to the concept of mainstreaming, etc…(“Mainstreaming denies deafness”).
- Sign language appears to have some charismatic affect on hearing people; many hearing people, including interpreters, frequently use it as a vehicle of control rather than a means of assisting the consumer to become functionally independent, or facilitating the sending of accurate messages to the receiver only.
Dr. Bitter accused the Utah Association for the Deaf and rehabilitation counselors, Gene Stewart, Jim Hilber, and Beth Ann Stewart Campbell, of not respecting those options for educational and social programs for the oral deaf population, and that there was little evidence that they worked cooperatively with divergent points of view to preserve the integrity of alternative programs in Utah, as shown above (Bitter, 1985).
Isn't it ironic that Dr. Bitter was given power and influence over the University of Utah, Utah School for the Deaf, and Deaf Seminary of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, even though he believed UAD should cut ties with the UCCD? He had no notion that it was UAD's proposal to establish a community center for the deaf, and they worked tirelessly to make it a reality. Why did Dr. Bitter complain about the way UCCD served the oral deaf community when they had the option of choosing between a "total communication" or "oralist" counselor, as established in 1976 and 1978?
Furthermore, why can't deaf people enjoy the same recreational options as hearing people in their local recreation center?
Did You Know?
During a retreat for members of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind Advisory Council on August 28, 2009, Superintendent Steven W. Noyce, a former University of Utah student of Dr. Grant B. Bitter, incorrectly stated that the Sanderson Community Center of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing tended to focus only on Deaf people using American Sign Language. Marilyn T. Call, the director of the Sanderson Community Center and a member of the Advisory Council, indicated that the Sanderson Center was administered in a similar manner to the former Deaf Center in Bountiful, but that a lot had changed over the years. The Sanderson Community Center is now required by the state of Utah to be neutral, providing a wide range of services to all Deaf and hard of hearing people.
Members of the Utah Deaf community at the Utah Community Center for the Deaf in Bountiful, Utah, January 24, 1988. Top Row: Pete Green, Jerry Wesrbery, Art Valdez, Ilene Kinner, Kenneth Kinner, Shanna Mortensen, David Mortensen, Clara Kendall. Bottom Row: (L-R): Sally Green, Donna Lee Westberg, Eleanor Kay Kinner Curtis, Donna Mae Deyarmon, and Carol Wilson
Dr. Robert G. Sanderson Announces Retirement
Dr. Robert G. Sanderson announced his retirement from the state on November 15, 1985, after thirty-seven years of service, twenty of which were spent with the Division of Rehabilitation (UAD Bulletin, February 1985). Because of Dr. Sanderson's outstanding leadership, Services to the Deaf has evolved from a one-man operation in 1965 to a large team spread across several Utah locations. When he joined with Rehabilitation in 1965, there were about eleven Deaf people on the rolls, and just one fingerspelling counselor to assist them. Because of the lack of resources at the time, Deaf people did not want to go to Rehabilitation for assistance (UAD Bulletin, March 1985).
Dr. Robert G. Sanderson
Dr. Sanderson was a driving force behind the ambition of the Utah Deaf community to "speak more." Along the Wasatch Front, around 500 telephone communication devices were churning out 50-60 words per minute. 750,000 words per hour was a lot of words per hour. By that time, the Utah Deaf community couldn't function without teletype machines, and they were grateful to Dr. Sanderson for providing them (UAD Bulletin, February 1985).
The establishment of a center for the deaf was another triumph during Dr. Sanderson's tenure. It took ten years of committee work and meetings to complete the project, which he continued even while attending Gallaudet College for a year. As a result of his perseverance, the Utah Community Center for the Deaf was established, allowing Deaf individuals to gather, work, and socialize (UAD Bulletin, February 1985).
By the time he retired in 1985, he had helped over 300 Deaf and hard-of-hearing people. There were a number of interpreters available, including four counselors who were skilled in sign language, a full-time Rehab interpreter, and two full-time UAD interpreters (UAD Bulletin, March 1985).
The establishment of a center for the deaf was another triumph during Dr. Sanderson's tenure. It took ten years of committee work and meetings to complete the project, which he continued even while attending Gallaudet College for a year. As a result of his perseverance, the Utah Community Center for the Deaf was established, allowing Deaf individuals to gather, work, and socialize (UAD Bulletin, February 1985).
By the time he retired in 1985, he had helped over 300 Deaf and hard-of-hearing people. There were a number of interpreters available, including four counselors who were skilled in sign language, a full-time Rehab interpreter, and two full-time UAD interpreters (UAD Bulletin, March 1985).
Beth Ann Stewart Campbell is Named as the New Director
By 1985, the Utah Community Center for the Deaf had received over 9,000 signatures on their guest book! (UAD Bulletin, March 1985).
After Dr. Robert G. Sanderson retired, Dr. Judy Ann Buffmire, Executive Director of the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation Services, appointed Beth Ann Stewart Campbell as director of the Utah Community Center for the Deaf. She had worked with the Division of Rehabilitation for over fifteen years as a professional level interpreter and aide, and she was well-versed in the deaf programs. Campbell had a lot of support from the Utah Deaf community as a CODA. She also used advocacy and activism to show her support for Deaf people (Sanderson, 2004).
After Dr. Robert G. Sanderson retired, Dr. Judy Ann Buffmire, Executive Director of the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation Services, appointed Beth Ann Stewart Campbell as director of the Utah Community Center for the Deaf. She had worked with the Division of Rehabilitation for over fifteen years as a professional level interpreter and aide, and she was well-versed in the deaf programs. Campbell had a lot of support from the Utah Deaf community as a CODA. She also used advocacy and activism to show her support for Deaf people (Sanderson, 2004).
Beth Ann Stewart Campbell
Safety, Maintenance, Population Demographics Issues Demand a Change in Location
Because the Bountiful building was constructed in 1941 and later expanded with a two-story extension in 1956, health and safety concerns arose. The cost of correcting violations of fire, safety, and building codes would be costly. There was also a code violation as there was no disability accessibility. Lastly, the building continued to deteriorate, and maintaining it was expensive (Sanderson, 2004).
Another issue was the demographics of the people. The Utah Community Center for the Deaf, near Bountiful, was easily accessible from Ogden and other Davis County cities, as well as Salt Lake City, through the 1-15 freeway. The largest population of Deaf consumers, on the other hand, lived south of Salt Lake City. As a result, there was a gradual drop in Deaf consumer visits. For those who lived in Davis and Weber counties, moving the center further south was inconvenient, but the vast number of Deaf consumers in the Salt Lake Valley favored a more central position (Sanderson, 2004).
In 1985, Dr. Judy Ann Buffmire of the Office of Rehabilitation Services and Bernarr S. Furse, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, began sending letters and memoranda to the Director of the Division of Facilities Construction & Management. They recommended directing more planning funds to a new deaf community center rather than the Bountiful center, which had long-term code violations and needed maintenance. They understood that investing in the previous facility at a time when consumer usage was declining owing to its location was a waste of money (Sanderson, 2004).
Following an inspection of the Bountiful building in 1987, it was advised that a newer facility be purchased as soon as possible to serve Utah's Deaf and hard of hearing residents. To make the existing center a safe and usable state building, it had to be brought up to health, building, fire, safety, and disability accessibility codes. Dr. Judy Ann Buffmire expressed her strong support for Deaf people and their need for a new facility. Because this building was outdated and insufficient, lobbying efforts to establish a new community center began (Sanderson, 2004).
Another issue was the demographics of the people. The Utah Community Center for the Deaf, near Bountiful, was easily accessible from Ogden and other Davis County cities, as well as Salt Lake City, through the 1-15 freeway. The largest population of Deaf consumers, on the other hand, lived south of Salt Lake City. As a result, there was a gradual drop in Deaf consumer visits. For those who lived in Davis and Weber counties, moving the center further south was inconvenient, but the vast number of Deaf consumers in the Salt Lake Valley favored a more central position (Sanderson, 2004).
In 1985, Dr. Judy Ann Buffmire of the Office of Rehabilitation Services and Bernarr S. Furse, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, began sending letters and memoranda to the Director of the Division of Facilities Construction & Management. They recommended directing more planning funds to a new deaf community center rather than the Bountiful center, which had long-term code violations and needed maintenance. They understood that investing in the previous facility at a time when consumer usage was declining owing to its location was a waste of money (Sanderson, 2004).
Following an inspection of the Bountiful building in 1987, it was advised that a newer facility be purchased as soon as possible to serve Utah's Deaf and hard of hearing residents. To make the existing center a safe and usable state building, it had to be brought up to health, building, fire, safety, and disability accessibility codes. Dr. Judy Ann Buffmire expressed her strong support for Deaf people and their need for a new facility. Because this building was outdated and insufficient, lobbying efforts to establish a new community center began (Sanderson, 2004).
Dr. Judy Ann Buffmire. The Salt Lake Tribune, August 22, 2011
An Unexpected Bill Passes
During the 1988 Legislative Session
During the 1988 Legislative Session
The 1988 legislature enacted SB 218 to create a separate Division of Services to the Hearing Impaired, which was signed into law by Governor Norman H. Bangerter on March 10 without the awareness of Deaf people. W. David Mortensen, president of the Utah Association of the Deaf, voiced concern that the Utah Deaf community and its leaders had not been told about the bill and wondered why they had not been asked for input or thoughts. He stressed the necessity of becoming involved in anything that relates to the social, economic, and educational future of the Utah Deaf community (Mortensen, UAD Bulletin, April 1988; Mortensen, UAD Bulletin, May 1988).
This piece of legislation was given the title "Division of Services to the Hearing Impaired." The Utah Deaf community was offended by this title. Dr. Sanderson named Jim Hilber, a graduate of the University of Utah's hearing and speech department and a member of Dr. Sanderson's deaf counseling team, to the role of deaf program administrator. Despite the fact that he lacked a cultural background in deafness, he was qualified for the post due to his degree and experience. The "Division of Services to the Hearing Impaired" was established under Hilber's tenure and with his active engagement. If this SB 218 measure had anything to do with the deaf in Utah, wouldn't it have been standard process to involve or at least inform the deaf, according to UAD President Mortensen? He favored the term "Deaf" rather than "Hearing Impaired," and requested that the title be changed to "Services to the Deaf and Hard of Hearing," which took effect in 1988 (Mortensen, UAD Bulletin, April 1988).
This piece of legislation was given the title "Division of Services to the Hearing Impaired." The Utah Deaf community was offended by this title. Dr. Sanderson named Jim Hilber, a graduate of the University of Utah's hearing and speech department and a member of Dr. Sanderson's deaf counseling team, to the role of deaf program administrator. Despite the fact that he lacked a cultural background in deafness, he was qualified for the post due to his degree and experience. The "Division of Services to the Hearing Impaired" was established under Hilber's tenure and with his active engagement. If this SB 218 measure had anything to do with the deaf in Utah, wouldn't it have been standard process to involve or at least inform the deaf, according to UAD President Mortensen? He favored the term "Deaf" rather than "Hearing Impaired," and requested that the title be changed to "Services to the Deaf and Hard of Hearing," which took effect in 1988 (Mortensen, UAD Bulletin, April 1988).
Utah Governor Norman H. Bangerter @ Wikipedia
On the other hand, the Utah Association for the Deaf went on record as opposing Hilber's appointment as Director of the Division of Services to the Hearing Impaired. While the Utah Deaf community was enraged that they were left out of the SB 218 bill, a recent protest in early 1988 and demands for the appointment of a Deaf university president at Gallaudet University in Washington, D.C. spurred them to take charge of their own destiny (Mortensen, UAD Bulletin, April 1988).
According to Gary Olsen, executive director of the National Association of the Deaf, the "Deaf President Now" protest at Gallaudet University served as an example to everyone that "deaf people want to decide their own destiny." Furthermore, Dr. Elisabeth Zinser, the deposed hearing person, stated, "What is happening around the country is a civil rights time for the Deaf community." President Mortensen of the Utah Association of the Deaf believes those statements were well said and that the Deaf community in Utah will want and demand more input into events and regulations that affect their way of life (Mortensen, UAD Bulletin, April 1988).
Dr. Judy Buffmire, Executive Director of Utah Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, welcomed the Utah Deaf community and its leaders to the Utah State Office of Education on March 31, 1988, to share their thoughts, ideas, and proposals on the new SB 218 bill. There were about 100 Deaf people in attendance. Many of them took to the stage to express their feelings. Finally, they received word that the position of director of the Division of Deaf Services would be offered for nationwide recruitment (Mortensen, UAD Bulletin, May 1988). It was a minor triumph.
According to Gary Olsen, executive director of the National Association of the Deaf, the "Deaf President Now" protest at Gallaudet University served as an example to everyone that "deaf people want to decide their own destiny." Furthermore, Dr. Elisabeth Zinser, the deposed hearing person, stated, "What is happening around the country is a civil rights time for the Deaf community." President Mortensen of the Utah Association of the Deaf believes those statements were well said and that the Deaf community in Utah will want and demand more input into events and regulations that affect their way of life (Mortensen, UAD Bulletin, April 1988).
Dr. Judy Buffmire, Executive Director of Utah Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, welcomed the Utah Deaf community and its leaders to the Utah State Office of Education on March 31, 1988, to share their thoughts, ideas, and proposals on the new SB 218 bill. There were about 100 Deaf people in attendance. Many of them took to the stage to express their feelings. Finally, they received word that the position of director of the Division of Deaf Services would be offered for nationwide recruitment (Mortensen, UAD Bulletin, May 1988). It was a minor triumph.
W. David Mortensen
In the May 1988 issue of the UAD Bulletin, President Mortensen issued the following President's Message:
“Historically speaking, for the past 75 years or more, programs for the deaf have always been proposed, developed, and administered by hearing people. There is only one exception that can be thought of when Dr. Robert G. Sanderson was placed in Division of Vocational Rehabilitation Services and remained for several years, leading deaf people and developing a variety of programs to serve them. Unfortunately, when he retired, he was not replaced by a deaf person. He was replaced by a hearing person. We feel there has been a deterioration or breaking up of some of these services that were of benefit to the Deaf community the past 4 years.
We believe it is time now to allow deaf people to have more say in matters that affect the quality of their life. We believe it is time now to select qualified deaf people to run programs or divisions. We are fast approaching the 21st century. We must control our destiny. We want to show you that we are no longer going to sit idly by and allow hearing people who do not understand us or our needs to continue to wreak our future.
Our educational needs suffered in the hands of hearing people who thought they were doing the best for us without even asking us (the consumer: the product: the result) what would have been a better way to give us an education that we could be proud of.
We are at a point where we must say that we need more control over the Division of Services to the Hearing Impaired/Deaf. We are asking once again that people in position of power ask us, the deaf, what we want. And when given an answer, follow through with it.
We need clarification on the meaning of hearing impaired and deaf.
For 75 years plus, educational and rehabilitation officials who could hear invested money into programs to try and improve and educate the deaf while making sure that none of the deaf who were in their programs would ever rise above their own positions. Now we, the deaf, want to prove that part of their investments were worthwhile to a degree by choosing a deaf person to run the Division of Services to the Hearing Impaired/Deaf” (Mortensen, UAD Bulletin, May 1988, p. 2).
“Historically speaking, for the past 75 years or more, programs for the deaf have always been proposed, developed, and administered by hearing people. There is only one exception that can be thought of when Dr. Robert G. Sanderson was placed in Division of Vocational Rehabilitation Services and remained for several years, leading deaf people and developing a variety of programs to serve them. Unfortunately, when he retired, he was not replaced by a deaf person. He was replaced by a hearing person. We feel there has been a deterioration or breaking up of some of these services that were of benefit to the Deaf community the past 4 years.
We believe it is time now to allow deaf people to have more say in matters that affect the quality of their life. We believe it is time now to select qualified deaf people to run programs or divisions. We are fast approaching the 21st century. We must control our destiny. We want to show you that we are no longer going to sit idly by and allow hearing people who do not understand us or our needs to continue to wreak our future.
Our educational needs suffered in the hands of hearing people who thought they were doing the best for us without even asking us (the consumer: the product: the result) what would have been a better way to give us an education that we could be proud of.
We are at a point where we must say that we need more control over the Division of Services to the Hearing Impaired/Deaf. We are asking once again that people in position of power ask us, the deaf, what we want. And when given an answer, follow through with it.
We need clarification on the meaning of hearing impaired and deaf.
For 75 years plus, educational and rehabilitation officials who could hear invested money into programs to try and improve and educate the deaf while making sure that none of the deaf who were in their programs would ever rise above their own positions. Now we, the deaf, want to prove that part of their investments were worthwhile to a degree by choosing a deaf person to run the Division of Services to the Hearing Impaired/Deaf” (Mortensen, UAD Bulletin, May 1988, p. 2).
Did You Know?
The term "hearing impaired" is viewed derogatory and offensive to the Deaf community. It alludes to a problem that needs to be fixed. "Deaf and hard of hearing" is a politically correct word.
Deaf Vent Frustration and Criticize the New Division
The Utah State Board of Education chamber was packed, with members of the Utah Deaf community in attendance. They lobbied the board members for two hours. The Utah Deaf community expressed their dissatisfaction with the short and long term goals for the "Division of Services to the Hearing Impaired." A number of Deaf people spoke up. "We must control our own destiny. We are no longer willing to sit idly by and watch how hearing people wreck our programs and control our future" (Campbell, Deseret News, April 1988).
"They [the Deaf community] have been oppressed by hearing people," said Rodney Walker, president of the local Gallaudet alumni association. "We have the same feelings as Gallaudet University students" (Campbell, Deseret News, April 1988).
"They [the Deaf community] have been oppressed by hearing people," said Rodney Walker, president of the local Gallaudet alumni association. "We have the same feelings as Gallaudet University students" (Campbell, Deseret News, April 1988).
Rodney W. Walker
The Utah Eagle, April 1955
Lloyd H. Perkins said, "Deafness has been treated like AIDS in Utah – a disease to run away from." He also said, "The deaf in Utah in their own system have not been trained either in the school (for the deaf) or rehabilitation to be leaders." Perkins quoted a statement made during the Gallaudet protest, "When the hearing believe they have to take care of the deaf, this is outright hatred, prejudice, and discrimination, and a grand display of ignorance" (Campbell, Deseret New, April 1988).
Lloyd H. Perkins
"The new division is a step in the right direction," Dr. Sanderson, a former director of deaf services with the State Office of Education, said, "but he criticized the Office of Rehabilitation for not seeking advice from the Utah Deaf community before submitting the proposal to the Legislature." He underlined his point by saying, "I strongly suggest that the division be led by a trained and experienced deaf professional. The reason for this is that a deaf person with a profound understanding of deaf people's needs and culture will recognize them" (Campbell, April 1988, Deseret News).
"The state's deaf feel as if hearing people are their puppeteers," Jim Harper of Provo concluded. "The deaf may be deaf, but they are not mentally loss" (Campbell, Deseret News, April 1988). After the Deaf community, particularly UAD President Mortensen, spoke out, it was agreed to create a new Division of Services to the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (DSDHH), which would be based at the Utah Community Center for the Deaf, and the Deaf community.
"The state's deaf feel as if hearing people are their puppeteers," Jim Harper of Provo concluded. "The deaf may be deaf, but they are not mentally loss" (Campbell, Deseret News, April 1988). After the Deaf community, particularly UAD President Mortensen, spoke out, it was agreed to create a new Division of Services to the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (DSDHH), which would be based at the Utah Community Center for the Deaf, and the Deaf community.
Jim Harper
First Division Director Appointed for
Utah Community Center for Deaf and Hard of Hearing
Utah Community Center for Deaf and Hard of Hearing
The position became available after Jim Hilber resigned in 1988 to take a job as a Division of Rehabilitation Services Facilities Specialist. Hilber had held the title of "expert" since the Utah protest was changed from "director" to "specialist." He was a strong supporter of a new deaf community center and worked with legislators, analysts, the Division of Facilities Construction and Management, and others for years. His collaboration with the Legislative Coalition for People with Disabilities was instrumental in securing legislative financing for the deaf center. At the time, Marilyn T. Call, a hard of hearing individual, was the Executive Director of the Legislative Coalition for People with Disabilities, where she met Jim Hilber, Gene Stewart, and other Deaf campaigners (Sanderson, 2004).
The Utah Association for the Deaf and the Utah Deaf community fiercely advocated for a Deaf director. In his September 1988 UAD Bulletin: The President's Messages, UAD President Mortensen stated:
“Will the director be a deaf person, which is most logical and wise to install as the head of this new Division of Services to the Deaf and Hard of Hearing?” If a hearing person is selected, no matter what his skills and qualifications are in the field of deafness, or understanding the psychology of deafness, Utah will still be behind the times. It will be a backwards step to name a director who has hearing to lead the deaf into new fields of advancement” (Mortensen, UAD Bulletin, September 1988, p. 2).
In September 1988, a Deaf individual was chosen as the next division director, but he declined for personal reasons, much to the surprise of everyone. Because the rest of the applicants had already received a letter informing them that the position had been awarded to someone else, Dr. Judy Buffmire and the screening committee were unable to choose one of the applicants, or they would be in violation of the Equal Employment Laws if they did so (Mortensen, UAD Bulletin, September 1988).
After speaking with members of the Deaf community, Dr. Buffmire appointed Gene Stewart, a hearing Vocational Rehabilitation counselor, as Acting Division Director of the new Division of Services to the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (DSDHH) (Mortensen, UAD Bulletin, October 1988).
In late spring 1989, Kenneth C. Burdett of Ogden initiated a petition to promote Gene Stewart as permanent director of the DSDHH; more than fifty Deaf people signed it and delivered it to Dr. Judy Buffmire (Nelson, UAD Bulletin, October 1989; Darlene Stewart Cochran, interview with her brother, Gene Stewart, April 4, 2012).
A resolution supporting Gene Stewart as a permanent division director of the DSDHH was drafted by Kenneth C. Burdett and passed by the Deaf members attending the Utah Association for the Deaf convention in June 1989 (Nelson, UAD Bulletin, October 1989; Darlene Stewart Cochran, interview with her brother, Gene Stewart, April 4, 2012).
The Utah Association for the Deaf and the Utah Deaf community fiercely advocated for a Deaf director. In his September 1988 UAD Bulletin: The President's Messages, UAD President Mortensen stated:
“Will the director be a deaf person, which is most logical and wise to install as the head of this new Division of Services to the Deaf and Hard of Hearing?” If a hearing person is selected, no matter what his skills and qualifications are in the field of deafness, or understanding the psychology of deafness, Utah will still be behind the times. It will be a backwards step to name a director who has hearing to lead the deaf into new fields of advancement” (Mortensen, UAD Bulletin, September 1988, p. 2).
In September 1988, a Deaf individual was chosen as the next division director, but he declined for personal reasons, much to the surprise of everyone. Because the rest of the applicants had already received a letter informing them that the position had been awarded to someone else, Dr. Judy Buffmire and the screening committee were unable to choose one of the applicants, or they would be in violation of the Equal Employment Laws if they did so (Mortensen, UAD Bulletin, September 1988).
After speaking with members of the Deaf community, Dr. Buffmire appointed Gene Stewart, a hearing Vocational Rehabilitation counselor, as Acting Division Director of the new Division of Services to the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (DSDHH) (Mortensen, UAD Bulletin, October 1988).
In late spring 1989, Kenneth C. Burdett of Ogden initiated a petition to promote Gene Stewart as permanent director of the DSDHH; more than fifty Deaf people signed it and delivered it to Dr. Judy Buffmire (Nelson, UAD Bulletin, October 1989; Darlene Stewart Cochran, interview with her brother, Gene Stewart, April 4, 2012).
A resolution supporting Gene Stewart as a permanent division director of the DSDHH was drafted by Kenneth C. Burdett and passed by the Deaf members attending the Utah Association for the Deaf convention in June 1989 (Nelson, UAD Bulletin, October 1989; Darlene Stewart Cochran, interview with her brother, Gene Stewart, April 4, 2012).
Kenneth C. Burdett
After serving as an acting administrator for over a year, the Utah State Board of Education named Gene Stewart as Division Director of the Division of Services to the Deaf and Hard of Hearing on August 11, 1989. He was the first Division Director of the Division of Services to the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (Nelson, UAD Bulletin, October 1989). When the DSDHH relocated to the Utah Community Center for the Deaf in 1988, it increased its services to Deaf consumers. The administration assigned equal responsibility to the Division Director and the Director. Under Stewart's administration, Beth Ann Stewart Campbell's title and job as director remained the same, and she reported to him.
Stewart had worked as a rehabilitation counselor for the Utah Division of Rehabilitation Services since 1967, when he was hired to provide vocational rehabilitation to the deaf. He was a CODA, like Beth Ann Stewart Campbell, and his parents were Wayne and Georgia (Mae) Stewart. As the sole hearing child in a home with two Deaf siblings, Keith and Darlene Cochran, he grew up in the Utah Deaf community. Stewart got a qualification as a professional interpreter. He graduated from the University of Utah with a bachelor's degree in speech pathology and a minor in German, as well as a master's degree in deaf education administration from California State University, Northridge. The Utah Deaf community was enthusiastic about his appointment. His main objective was to open a new Utah Community Center for the Deaf (Sanderson, 2004).
Stewart had worked as a rehabilitation counselor for the Utah Division of Rehabilitation Services since 1967, when he was hired to provide vocational rehabilitation to the deaf. He was a CODA, like Beth Ann Stewart Campbell, and his parents were Wayne and Georgia (Mae) Stewart. As the sole hearing child in a home with two Deaf siblings, Keith and Darlene Cochran, he grew up in the Utah Deaf community. Stewart got a qualification as a professional interpreter. He graduated from the University of Utah with a bachelor's degree in speech pathology and a minor in German, as well as a master's degree in deaf education administration from California State University, Northridge. The Utah Deaf community was enthusiastic about his appointment. His main objective was to open a new Utah Community Center for the Deaf (Sanderson, 2004).
Gene Stewart
Working on Getting a New Community Center
for the Deaf Building in Another Location
for the Deaf Building in Another Location
Dr. Judy Ann Buffmire, Executive Director of the Utah State Office of Rehabilitation, told the audience on June 16, 1989, at the biennial convention of the Utah Association for the Deaf, that "planning dollars had been obtained from the legislature for a new center for the deaf after four years of constant lobbying and pushing" (Sanderson, 2004).
Dr. Sanderson reported that an Ad Hoc Planning Committee for the new Utah Community Center for the Deaf was constituted and convened for the first time on July 5, 1989, with planning money secured. This committee included several Deaf and hard of hearing people, as well as architects and officials from the Utah State Division of Facilities Construction and Management. Shirley Platt, Lee Shepherd, John Peebler, Norman Williams, Lloyd Perkins, Keith Lauritzen, Don Jensen, Dave Mortensen, Robert Sanderson, and Robert Gillespie were among the Deaf members (Sanderson, 2004).
The Ad Hoc Planning Committee met to explore a variety of issues. They discussed about the budget for purchasing land, the size of the land, the size of the building (square footage) and construction, what to include in the building, how many people it could hold, and a lot of other things (Sanderson, 2004).
Good lighting throughout the structure, deaf-friendly fire alarms, and other deaf-friendly safety procedures were among the building's top priorities. The Utah Community Center for the Deaf may use a baseball diamond to attract young Deaf people. A basketball court/gym with a stage would also be beneficial to young Deaf people. Basketball and baseball were intended to be used as a means of generating strong community support. In the Utah Deaf community, sports have always been a big deal. Deaf students across the country, like their hearing peers in public schools, enjoyed competing in sports with their peers who were also deaf.USD alumni from the local Deaf community wanted mainstreamed students to have the same opportunity at the center (Sanderson, 2004).
Norman Williams visited numerous gyms in order to prepare for the architect's sketch of the proposed building plans. He couldn't find one that he liked, much to his dismay. He went to the Idaho School for the Deaf, which had a brand new full-sized basketball court with bleachers. He was impressed with the size of that gym and recommended that the center follow suit. As a result, a basketball court with moveable bleachers was built within the gym (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, 2008; Norman Williams, personal communication, May 8, 2012).
Dr. Buffmire reconstituted the State Advisory Committee for Services on September 20, 1989, with seven additional members. This committee's role was to provide advice during a three-year period. Several members of the Utah community were among those who were served. One of the members that represented the deaf was Mortensen (Sanderson, 2004).
Gene Stewart responded to a request from UAD President Mortensen in September 1989 to describe what the new Division of Services to the Deaf and Hard of Hearing would do and who would be working there. Stewart worked hard as an ally for the Utah Deaf community. When he started his position in October 1988, "The deaf must be involved and kept informed," he said. He did so in a variety of ways, including the UAD Bulletin, the Deaf Services Advisory Committee, and participation at UAD Board meetings, as well as through individual conversations (Sanderson, 2004).
Dr. Sanderson reported that an Ad Hoc Planning Committee for the new Utah Community Center for the Deaf was constituted and convened for the first time on July 5, 1989, with planning money secured. This committee included several Deaf and hard of hearing people, as well as architects and officials from the Utah State Division of Facilities Construction and Management. Shirley Platt, Lee Shepherd, John Peebler, Norman Williams, Lloyd Perkins, Keith Lauritzen, Don Jensen, Dave Mortensen, Robert Sanderson, and Robert Gillespie were among the Deaf members (Sanderson, 2004).
The Ad Hoc Planning Committee met to explore a variety of issues. They discussed about the budget for purchasing land, the size of the land, the size of the building (square footage) and construction, what to include in the building, how many people it could hold, and a lot of other things (Sanderson, 2004).
Good lighting throughout the structure, deaf-friendly fire alarms, and other deaf-friendly safety procedures were among the building's top priorities. The Utah Community Center for the Deaf may use a baseball diamond to attract young Deaf people. A basketball court/gym with a stage would also be beneficial to young Deaf people. Basketball and baseball were intended to be used as a means of generating strong community support. In the Utah Deaf community, sports have always been a big deal. Deaf students across the country, like their hearing peers in public schools, enjoyed competing in sports with their peers who were also deaf.USD alumni from the local Deaf community wanted mainstreamed students to have the same opportunity at the center (Sanderson, 2004).
Norman Williams visited numerous gyms in order to prepare for the architect's sketch of the proposed building plans. He couldn't find one that he liked, much to his dismay. He went to the Idaho School for the Deaf, which had a brand new full-sized basketball court with bleachers. He was impressed with the size of that gym and recommended that the center follow suit. As a result, a basketball court with moveable bleachers was built within the gym (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, 2008; Norman Williams, personal communication, May 8, 2012).
Dr. Buffmire reconstituted the State Advisory Committee for Services on September 20, 1989, with seven additional members. This committee's role was to provide advice during a three-year period. Several members of the Utah community were among those who were served. One of the members that represented the deaf was Mortensen (Sanderson, 2004).
Gene Stewart responded to a request from UAD President Mortensen in September 1989 to describe what the new Division of Services to the Deaf and Hard of Hearing would do and who would be working there. Stewart worked hard as an ally for the Utah Deaf community. When he started his position in October 1988, "The deaf must be involved and kept informed," he said. He did so in a variety of ways, including the UAD Bulletin, the Deaf Services Advisory Committee, and participation at UAD Board meetings, as well as through individual conversations (Sanderson, 2004).
Deaf Members of the Ad Hoc Planning Committee
Shirley Platt
Lee Shepherd
John Peebler. UAD Bulletin, July 2003
Norman Williams
Lloyd H. Perkins
Keith Lauritzen
Donald Jensen
W. David Mortensen
Dr. Robert G. Sanderson @ Gallaudet University Archives
Robert Gillespie
Did You Know?
While the Division of Services to the Deaf and Hard of Hearing was searching for a new director, Mabel Bell, a columnist for the October 1989 UAD Bulletin, a pseudonym used by Ron Nelson, wrote the following:
“Let me ask you a question. Can hearing people make the best possible decisions for the Deaf community without any feedback or representation from them? Up until very recently, every program set up by legislators or state agencies that affected the Deaf community were administered and staffed entirely by hearing people. Is this fair representation?
…It is long past time that Gallaudet had a deaf president, as testimony that deaf people are capable of leading themselves.
…Why aren’t [State Board of Education, Voc Rehab, etc] selecting qualified deaf people to be administrators in those programs directly affecting the Deaf community of Utah?
…Deafness should not be the only criteria for the job, but if the deaf applying is an active member of the Deaf community, the deaf applicant has something that no hearing person will ever be able to develop – an intimate understanding of deafness and its culture.”
In the October 1989 UAD Bulletin, Ron Nelson explained that "I think Dr. Judy Buffmire did not ignore the Deaf community." At first, the Deaf community strongly supported the concept of having a deaf director, and a deaf person was selected. Several months later, the Deaf community changed their minds and decided they wanted a hearing person as director. Several other deaf groups related to deafness also supported the concept of a hearing person as director, including the DSDHH Advisory Council. A hearing person was selected as the new director.
Ron also said, "If the Deaf community had remained steadfast in their support of the concept of a deaf person as the director, would events have been any different? We will never know" (Nelson, UAD Bulletin, October 1989).
“Let me ask you a question. Can hearing people make the best possible decisions for the Deaf community without any feedback or representation from them? Up until very recently, every program set up by legislators or state agencies that affected the Deaf community were administered and staffed entirely by hearing people. Is this fair representation?
…It is long past time that Gallaudet had a deaf president, as testimony that deaf people are capable of leading themselves.
…Why aren’t [State Board of Education, Voc Rehab, etc] selecting qualified deaf people to be administrators in those programs directly affecting the Deaf community of Utah?
…Deafness should not be the only criteria for the job, but if the deaf applying is an active member of the Deaf community, the deaf applicant has something that no hearing person will ever be able to develop – an intimate understanding of deafness and its culture.”
In the October 1989 UAD Bulletin, Ron Nelson explained that "I think Dr. Judy Buffmire did not ignore the Deaf community." At first, the Deaf community strongly supported the concept of having a deaf director, and a deaf person was selected. Several months later, the Deaf community changed their minds and decided they wanted a hearing person as director. Several other deaf groups related to deafness also supported the concept of a hearing person as director, including the DSDHH Advisory Council. A hearing person was selected as the new director.
Ron also said, "If the Deaf community had remained steadfast in their support of the concept of a deaf person as the director, would events have been any different? We will never know" (Nelson, UAD Bulletin, October 1989).
Ron Nelson
Utah State Board of Education Gives the New Utah Community Center for the Deaf #1 Facility Priority
In January 1989, Gene Stewart, Division Director of the Division to the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, and UAD officers W. David Mortensen and Lloyd H. Perkins requested the Utah Deaf community to help them lobby for a new community center for the deaf in a different location. They urged deaf people in Utah to write letters to their local senators and representatives (Sanderson, 2004).
The Utah State Board of Education selected the new Utah Community Center for the Deaf as the number one facility priority on September 8, 1989. With their help, the Utah Deaf community would be better able to persuade the 1990 Legislature to fund the Division's construction. The officers of the UAD were ecstatic. They were one step closer to building the new deaf community center in the most densely populated neighborhood, where they could meet to grow and learn (UAD Bulletin, September 1989).
The architects, Frandsen-Chamberlain of Ogden, Utah, finished the blueprints for the planned structure on October 1, 1989. The document included an executive summary of the project, which effectively amounted to a building request. A full-size basketball court in front of a large stage – or, in other words, a multi-use auditorium – was included in the project floor plan. "Part of the justification for the new center was the estimated cost of maintaining the old Bountiful Center," according to Dr. Sanderson, "calling out that it was fiscally unwise to authorize funds for maintenance and code compliance on an outdated building with a projected limited lifetime" (Sanderson, 2004).
The state of Utah eventually recognized the need to meet the accessibility needs of the Utah Deaf population. They observed that Deaf people were undereducated, underemployed, underrepresented in society, and socially isolated, all of which had a detrimental financial impact on the individual and the community. To address these concerns, the Division of Services to the Deaf and Hard of Hearing of the Utah State Office of Rehabilitation created and implemented specialized services to lessen reliance on public funds while increasing Deaf adults' independence and productivity. Interpreter referral assistance, youth support, counseling, socialization, and independent living were among the services offered. The state realized that the best way to give these specialist services was through a specialized rehabilitation facility. The existing facility's programming had a large positive impact on the Utah Deaf community. They agreed that due to building and location issues, offering high-quality services at the current facility was difficult. As a result, the Utah Deaf community was ecstatic to hear that Governor Norman H. Bangerter was on their side!
The Utah State Board of Education selected the new Utah Community Center for the Deaf as the number one facility priority on September 8, 1989. With their help, the Utah Deaf community would be better able to persuade the 1990 Legislature to fund the Division's construction. The officers of the UAD were ecstatic. They were one step closer to building the new deaf community center in the most densely populated neighborhood, where they could meet to grow and learn (UAD Bulletin, September 1989).
The architects, Frandsen-Chamberlain of Ogden, Utah, finished the blueprints for the planned structure on October 1, 1989. The document included an executive summary of the project, which effectively amounted to a building request. A full-size basketball court in front of a large stage – or, in other words, a multi-use auditorium – was included in the project floor plan. "Part of the justification for the new center was the estimated cost of maintaining the old Bountiful Center," according to Dr. Sanderson, "calling out that it was fiscally unwise to authorize funds for maintenance and code compliance on an outdated building with a projected limited lifetime" (Sanderson, 2004).
The state of Utah eventually recognized the need to meet the accessibility needs of the Utah Deaf population. They observed that Deaf people were undereducated, underemployed, underrepresented in society, and socially isolated, all of which had a detrimental financial impact on the individual and the community. To address these concerns, the Division of Services to the Deaf and Hard of Hearing of the Utah State Office of Rehabilitation created and implemented specialized services to lessen reliance on public funds while increasing Deaf adults' independence and productivity. Interpreter referral assistance, youth support, counseling, socialization, and independent living were among the services offered. The state realized that the best way to give these specialist services was through a specialized rehabilitation facility. The existing facility's programming had a large positive impact on the Utah Deaf community. They agreed that due to building and location issues, offering high-quality services at the current facility was difficult. As a result, the Utah Deaf community was ecstatic to hear that Governor Norman H. Bangerter was on their side!
Governor Bangerter Proposes Funding for New Center
Governor Norman H. Bangerter proposed funding for two deaf projects as part of his state building program recommendation during the 1990 legislative session. Among the agencies were a new Community Center of the Deafworth $3,359,100 and a consolidated Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind worth $8,184,300. The Legislature was to decide whether or not to fund these additional buildings at the specified levels. Gene Stewart and UAD President Mortensen urged members of the Utah Deaf community to attend legislative sessions to express their concerns and support for these projects, which would help ensure their approval (UAD Bulletin, February 1990).
Success at Last!
The Utah State Office of Rehabilitation/Division of Services to the Deaf and Hard of Hearing received budget approval from the Utah Legislature in 1990. Approvals were granted for the following:
It was a victory! Finding a suitable plot of land for the new community center did not take long (Sanderson, 2004). Gene Stewart, Division Director, gained 100 percent agreement on one particular piece of property located at 5770 South 1500 West after touring the new location. "Isn't that a miracle!" he exclaimed enthusiastically. A huge group of Deaf and hearing people collaborated to make a dream a reality (UAD Bulletin, March 1990).
According to the March 1990 issue of the UAD Bulletin, Dr. Judy Ann Buffmire gave Gene Stewart permission to sign a paper paving the way for the purchase of property for a new deaf center on March 13, 1990 (UAD Bulletin, March 1990).
- Monies for equipment and programs at the Utah Community Center for the Deaf through 6-30-90
- Permanent annual funding for interpreter training and employment
- Permanent annual funding to increase/improve programming at the Utah Community Center for the Deaf
- Building funds for a new Deaf Center (Sanderson, 2004).
It was a victory! Finding a suitable plot of land for the new community center did not take long (Sanderson, 2004). Gene Stewart, Division Director, gained 100 percent agreement on one particular piece of property located at 5770 South 1500 West after touring the new location. "Isn't that a miracle!" he exclaimed enthusiastically. A huge group of Deaf and hearing people collaborated to make a dream a reality (UAD Bulletin, March 1990).
According to the March 1990 issue of the UAD Bulletin, Dr. Judy Ann Buffmire gave Gene Stewart permission to sign a paper paving the way for the purchase of property for a new deaf center on March 13, 1990 (UAD Bulletin, March 1990).
Did You Know?
In the minds of legislators, the two projects, Utah Community Center for the Deaf and Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind, were entwined, although their goals were completely different.
The deaf leadership and the USDB administration began a vigorous lobbying effort. As a result, the Utah State Office of Education supported the cause, and legislators responded (Sanderson, 2004)!
The deaf leadership and the USDB administration began a vigorous lobbying effort. As a result, the Utah State Office of Education supported the cause, and legislators responded (Sanderson, 2004)!
Groundbreaking!
On June 10, 1991, a gathering of around 200 people attended the groundbreaking ceremony for the new Utah Community Center for the Deaf facility on a sunny day (UAD Bulletin, July 1991; Sanderson, 2004).
Dr. Blaine Petersen of the Utah State Office of Rehabilitation welcomed the audience and introduced speakers as the program progressed, according to the July 1991 UAD Bulletin.
One of the speakers, Gene Stewart, Division Director of the Division to Services to the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, related his childhood desire for an ivory-handled cap gun. He finally obtained one after pleading with his father. He sobbed once more in the car on the way home, pleading for caps for his rifle. His father became enraged and returned the cap gun to Grand Central, ensuring that he never received one. He used it as an example of the Utah Deaf finally getting their own deaf center after months of struggle.
Another speaker, Beth Ann Stewart Campbell, Director of the Utah Community Center for the Deaf, promised that construction would be recorded step by step and that Norman Williams would "check where every nail goes" so that deaf Utahns could be confident that building plans and construction would be properly completed. Campbell expressed confidence in Burtch Beall and Mary Guy-Sell, the architects (UAD Bulletin, July 1991; Sanderson, 2004).
Dr. Judy Ann Buffmire, the USOR's retired executive director, Lieutenant Governor Val Overson of Utah, and the architects all wished for the construction of the center to be a success (UAD Bulletin, July 1991, Sanderson 2004).
W. David Mortensen, president of UAD, gave a brief history of the UCCD. The idea for a deaf center emerged in 1970, and it shared the delays and frustrations experienced by UAD officers and the Utah Deaf community when dealing with the legislature, from the earliest lobbying to the success of getting the first center in Bountiful, and then working for eight years to get a brand new building to meet the needs of the Deaf population (UAD Bulletin, July 1991; Sanderson, 2004).
Dr. Blaine Petersen of the Utah State Office of Rehabilitation welcomed the audience and introduced speakers as the program progressed, according to the July 1991 UAD Bulletin.
One of the speakers, Gene Stewart, Division Director of the Division to Services to the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, related his childhood desire for an ivory-handled cap gun. He finally obtained one after pleading with his father. He sobbed once more in the car on the way home, pleading for caps for his rifle. His father became enraged and returned the cap gun to Grand Central, ensuring that he never received one. He used it as an example of the Utah Deaf finally getting their own deaf center after months of struggle.
Another speaker, Beth Ann Stewart Campbell, Director of the Utah Community Center for the Deaf, promised that construction would be recorded step by step and that Norman Williams would "check where every nail goes" so that deaf Utahns could be confident that building plans and construction would be properly completed. Campbell expressed confidence in Burtch Beall and Mary Guy-Sell, the architects (UAD Bulletin, July 1991; Sanderson, 2004).
Dr. Judy Ann Buffmire, the USOR's retired executive director, Lieutenant Governor Val Overson of Utah, and the architects all wished for the construction of the center to be a success (UAD Bulletin, July 1991, Sanderson 2004).
W. David Mortensen, president of UAD, gave a brief history of the UCCD. The idea for a deaf center emerged in 1970, and it shared the delays and frustrations experienced by UAD officers and the Utah Deaf community when dealing with the legislature, from the earliest lobbying to the success of getting the first center in Bountiful, and then working for eight years to get a brand new building to meet the needs of the Deaf population (UAD Bulletin, July 1991; Sanderson, 2004).
W. David Mortensen UAD president briefly outlines the history of the UCCD
Dr. Robert Sanderson, UAD chairman and former USOR state coordinator of services to the Deaf adults and UCCD director, spoke briefly, expressing heartfelt gratitude to those who made the dream of Deaf people in Utah a reality (UAD Bulletin, July 1991; Sanderson, 2004).
Dr. Robert Sanderson, UAD chairman and retired USOR state coordinator of services to the Deaf adults and UCCD director, spoke briefly, expressing deep gratitude to those who made it possible for the dream to come true for Deaf people in Utah
A ticket was drawn from the crowd for a lucky Deaf individual to participate with the digging. Larry Kinnett was the lucky winner of a ticket drawing, and he joined Mary Guy-Sell, Beth Ann Stewart Campbell, Dr. Judy Ann Buffmire, Norman Williams, and Lt. Governor Val Overson in breaking ground on what would become a first in the country, a unique center for the deaf and hard of hearing (UAD Bulletin, July 1991; Sanderson, 2004).
L-R: Norman Williams, Larry Kinnett, Mary Guy-Sell, Beth Ann Campbell, Lt. Governor Val Oveson and Dr. Judy Ann Buffmire host shovels and break ground
Did You Know?
The Utah Community Center for the Deaf was the first in the United states, according to Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, to be built by a state specifically for the deaf and designed with deaf people in mind. Deaf people were, in fact, involved in the architectural planning process from the beginning (Sanderson, UAD Bulletin, July 1991, p. 7).
UAD President’s Message
Lyle G. Mortensen, President of the Utah Association for the Deaf, took the opportunity to thank Dr. Robert G. Sanderson and David Mortensen in the UAD Bulletin, as follows:
“To Robert Sanderson and David Mortensen…a TREMENDOUS THANKS…for a job well done from the UAD members and the Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing of Utah. You’ve made outstanding accomplishments and done excellent teamwork in providing us with list: the UCCD, interpreting services, telephone relay, TDD’s and repair services, and the new building complex Center which is more centrally located and will provide increased space and better activities and attendance. Our hats are off to your excellent leadership and to the past UAD Board of Directors which served you so well” (Mortensen, UAD Bulletin, August 1991, p. 3; Sanderson, 2004).
“To Robert Sanderson and David Mortensen…a TREMENDOUS THANKS…for a job well done from the UAD members and the Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing of Utah. You’ve made outstanding accomplishments and done excellent teamwork in providing us with list: the UCCD, interpreting services, telephone relay, TDD’s and repair services, and the new building complex Center which is more centrally located and will provide increased space and better activities and attendance. Our hats are off to your excellent leadership and to the past UAD Board of Directors which served you so well” (Mortensen, UAD Bulletin, August 1991, p. 3; Sanderson, 2004).
Lyle G. Mortensen
Construction Begins
During the construction of the new Utah Community Center for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing in 1991–1992, the Bountiful center continued to serve the Deaf and hard of hearing community. However, due of the distance from the center, the programs at that center were limited in meeting the growing needs. Parking remained a major issue, limiting access to the facilities. In addition, while the new center was being built, maintenance was kept to a minimum. Everyone kept track of the time as they awaited the new center (Sanderson, 2004).
For weeks, Deaf people excitedly drove by the site of the new center, watching the building being built. While watching the progress, Norman Williams, a maintenance man, grew familiar with the building and all that went into its construction. He knew the building by heart. Dr. Sanderson basically said that Norman knew every brick personally and how to take care of it. Moreover, he knew where everything was and what the functioning parts of the building were supposed to do and when (Sanderson, 2004).
The new 25,000-square-foot building was ready for occupancy in September 1992. The majority of the furnishings that Gene Stewart and Beth Ann Stewart Campbell had ordered had arrived. Staff members were assigned to offices, and the director was given the keys. Utahns who are deaf or hard of hearing now have their own building. It was previously known as UCCD before being renamed the Sanderson Center (leaving off the hard of hearing). The Division for Services to the Deaf and Hard of Hearing was housed at UCCD (Sanderson, 2004).
Dr. Sanderson detailed the community center and all of the events that took place there, including classes, socials, sporting events, meetings, seminars, crafts, bazaars, drama performances, major and small conferences, and TTY repair service. A full-size gymnasium, a dressing room and showers, a large kitchen, a weight and exercise room, a lounge and library, a bookstore, and an assistive technology demonstration room where Deaf and hard of hearing people tested a variety of telephones, amplifiers, TTYs, and other communication devices to find what met their specific communication needs (Sanderson, 2004).
From the moment the new building opened, Gene Stewart saw the programs growing in response to the demands and needs of Deaf and hard of hearing adolescents and adults. As a result of the increased workload, a qualified program director had to be hired. Beth Ann Stewart Campbell retired in 1992, and this program director post was created. Marilyn T. Call, a hard of hearing social worker, was hired three months before the Bountiful Center relocated to the Salt Lake area in June 1992. She came to the role with several years of experience as executive director of the Legislative Coalition for Individuals with Disabilities, a group that advocated for people with disabilities with the Utah State Legislature. She has two Deaf daughters: Ashley, who was also autistic, and Camille, who was deaf (Sanderson, 2004).
For weeks, Deaf people excitedly drove by the site of the new center, watching the building being built. While watching the progress, Norman Williams, a maintenance man, grew familiar with the building and all that went into its construction. He knew the building by heart. Dr. Sanderson basically said that Norman knew every brick personally and how to take care of it. Moreover, he knew where everything was and what the functioning parts of the building were supposed to do and when (Sanderson, 2004).
The new 25,000-square-foot building was ready for occupancy in September 1992. The majority of the furnishings that Gene Stewart and Beth Ann Stewart Campbell had ordered had arrived. Staff members were assigned to offices, and the director was given the keys. Utahns who are deaf or hard of hearing now have their own building. It was previously known as UCCD before being renamed the Sanderson Center (leaving off the hard of hearing). The Division for Services to the Deaf and Hard of Hearing was housed at UCCD (Sanderson, 2004).
Dr. Sanderson detailed the community center and all of the events that took place there, including classes, socials, sporting events, meetings, seminars, crafts, bazaars, drama performances, major and small conferences, and TTY repair service. A full-size gymnasium, a dressing room and showers, a large kitchen, a weight and exercise room, a lounge and library, a bookstore, and an assistive technology demonstration room where Deaf and hard of hearing people tested a variety of telephones, amplifiers, TTYs, and other communication devices to find what met their specific communication needs (Sanderson, 2004).
From the moment the new building opened, Gene Stewart saw the programs growing in response to the demands and needs of Deaf and hard of hearing adolescents and adults. As a result of the increased workload, a qualified program director had to be hired. Beth Ann Stewart Campbell retired in 1992, and this program director post was created. Marilyn T. Call, a hard of hearing social worker, was hired three months before the Bountiful Center relocated to the Salt Lake area in June 1992. She came to the role with several years of experience as executive director of the Legislative Coalition for Individuals with Disabilities, a group that advocated for people with disabilities with the Utah State Legislature. She has two Deaf daughters: Ashley, who was also autistic, and Camille, who was deaf (Sanderson, 2004).
The Dedication of the
Utah Community Center of the Deaf Building
Utah Community Center of the Deaf Building
In the spring of 1993, the new Utah Community Center for the Deaf was dedicated. People planted flowers, spoke for hours, ate hot dogs and soda pop, went on a tour of the center, talked some more, then came back for another hot dog (Stewart, DSDHH Newsletter, June 1993).
Utah State Board of Education Chairman Grant Hurst spoke on the Utah Deaf community's hard work and affirmed the Board's support. Regional Rehabilitation Commissioner James Dixon presented Blaine Petersen, Executive Director of the Utah State Office of Rehabilitation, and Gene Stewart, Director of the Division of Services to the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, with greetings from the Regional Office as well as a plaque honoring them (Stewart, DSDHH Newsletter, June 1993).
Four Deaf inidivudals, Dr. Robert Sanderson, Lyle Mortensen, Norman Williams, and Lisa Cochran, the daughter of C. Roy and Darlene (Stewart) Cochran, spoke about their past and current experiences, as well as the future of the new deaf community center. Representative Judy Ann Buffmire was in attendance, as was her husband, La Mar Buffmire. They were occupied conversing with a number of their Deaf friends. Kay McDonough, a member of the State Board of Education, and her husband, Gene enjoyed the ceremony. Everyone enjoyed the wonderful chicken cordon bleu dish prepared by Five-Star Catering; second plates were also requested (Stewart, DSDHH Newsletter, June 1993).
Utah State Board of Education Chairman Grant Hurst spoke on the Utah Deaf community's hard work and affirmed the Board's support. Regional Rehabilitation Commissioner James Dixon presented Blaine Petersen, Executive Director of the Utah State Office of Rehabilitation, and Gene Stewart, Director of the Division of Services to the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, with greetings from the Regional Office as well as a plaque honoring them (Stewart, DSDHH Newsletter, June 1993).
Four Deaf inidivudals, Dr. Robert Sanderson, Lyle Mortensen, Norman Williams, and Lisa Cochran, the daughter of C. Roy and Darlene (Stewart) Cochran, spoke about their past and current experiences, as well as the future of the new deaf community center. Representative Judy Ann Buffmire was in attendance, as was her husband, La Mar Buffmire. They were occupied conversing with a number of their Deaf friends. Kay McDonough, a member of the State Board of Education, and her husband, Gene enjoyed the ceremony. Everyone enjoyed the wonderful chicken cordon bleu dish prepared by Five-Star Catering; second plates were also requested (Stewart, DSDHH Newsletter, June 1993).
Lisa Cochran
Robert and Mary Sanderson's son, Gary Sanderson, gave a delightful, hilarious, and entertaining presentation about interpreters. Steve Zakharias wrote a beautiful poem, which was performed in American Sign Language by both Kristi Mortensen and Steve (Stewart, DSDHH Newsletter, June 1993).
Gary Sanderson
Steve Zakharias’s Poem
We meet to dedicate a building.
We meet a center to bless.
Through our presence
On this historic day.
A landmark – our success
We meet to dedicate this day
At this historic space
When we can proudly now proclaim
In the course of Utah’s deaf.
“This is, indeed, the Place.”
Within these walls a culture thrives
A culture of our own
With our own language.
Our design.
A place to call our home.
We bless this center with our hearts
That it may always be
The center place
To set the pace
For our own destiny.
We bless this center with our minds
That we may share our thought.
Our goals, our triumphs,
And ourselves
That which our hands wave wrought.
We bless this center with our eyes
So we may communicate clear
And teach those
Who don’t understand
The way to use that’s dear.
We bless this center with our time
For generations here.
And for those yet to come
May we make successes bold.
In these halls where eyes can hear.
For many years we sought the funds.
A center for us all.
A place, a home.
A space where friends can meet.
Not many heard our call.
Took 18 long years, but we prevailed!
A building, new, and strong.
Thanks to the people
Of our State.
A place where we belong.
While there be those who do not care
Or see as we’re not.
We’ll show the world
How it is done.
With equal access wrought.
We bless this building with our hands.
With which we work and speak.
May it remain
For many years.
Its shelter strong we seek.
We meet to dedicate a building.
We meet a center to bless.
Through our presence here
On this historic day.
A landmark – our success.
We meet to dedicate this day
At this historic space
When we can proudly now proclaim
In the course of Utah’s deaf.
“This is, indeed the Place.”
Copyright by Steve Zakharias
Signed by Kristi Mortensen
(Zakharias, DSDHH Newsletter, June 1993, p. 3)
We meet a center to bless.
Through our presence
On this historic day.
A landmark – our success
We meet to dedicate this day
At this historic space
When we can proudly now proclaim
In the course of Utah’s deaf.
“This is, indeed, the Place.”
Within these walls a culture thrives
A culture of our own
With our own language.
Our design.
A place to call our home.
We bless this center with our hearts
That it may always be
The center place
To set the pace
For our own destiny.
We bless this center with our minds
That we may share our thought.
Our goals, our triumphs,
And ourselves
That which our hands wave wrought.
We bless this center with our eyes
So we may communicate clear
And teach those
Who don’t understand
The way to use that’s dear.
We bless this center with our time
For generations here.
And for those yet to come
May we make successes bold.
In these halls where eyes can hear.
For many years we sought the funds.
A center for us all.
A place, a home.
A space where friends can meet.
Not many heard our call.
Took 18 long years, but we prevailed!
A building, new, and strong.
Thanks to the people
Of our State.
A place where we belong.
While there be those who do not care
Or see as we’re not.
We’ll show the world
How it is done.
With equal access wrought.
We bless this building with our hands.
With which we work and speak.
May it remain
For many years.
Its shelter strong we seek.
We meet to dedicate a building.
We meet a center to bless.
Through our presence here
On this historic day.
A landmark – our success.
We meet to dedicate this day
At this historic space
When we can proudly now proclaim
In the course of Utah’s deaf.
“This is, indeed the Place.”
Copyright by Steve Zakharias
Signed by Kristi Mortensen
(Zakharias, DSDHH Newsletter, June 1993, p. 3)
Kristi Mortensen
Gene Stewart Retires
Gene Stewart retired in July 1996, leaving behind a fantastic team and a thriving, expanding program for Deaf and hard of hearing people. His successor was found after a nationwide search (Sanderson, 2004).
A New Director Takes Over
On September 3, 1996, William "Rusty" Wales was hired as the director of the Utah Division of Services to the Deaf and Hard of Hearing. He had ten years of experience as a rehabilitation counselor in Denver, Colorado, and three years of experience as a training supervisor at the Sprint Relay Center in Independence, Missouri (Mortensen, UAD Bulletin, October 1996; Sanderson, 2004). Wales' job title changed from Division Director to Director before he was recruited. Marilyn T. Call, the program director, reported to him.
Rusty Wales was born deaf and received his early education at the John Tracy Clinic in California. Later, he transferred to the California School for the Deaf in Riverside, where he received his diploma. He earned his bachelor's degree from Gallaudet College. He received his master's degree at California State University at Northridge while teaching and raising a family (Sanderson, 2004).
Rusty Wales was born deaf and received his early education at the John Tracy Clinic in California. Later, he transferred to the California School for the Deaf in Riverside, where he received his diploma. He earned his bachelor's degree from Gallaudet College. He received his master's degree at California State University at Northridge while teaching and raising a family (Sanderson, 2004).
William "Rusty" Wales
Wales left a functional new wing on the south end of the Utah Community Center of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing as his legacy in administration (Sanderson, 2004). According to Dr. Sanderson, his first few years as director of the Utah Community Center for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing were spent focusing on the need for a new wing to serve the growing programs and gaining support from the Utah Deaf community as well as legislators. Wales envisioned tiered classrooms, offices, and a lecture hall designed specifically for the needs of a deaf audience. He worked nonstop, convincing, cajoling, citing facts and figures, needs and benefits, and maintaining a good attitude despite the challenges (Sanderson, 2004).
Budget constraints in 1992 led to a smaller building than anticipated, according to Dr. Sanderson. Consumer services had tripled since then, and office space was becoming scarce. Employees had to jam into a small workplace area (Sanderson, 2004).
During the first year of operation in the new center between 1992 and 1993, many public areas were already booked. Since then, the situation has only gotten worse. Classroom scheduling was also a challenge. Due to high demand, several community organizations were forced to arrange programs and activities months ahead of time. Many requests for public groups were turned down. As a result of the constant increase in visitors as well as staff growth, parking became a problem (Sanderson, 2004).
The goal of the new addition was to add approximately 6,500 square feet and it was attached to the existing building on the south. The construction of this wing was brick to match the existing exterior. The main features of the new wing included a new lecture hall, a large office space, which allowed for as many as 12–15 offices, an assistive technology demonstration room, two large classrooms with an accordion-type divider in the middle, and two storage spaces. An additional parking lot was added south of the wing (Sanderson, 2004).
Budget constraints in 1992 led to a smaller building than anticipated, according to Dr. Sanderson. Consumer services had tripled since then, and office space was becoming scarce. Employees had to jam into a small workplace area (Sanderson, 2004).
During the first year of operation in the new center between 1992 and 1993, many public areas were already booked. Since then, the situation has only gotten worse. Classroom scheduling was also a challenge. Due to high demand, several community organizations were forced to arrange programs and activities months ahead of time. Many requests for public groups were turned down. As a result of the constant increase in visitors as well as staff growth, parking became a problem (Sanderson, 2004).
The goal of the new addition was to add approximately 6,500 square feet and it was attached to the existing building on the south. The construction of this wing was brick to match the existing exterior. The main features of the new wing included a new lecture hall, a large office space, which allowed for as many as 12–15 offices, an assistive technology demonstration room, two large classrooms with an accordion-type divider in the middle, and two storage spaces. An additional parking lot was added south of the wing (Sanderson, 2004).
A blue Print of the new wing
After receiving the approval of the Superintendent of the State Office of Education and the Utah State Board of Education, Dr. Blaine Petersen, Executive Director of Rehabilitation Services, agreed to the obvious need and submitted a formal request to the legislature (Sanderson, 2004).
Not only that, but Rusty Wales enlisted the help of numerous members of the Utah Deaf community in lobbying the capital facilities subcommittee, as well as officials from the Utah State Office of Education and Rehabilitation Services. His efforts had paid off (Sanderson, 2004).
As a state agency, the Division of Services to the Deaf and Hard of Hearing had to first persuade a capital facilities subcommittee of the need for the building and space. The request was subsequently forwarded to the State Building Board, which assessed priorities among the many requests received from state departments and postsecondary institutions. The board calculated the amount of funds available as appropriated by the legislature for capital facility construction, repairs, and other needs while analyzing the requests. The board then created a priority list based on their findings. One of the top ten agencies on the list was the DSDHH. The DSDHH, UAD, and the Utah Deaf community had to keep an eye on it since they might not be able to get funding if politics were involved. Priorities might shift as a result of this. As the legislature's work progresses, an agency towards the top of the list may be shifted to the middle or lower part of the list. According to Dr. Sanderson, constant vigilance is required (Sanderson, 2004).
Not only that, but Rusty Wales enlisted the help of numerous members of the Utah Deaf community in lobbying the capital facilities subcommittee, as well as officials from the Utah State Office of Education and Rehabilitation Services. His efforts had paid off (Sanderson, 2004).
As a state agency, the Division of Services to the Deaf and Hard of Hearing had to first persuade a capital facilities subcommittee of the need for the building and space. The request was subsequently forwarded to the State Building Board, which assessed priorities among the many requests received from state departments and postsecondary institutions. The board calculated the amount of funds available as appropriated by the legislature for capital facility construction, repairs, and other needs while analyzing the requests. The board then created a priority list based on their findings. One of the top ten agencies on the list was the DSDHH. The DSDHH, UAD, and the Utah Deaf community had to keep an eye on it since they might not be able to get funding if politics were involved. Priorities might shift as a result of this. As the legislature's work progresses, an agency towards the top of the list may be shifted to the middle or lower part of the list. According to Dr. Sanderson, constant vigilance is required (Sanderson, 2004).
New Wing for Division of Services
for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Approved!
for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Approved!
The new wing was made possible thanks to Rusty Wales's efforts, the Deaf community's full cooperation, the backing of the Utah State Board of Education and the Office of Rehabilitation Services administrators, and, most importantly, the support of key legislators. Dr. Sanderson was relieved that the wing was not pushed to the bottom of the priority list, as was the case in 1981 when a request for a new deaf center was pushed down from fifth to eleventh place in favor of a new dairy barn for cows at Utah State University. "We [UAD and the Deaf community] were really naive back then," he remarked (Sanderson, 2004).
One of the main reasons the wing was funded that year, according to Dr. Sanderson, was that fresh project funding was scarce. The majority of the projects required a large sum of money.
The legislative committee was able to provide $1.5 million, and the new wing's request was only for $1 million, which was fortunate. As a result of the small size of the request, the wing was funded (Sanderson, 2004).
The Utah Community Center for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing held a groundbreaking ceremony on May 4, 2001, for the new addition building. The celebration included center staff members, representatives of the Deaf and hearing communities, administrators, and legislators (UAD Bulletin, June 2001; Sanderson, 2004).
Construction began shortly after the event, and work in the center continued as usual. With the least amount of interruption to activity, certain corridors and rooms were closed off (Sanderson, 2004).
One of the main reasons the wing was funded that year, according to Dr. Sanderson, was that fresh project funding was scarce. The majority of the projects required a large sum of money.
The legislative committee was able to provide $1.5 million, and the new wing's request was only for $1 million, which was fortunate. As a result of the small size of the request, the wing was funded (Sanderson, 2004).
The Utah Community Center for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing held a groundbreaking ceremony on May 4, 2001, for the new addition building. The celebration included center staff members, representatives of the Deaf and hearing communities, administrators, and legislators (UAD Bulletin, June 2001; Sanderson, 2004).
Construction began shortly after the event, and work in the center continued as usual. With the least amount of interruption to activity, certain corridors and rooms were closed off (Sanderson, 2004).
Utah Community Center of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, 2002
A change in administration occurred at the same time. Rusty Wales found a new job in the state of Washington. Marilyn T. Call, who had been his program director, was appointed Acting Director of the DSDHH in July 2001. In January 2002, she was appointed to director after serving for six months and with the strong support of the Deaf community (Sanderson, 2004).
The new wing of the building was completed on time in January 2002, and the opening ceremony was held in March (Sanderson, 2004).
The new wing of the building was completed on time in January 2002, and the opening ceremony was held in March (Sanderson, 2004).
Marilyn T. Call
Did You Know?
According to Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, Rusty held a strategic planning session during his second year as an administrator to answer the question of whether the Division of Services to the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Offices should serve the hard of hearing population and whether they should take a neutral stance on communication methods.
After lengthy discussion, the members of this committee researched the Utah Code that related to the division and agreed that services should be provided to those who are deaf, oral deaf, hard of hearing, or have cochlear implants.
Per an internal communication policy, everyone at the Sanderson Community Center should be able to comprehend and communicate with one another. Furthermore, all staff members, whether deaf, hard of hearing, or hearing, were required to sign what they said in the halls and common areas. In this way, the center became a barrier-free communication zone. The division worked hard to provide services including signing interpreters, voice interpreters, and real-time captioning, among other things (Sanderson, 2004; Marilyn Call, personal communication, October 15, 2009).
After lengthy discussion, the members of this committee researched the Utah Code that related to the division and agreed that services should be provided to those who are deaf, oral deaf, hard of hearing, or have cochlear implants.
Per an internal communication policy, everyone at the Sanderson Community Center should be able to comprehend and communicate with one another. Furthermore, all staff members, whether deaf, hard of hearing, or hearing, were required to sign what they said in the halls and common areas. In this way, the center became a barrier-free communication zone. The division worked hard to provide services including signing interpreters, voice interpreters, and real-time captioning, among other things (Sanderson, 2004; Marilyn Call, personal communication, October 15, 2009).
How the Division of Services to the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Programs Grew to Fit the New Building
The Division of Services to the Deaf and Hard of Hearing had a minimal budget for services when it moved into the new building in 1992. Because of her experience on Capitol Hill and her outstanding relationships with numerous politicians, Marilyn T. Call was chosen as Program Director. When she was hired, she learned there was still a lot of work to be done to extend essential social services so that the program could match the building's high standards (Sanderson, 2004).
When DSDHH was established in 1988, the Division of Rehabilitation was renamed the Office of Rehabilitation, which had four divisions, allowing DSDHH to expand (Sanderson, 2004).
When she approved SB 218, Dr. Judy Ann Buffmire made the mistake of not including deaf people; however, she did allow Rehabilitation Services and its four divisions to request line-item funding for new programs every year.
With this change, and after Call's knowledge of new funding was obtained year by year for services such as counseling, case management, hard of hearing adjustment classes, and interpreter training and certification, new funding was obtained year by year for services such as counseling, case management, hard of hearing adjustment classes, and interpreter training and certification (Sanderson, 2004).
In a decade, the Division's budget increased by about $1.5 million, and services were considerably expanded. Every year, Deaf and hard of hearing people lobbied for funding requests (Sanderson, 2004).
When DSDHH was established in 1988, the Division of Rehabilitation was renamed the Office of Rehabilitation, which had four divisions, allowing DSDHH to expand (Sanderson, 2004).
When she approved SB 218, Dr. Judy Ann Buffmire made the mistake of not including deaf people; however, she did allow Rehabilitation Services and its four divisions to request line-item funding for new programs every year.
With this change, and after Call's knowledge of new funding was obtained year by year for services such as counseling, case management, hard of hearing adjustment classes, and interpreter training and certification, new funding was obtained year by year for services such as counseling, case management, hard of hearing adjustment classes, and interpreter training and certification (Sanderson, 2004).
In a decade, the Division's budget increased by about $1.5 million, and services were considerably expanded. Every year, Deaf and hard of hearing people lobbied for funding requests (Sanderson, 2004).
Renaming the Utah Community Center of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing to the Robert G. Sanderson Community Center of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing
When Marilyn Call was the director of the Utah Community Center of the Deaf, she felt it was important to share the story of how the Utah Community Center of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing evolved into the Robert G. Sanderson Community Center of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing. She had long believed that the center should be named after a Deafperson because the center would not exist without Deaf people's tireless lobbying efforts (Call, UAD Bulletin, September 2003; Sanderson, 2004).
Marilyn Call told a friend about this dream she had to rename the community center in the year 2003. She wanted it to be named after a Deaf community hero and legend. Her companion remarked that naming buildings after people was a ridiculous notion. He predicted that no one will know who Bob Sanderson was in 25 or 30 years. Astounded by his point of view, Call said, "That is exactly why we need to name this building after a Deaf leader." People must be aware of those who came before them. Their curiosity must be sparked, and more significantly, their appreciation must be inspired." She quoted Richard L. Evans as saying, "It is sobering, or should be, to each of us to consider how many hours and efforts of others have gone into the making of each of us," The time others have taken to feed us, teach us, preserve our freedom, write the books we read, invent the tools we use; all of the tangibles that are ours; the very houses and buildings in which we live our lives. All this, and so much else unmentioned, others have done for us. We are the inheritors of so much more than we can calculate. One measure of our gratitude should be our willingness to work, to serve, and to pass on to others such things as we ourselves have received "(Call, UAD Bulletin, September 2003; Sanderson, 2004).
Marilyn Call told a friend about this dream she had to rename the community center in the year 2003. She wanted it to be named after a Deaf community hero and legend. Her companion remarked that naming buildings after people was a ridiculous notion. He predicted that no one will know who Bob Sanderson was in 25 or 30 years. Astounded by his point of view, Call said, "That is exactly why we need to name this building after a Deaf leader." People must be aware of those who came before them. Their curiosity must be sparked, and more significantly, their appreciation must be inspired." She quoted Richard L. Evans as saying, "It is sobering, or should be, to each of us to consider how many hours and efforts of others have gone into the making of each of us," The time others have taken to feed us, teach us, preserve our freedom, write the books we read, invent the tools we use; all of the tangibles that are ours; the very houses and buildings in which we live our lives. All this, and so much else unmentioned, others have done for us. We are the inheritors of so much more than we can calculate. One measure of our gratitude should be our willingness to work, to serve, and to pass on to others such things as we ourselves have received "(Call, UAD Bulletin, September 2003; Sanderson, 2004).
Dr. Robert G. Sanderson
Call remarked that the community center would not exist if the Utah Deaf community had not been persistent and coordinated in their advocacy efforts for at least five decades. She wanted everyone who visits the community center in the next twenty to fifty years to know who Dr. Robert G. Sanderson is. She also wanted them to learn about Dr. Sanderson and other great Deaf leaders of the 1990s, such as W. David Mortensen and Dennis Platt, and to respect what they had accomplished (Call, UAD Bulletin, September 2003; Sanderson, 2004).
Deaf leaders had been lobbying for the community center for 46 years, according to Call. They also lobbied for the relay system, interpreters, and a range of other services that are now available to the Utah Deaf population. 100 years ago, deaf people were not allowed to marry or obtain a driver's license. Call wanted everyone to know what a small group of Deaf leaders in Utah accomplished as a consequence of their hard work and sacrifice (Call, UAD Bulletin, September 2003; Sanderson, 2004).
As seen by Marilyn Call, the Deaf Center was the Wasatch Front's second home for people with hearing loss. It was the one place where the world's communication barriers did not exist, and it served as a haven. She thought a place like this should be named after a notable Deaf person (Call, UAD Bulletin, September 2003; Sanderson, 2004).
After all, Dr. Sanderson reminded her of the Old Faithful. A new sign in Yellowstone National Park states that the Old Faithful geyser is no longer as high or as quick as it once was, possibly due to earthquakes and pollution. However, it remains the park's most faithful geyser. She explained that while Dr. Sanderson may not walk as fast anymore... or jump as high...but he was always there to do a job when he was needed… just like Old Faithful (Call, UAD Bulletin, September 2003; Sanderson, 2004).
Deaf leaders had been lobbying for the community center for 46 years, according to Call. They also lobbied for the relay system, interpreters, and a range of other services that are now available to the Utah Deaf population. 100 years ago, deaf people were not allowed to marry or obtain a driver's license. Call wanted everyone to know what a small group of Deaf leaders in Utah accomplished as a consequence of their hard work and sacrifice (Call, UAD Bulletin, September 2003; Sanderson, 2004).
As seen by Marilyn Call, the Deaf Center was the Wasatch Front's second home for people with hearing loss. It was the one place where the world's communication barriers did not exist, and it served as a haven. She thought a place like this should be named after a notable Deaf person (Call, UAD Bulletin, September 2003; Sanderson, 2004).
After all, Dr. Sanderson reminded her of the Old Faithful. A new sign in Yellowstone National Park states that the Old Faithful geyser is no longer as high or as quick as it once was, possibly due to earthquakes and pollution. However, it remains the park's most faithful geyser. She explained that while Dr. Sanderson may not walk as fast anymore... or jump as high...but he was always there to do a job when he was needed… just like Old Faithful (Call, UAD Bulletin, September 2003; Sanderson, 2004).
Marilyn T. Call Gives a Speech
at the Utah State Board of Education
at the Utah State Board of Education
Marilyn Call presented a brief address to the Utah State Board of Education (USBE) on August 1, 2003, explaining why the community center should be renamed the Robert G. Sanderson Community Center of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing. She asked that the center be named after Dr. Sanderson by the USBE (Call, UAD Bulletin, September 2003).
Marilyn Call provided the outstanding reasons why Dr. Sanderson was chosen to represent Utah's Deaf leaders at the State Board meeting, which are listed below (Marilyn Call, UAD Bulletin, September 2003).
Marilyn Call provided the outstanding reasons why Dr. Sanderson was chosen to represent Utah's Deaf leaders at the State Board meeting, which are listed below (Marilyn Call, UAD Bulletin, September 2003).
- Dr. Sanderson was the first person hired to create a rehabilitation service program for Deaf people. The many services that we have today stem from his creation of a Deaf Unit of Vocational Rehabilitation.
- He was the Chairman for the Feasibility Study committee, which submitted the findings to Dr. Talbot in 1975. This officially began a quest for funding for a Center, which culminated in 1988.
- He has been lobbying the legislature for better services for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Utahns for over 40 years. Many of the services provided to the Deaf community today were his original ideas.
- He was the first Deaf professional hired by the Utah State Board of Education.
- He is the first Deaf person in Utah to get a Doctorate degree. He didn’t need this for his job. He just wanted to prove that Deaf people could do it.
- When he retired in 1985, he didn’t quit working for the cause. He just stopped getting paid. He continued to serve as an advocate. Almost 20 year past retirement, he never misses an opportunity to lead and advocate for the deaf. He continued to drive down to the Capitol even on snowy days to lobby for the cause. He continues to drive from Roy to the Center 2 or 3 times a week from Roy. He serves on various committees, boards, volunteers at the bookstore, and more.
Dr. Robert G. Sanderson
Historic Moment
Call presented a short address to the Utah State Board of Education about why the Utah Community Center of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing should be renamed, and Ron Nelson, the president of the UAD, attended the meeting. W. David Mortensen and his wife, Shanna, and Ron Nelson and his wife, Kristi Mortensen, were both in attendance, as were Robert Sanderson and his wife, Mary. Dennis Platt, Camille Call-Garcia, Kathy Evans, and Mitch Jensen were all present to witness this historic moment.
Dr. Sanderson gave a short remark with tears in his eyes, thanking the board for the honor, and UAD President Nelson stated it was a historic moment for all of us to witness the board vote unanimously to accept the name change. He credited his good fortune to being with the right people at the right time, citing his wife, Mary Sanderson, and Dave Mortensen as examples.
Dr. Sanderson gave a short remark with tears in his eyes, thanking the board for the honor, and UAD President Nelson stated it was a historic moment for all of us to witness the board vote unanimously to accept the name change. He credited his good fortune to being with the right people at the right time, citing his wife, Mary Sanderson, and Dave Mortensen as examples.
Mary & Robert Sanderson
UAD President Nelson pointed out that they were lucky that their previous center was named after one of their own people. It gave them another reason to be proud of the center and do everything they could to maintain it (Nelson, UAD Bulletin, September 2003).
The Celebration of the
Robert G. Sanderson Community Center
Robert G. Sanderson Community Center
A large renaming celebration in honor of Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, a leader in the Utah Deaf community, was held on October 4, 2003, from 6:30 to 9:00 PM. A total of 1,000 people attended. Dr. Sanderson, his wife Mary, and his two sons, Gary and Barry, as well as their spouses and children, were all in attendance. Representative Judy Ann Buffmire, Governor Olene S. Walker, and Dr. Blaine Petersen were also present. The president of Gallaudet University, Dr. I. King Jordan, flew down from Washington, D.C. to take part in the festivities. At the ceremony, Dr. Jordan gave a speech. He and Dr. Sanderson had been friends for a long time (Dr. Sanderson was on the Board of Trustees of Gallaudet College during the 1988 Deaf President Now) (Sanderson, 2004).
Dr. I. King Jordan with his wife, Linda walking into the Sanderson
Community Center
Marilyn Call compared Dr. Sanderson to the Energizer Bunny. His enthusiasm for activism remained strong even though he was 84 years old. He didn't give up. He never stopped working to make the world a better place for people who are deaf or hard of hearing. He was well-liked by everyone, and his legacy should be honored by renaming this building the Robert G. Sanderson Center of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing. After all, he deserved a large portion of the credit for preserving the dream (Call, UAD Bulletin, September 2003).
Dr. Sanderson meets Beth Ann Stewart Campbell in a pleasant encounterÂ
The Robert G. Sanderson Community Center of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing is believed to be the first state building named after a Deaf individual. It is the pride and home of the Deaf community in Utah.
Dr. Sanderson stated, "It was humbling" to have the Utah center named after him. "It's something I never expected," he remarked, a distinction that should be shared with his supportive family, friends, and colleagues. I didn't stand alone" (Urbani, October 2003, Deseret News).
More information on the event can be found on the webpage dedicated to Robert G. Sanderson's Honoring Ceremony.
Dr. Sanderson stated, "It was humbling" to have the Utah center named after him. "It's something I never expected," he remarked, a distinction that should be shared with his supportive family, friends, and colleagues. I didn't stand alone" (Urbani, October 2003, Deseret News).
More information on the event can be found on the webpage dedicated to Robert G. Sanderson's Honoring Ceremony.
Dr. Sanderson and Marilyn Call. The man next to Robert is unknown
The Sanderson’s Memorial Stones and Bench
Following the death of Dr. Robert G. Sanderson's wife, Mary, in October 2008, Dr. Sanderson and his son Barry approached Marilyn Call about memorializing Mary with a bench and stone. Marilyn agreed that this was suitable and granted permission because this building is named for Dr. Sanderson, and they were all aware that his time will come within a few years. Call suggested many locations for the bench and marker for the family. They stated that while they walked the grounds, they sensed Mary's presence directing them to locate the memorial location near a playground where children would be happily playing.
As such, the day had arrived. Mary's stone was joined to Dr. Sanderson's memorial stone on March 31, 2012, which contains his name and dates. Gary Sanderson, who died in 2011, is also memorialized on the same stone as his father. Gary was a nationally renowned interpreter and the director of the CSUN National Center on Deafness in California (Marilyn Call, personal communication, March 21, 2012).
As such, the day had arrived. Mary's stone was joined to Dr. Sanderson's memorial stone on March 31, 2012, which contains his name and dates. Gary Sanderson, who died in 2011, is also memorialized on the same stone as his father. Gary was a nationally renowned interpreter and the director of the CSUN National Center on Deafness in California (Marilyn Call, personal communication, March 21, 2012).
Sculpture Unveiled at Celebration
Valerie G. Kinney shared in her article for the November 2012 issue of the UAD Bulletin that the highlight of the 20th Anniversary Celebration at the Robert G. Sanderson Community Center was the presentation of a metal sculpture of Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, the community center's namesake (Kinney, UAD Bulletin, November 2012).
Trenton Marsh, a metalworker and a Deaf interpreter trainer with the Utah Interpreter, created the Dr. Sanderson sculpture. The words "When we lose the right to be different, we lose the right to be free" are inscribed beneath the sculpture. His birth and death dates are 2-20-1920 and 2-25-2012, respectively.
Trenton Marsh, a metalworker and a Deaf interpreter trainer with the Utah Interpreter, created the Dr. Sanderson sculpture. The words "When we lose the right to be different, we lose the right to be free" are inscribed beneath the sculpture. His birth and death dates are 2-20-1920 and 2-25-2012, respectively.
Trenton Marsh @ StreetLeverage.com
The unveiling was attended by Dr. Sanderson's family, including son Barry and wife Teresa Sanderson, grandson Robert and wife Nicole Sanderson, and granddaughter McKalle and husband Tyler Dahl. When questioned about his emotions during the unveiling of the sculpture, Barry stated, "What struck me most was that Dad would have been overjoyed to have so many people there, young and old." When he and the others began working on the dream of having a community center, I believe they had no idea what would become of it. It is a dream fulfilled by providing a place for social events and the resources necessary to live happy and productive lives for generations to come. We were honored to be there" (Kinney, UAD Bulletin, November 2012).
Barry Sanderson and his wife, Teresa
During the Italian dinner, the director spoke about how five Deaf leaders formed a [1975] feasibility committee to study methods and means of making a center for the deaf and hard of hearing a reality through a program presented by Marilyn Call. W. David Mortensen is the sole survivor of the five. Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, Ned C. Wheeler, Dora B. Laramie, and Lloyd H. Perkins were among those who had passed away (Kinney, UAD Bulletin, November 2012). The event's theme was "Roaring 20's Party," which was reflected in some of the roughly 300 participants' 1920's outfits. Call noted that the number 20 struck a chord—October 20, the 1920s era, the 20th anniversary celebration, Dr. Sanderson's birthday, February 20, and birth year, 1920. (Kinney, UAD Bulletin, November 2012). Following dinner, guests were invited to participate in a variety of games, including shuffleboard, pinball, and bingo, as well as a costume contest. Several individuals delighted in demonstrating their dancing abilities. "It was an evening to remember long after everyone had gone home," Valarie Kinney remarked (Kinney, UAD Bulletin, November 2012).
Conclusion
With all of this in perspective, the website's author, Jodi Becker Kinner, wanted to emphasize how privileged we are to have our own Robert G. Sanderson Community Center of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing. Members of the Utah Association for the Deaf and officers of the Utah Association for the Deaf worked tirelessly for 40 years to build our community center. Deaf leaders, particularly Dr. Robert G. Sanderson and W. David Mortensen, have been active and engaged in the political process for years, ensuring that we now have an incredible community center that meets our communication and accessibility needs. In order to reflect the mission of the community center, they also exhibited perseverance in their efforts to keep the ball moving in the face of setbacks. She hopes that this historical document will help you recognize and appreciate the selfless acts of leadership that we now take for granted that they have surmounted obstacles to establishing the Sanderson Community Center for the benefit of the Deaf community.
W. David Mortensen had also accomplished a great deal on behalf of the Robert G. Sanderson Community Center for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing. Hence, he deserved to be recognized. More information about him can be found on the "W. David Mortensen's Honoring Ceremony" webpage on our website.
Last but not least, the Utah Community Center for the Deaf would not have happened without Beth Ann Stewart Campbell's legislative interpreting assistance. Her dedication to working with Robert Sanderson and Dave Mortensen is commendable.
W. David Mortensen had also accomplished a great deal on behalf of the Robert G. Sanderson Community Center for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing. Hence, he deserved to be recognized. More information about him can be found on the "W. David Mortensen's Honoring Ceremony" webpage on our website.
Last but not least, the Utah Community Center for the Deaf would not have happened without Beth Ann Stewart Campbell's legislative interpreting assistance. Her dedication to working with Robert Sanderson and Dave Mortensen is commendable.
Dr. Robert G. Sanderson
Before the 2016 merger of the Department of Workforce Services and Division of Services to the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, the Robert G. Sanderson Community Center served a population that shared common values, a common language, a common tradition, and a shared set of service needs. It was a place where Deaf, Deaf-Blind, and Hard of Hearing individuals could access communication, services, and education without facing barriers, thereby increasing their quality of life. The community as a whole viewed DSDHH as their beacon, ensuring that they had access to information and had a voice in the larger community. The Utah Deaf Community took great pride in the fact that it is the only state with a state agency serving its population. It was also recognized as the authoritative source of information and services for the Deaf, Deaf-Blind, and Hard of Hearing communities, assisting community members in advocating for themselves and serving as an educator for the local mainstream population. All of these were changed following the merger, as detailed in the section below titled "Office of Rehabilitation Amendments, House Bill 325 and Its Impact on the Division of Services of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing."
Shanna & David Mortensen
Office of Rehabilitation Amendments, House Bill 325 and Its Impact on the Division of Services of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing
Compiled & Written by Jodi Becker Kinner
Edited by Valerie G. Kinney
2017-2022
Edited by Valerie G. Kinney
2017-2022
Note
This section is not intended to make the Department of Workforce Services (DWS) look bad; rather, it is aimed to help the community appreciate the importance of our Robert G. Sanderson Community Center and the services it provides to the Deaf, Deaf-Blind, Hard of Hearing communities in Utah. Although the Utah Deaf Community appreciates DWS's efforts to collaborate with the Division of Services of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (DSDHH), However, House Bill 325, Office of Rehabilitation Amendments, has had an impact on the DSDHH since the 2016 DWS and DSDHH merger, as outlined below.
Jodi Becker Kinner, the website's author and a former member of the DSDHH and DWS Task Force, has attached the "Changes and Impact of the Move of the Division of Services to the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Governance of the Department of Workforce Services" for those interested in learning more about the DSDHH and DWS Task Force's study and its impact on a variety of areas, which are listed below. The release of the findings to the public may be objected to by some individuals, but she believes it is past time since the study was published in 2018 and should be shared with the public. After all, it's part of history.
Jodi Becker Kinner, the website's author and a former member of the DSDHH and DWS Task Force, has attached the "Changes and Impact of the Move of the Division of Services to the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Governance of the Department of Workforce Services" for those interested in learning more about the DSDHH and DWS Task Force's study and its impact on a variety of areas, which are listed below. The release of the findings to the public may be objected to by some individuals, but she believes it is past time since the study was published in 2018 and should be shared with the public. After all, it's part of history.
The Division of Services to the Deaf and Hard of Hearing is Forced to move to the Department of Workforce Services
For years, the Division of Services to the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (DSDHH) operated its state agency autonomously with little oversight by the Utah State Office of Rehabilitation until 2016, when House Bill 325, a transition plan known as the "Office of Rehabilitation Amendments," was passed during the legislative session. In the past, this type of legislation was proposed multiple times, and the Utah Deaf Community successfully pushed to have it defeated. It had previously been dropped, but not this time. HB 325 has been signed into law. Under this new statute, the Utah State Office of Rehabilitation (USOR), which included the Division of Services to the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (DSDHH), was moved to the Department of Workforce Services (DWS). This was presented in response to a USOR audit conducted the previous year that indicated the Vocational Rehabilitation program spent $6 million more than budgeted, millions of dollars were wasted, and funds were not managed properly. As a result, the Utah State Board of Education, which governed USOR, opted to end its control. It was determined that USOR should be overseen by a separate agency capable of providing further support.
Standing is Cathy Holt, a Deaf advocate at the legislature session
Throughout the legislative session, members of the Utah Association of the Deaf (UAD) board of directors spent considerable time participating in the legislative process to assure the protection of DSDHH services. Stephen Persinger, Philippe Montalette, Pamela Mower, and David Samuelsen were all actively involved. Additionally, they worked closely with Representative Norm Thurston, sponsor of HB 325, ensuring that the necessary wording and phrases were revised correctly in HB 325 (Persinger, UAD Bulletin, April 2016).
Back L-R: David Samuelsen, Philipp Montalette, Stephen
Persinger, Joseph Nelson Front L-R: Catherine Holt, Pamela
Mower
Before the passage of HB 325, Marilyn T. Call, director of the Division of Services of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, said that the managing agency for USOR was shifted from the Board of Education to the Governor's Office's Department of Workforce Services. During the legislative process, the Utah Association of the Association and the Utah Deaf community protested this move and raised numerous objectives and concerns that needed to be addressed. Despite the compelling testimony provided during the appropriation committee meeting, a representative from the Governor's Office stated that a separate agency for USOR within the Governor's Office would not be allowed. Hence, House Bill 325 was introduced shortly afterwards. Representative Norm Thurston and Senator Allen Christensen sponsored the bill (Call, DSDHH Newsletter, April 2016). The DSDHH was affected by this legislation. DSDHH staff and UAD board members, however, were compelled to work with sponsors on the bill to safeguard Sanderson Community Center services for the Deaf and hard of hearing community in Utah.
Marilyn T. Call
The original draft of HB 325 was quite alarming. Marilyn Call noted, "It omitted the Interpreter Certification Program and appeared to eliminate Division Directors and Divisions in favor of consolidating all of USOR's Divisions under Darin Brush" (Call, DSDHH Newsletter, April 2016, p. 1). Advocates for UAD intervened and stated unequivocally that they could not support the bill unless the Sanderson Community Center and its programs were protected. The bill was being amended twice. HB 325's second version included protections for DSDHH and its two locations in Taylorsville and St. George (Call, DSDHH Newsletter, April 2016). Several amendments were made to the bill, including the following:
- The ‘hearing impaired’ term was replaced with ‘deaf’ and/or ‘hard of hearing’ in most of the bill.
- The Division of Services of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing will be called a Division (before it would have been changed to Office of Services for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing).
- In the old version, the director of DSDHH was not included. It now says assistant director (change from director to assistant director).
- Responsibility to appoint four professional interpreters to the Interpreter Certification Board will be kept with the Director of DSDHH (Persinger, UAD Bulletin, April 2016, p. 2).
Back LR: Marilyn Call, David Samuelsen, Philippe Montalette, Pamela Mower, Stephen Persinger, Rep. Norm Thurston, Kent McGregor Front: Utah Governor Gary Herbert
The Study of the DWS/DSDHH Legislative Task Force
Another safeguard requested by UAD activists was for Representative Norm Thurston to petition the Audit Subcommittee to conduct an assessment by October 2017 to see if DSDHH is a good fit under DWS, which was granted (Persinger, UAD Bulletin, April 2016).
"It was a wild roller coaster ride this session," Marilyn Call remarked. In her personal belief, the deceased former advocates were pleased to see the younger advocates collaborate so well to protect DSDHH, its mission, and services (Call, DSDHH Newsletter, April 2016). However, the transition from the Utah State Board of Education to the Department of Workforce Services impacted several areas, including identity, mission, and value misalignment, communication and authorization, operations and accessibility, policy and procedure, and morale.
"It was a wild roller coaster ride this session," Marilyn Call remarked. In her personal belief, the deceased former advocates were pleased to see the younger advocates collaborate so well to protect DSDHH, its mission, and services (Call, DSDHH Newsletter, April 2016). However, the transition from the Utah State Board of Education to the Department of Workforce Services impacted several areas, including identity, mission, and value misalignment, communication and authorization, operations and accessibility, policy and procedure, and morale.
DSDHH Newsletter, April 2016
Following the 2016 DWS and DSDHH merger, the DWS/DSDHH Legislative Task Force was formed. Dawn Mancil Duran, an ASL interpreter, chaired the task force. The task force consisted entirely of Deaf representatives, Dr. Dan Hoffman, Stephen Persinger, Pamela Mower, and Jodi Becker Kinner. Months of analysis of the structural system, which was completed in March 2018, revealed how difficult it would be to detach the Sanderson Community Center from the DWS. The Department of Workforce Services, the Governor of Utah, and the Utah State Board of Education would all have to approve the request of the DSDHH to transfer support to another organization. DWS readily accepted the task of working and supervising the DSDHH. The Utah State Board of Education declined to collaborate with the DSDHH. As a result, the Sanderson Community Center was directed to cooperate with the DWS and adhere to its policies, training, and other requirements. To learn more about the task force's study, including the range of areas as listed above, click on "Changes and Impact of the Move of the Division of Services to the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Governance of the Department of Workforce Services."
Members of the DSDHH and DWS Task Force
Dawn Mancil Duran @ aslcomm.com
Dr. Dan Hoffman @ gymjohnny.wixsite.com
Stephen Persinger
Pamela Mower @ utrid.com
Jodi Becker Kinner
As a result of the DSDHH/DWS merger, the Sanderson Community Center lost its ownership, autonomy, and identity. Additionally, the director of DSDHH and Deaf leaders no longer have the power to lobby for services and resource needs through the center, as DWS employs its own lobbyists. Additionally, staff members are prohibited from using UAD to lobby on behalf of the Sanderson Community Center. Furthermore, it was the first time in a long time that none of the staff members attended the UAD Conference or served on the board in 2021.
Though the DWS' best efforts to collaborate with the DSDHH, the center's identity evolved significantly due to the merger. Regardless of the situation, Sanderson Community Center is doing its best to work with DWS and is dedicated to serving the Deaf, Deaf-Blind, and Hard of Hearing communities in Utah.
Though the DWS' best efforts to collaborate with the DSDHH, the center's identity evolved significantly due to the merger. Regardless of the situation, Sanderson Community Center is doing its best to work with DWS and is dedicated to serving the Deaf, Deaf-Blind, and Hard of Hearing communities in Utah.
Dan V. Mathis, Assistant Director
After Marilyn Call retired in 2017, Dan V. Mathis, a Deaf Utah native who is the grandson of John F and Vida White and also a nephew of longtime vocational rehabilitation counselor Jack White, was appointed assistant director on March 5, 2018. He was committed to building community and interagency relations and providing services and opportunities for community members to benefit from DSDHH. During his tenure, both the Sanderson Community and the Southern Utah Deaf and Hard of Hearing Program centers hosted community events, learning activities, training sessions, workshops, and townhall meetings. Under his direction, significant upgrades around the Sanderson Center facilities were made possible, such as new sliding doors for the main entry, security camera system, back fence gate, LED lights in parking lots, pathway handrails to main and southwest entry doors, and a dual lawnmower/snowblower tractor, to name a few. Furthermore, he established a collaboration of DSDHH staff, community leaders, and members that successfully brought Protactile training to Utah. In addition, he assisted with another achievement of great significance: the development of a project timeline for the new Utah interpreter certification exams and Utah Interpreter Program webpage. He made his best effort to ensure that every possible resource, financially, logistically, and technologically, was available to implement and complete those projects, as they intend to elevate and modernize interpreting standards for the Deaf and interpreting communities in the state and regions around it.
Dan V. Mathis @ University of Washington
From time to time, Dan would visit the SUDHHP office and check on the staff and community from the southern part of Utah, more specifically St. George. In pursuit of community collaboration, he and SUDHHP director Grant Pemberton spoke to a group of business people, educators, and community leaders in the St. George area about the programs and services that SUDHHP does for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing community in the area. They also reached out to DWS and USOR offices for better networking and assistance to promote a better partnership with SUDHHP. With Dan's good relationship with the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind, he was able to assist the Deaf Education Associate Superintendent, Michelle Tanner, with obtaining the leased vacant space adjacent to SUDHHP's office space for expanding the USDB's South Deaf Ed outreach program. Reaching out to families of young Deaf children, especially in rural and developing areas, was always Dan's ambition to support the development of Deaf children's wellness in all parts of their lives.
Among other programming accomplishments and activities during Dan's supervision, one special occasion came from collaborating with the Deaf LGBTQ+ Community and the Sego Lily Center for the Abused Deaf to host an "Ally Night" at Sanderson Center. Community members, advocates and allies, parents, and interested participants came for various activities and awareness sharing. The event turned out to be successful and a historical moment for this particular community. It was because he envisioned a more mindfully inclusive, diverse, equitable, and accessible environment, all of which would require a great amount of patience, understanding, dialogue, and mutual trust.
Unfortunately, during Marilyn Call's final stage of leadership, the state legislature pulled DSDHH over with the Utah State Office of Rehabilitation to serve under the broad auspices of the Department of Workforce Services (DWS), causing feelings of discontent and mistrust. Before Dan was appointed to replace Marilyn, the Utah Association of the Deaf (UAD) conducted a task force study surveying the merger with DWS and completed their report. However, the report findings were held on to by the UAD Board (on which several DSDHH staff served it) for a prolonged period of time, with constant debate as to the next course of action as to what to do about the report, let alone differing views among the board members. Eventually, a resolution was reached in the long overhaul with much mediation. However, another pressing issue lingered on the DSDHH staff's part to comply with certain policy matters and procedures, including not fully abiding by the yearly mandatory training checklist and following through with staff evaluations. This led to the bigger subject of worker accountability and the need to provide enhanced resources for staff to keep up their state and departmental professional training and knowledge.
Despite all the headway efforts for continuous progress during Dan's leadership, the challenges, conflicts, and constant struggle within DSDHH's transformation to move forward in its integration with DWS became unnecessarily straining, prompting him to resign for his personal well-being and DSDHH to go in their own resolve (Dan V. Mathis, personal communication, April 20, 2022).
It was a big loss for the Utah Deaf community. But, in the end, Dan is recognized for his efforts and services to the community center.
Though the DWS' best efforts were to collaborate with the DSDHH, the center's identity evolved significantly due to the merger. Regardless of the situation, Sanderson Community Center is dedicated to serving the Deaf, Deaf-Blind, and Hard of Hearing communities in Utah.
Among other programming accomplishments and activities during Dan's supervision, one special occasion came from collaborating with the Deaf LGBTQ+ Community and the Sego Lily Center for the Abused Deaf to host an "Ally Night" at Sanderson Center. Community members, advocates and allies, parents, and interested participants came for various activities and awareness sharing. The event turned out to be successful and a historical moment for this particular community. It was because he envisioned a more mindfully inclusive, diverse, equitable, and accessible environment, all of which would require a great amount of patience, understanding, dialogue, and mutual trust.
Unfortunately, during Marilyn Call's final stage of leadership, the state legislature pulled DSDHH over with the Utah State Office of Rehabilitation to serve under the broad auspices of the Department of Workforce Services (DWS), causing feelings of discontent and mistrust. Before Dan was appointed to replace Marilyn, the Utah Association of the Deaf (UAD) conducted a task force study surveying the merger with DWS and completed their report. However, the report findings were held on to by the UAD Board (on which several DSDHH staff served it) for a prolonged period of time, with constant debate as to the next course of action as to what to do about the report, let alone differing views among the board members. Eventually, a resolution was reached in the long overhaul with much mediation. However, another pressing issue lingered on the DSDHH staff's part to comply with certain policy matters and procedures, including not fully abiding by the yearly mandatory training checklist and following through with staff evaluations. This led to the bigger subject of worker accountability and the need to provide enhanced resources for staff to keep up their state and departmental professional training and knowledge.
Despite all the headway efforts for continuous progress during Dan's leadership, the challenges, conflicts, and constant struggle within DSDHH's transformation to move forward in its integration with DWS became unnecessarily straining, prompting him to resign for his personal well-being and DSDHH to go in their own resolve (Dan V. Mathis, personal communication, April 20, 2022).
It was a big loss for the Utah Deaf community. But, in the end, Dan is recognized for his efforts and services to the community center.
Though the DWS' best efforts were to collaborate with the DSDHH, the center's identity evolved significantly due to the merger. Regardless of the situation, Sanderson Community Center is dedicated to serving the Deaf, Deaf-Blind, and Hard of Hearing communities in Utah.
A New Logo of the Division of Services
of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing
of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing
Following Dan Mathis' departure, Annette Stewart, a hearing social worker at the Sanderson Community Center, was appointed interim assistant director on April 16, 2019 until a permanent replacement is found. On January 13, 2020, a Deaf woman, Arlene Garcia Gunderson, was hired as the new assistant director of the Sanderson Community Center, nine months later.
Annette Stewart
Under the direction of Arlene Garcia Gunderson, who was hired on January 13, 2020, two things were accomplished and released to the public on October 14, 2020: the creation of a logo and the renaming of the agency.
The Division of Services to the Deaf and Hard of Hearing was renamed from the Division of Services to the Deaf and Hard of Hearing to the Division of Services to the Deaf and Hard of Hearing.
The Division of Services to the Deaf and Hard of Hearing was renamed from the Division of Services to the Deaf and Hard of Hearing to the Division of Services to the Deaf and Hard of Hearing.
Arlene Garcia Gunderson
Staff members at the Sanderson Community Center reached an agreement to establish a single logo to represent the full state agency rather than two different logos: one in Salt Lake City and one in St. George. Through a survey, the employees uncovered the key words: community, connection, equity, and services, as well as representations such as varied collaborations, simplicity, modernism, and uniqueness. Additionally, the letter "S" denotes Sanderson Services and Southern Utah when it appears on a sign. Each department is represented by a different shape and color, such as Community Advocacy Services (yellow), Continuing Education & Outreach (light blue), Facilities, Maintenance, and Operations (green), and the Utah Interpreting Program (red). When all of this information was merged, it resulted in the creation of their new logo.
Logo of the Division of Services of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing
The Interim Assistant Director is Appointed
Following Arlene Garcia Gunderson's resignation, Eric Roux (hearing), a long-serving vocational rehabilitation counselor and director, was assigned to oversee the Division of Services of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing until a new assistant director is selected on August 4th, 2021.
HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS
Marilyn T. Call. Chronological Highlights of Utah’s Community Center. 2012.
ARCHIVES
- Program for the Better Services to the Adult Deaf Brochure (1965)
- Support Letters for the Study the Feasibility of a Comphrensive Community Center for the Deaf (1975)
- Minutes of the Committee to Study the Feasibility of a Center for the Deaf (1975)
- Study the Feasibility of a Comprehensive Community Center for the Deaf Committee Report (1975)
- Report of the Study the Feasibility of a Comprehensive Community Center for the Deaf (December 1, 1975)
- Utah State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Dr. Walter D. Talbot's Thank You Letters (1976)
- Utah Division of Services to the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Brochure-Type Magazine (2000)
President of the Utah Association for the Deaf, Lyle G. Mortensen, sends a thank you message to Robert G. Sanderson and W. David Mortensen
Lyle G. Mortensen, president of the Utah Association for the Deaf, wrote a message of thanks to Dr. Robert G. Sanderson and David Mortensen during the ground-breaking ceremony for the new facility for the Utah Community Center for the Deaf in 1991:
Robert G. Sanderson (left) and W. David Mortensen (right). June 18, 1995
"To Robert Sanderson and David Mortensen…a TREMENDOUS THANKS…for a job well done from the UAD members and the Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing of Utah. You’ve made outstanding accomplishments and done excellent teamwork in providing us with list: the UCCD, Interpreting services, telephone relay, TDD’s and repair services, and the new building complex Center which is more centrally located and will provide increased space and better activities and attendance. Our hats are off to your excellent leadership and also to the past UAD Board of Directors which served you so well" (Mortensen, UAD Bulletin, August 1991).
Robert G. Sanderson talking to W. David Mortensen. June 18, 1995
Notes
Beth Ann Campbell, e-mail message to Jodi Becker Kinner, September 20, 2012.
Dan V. Mathis, personal communication, April 20, 2022.
Darlene Stewart Cochran, interview with her brother, Gene Stewart, April 4, 2012.
Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, 2008.
Marilyn Call, e-mail message to Jodi Becker Kinner, October 15, 2009.
Marilyn Call, e-mail message to Jodi Becker Kinner, January 25, 2012.
Marilyn Call, e-mail message to Jodi Becker Kinner, March 21, 2012.
Norman Williams, e-mail message to Jodi Becker Kinner, April 12, 2012.
Norman Williams, e-mail message to Jodi Becker Kinner, May 8, 2012.
W. David Mortensen, e-mail message to Jodi Becker Kinner, April 3, 2012.
Dan V. Mathis, personal communication, April 20, 2022.
Darlene Stewart Cochran, interview with her brother, Gene Stewart, April 4, 2012.
Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, 2008.
Marilyn Call, e-mail message to Jodi Becker Kinner, October 15, 2009.
Marilyn Call, e-mail message to Jodi Becker Kinner, January 25, 2012.
Marilyn Call, e-mail message to Jodi Becker Kinner, March 21, 2012.
Norman Williams, e-mail message to Jodi Becker Kinner, April 12, 2012.
Norman Williams, e-mail message to Jodi Becker Kinner, May 8, 2012.
W. David Mortensen, e-mail message to Jodi Becker Kinner, April 3, 2012.
References
"Bangerter’s Recommendations." UAD Bulletin, vol. 12, no. 22 (February 1990): 3.
Bitter, Grant. “Concerns with Deaf Center.” Grant B. Bitter Papers, Accn #1072. Manuscripts Division, J. Willard Marriott Library, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah. January 1, 1985.
“Board Adopts Policy on Deaf.” Salt Lake Tribune, June 16, 1976.
“Calling All Deaf Citizens!” The UAD Bulletin, vol. 4, no. 10 (March 1981): 3.
Call, Marilyn. "Center for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Gets New Name." UAD Bulletin, Vol. 27.4 (September 2003): 1 & 4.
Call, Marilyn. “Chronological Highlights of Utah’s Sanderson Center.” Division of Services to the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Newsletter (January 2010): 1-2.
Call, Marilyn. Legislative Session 2016. DSDHH Newsletter, April 2016.
“Celebration at New UCCD Grounding-Breaking.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 15, no. 2: (July 1991): 2.
Campbell, Joey. “Deaf vent frustrations and criticize new division.” Deseret News, B12, April 1, 1988.
“Center for the Deaf Director Appointed.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 6, no. 2 (July 1982): 2.
“Center for the Deaf Needs Your Help!” The UAD Bulletin, vol. 3, no. 8 (January 1980): 2.
“Council Releases Report.” The UAD Bulletin, vol. 3, no. 1 (Fall 1963): 1 – 7.
“Council Moves to Implement Study Recommendations.” The UAD Bulletin, vol. 3, no. 2 (Winter 1964): 5.
Curtis, Leon. (1965, Spring). “The President’s Corner.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 3, no. 6 (Spring 1965): 2.
“Deaf Center Report In.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 10, no. 4 (December 1975): 1.
“Deaf to Dedicate ‘Home of Their Own.’” The Salt Lake Tribune, 16B, May 29, 1983.
“Dr. Robert Sanderson Appointed to Dr. Powrie V. Doctor Chair.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 5, no. 2 (July 1981): 3.
“Dr. Sanderson Announces Retirement.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 8, no. 9 (February 1985): 1 – 2.
“Editorial.” The Spotlight, vol. 2, no.1 (June 1978): 1.
“Editor’s Note.” The Spotlight, vol. 2, no.1 (June 1978): 1 – 2.
“FLASH!” UAD Bulletin, vol. 4, no. 5 (October 1980): 1.
“Friday, September 8, 1989 – UTAH STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION GIVES THE NEW UCCD #1 FACILITY PRIORITY!” UAD Bulletin, vol. 12, no. 18 (September 1989): 4.
“Get Out and Meet Your Legislators.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 4, no. 4 (September 1980): 2.
“Good Years.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 4, no. 6 (Spring-Summer 1967): 2.
“Groundbreaking at UCCD.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 25. 1 (June 2001): 1.
Kinney, Valerie. “Sculpture Unveiled at Celebration.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 36-06, (November 2012): 1.
“Legislature Okehs Funds for Services for the Adult Deaf.” The UAD Bulletin, vol. 3, no. 6 (Spring 1965): 1 & 3.
Persinger, Stephen. Legislative Session – HB 325. UAD Bulletin, April 2016.
“Prestigious Awards Given During UAD Conference.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 31.5 (October 2007): 1 & 5.
“Progress on Center for the Deaf.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 5, no. 9 (February 1982): 1.
“Program for Better Services to the Adult Deaf Becomes Reality.” The UAD Bulletin, vol. 4, no. 2 (Winter 1965): 1 & 3.
Mortensen, Dave. “Won’t Listen.” Ogden Standard-Examiner, June 16, 1976.
Mortensen, Dave. “President’s Message.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 11, no. 11 (April 1988): 2.
Mortensen, Dave. “President’s Message.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 11, no. 12 (May 1988): 2.
Mortensen, Dave. “President’s Message.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 12, no. 5, September 1988, 2.
Mortensen, Dave. “Director of the Utah DSHID: Update or DÉJÀ VU.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 12, no. 6 (October 1988): 6-7.
Mortensen, Leon G. “UAD President’s Message.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 15, no. 3 (August 1991): 3.
Nelson, Ron. “Historic Moment.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 27.4 (September 2003): 5.
“No Welfare State for the Deaf.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 3, No. 6 (Spring 1965): 4.
“Rehabilitation Aide Begins Work in Deaf Section.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 6, no. 4 (Fall-Winter, 1970-71): 1.
“Resignation Takes Deaf community by Surprise.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 5, no. 9 (February 1982): 1.
“Straight Answers to Pointed Questions.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 4, no. 6, Spring-Summer, 1967, 2, 7 & 8.
Nelson, Ron. “Letter to the Editor: An Open Forum.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 12, no. 18 (October 1989): 2-3.
Sanderson, Robert G. “THANK YOU! THANK YOU!” UAD Bulletin, vol. 15, no. 2 (July 1991): 7.
Sanderson, Robert G. A Brief History of the Origins of the Robert G. Sanderson Community Center of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing. 2004.
“Sanderson Center Celebration.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 27.4 (September 2003): 5.
“Services for Adult Deaf Urged.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 3, no. 1 (Fall 1963): 1-6.
“Services for Adult Deaf Prove Worth As First Anniversary Nears.” The UAD Bulletin, vol. 4, no. 4 (Fall 1966): 1.
“So Long, Folks! – Dr. Robert G. (Sandie) Sanderson.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 8, no. 10 (March 1985: 1 – 2.
Stewart, Gene. “The UCCD Building Dedication.” DSDHH Newsletter, June 1993.
Steward, Gene. “Robert G. Sanderson – “Sandie.” DSDHH Newsletter (April 2012): 2-3.
“Support for Center for the Deaf Grows.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 4, no. 3 (August 1980): 1
“Thank You!! 1990 Utah Legislatures! APPROVED! INTERPRETER FUNDS APPROVED! NEW DEAF CENTER.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 12, no. 24 (March 1990): 2.
“Tentative Drawings Submitted for Center for the Deaf.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 3, no. 12 (May 1980): 2.
“UAD Joins CSC Family.” The UAD Bulletin, vol. 3, no. 3 (Spring 1964): 1 & 5.
“Update on Center for the Deaf.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 3, no. 4 (September 1979): 2.
“Update on Center for the Deaf.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 5, no. 10 (March 1982): 2.
“Update on Center for the Deaf.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 7, no. 1 (June 1983): 2.
Urbani, Diane. “Center for Deaf Renamed After First Director.” Deseret News, October 4, 2003.
“Utah Board of Education Moves on Center for the Deaf Project.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 5, no. 11 (April 1982): 5.
“Vote No to Initiatives A & B!” UAD Bulletin, vol. 4, no. 6 (November 1980): 2.
Zukharias, Steve. “Steve Zakharias’s Poem.” DSDHH Newsletter, (June 1993): 2.
“What Has the UAD Done to the Deaf community?” UAD Bulletin, vol. 4, no. 7 (December 1980): 2.
Bitter, Grant. “Concerns with Deaf Center.” Grant B. Bitter Papers, Accn #1072. Manuscripts Division, J. Willard Marriott Library, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah. January 1, 1985.
“Board Adopts Policy on Deaf.” Salt Lake Tribune, June 16, 1976.
“Calling All Deaf Citizens!” The UAD Bulletin, vol. 4, no. 10 (March 1981): 3.
Call, Marilyn. "Center for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Gets New Name." UAD Bulletin, Vol. 27.4 (September 2003): 1 & 4.
Call, Marilyn. “Chronological Highlights of Utah’s Sanderson Center.” Division of Services to the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Newsletter (January 2010): 1-2.
Call, Marilyn. Legislative Session 2016. DSDHH Newsletter, April 2016.
“Celebration at New UCCD Grounding-Breaking.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 15, no. 2: (July 1991): 2.
Campbell, Joey. “Deaf vent frustrations and criticize new division.” Deseret News, B12, April 1, 1988.
“Center for the Deaf Director Appointed.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 6, no. 2 (July 1982): 2.
“Center for the Deaf Needs Your Help!” The UAD Bulletin, vol. 3, no. 8 (January 1980): 2.
“Council Releases Report.” The UAD Bulletin, vol. 3, no. 1 (Fall 1963): 1 – 7.
“Council Moves to Implement Study Recommendations.” The UAD Bulletin, vol. 3, no. 2 (Winter 1964): 5.
Curtis, Leon. (1965, Spring). “The President’s Corner.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 3, no. 6 (Spring 1965): 2.
“Deaf Center Report In.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 10, no. 4 (December 1975): 1.
“Deaf to Dedicate ‘Home of Their Own.’” The Salt Lake Tribune, 16B, May 29, 1983.
“Dr. Robert Sanderson Appointed to Dr. Powrie V. Doctor Chair.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 5, no. 2 (July 1981): 3.
“Dr. Sanderson Announces Retirement.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 8, no. 9 (February 1985): 1 – 2.
“Editorial.” The Spotlight, vol. 2, no.1 (June 1978): 1.
“Editor’s Note.” The Spotlight, vol. 2, no.1 (June 1978): 1 – 2.
“FLASH!” UAD Bulletin, vol. 4, no. 5 (October 1980): 1.
“Friday, September 8, 1989 – UTAH STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION GIVES THE NEW UCCD #1 FACILITY PRIORITY!” UAD Bulletin, vol. 12, no. 18 (September 1989): 4.
“Get Out and Meet Your Legislators.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 4, no. 4 (September 1980): 2.
“Good Years.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 4, no. 6 (Spring-Summer 1967): 2.
“Groundbreaking at UCCD.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 25. 1 (June 2001): 1.
Kinney, Valerie. “Sculpture Unveiled at Celebration.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 36-06, (November 2012): 1.
“Legislature Okehs Funds for Services for the Adult Deaf.” The UAD Bulletin, vol. 3, no. 6 (Spring 1965): 1 & 3.
Persinger, Stephen. Legislative Session – HB 325. UAD Bulletin, April 2016.
“Prestigious Awards Given During UAD Conference.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 31.5 (October 2007): 1 & 5.
“Progress on Center for the Deaf.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 5, no. 9 (February 1982): 1.
“Program for Better Services to the Adult Deaf Becomes Reality.” The UAD Bulletin, vol. 4, no. 2 (Winter 1965): 1 & 3.
Mortensen, Dave. “Won’t Listen.” Ogden Standard-Examiner, June 16, 1976.
Mortensen, Dave. “President’s Message.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 11, no. 11 (April 1988): 2.
Mortensen, Dave. “President’s Message.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 11, no. 12 (May 1988): 2.
Mortensen, Dave. “President’s Message.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 12, no. 5, September 1988, 2.
Mortensen, Dave. “Director of the Utah DSHID: Update or DÉJÀ VU.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 12, no. 6 (October 1988): 6-7.
Mortensen, Leon G. “UAD President’s Message.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 15, no. 3 (August 1991): 3.
Nelson, Ron. “Historic Moment.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 27.4 (September 2003): 5.
“No Welfare State for the Deaf.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 3, No. 6 (Spring 1965): 4.
“Rehabilitation Aide Begins Work in Deaf Section.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 6, no. 4 (Fall-Winter, 1970-71): 1.
“Resignation Takes Deaf community by Surprise.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 5, no. 9 (February 1982): 1.
“Straight Answers to Pointed Questions.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 4, no. 6, Spring-Summer, 1967, 2, 7 & 8.
Nelson, Ron. “Letter to the Editor: An Open Forum.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 12, no. 18 (October 1989): 2-3.
Sanderson, Robert G. “THANK YOU! THANK YOU!” UAD Bulletin, vol. 15, no. 2 (July 1991): 7.
Sanderson, Robert G. A Brief History of the Origins of the Robert G. Sanderson Community Center of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing. 2004.
“Sanderson Center Celebration.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 27.4 (September 2003): 5.
“Services for Adult Deaf Urged.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 3, no. 1 (Fall 1963): 1-6.
“Services for Adult Deaf Prove Worth As First Anniversary Nears.” The UAD Bulletin, vol. 4, no. 4 (Fall 1966): 1.
“So Long, Folks! – Dr. Robert G. (Sandie) Sanderson.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 8, no. 10 (March 1985: 1 – 2.
Stewart, Gene. “The UCCD Building Dedication.” DSDHH Newsletter, June 1993.
Steward, Gene. “Robert G. Sanderson – “Sandie.” DSDHH Newsletter (April 2012): 2-3.
“Support for Center for the Deaf Grows.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 4, no. 3 (August 1980): 1
“Thank You!! 1990 Utah Legislatures! APPROVED! INTERPRETER FUNDS APPROVED! NEW DEAF CENTER.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 12, no. 24 (March 1990): 2.
“Tentative Drawings Submitted for Center for the Deaf.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 3, no. 12 (May 1980): 2.
“UAD Joins CSC Family.” The UAD Bulletin, vol. 3, no. 3 (Spring 1964): 1 & 5.
“Update on Center for the Deaf.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 3, no. 4 (September 1979): 2.
“Update on Center for the Deaf.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 5, no. 10 (March 1982): 2.
“Update on Center for the Deaf.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 7, no. 1 (June 1983): 2.
Urbani, Diane. “Center for Deaf Renamed After First Director.” Deseret News, October 4, 2003.
“Utah Board of Education Moves on Center for the Deaf Project.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 5, no. 11 (April 1982): 5.
“Vote No to Initiatives A & B!” UAD Bulletin, vol. 4, no. 6 (November 1980): 2.
Zukharias, Steve. “Steve Zakharias’s Poem.” DSDHH Newsletter, (June 1993): 2.
“What Has the UAD Done to the Deaf community?” UAD Bulletin, vol. 4, no. 7 (December 1980): 2.
