DECEMBER, 1979
VOICE OF THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND
THE BRAILLE MONITOR
PUBLISHED MONTHLY IN INKPRINT, BRAILLE, AND ON TALKING-BOOK DISCS BY THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND
KENNETH JERNIGAN, President
NATIONAL OFFICE
1800 JOHNSON STREET
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21230
WASHINGTON OFFICE
1346 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, NW., SUITE 212
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036
(202) 785-2974
LETTERS FOR THE PRESIDENT, ADDRESS CHANGES, SUBSCRIPTION REQUESTS, AND ORDERS FOR NFB LITERATURE SHOULD BE SENT TO THE NATIONAL OFFICE.
ARTICLES FOR THE MONITOR AND LETTERS TO THE EDITOR SHOULD BE SENT TO THE WASHINGTON OFFICE.
MONITOR SUBSCRIPTIONS COST THE FEDERATION ABOUT FIFTEEN DOLLARS PER YEAR. MEMBERS ARE INVITED, AND NON-MEMBERS ARE REQUESTED, TO COVER THE SUBSCRIPTION COST. DUE TO ITS HIGH COST, BRAILLE IS AVAILABLE ONLY TO THE DEAF-BLIND AND THOSE WITH A SIMILARLY COMPELLING NEED FOR THAT MEDIUM. DONATIONS AND SUBSCRIPTION PAYMENTS SHOULD BE MADE PAYABLE TO NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND AND SENT TO:
RICHARD EDLUND, Treasurer
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND
BOX 11185
KANSAS CITY, KANSAS 66111
If you or a friend would like to remember the National Federation of the Blind in your will, you can do so by employing the following language:
"I give, devise, and bequeath unto National Federation of the Blind, a District of Columbia nonprofit corporation, the sum of $_____ (or "_____ percent of my net estate" or "the following stocks and bonds:_____") to be used for its worthy purposes on behalf of blind persons."
If your wishes are more complex, you may have your attorney communicate with the National Office for other suggested forms.
THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND IS NOT AN ORGANIZATION SPEAKING FOR THE BLIND—IT IS THE BLIND SPEAKING FOR THEMSELVES.
THE BRAILLE MONITOR
PUBLICATION OF THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND
DECEMBER 1979
SEASONS GREETINGS
by Kenneth Jernigan
NLRB OKs BLIND WORKERS' UNION VOTE
by Bill Inman
OFFICIAL DOGS—A BARK AND A BITE
THE DAVIS DECISION—WHAT'S RIGHT AND WHAT'S WRONG
by Hazel tenBroek
E. U. PARKER CONTINUES TO HANG IN
WE THE PEOPLE
by Al Evans
MORE THAN JUST A LETTER OF COMMENDATION
MEET DR. ELIZABETH BROWNE
by Kenneth Jernigan
TO BE ALLOWED TO SERVE
by Dr. Elizabeth BrowneAPOLOGY A VICTORY FOR HER
by Fayette Nichols
THE NFB ACTS ON THE INTERNATIONAL SCENE
by Rami Rabby
AND THAT'S HOW IT WAS IN BUYING A CAR
by Jana Sims
NAC PRESIDENT HEADS AGENCY FOUND GUILTY OF DISCRIMINATION
RANKINGS IN THE ASSOCIATES CONTEST
RECIPE OF THE MONTH
by Mrs. Kenneth Batchelder
Copyright, National Federation of the Blind, Inc., 1979
by Kenneth Jernigan
The officers, board members, and staff of the National Federation of the Blind wish for each and every MONITOR reader the joys of the season, and every good thing in 1980. In many ways 1979 has been our best year yet. It has been filled with achievement, problems, expansion, and turbulence. In other words it has been business as usual, and everything normal—only more so.
Along with other eventful occurrences, 1979 brought the resignation of Don McConnell as MONITOR Editor. This meant that, for want of better talent, Jim Gashel and I divided the task and began to serve as Acting Editors. As 1979 draws to a close, we still continue in the position.
Ordinarily I only discuss organizational matters in these pages, but being an Acting Editor encourages one to take liberties—besides which it is the season of joy and relaxation—besides even more of which, I simply want to find an excuse to share with you what I am about to share.
All of this is a roundabout way of saying that sometimes late at night, when sleep evades and the hours are still, I write poetry. Yes, I really do—and I would like to share some of it with you. Please accept the following poem as my Christmas gift to you, and as my personal wish that the year ahead will be even better than you dream or hope:
It is that time of year again—time to plan for next summer's NFB convention, and what a convention it will be! We are going to Minneapolis. As Federationists will remember, we went to Minneapolis in 1970, and it was one of the best conventions we have ever had. However, Minneapolis in 1980 will be even bigger and better.
One of the things that made the 1970 convention so enjoyable was the hotel. We headquartered at the Leamington. We will return to the Leamington for 1980. Its rooms are spacious; its air conditioning is flawless; and its services superb. We will also use the Curtis Hotel, and the Leamington Motor Inn, which are immediately across the street from the Leamington. On a first come first serve basis we will assign rooms at the Leamington, and then when the Leamington is filled, we will assign rooms at other hotels.
The rates are extremely attractive; singles $15; doubles and twins $19.50; and $6 for each additional person in the room. There will be no charge for children under the age of 12 who stay in the same room with their parents.
All requests for reservations should be sent to the Leamington Hotel, 1014 Third Avenue, South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55404. Phone (612) 370-1100. For each room reservation include a check or money order in the amount of $20 made payable to the Leamington Hotel. This deposit must be included in order for your reservation to be made. The $20 (which is not refundable) will apply toward your room bill. Your request for reservations should include the following: 1) Your name and address; 2) Your date of arrival; 3) Your date of departure; and 4) What kind of room you want—single, double, triple, or quad.
Registration will begin Sunday, June 29; but as usual in recent years, many of the delegates will probably arrive by Friday, June 27. The meeting of the Board of Directors (open to all) will take place Monday morning, June 30. Business sessions will continue Tuesday morning, Tuesday afternoon, Wednesday morning, Thursday morning, Thursday afternoon, Friday morning, and Friday afternoon. Final adjournment will occur at five o'clock Friday afternoon. The banquet will be held Thursday evening, July 3rd.
Joyce Scanlan says that interesting tours and recreational activities are being planned for Wednesday afternoon. Among other things, consideration is being given to a tour of the Hamm's brewery, a boat ride on the Mississippi, and a trip to the Guthrie Theater.
An important part of the convention is the door prizes. Chapters and affiliates should begin now to collect these. In the past we have informally put a minimum value of $25 on prizes; but many have been worth considerably more. If you wish to mail door prizes to Minnesota before next summer, send them to Marie Whitteker, 1204 Streyker Avenue, West, St. Paul, Minnesota 55118.
One of the high points of next summer's convention should be the announcement of the winners of the Associates Contest. Remember that the first prize is $1,000, the second prize $500, the third prize $200, and the fourth prize $100.
Joyce Scanlan, the capable President of the NFB of Minnesota, can be reached at 4445 Grand Avenue, South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55409. Phone (612) 824-1181. Joyce and the other Minnesota leaders say that they are going all out to make this the best convention we have ever had.
The Twin Cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul are ideal for a July convention. Minnesota has a worldwide reputation as a summer resort area, and the bracing climate and magnificent scenery fulfill the promise. Minnesota is known as the Land of Lakes—with almost fifteen thousand in the state, six within the city limits of Saint Paul. This is sure to be our greatest convention ever. See you in Minneapolis!
The battle being waged by the blind to secure firm and universal recognition of the fundamental right of blind shop workers to organize and bargain collectively with management through labor unions has in recent years moved to center-stage, occupying the spotlight as a central issue which divides those of us who are working to rise from second-class status in society from those at the center of power in the traditional agency structure who desperately want to continue to exercise control over us as inferiors. The decisions by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) over the past three and one-half years, increased attention by the Congress and the U.S. Department of Labor to our calls for minimum wage, the investigations of state officials (especially the audits and legislative reports issued on the workshops in New York State), and the exposes by investigative reporters for the Wall Street Journal, U.S. News and World Report, and the CBS television program, 60 Minutes, have forced the agency overlords to defend their conduct in a public arena where it is increasingly unacceptable to hide behind the cloak of "professionalism" and "all-knowing" expertise.
Now on the heels of these other events comes perhaps the most dramatic and significant single breakthrough to date: Two landmark rulings by the NLRB which in the immediate sense affect the workers at both the Cincinnati Association for the Blind and the Houston Lighthouse for the Blind, but in the long run will bring profound and lasting changes in the entire workshop system and in the relationship between the blind (especially the organized blind) and the agencies which have been set up to serve them. The latest "decisions and orders" were handed down by the Labor Board on September 18; they were direct and unequivocal, the basic right of blind sheltered shop workers to form a collective bargaining unit and to designate a labor union to represent them has been upheld in the face of the strongest and best financed opposition possible. There is no question about it now; there is no qualification or wiggling. The NLRB has now taken final and positive action with respect to the Cincinnati Association for the Blind, and the Houston Lighthouse is not far behind.
In the BRAILLE MONITOR for August-September 1978, we described the organizing campaign at the Cincinnati Association for the Blind and underscored the significance of the victory which was achieved when, on June 7, 1978, the 79 workers at the Cincinnati Association who were eligible to vote in the Union Representation Election determined, by a vote of 44 to 35, that they would be represented by Local No. 100 of the Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs, and Helpers Union, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of America. On June 15, 1978, the Regional Director of the NLRB certified the election of Teamster's Local 100 as the "exclusive representative" of the employees (including those which are often referred to as "clients") at the Cincinnati Association. This was a truly historic event, the strongest affirmation ever of the right of the blind to organize and bargain collectively, but little did most of us know that the toughest battle had just begun.
The first indications that we were still in for a long, hard fight came during the summer of 1978 when the Teamsters contacted the Cincinnati Association to initiate the collective bargaining process. Several good-faith attempts were made to bring the Association to the bargaining table, but to no avail—rulings of the NLRB seemed to make no difference, the Cincinnati Association would not negotiate a contract. We are well accustomed to hearing the agency overlords speak of themselves and their "expertise" in the loftiest of terms usually reserved only for the highest ministers of state, so we were not overly astonished when Milton Jahoda, Executive Director of the Cincinnati Association, refused to comply with federal labor law by failing to recognize a duly authorized and officially certified collective bargaining unit representing his workers. By late August it became clear to all of us, and to officials of the NLRB as well, that the Cincinnati Association would not bargain with the blind through the Teamsters Union unless forced to do so by an authority higher than the Labor Board, perhaps a Federal Court.
On August 31, 1978, the General Counsel of the NLRB commenced the actions necessary to compel the Cincinnati Association to come to the bargaining table and negotiate an agreement with the workers through the Union. This action took the form of an "unfair labor practice" charge leveled against the Cincinnati Association by the General Counsel of the NLRB and filed with the Board itself for a determination. The Association, as expected, denied the charge, arguing that there were no valid grounds for the Labor Board to order a union election in the first place, so now that a union had been voted in it should not have to comply with the demands for collective bargaining. This amounted to a full-blown appeal of the Labor Board's original decision handed down in May of 1978 ordering the election for union representation.
That the case of the Cincinnati Association goes far beyond the confines of that single workshop is (or ought to be) readily apparent, but in case there are any doubts, consider what happened next in the proceedings before the NLRB—enter. National Industries for the Blind (NIB), intervener, defending the actions of Respondent, Cincinnati Association for the Blind, and calling for repudiation of the Labor Board's original decision in the Cincinnati Case. NIB is the well-financed and federally designated coordinating agency responsible for allocating federal government and other contracts to its affiliated workshops throughout the country, and in turn (for its "services") NIB receives a percentage (four percent for most non-military, and ten percent for most military, contracts) of the gross sales under these contracts. During the fiscal year ending September 30, 1978, there were gross sales in the NIB system exceeding $120,000,000. Many of NIB's executives are former military top brass, retired on taxpayer funded pensions. At last report, in the spring of 1979, the organization had no blind employees in a work force of approximately 60. Total salaries and pension contributions in the year ended June 1977 exceeded $1 million, and you can be sure that no one on NIB's staff earns less than minimum wage.
NIB, then, is an organization which primarily coordinates workshop contracting; hence virtually its only source of revenue is the percentage it receives on each contract, which, in turn, is paid for out of the proceeds generated by production activity in the workshops, all of which means that the blind who work in the workshops (many on less than minimum wage) contribute substantially toward paying the salaries of NIB's well compensated executives, many of whom also dip into the federal coffers for their not so meager military retirement pensions. But this is only part of the financial arrangement—it also follows that since NIB's income is primarily generated by the productivity of the blind workers in the workshops, any actions which NIB takes, such as intervening on behalf of the Cincinnati Association for the Blind before the NLRB, will be financed by the sweat from the blind workers' brows as well. And so this is how it is with NIB. The blind workers should be proud—you never go second-class when you go with NIB, unless, of course, you are the one who is really doing the work to bring home the money to pay the bills, but even so, the blind workers will be proud to know that through their collective efforts they managed to provide NIB with enough income to hire what is generally regarded as the most prestigious (and the most expensive) law firm in Washington, D.C. (the firm of Covington and Burling) to argue the NIB case against the blind before the Labor Board.
In terms of the longer view, the appeal by the Cincinnati Association for the Blind, backed by the NIB with its historic and continuing ties to the rest of the AFB, NAC, ACB, and ALL combine, has to be seen as just one more in a series of pre-planned tactics to break the back of the Union by disregarding the will of the blind as expressed by their democratic vote. There was really no substantive issue left for the NLRB to decide, and the Cincinnati Association knew this, but perhaps it was the feeling that, with the money of NIB and the prestige of its high-priced law firm, the original decision just might be overturned, and even if it was not, look what could be gained; another year of paying less than minimum wage, another year with few or no benefits for the workers, another year with no "show-up pay," and another year without having to bargain with the Labor Union.
So the appeal went forward at the Labor Board, and along the way the Federation intervened on behalf of the blind and the local Teamsters Union; briefs were filed; the months went by, while the workers inside the workshop did their best to keep their spirits and their hopes up with the encouragement of NFB leaders and members from throughout the country. Then, on September 18, the waiting was over—the decision was issued—we had come face-to-face with the power and the money of the agencies, and we had won again. The decision which came down is an important one, for it establishes more firmly than ever before our right to organize and bargain collectively and finds that, by blocking the exercise of this right by the blind workers in Cincinnati, the Cincinnati Association for the Blind is guilty of "unfair labor practices" which are prohibited by the National Labor Relations Act. Better yet, the Association is now "ordered" by the Labor Board to "cease and desist" from further committing these unfair labor practices and to initiate collective bargaining with its employees through the Teamsters Union. The "decision and order" by the Board reads in part as follows (references to the "Act" mean the National Labor Relations Act, as amended):
1. Cincinnati Association for the Blind is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs and Helpers Local Union No. 100, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All production and maintenance employees and clients, including shipping and receiving employees, of Respondent's workshop located at 2045 Gilbert Avenue, Cincinnati, Ohio, excluding office clerical employees, professional employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. Since June 15, 1978, the above-named labor organization has been and now is the certified and exclusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
5. By refusing on or about August 25, 1978, and at all times thereafter, to bargain collectively with the above-named labor organization as the exclusive bargaining representative of all the employees of Respondent in the appropriate unit, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
6. By the aforesaid refusal to bargain, Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced, and is interfering with, restraining, and coercing, employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Cincinnati Association for the Blind, Cincinnati, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment with Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs and Helpers Local Union No. 100, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, as the exclusive bargaining representative of its employees...
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain with the above-named labor organization as the exclusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
(b) Post at 2045 Gilbert Avenue, Cincinnati, Ohio, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 9, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 9, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.
Dated, Washington, D.C. September 18, 1979
By any standard this is a resounding victory and one which has not been handed to us on a silver platter. There have been expensive legal bills together with much ground work and educating of the Teamsters, and Federationists and their friends by the thousands have all had a part in bringing this great day about. Of course, it goes without saying that the battle continues; orders of the National Labor Relations Board are not self-enforcing, and you can be sure that the Cincinnati Association, having firmly established its course of non-negotiation will not willingly retreat. The notice referred to as an Appendix to the Labor Board's Order amounts to an affirmation that the Cincinnati Association will recognize its obligation to come to the bargaining table and enter into an agreement with its workers, but as expected, the Association refuses to sign or post the notice and has instead filed a petition with the Federal Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, asking to have the decision and order of the NLRB reviewed and set aside.
Thus the battle in Cincinnati now moves from the National Labor Relations Board to the Federal Courts. More time will be taken; there will be more delays; more briefs, oral arguments will be scheduled, and the months will go by while the blind workers inside the workshop at the Cincinnati Association will try to keep their spirits up, hoping for a swift and satisfactory conclusion of the next steps in this series of classic maneuvers to establish the right to organize and bargain collectively. As the months spread before us all, the strength and resolve of all Federationists will be needed to see the battle in Cincinnati through to its ultimate conclusion. Our energy, our time, our strong and confident voice, along with especially our money and our collective will must be available as never before. Yes, the battle grows long in Cincinnati, but even so, all blind people have more dignity and a better status in society today because of it.
Meanwhile at the Houston Lighthouse, events, similar to those which had occurred before the election for Union representation in Cincinnati, were taking place. In the BRAILLE MONITOR for April, 1979 we reported the decision of the Regional Director for the National Labor Relations Board in Houston who, exercising his own authority, ordered an election at the Houston Lighthouse. The Lighthouse, as we reported in April, appealed to the National Board in Washington, and the Board decided that it would review the Regional Director's decision, while temporarily upholding the order for an election and impounding the ballot box pending the outcome of the review.
In a way, while it was somewhat disappointing (and certainly served to delay matters) for the full Board to review the Regional Director's decision, the fact that the original decision was made at all at the Regional level was heartening for it shows that a clearer precedent has been established as the result of Cincinnati and the earlier case in Chicago. In both Cincinnati and Chicago it will be remembered that the NLRB Regional Directors declined to rule on the petitions for election, passing the cases along for full Board action in Washington. Now, with the Labor Board's firm orders in Cincinnati and Houston, we can expect more decisive and positive action at the Regional level as future cases are brought to the NLRB.
Again, in Houston, the months went by as attorneys for the respective parties and our attorneys (the Federation had been admitted into the case as an "intervener") filed their briefs and made their arguments. Not surprisingly, the issues were identical to those in the Cincinnati Case: Are blind workers to be considered employees under the National Labor Relations Act? Is the Lighthouse substantially engaged in business activity and commercial enterprise? Would it "effectuate the purposes" of the National Labor Relations Act for the Labor Board to assert jurisdiction? The Board had already decided the Cincinnati Case in 1978 on these and related questions, so it now remained to determine whether Houston was similar enough to invoke the Cincinnati precedent. The Board determined that it was. The "decision on review" reads in part (the "employer" referred to in the decision is the Houston Lighthouse for the Blind):
The fifth department within the Employer's operations is the Industrial Division which is the one involved herein. This division generates almost 90 percent of the Employer's annual revenues. The Industrial Division produces felt-tipped pens, mops, and commercial scrub brushes; bottles disinfectants and detergents; and performs subcontracting work. In 1977 the Industrial Division manufactured 40,539,744 felt-tipped pens, 250,000 mops, and 300,000 brushes. In addition it produced 145,000 gallons of disinfectant and 30,000 gallons of detergents. Items such as the mops and brushes manufactured by Workshop A of the Industrial Division are sold in market outlets in Harris County and Houston, Texas. Pursuant to contracts with the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA), many of the felt-tipped pens, as well as the detergent and the disinfectant, are supplied to the Federal government. The Industrial Division also performs subcontracting work including, inter alia, assembling fishing rod holders, performing grease check assembly work, and filling notebook binders with inserts for various companies.8
In 1977 the Industrial Division generated $4,620,000 worth of revenue from sales of the merchandise described above. These revenues netted a profit of $237,000 for the Employer which was utilized in other areas of its operations. The Employer's total revenue income in 1977 was $5,195,000 which included, in addition to the revenue from the Industrial Division, fees from state programs, donations from the United Fund, grants, contributions, and other donations. Expenditures by the Employer in 1977 included $3,631,000 for materials and goods, $752,000 for labor costs and other industrial operations, $644,000 for rehabilitation, and $123,000 for general administrative expenses. The balance of these totals reveals that the Employer netted a profit of $45,000...
The Employer also contends that the Board should decline jurisdiction on discretionary grounds. In this regard, the Employer maintains that its commercial activity is "merely ancillary" to its purpose of providing rehabilitation to handicapped persons and that the impact of the Employer's operations on interstate commerce is not sufficient to warrant the Board's assertion of jurisdiction. We do not agree.
Although the Employer contends that but for the grants from charities such as the United Way and moneys received from the Federal Government for experimental purposes, it would have lost $244,000 in 1977, the record amply demonstrates the impact and nature of the Employer's industrial operations with respect to commerce. Thus, as noted above, the Employer enters into contracts with the General Services Administration of the United States Government as well as other employers in the Houston area to manufacture and distribute products. The Employer's merchandising sales from its Industrial Division accounted for approximately 88.5 percent of the total revenues received by the Employer in 1977. A similar percentage was expended toward the operations of the Industrial Division. The production figures noted above, including the manufacture of 40 million pens and various other items, indicates to us that, contrary to its assertions, the Employer's substantial production and distribution of items by its Industrial Division attest to the commercial nature of the Employer's operations. Further, it is clear that the Employer endeavors to increase its manufacturing output, broaden its markets, and essentially operates as would a private employer. For these reasons we find no basis for exercising our discretion to decline jurisdiction, but rather conclude that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction over the Employer.
The Employer further contends that its handicapped workers in Workshop A, who are the subject of the instant petition, are not employees within the meaning of Section 2(3) of the Act. The Employer argues that the relationship between the Employer and its "clients" is one of rehabilitation. Both the Petitioner and the Federation assert that the persons in the petitioned—for unit are statutory employees and that the Employer's operations are commercial in nature...
The record in the instant case shows that the Employer operates workshop A under normal business conditions and that Workshop A employees are treated essentially as are regular employees in the private sector. Employees in Workshop A are paid at least the minimum wage, the range being from $2.89 to $3.40 per hour based on performance. These employees are paid overtime rates when working more than 8 hours a day. Moreover, they are eligible to receive merit raises based on productivity and these merit raises are subject to rescission if the employee does not demonstrate that this productivity can be sustained at that level. Employees in Workshop A receive a retirement program, vacations, and health benefits. They are covered under workmen's compensation and unemployment compensation. They punch a timeclock. They have nine paid holidays per year. Social security deductions are made from their paychecks. While the Employer maintains that its relationship to a person in Workshop A is one primarily of rehabilitation, the record shows, for example, that with respect to discipline the Employer resolves these problems using normal economic and business considerations. Thus, there is undisputed evidence that employees have been terminated and suspended for, among other things, fighting, insubordination, low production, refusal to work, excessive tardiness, and excessive absenteeism. Moreover, although the Employer attempts to place employees in private industry, the record shows that many of these employees returned to the Industrial Division Workshop A. We also note that a large proportion of the employee complement of Workshop A has worked for Employer for at least 10 years and some for as many as 20 years.
These facts lead us to agree with the observation of one of the Employer's witnesses at the hearing in this case that the Industrial Division "operates like any manufacturing operation." It is clear from these facts and the facts as recited by the Regional Director that the Employer's relationship with its Workshop A "clients" is guided "to a great extent by business considerations." We therefore conclude that the employees in Workshop A of the Employer's Industrial Division are employees within the meaning of Section 2(3) of the Act. Accordingly, we affirm the Regional Director's Decision and Direction of Election and direct that the ballots which had been impounded be opened and counted by the Regional Director and that thereafter he take such further appropriate action as required by Section 102.69 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended.
Dated, Washington, D.C., September 18, 1979
On September 24, pursuant to the Board's order, the ballots cast by the workers at the Houston Lighthouse were opened by the Regional Director of the NLRB, and, by an affirmative vote of 47 to 17, they became the second group of sheltered shop employees to designate a Labor Union (once again the Teamsters) to represent them for purposes of collective bargaining. At this writing, in late September, the process of officially certifying the Union's election is going forward, and you can be sure that there will be as many appeals as possible until the matter, as in the case of Cincinnati, reaches the Federal Courts.
We have travelled a very long road from the days when the right to organize and bargain collectively was a dream and a hope expressed in our resolutions and public statements to the point where this right is now recognized by the National Labor Relations Board, but this is where the latest rulings by the NLRB have placed us. No one should think that the battle is over, however, for there will be many more delays, more appeals, more briefs, and more rulings. The course of the future is clear, though, and we are firmly resolved to follow it through. In doing so we confront money, prestige, and all the power of the traditional agency establishment in work with the blind, because one thing it cannot tolerate is recognizing the essential right which blind people have to speak, think, and act for themselves through their chosen representatives, whether the representative selected is a Labor Union or the National Federation of the Blind.
In a very real sense, this is the most significant message transmitted by the most recent events in the battle to bring organized labor into the sheltered workshops. We have often said that they do not want us to speak for ourselves, and if there was ever need for proof of this truism, here it is in the cases of Houston and Cincinnati. The field of work with the blind is full of people who are determined to carve out our destiny for us, and they firmly intend to do it, using any tactic which they can find, never mind considerations of right and wrong, morality, or even matters of legality.
One almost wonders, with the rulings of the National Labor Relations Board, if the agency overlords will now begin to say that the members of the Board are surely bad and corrupt people, probably as bad and corrupt, they will likely say, as that "dogmatic" and "abrasive" National Federation of the Blind and its "irrational President, Kenneth Jernigan." Perhaps the members of the Board will become the subject of personal attack and abuse in the pages of the Des Moines Register. Likely as not Chairman Fanning (Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board) will be charged with "megalomania." "How dare him order a workshop for the blind to listen and respond to the blind people; shame, shame." And who can tell, maybe, just maybe, the Register will discover that the windows of the building occupied by the NLRB in Washington are made of a mysterious substance known as Lexan.
No question about it, the recent developments on the workshop organizing front must be seen in the context of the broader struggle of the blind to achieve equality and first-class status in the face of the stubborn and often mulish resistance of the very agencies which some might say practice fraud upon the general public by holding themselves out as the "helpers of the blind" while actually subjecting the blind to the worst forms of slavery ever known. And it is significant, as in the case of the minorities who have gone before us, that we have only ourselves to count on for support and strength.
There is much to be said about this; we have often asked, where is the American Council of the Blind, and the inevitable answer comes back: "Down in the barnyard with the agencies, slinging mud at the blind who have the nerve to stand up and make decisions for themselves." And what about this outfit called ALL (the Affiliated Leadership League Of And For The Blind)? It purports to work on behalf of "all those of and for the blind," where was it when the Labor Board ruled? Nowhere to be found; ALL gone, if you will.
But we know where we were, we were on the barricades in Cincinnati, and we were fighting in the trenches in Houston. This we did, and this we must continue to do. The twin victories in Cincinnati and Houston have opened up vast new possibilities for the blind who work in other workshops throughout this country, and for all of us they have provided a new sense of personal dignity and a resounding affirmation of the absolute necessity to maintain a strong and truly independent organized blind movement through the National Federation of the Blind, it is one more answer to the question "Why the National Federation of the Blind." It is also another way of underlining our battle cry of recent years (a battle cry which is not a necessary slogan but a way of life and a statement of faith—in ourselves, in society, and in the future). That battle cry is increasingly repeated and increasingly understood: We know who we are, and we will never go back.
8. Another source of business for the Employer's Industrial Division is the distribution of products manufactured by other Lighthouse operations in other States, such as Mississippi.
by BILL INMAN
(from THE HOUSTON POST, Sept. 25, 1979)
The International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 968, Monday won a hard-fought unionization election and may soon absorb as many as 94 new members.
All of them are blind.
The ballots were cast in January by workers at Houston's Lighthouse for the Blind but impounded pending review of the election's validity by the National Labor Relations Board.
That review decision, handed down late last week, concurred with the regional NLRB finding that the non-profit, charitable organization was engaged in commerce—selling products made by the blind—and that its employees had the right to organize.
The Lighthouse's unsuccessful plea held that the workers were not employees within the meaning of the labor relations act, but "clients" to be rehabilitated.
"We're not certain at this point whether we'll follow this decision with any court action," Lighthouse board Chairman Fred Saunders said. "The finding was a disappointing one."
Regional NLRB director Louis Baldovin said ballots were tallied late Monday and results ran, 47 votes to 17, in favor of the Teamsters.
"If no objections are raised within five working days," he said, "the election will be certified."
Nationally, Lighthouse officials have expressed concern that unionization of "client"-workers would have far-reaching consequences, including curtailment of needed services to the blind. Last year, Cincinnati's blind workers joined the Teamsters and similar elections are on tap in cities from New England to California.
Blind workers at the Houston Lighthouse generated more than $4.62 million in revenue from 1977 merchandise sales alone, records show. Some of the goods—felt-tipped pens, disinfectant and detergent bottles—were manufactured exclusively for federal market outlets like the General Services Administration.
Employees complained to the NLRB that their wages—$2.89 to $3.40 per hour—were held well below the market level and that agency profits were plowed into capitalization and services instead of supplementing worker paychecks.
August 13, 1979
Dear Mr. Jernigan,
I subscribe to a magazine called "Official Dogs" which prints articles of general interest to dog owners, in their last issue, they published an article about Seeing Eye with the enclosed editorial as introduction. It was so negativistic and demeaning to the blind that I wrote an antieditorial, also enclosed.
I'm with you on the barricades.
Very truly yours,
Toni Ann Gardiner (miss)
Jamaica, New York
Unfortunately, I have heard the words, "Why me?" uttered in anger—even rage, through tear-clouded eyes.
Tragedy, illness strike all too suddenly, as well as all too often in life. "Why me?" is a natural thought, a normal feeling of resentment, bitterness and anger.
"There but for the grace of God go I", is another common saying—with a lot of truth and feeling behind it. But, how many times have each of us made this statement, paused for a much too brief moment, and gone on with our lives with a smile on our faces?
Unfortunately, blind men and women—and children, as well—do not find it such a simple matter to go about their every day life.
For those unfortunate souls afflicted by blindness, the very act of functioning as a human being is an enormous, sometimes overwhelming, always frustrating challenge. No other affliction is quite like blindness.
Ask yourself the following: "If I had to make a decision as to which I would choose, blindness, deafness, or being confined to a wheelchair, which of the three evils would be the most bearable?"
None are pleasant or welcome, but it is possible to get around by yourself if deaf or destined to live in a wheelchair. All of us are aware that there are automobiles equipped with hand-controls; and, indeed, vehicles built from "scratch" for those people so confined. Recently I saw a van with a power-assisted platform to raise and lower the chair into the van, which did not have the regular driver's seat, but was built to accept the wheelchair in place, in order to avoid the sometimes painful, always awkward transfer from chair to car seat.
With extreme caution, deaf people can get about with reasonable safety. They can participate in life to a very great degree, with the proper training, of course. This is not to say that being deaf is any sort of picnic.
However, blindness is another story. To go from point A to point B with safety—to say nothing of really knowing where the afflicted person is going to wind up, is another story.
Assuming they have the route down in their mind's eye, so to speak, what about unseen contingencies? The open hole in the sidewalk; where construction or repairs are underway? The reckless driver taking a turn much too fast with minimum control of his vehicle?
For the blind, life is extremely harsh and frustrating. Unfortunately, for most, mobility is based on a telescoping white metal cane.
Not all blind people must settle for this fate—a few, relatively few—are able to adapt to, and use SEEING EYE DOGS. For these people, a whole new world opens up—a world of freedom and new independence.
The story of the first SEEING EYE DOG is a fascinating one, indeed; and we present it to you on the following pages.
After reading the inspiring true story, and learning about the marvelous work done by this superb, humanitarian, non-profit organization, I sincerely hope that you, the reader, will open up your heart—and your checkbook—for this most worthwhile of causes.
You'll feel better if you do; and just possibly might feel better about the problem of "WHY HE?"
Sincerely,
Brad Ford
Executive Editor
July 12, 1979
Executive Editor and General Manager
Official Dogs Magazine
257 Park Avenue South
New York, N.Y. 10010
Dear Mr. Ford:
This is in reply to your editorial in Official Dogs Magazine Volume 9 #10 August 1979.
I have been totally blind since birth, have obtained a Bachelor's and a Master's Degree and have been employed in a professional capacity with New York State for 9 years. In your editorial you say: "for those unfortunate souls afflicted by blindness, the very act of functioning as a human being is an enormous, sometimes overwhelming, always frustrating challenge." Do you base this statement on facts gleaned from numerous interviews with blind persons or from your own subjective opinion? I am not about to say that blindness does not have its share of frustrations, but it is not the catastrophe painted by you. Blindness is not an affliction, it is a visual disability which limits one very little in his/her pursuit of "functioning as a human being." Unlike the stereotype of the poor, helpless blind man you portray, blind people today live normal lives with the aid of various reading and other devices as teachers, parents, editors, scientists, social workers, etc. The list of working, functioning blind people is unlimited. The only thing we can not do is drive a car. Your theory that "for the blind, life is extremely harsh and frustrating" is a misconception and a misperception on your part.
Blind people do not wish to be pitied. We certainly have problems to overcome in dealing with life without sight, but most of us can do the same things you can do, except we do things a little differently. Blind people participate in all forms of sports: skiing, water skiing, bowling, swimming, jogging, horseback riding, boating, etc. Our greatest limitation to participation in all forms of life are the negative, patronizing attitudes of people like yourself.
You imply that to be wheelchair-bound or to be totally deaf is a less handicapping condition than blindness. Consider that blind people have total mobility and access to buildings not modified for wheelchairs. A severely crippled person may require assistance with basic personal needs performed independently by the blind. A blind person can make use of all forms of public transportation and can pay for a taxi or ask a friend to drive if public transportation is not available. The guide dog fits comfortably on the floor or under the dashboard and there is no problem with wheelchair storage or accommodation. A blind person may not be able to visualize the beauties of nature or to see the mischievous expression on his dog's face, but he certainly can enjoy the sounds of a happy, thumping tail, music, television, theater, bird songs, animal utterances, and above all, human speech and communication.
You say: "to go from Point A to Point B with safety—to say nothing of really knowing where the afflicted person is going to wind up is another story." Blind people, like all people, come in all sizes, shapes, races and abilities. Some have very poor orientation and do not know where they are at all times. My mother, who is sighted, can easily lose her sense of direction if she is forced to take the slightest detour. On the other hand, I who am blind, have an outstanding sense of direction. There is a proliferation of mobility aids from which a blind person can choose and walking with a white cane or sonic guide provides a safe, reliable means of negotiating streets, traffic and unfamiliar locations.
You contend that "relatively few are able to adapt to, and use Seeing Eye Dogs." Many people could use "dog guides" if they chose to do so. I personally prefer to team up with a dog guide and have worked with two Golden Retrievers since 1967. In my opinion, the dog is not only a friend and companion, but a reliable sighted guide. I decide where we will go and she insures that I get there safely and with a minimum of difficulty.
The generic term for a dog whose profession is to guide the blind is "dog guide." Seeing Eye is a brand name, so to speak, and must only be used when referring to dogs trained at Morristown, New Jersey. There are 8 other dog guide training centers in the United States (see below) and all of them are dependent on public support for continued service to the blind. I always enjoy articles published in your magazine about dog guides and dog guide training centers, but I would appreciate your informing your staff that "dog guide" is the correct term to be applied when making a statement about a dog employed in this form of work.
The dog guide training centers in the United States are: Guide Dog Foundation For The Blind, Smithtown, New York; Guiding Eyes for the Blind, Yorktown Heights, New York; Seeing Eye, Morristown, New Jersey; Pilot Dogs, Columbus, Ohio; Leader Dogs, Rochester, Michigan; Eyes of the Pacific, Hawaii; Guide Dogs for the Blind, San Rafael, California; International Guiding Eyes, North Hollywood, California and Guide Dogs of the Desert, southern California. . . .
Sincerely yours,
Toni Ann Gardinerby HAZEL tenBROEK
Unfortunately I missed the last of the convention discussion on the Davis Case. From what talk I had heard it seemed useful to set down my thoughts, however briefly and perhaps start a different line of inquiry.
The United States Supreme Court substantially adopted the position the NFB took when it had sec 904 of the Education Amendments of 1972 adopted; namely, that no visually impaired person could be denied admission to any course by an institution which received Federal funds but that the institution would not be required to make any changes or provide any special services.
The NFB has made reasonably good progress with statutes and not much under regulations. A good statute is a leg up—something on which to base good administrative or judicial action. The NFB has used these to good advantage. From the Kletzing case in the early 1950's opening the Federal civil service to blind attorneys, Rick Wilburn's case in 1955 opening the federal service to blind scientists—he was a research chemist—to advances made through administrative channels whether fighting for the rights of blind attorneys to become judges or blind citizens to serve on juries, to the whole spectrum of rights of students and graduates in many fields including teachers, the NFB has made progress.
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 has been and will never be good for anything or anybody. The statute because it had no enforcement clause; and the regulations because rights were granted on the wrong ground and for the wrong purpose. Rights granted by regulation are not likely to be upheld and rights granted on a basis other than full citizenship should not be accepted or acceptable. The rights granted by the 504 Regulations were on the basis of disability. Enforcement was left not to the Department of Justice but to a special office in HEW.
Based on the above much of the Davis case makes points in our favor.
But the Court vitiates much that is good in the decision when it runs afoul of its own paternalistic reactions and declares: "Technological advances can be expected to enhance opportunities to rehabilitate the handicapped or otherwise to qualify them for some useful employment." What a boost that should give to those "training centers" we know as workshops. Many have interpreted "useful employment," as broommaking and chair-caning. "Such advance," to useful employment, "also may enable attainment of these goals without imposing undue financial and administrative burdens upon a state." Some day my ship will come, or however it is that that much quoted song goes.
"Nothing," says the Court, "in the language or history of §504 reflects an intention to limit the freedom of an educational institution to require reasonable physical qualifications for admission to a clinical training program." We are going to have to exercise §904 considerably to oversee and overcome the obvious interpretations that are bound to come.
Affirmative action never was included in §504 says that Court: "Here neither the language, purpose, nor history of §504 reveals an intent to impose an affirmative action obligation on all recipients of federal funds. Accordingly, we hold that even if HEW has attempted to create such an obligation itself, it lacks the authority to do so."
Society as we in the disabled world know it will have to be reeducated. A pox on regulations and bad statutes. All out for Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
(Note: For background on this letter and the shenanigans concerning the audit of the Mississippi rehabilitation program for the blind see the Braille Monitor, June, 1979.)
September 11, 1979
Mr. Robert R. Humphreys
Commissioner of Rehabilitation Services
Dear Commissioner Humphreys:
Over three years ago an audit was begun on the Mississippi Vocational Rehabilitation for the Blind Agency (VRB). Some person and/or persons from your regional office in Atlanta spent considerable effort in trying to divert, suppress and otherwise cover up the massive adverse findings of the H.E.W. Audit Agency. They partially succeeded in that they stopped the field work in March, 1977 and caused the audit to be abbreviated. They also succeeded in delaying the issuing of the first part of the report until June, 1978, and so far the second part still has not been issued.
Mr. Lewis Davis assured people that the auditors were completely wrong. He has been quoted as telling the auditors that since they (he and the other personnel in your Atlanta Office) would resolve the audit, that they would nullify their findings.
Partly, if not primarily, because Mississippi Industries for the Blind (MIB) made their books available to the auditors, in February, 1977 the Director of VRB wrote MIB threatening to cut off their on the job training funds (I have a copy of this letter if you would like to see it). In October, 1977 they cut off such funds. By the way, at about this same time I was present at a meeting of the Board at VRB when Mrs. Martha Carrick assured them that the auditors were all wrong and nothing would come of the audit.
By now many people in the Congress and in H.E.W. are aware that this cut off of on the job training funds was punitive action toward the management of MIB which had the effect of punishing the blind employees of this agency.
Though I have good reason to believe that your Atlanta Office had been apprised of (Policy Query )-510-179 two weeks before September 5, 1979. On September 5, 1979, Mrs. Carrick assured Mississippi Officials and me in a personal conversation, that it would be illegal for VRB to resume payments for on the job training to MIB, that they could not consider PQ-510-179 as they did not have a signed copy and she had personally contacted you and you knew nothing about this PQ-510-179. In the first place, they did not submit it as a legal question to your H.E.W. General Council's Office until two and a half years after they cut off the funds. Your General Council's Office said there was no legal question involved, hence, the policy query resulted in your PQ-510-179.
I understand that their explanation of their recent behavior will be based on a delay on receiving the PQ. I believe I can produce a very creditable witness that they had the text of the PQ two or three weeks before the date that will be given.
I was of the firm opinion that this PQ settled the matter so far as Rehabilitation Services Administration was concerned. I am now of the firm opinion that someone in your Atlanta Office will find someway to partially or completely defeat the purpose of this PQ.
I request that your Atlanta Office be given firm instructions to treat MIB in the same way that they treat other workshops, (i.e. Alabama Industries for the Blind and Royal Maid, Inc. at Hazlehurst, Mississippi.) Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
E. U. Parker, Jr., President
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF MISSISSIPPI
by AL EVANS
(Note: Mr. Evans is the President of the National Federation of the Blind of Massachusetts. At the Miami Beach Convention this year he was elected to membership on the National Board of Directors. He is employed as a counselor with the Veterans Administration.)
In the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States, these words appear: "We the people. . ." More than an opening line, these words signify the collective power of the voting citizenry of a nation, this nation. They state that the United States would not and could not function without the approval of the people who populate our country.
Similarly, the National Federation of the Blind would not and could not exist without the collective and majority approval of its membership. I saw this process at work in Florida during our National Convention this summer.
For months and months, those who supported Robert Acosta and Sue Ammeter waxed loud and persistently that they wanted "The people" to judge the facts relative to Acosta's suspension, then expulsion from N.F.B. They wanted "The people" to hear and judge the facts concerning the expulsion of Sue Ammeter and her faction as well.
Finally, when the first week of July arrived, Mrs. Ammeter came to Florida to speak on behalf of her cause, and she behaved in an abysmal manner. She nervously read a prepared text that berated our National President, the National Board of Directors, and the membership in general, declaring that we in attendance could not be objective; we could not reason independently or maturely; nor were we the possessors or our own thoughts. She accused Dr. Jernigan of some sort of hypnotic power, and she intimated that the membership assembled had been robbed of its independence, and she declared that, in essence, she and the Acosta people would not abide by the will of the majority.
We the people did speak, however, and we spoke resoundingly. The Acosta-Ammeter axis was shattered by an overwhelming vote of confidence for the National Board of Directors and for our National President. We heard her speech, and we heard Mr. Jenkins attempt to insinuate, in his own special way, that you and I, not they, were to be responsible for a tearing asunder of the organization, if we should confirm constitutional changes and resolutions that would further clarify and protect our leadership's right (in fact, their responsibility) to act decisively and firmly between conventions.
We the people listened politely. The speakers in opposition to the conduct of our National leadership were granted every courtesy, and every privilege was provided in a right and proper democratic manner.
When it was all over, however, we spoke. The vote talked plainly. 47 of the 49 affiliates upheld the actions of our leadership in one voice so thunderous that one might have expected a heavy rain to fall after the vote. Let anyone doubt the democracy, the propriety, and justice of the workings of the National Federation of the Blind, and I say that person has not listened to the people.
Now what? It is obvious that the Acosta-Ammeter axis will not content itself with justice. It will snap at our heels in every way possible merely for the purpose of disruption, since it knows it cannot win honestly. It will behave as a spoiled child who cannot have its way, but it will never, never tear apart the unity we established in Florida during the first week of July, 1979.
For one, I am more than proud to be a member of this great organization. I see spirit, commonality, and determination within our ranks at every level. I see a cause strengthened, and I see wonderful progress. Let us now go about the business of our objectives of bringing the blind of America up to the first-class status we deserve in this society. Let those who would disrupt recognize their errors, and let them heed well the words of an unknown author who declared, "Whosoever sews weeds must expect to reap a harvest of judgment."
(Note: The following letter was read at the August 15, 1979, Board meeting of the Iowa Commission for the Blind. A reporter from the Des Moines Register was present. His subsequent story was the usual negative attack and slanted twisting. There was no mention of the letter at all. Why? Whether the Register or members of its staff have received monetary compensation from the opponents of the organized blind movement is not known; but the repeated falsehoods, the slanted stories, the constant attempts to rehash the same old thing as new or "newsy," and the almost obsessive and continuing hounding and persecution of the Federation and its President are undeniable facts.)
August 10, 1979
Dr. David Tatel
Director
Office For Civil Rights
Washington, D. C.
Dear Dr. Tatel:
Our company is currently working on a Section 504 contract with the Health Services Administration, and we feel that one aspect of our performance warrants your attention. Indeed, your office may feel that our particular experience may be worthy of mention to other firms doing Section 504 contracts.
Last winter when we were selecting sites for our Section 504 seminars, circumstances precluded using Kansas City as a Region VII site, so we scheduled our meeting for Des Moines, Iowa. Upon the recommendation of Mr. James Gashel, Washington representative of the National Federation of the Blind, we held our meeting at the administrative and training facility of the Iowa Commission for the Blind. Our gracious and generous host was Mr. John Taylor, Director of the Commission.
To say that the experiences of the contract team and the seminar participants were extraordinary is to understate the fact. We ate in a cafeteria operated by blind persons; we had the services of blind receptionists and secretaries; we were able to observe the astounding training which the Commission gives its clients; and we were able to observe the latest in technology for the blind in daily use. Our questions on making facilities and programs accessible to the blind were answered with insight, intelligence, and good humor.
More importantly, we had certain vexing issues concerning Section 504 resolved on the spot. The Commission's six (6) story elevator had been made accessible to blind persons at a cost of less than ten dollars! This is strong confirmation of your statement that the costs of accessibility are vastly exaggerated. The recipients attending our conference had only to walk around and observe in order to discover how programs and facilities can be made totally accessible to blind persons. Much of what they saw could be applied to their own facilities and programs at their back-home health care agency.
Holding our seminar on Section 504 at the Commission's offices was more than just an inspiring and rewarding experience, it was a realistic, down-to-earth eye-opener on what blind people can do when given the chance. It was this reality which contributed as much to the success of our seminar as the content of the program itself. We were told—and we believe—that there is no other facility quite like it in the United States. There is no question that the technical assistance which we rendered the health care recipients was enormously enhanced simply by choosing this particular site.
One final point is that the Iowa Commission For The Blind has had a long and productive relationship with one of the leading national consumer groups, the National Federation of the Blind. Much of what we saw and experienced was the result of the policies and practices of a man who formerly headed both organizations. Dr. Kenneth Jernigan.
In our seminars we urge recipients to consult and work with consumer groups in their compliance efforts, and, when possible, we try to set an example. We did just this in selecting our Region VII site, and in so doing we effectively allayed some of the fears that recipients have toward their Section 504 obligations.
Sincerely yours,
Jim Revard
Research Assistantby KENNETH JERNIGAN
Dr. Elizabeth Browne has been a member of our movement for less than a year, but in spirit she has been one of us for a long time—maybe all of her life. Last spring she wrote to me concerning her experience with jury duty and restaurants. She also set forth her philosophy and her commitment. She said in part:
"I have hoped to procure a small position somewhere publicizing situations such as the jury discrimination event, in order to make people aware of the real inequality in our democratic society. I, as a Dr. of Literature with nine years college experience, have been forced to sit by while four people were advanced over me into positions I am qualified to fill.
"Though I have fought my own battles, and though I broke the discrimination against blind students in regular high schools many years ago, I have worked alone thus far. I am delighted now to make one with the NFB for it will never be a full resurrection for those of us who have been buried alive with discrimination, until we jointly band together to roll back the huge rock that has shut us in as though we were embalmed."
I believe we will hear more of Elizabeth Browne in the months and years ahead:
by DR ELIZABETH BROWNE
Several newspeople asked the obvious question: "Do you think you will ever be allowed to serve on a jury?"
Late in November, 1978, I received my first subpoena from the County of Cook summoning me, under certain penalty, to appear at 9:00 A.M. on December 4, 1978, at Room 1700 at the Chicago Civic Center for jury duty. I was overwhelmed! I was thrilled! I could hardly wait! I loudly proclaimed that our jury system was in fact democratic and fair—now that I too had been commanded, under all due legal restraint, to perform my duty as a citizen. I had been selected at random to fulfill a uniquely democratic function. I was called to be a petit juror in the County of Cook, in the City of Chicago, and if I did not keep this legal appointment I would be promptly arrested, forcibly taken, called for with all due haste, and all sorts of other fascinating possibilities.
I had been called, and to do my duty I was not only prepared, I was ecstatic. I, of all people, had been chosen! I told my spouse, a five-time veteran, who had even served on the Grand Jury—twice. But me! I was utterly amazed and anxious for the challenge.
So, with summons in hand, my guide dog, Brutus and I hurried across the windswept Daley Plaza, past the somber icy presence of Picasso's enormous objet d'art, and whirled in through the heavy glass revolving doors. Despite my outward composure, I honestly did not expect to be allowed to serve. I secretly suspected that I would have a bit of a time convincing them that I was ready and able to fulfill my civic duty. But, with my doubts well camouflaged, I had set forth to confront a new situation.
When we emerged at the seventeenth floor with a swarm of other prospective jurors, we were immediately spotted. I braced myself for the first hurdle as a voice proclaimed, "You don't have to come up here, lady, you're exempt." Two enormous gentlemen began to maneuver me adroitly back toward the already closing elevator doors. I stood firm, composed. After all, I reassured myself, I am a college professor and used to dealing with all sorts of threatening situations. What had I to fear from two armed bailiffs? I calmed myself and side-stepped them to rejoin the flow of confused humanity hurrying down the hall to the long counter where the court clerks waited.
"You are exempt," one of the clerks told me. "Just step over here and we'll fix it up for you."
"Exempt from what? I didn't ask for any exemption. I'm very anxious to serve." I said this as quietly as I could, hoping for a touch of privacy in the midst of this milling throng.
"She wants to serve!"
"What does she want to serve for?"
"What do we do now?"
Finally, one of the more alert clerks said, "Well, if she wants to serve we can't stop her. Give her a form to sign."
"Can she write?"
"How do I know! You help her."
"Give her Badge #1 so's she won't forget her number." The bailiffs and clerks were concerned that, since I would not be exempted, they would at least make things easy for me. Conjure that number one, with its many levels of significance!
Later, to another clerk, I would flatly state, "I really do want to serve—downtown here! So what are my chances of getting on a jury?"
"Chances are not good, frankly," she confided, as to one who was already aware of the problem. "But maybe something can be done." I reminded her of the existence of two blind judges, and she started, as though the idea were newborn. "That's right!" she said. "I wonder how they do it."
By now the clerks and bailiffs began to make friendly overtures, perhaps to try to thaw some of the frigidity they had felt earlier. "Care for a cup of coffee?" they offered, smiling. I volunteered a friendly request from my side of the frosty situation as we slowly began to slide closer together, in hopes that the communication gap might at least be bridged before the day skidded to a close.
"I'd like to share a ride in a car pool," I said. "I'd pay my part, of course. Perhaps you could find out if anyone from my neighborhood is serving."
The lady at the loudspeaker asked if anyone from that corner of the city were present, and a great number of confused jurors fluttered forward, asking what was up.
The people were worthy of much note. Debbie, on winter vacation from Circle Campus; Ruby, a 74 year old spunky Italian lady (who told me she grew up with one of Chicago's two blind judges); Janet, a pediatric nurse from Loyola hospital. There were all colors and classes, retired and unemployed, and the ages ranged from college to post-retirement, brought together as a captive community. We came from all parts of the county, from all backgrounds and occupations. We formed a bewilderingly homogeneous group—the unemployed, the retired, the aged, the college student, the factory worker, the mechanic, the professor and the housewife all flooded into this vast room and waited to participate in our judicial system.
Barbara Young, who had fled from Germany in 1936, teacher of French for many years at Roosevelt, spoke to me of Rilke and said that I reminded her of one of his poems: "Your beauty goes inward when I watch you," she said, and I was thrilled.
A black man sitting next to me in the jury box asked if I could tell what color he was. "I'd sure like to have you on a case of mine," he said. "You'd be real objective."
But on that first day, I could only breathe a sigh of relief. The first obstacle was passed, and a neighbor, known to me now as juror #213, had also been discovered to be serving her juridic time. There remained only to scale the final mountain. Would the inviolability of the courtroom yield to my persistence? How could I avoid being set aside when that unforgettable chip #1 turned up in the jury selection lottery? If they were fairly sure I wouldn't forget the brand that had been so considerately placed upon my brow, I could be equally certain that not one of those harried laborers in the fields of patronage could or would forget it either. As they casually doled out the selections of 24 or 12 or whatever number was needed by whatever judge in whatever courtroom, my chip #1 would most certainly present an occasion of singular consideration.
So, I'd made it to the front of the bus, but how were we to get the motor started? A little later, I approached the desk, smiling deferentially, to ask where the ladies' room was. Enroute, as a protective motherly clerk firmly seized me by the arm and moved me in that general direction, I sadly asked yet again, "Do you think that my number will ever come up?" A good question because, whatever her personal thoughts might be, the inviolability of the democratic system of jury selection must be maintained. "Oh, yes," I was assured. "It's all done by random choice, you have as good a chance as anyone else."
The next morning, clerks and bailiffs seemed surprised yet genuinely pleased to see me come out of the elevator on the seventeenth floor. "Well, here I am. Juror #1 reporting." We filed into the large room, the bull pen, to await a possible summons to court.
"You know, most people want to be dismissed—get off this duty," Daniel Covelli, Jr., our clerk's supervisor told me in the backroom on the second day, after he had looked out to see what all the fuss was about. "You really want to go to court?" he asked, and I said I did. "Well, you probably will be called. I got to hand it to you," Covelli continued, "but you know the lawyers will probably have a fit when you come in to their cases." "I know, but I want to go anyhow."
He was resigned. He was kind. He told me that the newspeople had seen me walking about Daley Plaza with the guide dog and wanted to interview me. I understood his message. "Sure, I'll see them," I replied.
"We've been good to you, haven't we?" he asked, and I smiled my consent. Then came an interview with Joel Daly for Channel 7, and another, with pictures, for the Tribune, which was picked up by the Associated Press.
Then, on December 5, late in the morning, the loudspeaker blared out: "When I call your numbers step up to the desk form a line of twos take everything with you, you're goin' to court! 1705, 995, 893, 26, 660, 180, 500, 213, 1463, 497, 79," and so on. Then, miraculously, number one! I had been called! I boiled from my seat and took everything with me. I was going to court.
Judge Walter Kowalski's court is in room 2505, and he quickly made it clear to the bailiffs and sheriffs deputies that he saw no problem with my being in his court.
The first day, after hours of waiting, lunch, and more waiting, we settled five cases—out of court. The lawyers, defendants and other participants merely walked up and down and watched us in the jury box, and then settled out of court. We were very disappointed.
But Friday, a live one! Which promised to go several weeks—a very big case against General Motors. It called for 24 people, so off we went again, Juror 213—and Juror number one.
This time I was interrogated by the Judge himself. He was very straightforward. "You have a handicap;" he said. "I am interested in knowing how you would be able to deal with evidence. This is an automobile case—obviously you don't drive."
"Not too often, your honor. But I feel I can ask questions and evaluate testimony—even on technical materials—as well as any other lay person. I handle visual aids, like movies in my college classes all the time."
Judge Kowalski seemed satisfied, but, as I breathed incredulously and leaned back, one of the defense attorneys spoke up. "I have a question for Mrs. Browne. I feel that movies about the mechanical operation of a steering mechanism would present an undue burden for you, Mrs. Browne," he began. I gathered my things together for the coming dismissal, and began surreptitiously sliding toward the edge of my seat.
"I am so impressed with your outstanding accomplishment," he droned on in a smooth, oily voice, "but, even though. ..." As his voice trailed off, I stepped down and out of the jurors' box and walked across the aisle to where the other rejects sat.
Then, startling me and the whole court, another juror raised her hand and the judge called on her. "Your honor," Debbie said. "I don't want to serve on a jury where one of the lawyers is so prejudiced against Mrs. Browne." She continued something about how some see more even without sight, but the Judge quickly dismissed her. I was flushed, stunned, and Debbie, whom I had never met until last week, made her way among the castoffs and sat down. I couldn't wait to be taken away by the bailiffs and returned to the bull pen to hope, as in limbo, for another summons to court.
Then we were dismissed, and downstairs, as I waited for my ride in the lobby, there were drunks who beg and are rather aggressive, and a handsome sweet-talking Italian policeman, guarding the 60 foot Civic Center Christmas Tree. Debbie's father is a fireman from Station 2, where she parks her car, neither he nor the policeman understand what's all the fuss with the T. V. and the news media just because I'm serving as a juror. It seems natural to them. They would understand why General Motors lost that case.
Once upon a time, long, long ago, when first I emerged into the ranks of the minorities in this country, I reasoned with myself that if I truly wanted to partake of this society—if I really wanted to join the activities and experiences of an American wife, mother, college teacher, and consumer, I must seek first the ordinary everyday experiences and all else would be added to me. But therein lies the shadow. It hasn't!
"Do you think you will ever be allowed to serve as a Juror?" The various newspeople had ferreted out my secret fear. "Do you?"
My minority persona hissed, "Never, never, never!" My pleasant, optimistic outer shell replied, "Why, certainly!" The democratic process is based upon the principle that all men are created equal. We live in a society where the various minorities, innumerable and more obviously handicapped individuals, are finally coming into their own, are searching and seeking and pleading to be allowed the opportunity of mainstreaming, not upstreaming. Why, then, do we get hung up on such trifles as a well-meaning college teacher choosing to serve on a jury? Why do we commend, and smile, and then dole out something generous into the palm, when the hands are professional, and seek no more than a normal role.
I will continue to scale walls, for I have a dream. My dream is that brother will sit down with sister and will wash away all our suspicions of color and of caste, of appearance and of reality, then we will begin to know that the measure of a human being is established not in incidentals, but in spirit and in truth.
by FAYETTE NICHOLS
(From SOUTHTOWN ECONOMIST NEWSPAPERS, Sept. 6, 1979)
It was just a public apology from a restauranteur, but to a blind Mt. Greenwood woman it was a major victory.
All Dr. Elizabeth Browne wanted when she walked into Louise's Restaurant, 10335 S. Pulaski Ave., Feb. 3 was a nice dinner.
Instead, Browne, her husband and her dog guide, Brutus, were evicted because Robert Pahoke, Louise's owner, did not want her dog in his restaurant.
Pahoke apologized to Browne Wednesday before the Chicago Liquor Commission and pleaded guilty to charges which could lead to the revocation of his liquor license.
"He committed a criminal act by not allowing me to stay in the restaurant," said Browne who accepted the apology on behalf of the National Federation of the Blind in Illinois.
"The importance of this apology is that this kind of incident won't happen in Chicago again where people are put out of public accommodations out of ignorance of the proprietor," she said.
What Pahoke didn't know when he scorned Browne and her dog guide and spoke abusively to her husband is that the Illinois White Cane law protects the right of blind people to enter public places with their dog guide.
"Blind people are entering more professions every day. They are teachers, lawyers and priests and they want to be treated like professionals—with respect," said Browne explaining the depth of the insult.
Mayor Jane Byrne, who acts as the city's liquor commissioner, is expected to decide on the liquor license revocation when she returns from Ireland.
She will decide based on the recommendations of deputy liquor commissioner Peter Fitzpatrick, an attorney in the city's corporation counsel office. . . .
Browne, who is an English professor at St. Xavier's College, said these incidents are occurring all over the country and that blind people are beginning to fight back with legal action.
by RAMI RABBY
Once every five years, delegates from the National Federation of the Blind participate in the General Assemblies of two international organizations, the International Federation of the Blind (IFB) and the World Council for the Welfare of the Blind (WCWB). July 20 to 26 and August 1 to 10, 1979, saw the Third General Assembly of IFB and the Sixth General Assembly of WCWB respectively take place at the Eurocrest Hotel, on the outskirts of Antwerp, Belgium, a city that has built a world-wide reputation for its diamond cutting and polishing industry, its lace making industry, and, more recently, its thriving port facilities.
Both General Assemblies had originally been scheduled to take place in West Africa, but, because of persistent administrative difficulties, they were relocated to Antwerp, at the last minute. Nevertheless, the conference facilities made available to both General Assemblies were excellent, the accommodations were comfortable, while the hotel itself was pleasantly situated in close proximity to park and farm land which was heavily populated by deer, ducks and swans, among other animals.
This placid, almost bucolic, setting outside the convention hotel contrasted, somewhat incongruously, with the intensive pace of diplomatic maneuvering and political horse trading which continued at fever pitch inside the convention hotel, throughout both General Assemblies, and reached a climax, as elections took place, and resolutions were passed, in the final business sessions of both conventions.
The National Federation of the Blind of the United States was represented at the Third General Assembly of IFB by Rami Rabby and Harold Snider. Since Dr. Jernigan was not in a position to travel to Belgium, Rami Rabby, a member of the Executive Committee of IFB, carried out two official duties on his behalf. On Thursday Morning, July 26, he chaired a convention session on the subject of "legislation for the Blind". Earlier in the week, on Tuesday morning, July 24, he presented a paper entitled "Organisation of the Blind" which explained, in some detail, the need for an organisation which is truly of the Blind, national in scope and structured in the form of a federation united under a centralized administration, and described typical activities carried out by the NFB at the Chapter, State and National levels.
The presentation was well received, and the questions and comments which followed it reflected, to a much greater extent than was the case at the 1974 IFB General Assembly, a community of interest between the Blind of the United States and the Blind of other nations, both industrialized and developing, and the similarity between agency-consumer relationships in this country and agency-consumer relationships elsewhere in the world. Here are just two examples of question-and-answer exchanges that took place following Rami's presentation:
Question from the delegate from Greece:
"Do you in the United States have a situation like we do in Greece, where our organisation is the true organisation of the blind, but the agencies and the government have set up their own puppet organisations of the blind, and they always say that they speak for the blind, and that we don't? Do you have something like that?"
Rami's Answer:
"You bet we do! We are very familiar with that kind of situation. Isn't it amazing how agencies behave in the same way from one country to the next? Yes, in the United States, the puppet organisation of the blind is sometimes called the American Council of the Blind, and other times, it may be called the Independent Blind of Illinois, and the Agencies are always trotting them out in front of the press and financing their publications and telling everybody that they are the real blind and that we are not, whereas, in reality, these puppet organisations speak only for the agencies."
Question from the delegate from Pakistan:
"Do you have problems in the United States with blind people who have had a good education and who have succeeded in their jobs, and so they forget about all the other blind and do not want to join our organisation?"
Rami's answer:
"Yes, unfortunately, we do know that problem very well. We know blind people who feel and act that way, and we try to make them realize that it is mainly because of the National Federation of the Blind that they were offered the opportunity of a good education and a good job in the first place, and that it is now their responsibility to fight with us so that others may have the same opportunity."
Other papers presented during the IFB General Assembly covered such subjects as the education of blind children, rehabilitation and employment opportunities, the special problems of blind women, braille production and libraries, prevention of blindness, and more.
While the formal business of presentation of papers and committee discussions was being conducted in the convention hall and conference rooms, the informal activity of electioneering, campaigning for office and negotiation on the exact wording of resolutions was hectically in progress in the Hotel's lobbies, corridors and guest rooms. Two critical issues were at stake: who would assume the presidency of IFB for the coming five year term, and what would the General Assembly's position be on a declaration which had been signed by the officers of the organisation, at Bad Berleburg, West Germany, in February, 1979, which called for the initiation of a process designed eventually to culminate in an amalgamation between IFB, the organisation of the blind, and WCWB, the organisation composed primarily of agencies for the blind.
For the first time in IFB's relatively short history, the Presidency was hotly contested by two candidates. Sheikh Abdullah Al-Ghanim, a blind official in the Saudi Arabian government who is appointed to represent the blind of his country by the Saudi Arabian authorities, and Dr. Franz Sonntag, the long-time President of one of West Germany's organisations of the blind and Treasurer of IFB from 1974 to 1979. Sheikh Abdullah based his candidacy on his promised ability to channel funds from the Saudi Arabian government into IFB's needy treasury, and talked much of grants which he would give to the financially strapped organisations of the blind in Asia and Africa. Dr. Sonntag, on the other hand, while by no means belittling the dire necessity of funding the world movement of the blind, stressed IFB's need for experienced leadership, sound philosophical underpinnings and strong administrative ability at the helm. The United States delegation lead the week-long election campaign for Dr. Sonntag's conception of the IFB Presidency, and when the vote was in, he had won by sixty-seven votes against Sheikh Abdullah Al-Ghanim's twenty-three. In private conversations following his election, Dr. Sonntag expressed a strong desire to visit the United States within the coming year to attend our 1980 National Convention in Minneapolis, and learn of the organised blind movement in this country. "There is much that Europe can learn from the New World," he said, "as far as organisation of the blind is concerned."
The discussions among the delegates regarding the Bad Berleburg declaration and the issue of possible amalgamation with WCWB were equally heated, although there was a general feeling that the opposing views were based more on a difference of interpretation rather than on any disagreement over basic principles. Once again, the United States delegation led the campaign for upholding and restating the bedrock principle of a free and independent voice of the blind which had been carved into IFB's constitution by Dr. Ten Broek; and Dr. Jernigan, at the organisation's birth, in 1964. Thus, when a resolution on this subject was eventually passed by the General Assembly, it made absolutely no mention of the possibility of a single world organisation for and of the blind, reaffirmed the fundamental need of the world's blind to have their own free and independent organisation, and limited itself to calling upon IFB and WCWB to establish a working group of six members (three from IFB and three from WCWB) which would examine the extent to which future cooperation between the two organisations might be feasible. At its Post-Convention meeting, on July 27, the Executive Committee of IFB appointed Rami Rabby to serve as one of IFB's three representatives to such a working group. The other representatives will be Dr. Fatima Shah, of Pakistan, immediate past president of the organisation, and Tom Parker, of the United Kingdom, First Vice President of IFB.
The General Assembly allotted two positions on the IFB Executive Committee to the North American region. For the next five-year term, these positions will be filled by Harold Snider and Rami Rabby.
In conclusion, I would say only that I personally found the 1979 General Assembly of IFB to be far more worthwhile than the 1974 General Assembly, in West Berlin, and certainly politically more exhausting. Since IFB has only been in existence for 15 years, many of its organisational procedures and processes are only now beginning to crystallize. However what is most gratifying was the growing distinction between the delegates to the IFB General Assembly on the one hand, who truly represented organisations of the blind and reflected that status in both spirit and behaviour, and the delegates to the WCWB General Assembly, on the other hand, who equally well represented, for the most part, agencies for the blind, and reflected their status in both spirit and behaviour.
by JANA SIMS
This story is about a blind woman who decided she wanted to own a car. Please understand I said "own" not "drive" a car. Until I embarked on this project of purchasing my own car, I didn't really realize how ignorant some sighted people can be.
As you know, I recently went to work for the Office for Civil Rights as an Equal Opportunity Specialist. My work involves considerable traveling. I also do a lot of traveling in working in the Federation. I thought it would be a good idea to purchase my own car. However, I soon found that some of my friends and co-workers were literally incredulous when I stated my intention. I got quite a few comments such as "What do you want with a car? What in the world will you do with it?" Well, as far as I am concerned, it doesn't matter what I want a car for as long as I don't take it out on the streets and drive it myself. I could use it to sit in in my back yard on Sundays and play the radio if I wanted and that would be reason enough to have it. Of course, I did also find several people who thought it was a highly practical idea.
Since my father had recently had a cataract surgery, I asked a friend to take me to several used car dealers so that I could make a narrower selection before having my father, who knows a lot more about cars than I ever will, help me make a final choice. My friend agreed. However, whether from embarrassment, or from a feeling that I needed to make my own deal, I'm not sure which, my friend insisted on remaining in her car while I went into the dealerships alone to make inquiries. After having looked at several vehicles, I finally found a 1976 Ford LTD stationwagon at Jack Roach Cadillac Used Car Lot in Overland Park, Kansas. The salesman did not seem too surprised that I should want a car. He took me for a test drive and quite honestly pointed out the car's good and bad points. One of the things which sold me on that particular car was its excellent condition, and the fact that Jack Roach was one of the few dealerships in town which offered, for a fee, of course, a one hundred percent, two year warrantee on the power train of its used cars. This warrantee was through a dealer association and was good most places in the country. When one travels a lot, that is important.
I had my father come look at the car that Saturday, and we decided it would be a good deal at the price asked. I put down a deposit and signed preliminary papers subject to financing. I wanted the financing through General Motors Acceptance Corporation, GMAC, because they would cover the two hundred eighty dollars for the warrantee as well as the bulk of the price of the car. This way I wouldn't have to have such a large down payment because I had no trade.
Up to this point everything had gone very smoothly. On Monday morning that was all to change. The dealership had requested a relative as reference. I had given my mother's answering service number. The salesman called my mother, not me, on Monday and explained that there seemed to be some problem with getting the financing through GMAC because I was blind and had no driver's license. He asked if my mother knew any unmarried blind people who owned cars. My mother said she was sure there were some. Then the salesman asked if she could drive. When she said "no," he asked if my father would co-sign the loan with me. He said they needed a licensed driver to co-sign the loan. At that point my mother, who believes in Federation philosophy, told him he was being discriminatory and hung up. He called me next with the same questions. I told him I thought he was violating Kansas state law by even asking. He said he was afraid that might be so and referred me to a Mr. Norm Stevens at GMAC.
Mr. Stevens wasn't very enlightening. I asked him to explain what the trouble with my credit was. He said it wasn't my blindness, just I didn't have enough established credit. He said I'd have to talk with the dealership for the answers to the questions because it was the dealership placing the stipulations. I then called the sales manager, Dave, at the dealership. Dave said that I didn't have good enough credit. I asked him why not. I reminded him I was buying a house, and had been making payments on it regularly for seven years. I said I had borrowed a large sum of money to go to Europe from a finance company and paid it back timely, and that I had two department store credit cards, both of which were paid up but at one time had had rather large furniture purchases on them. All that credit didn't count. I didn't have what Dave called "car credit." He explained that I had to have purchased a car before to have "car credit." He said it was the policy of the dealership to make anyone, no matter how old, have a co-signer if they hadn't had a car before. Their other credit didn't matter.
I told Dave I would not have a co-signer because that looks to people like I am a bad credit risk, and that in any case it wasn't necessary if my credit was good. I said I would look at other financing, but that I thought Jack Roach was discriminating. Dave said it wasn't just them, but GMAC wouldn't give the loan without the co-signer. I then called the president of the NFB lawyer's division and Dick Edlund and they both thought, as I did, that the dealership was not acting in good faith.
I next tried going through the Federal Credit Union. There, the credit manager, when she got my loan application, promptly vetoed it when she saw that I had no driver's license. She thought I couldn't get title without a license so she never even checked my credit. A talk with her supervisor did get that straight, but it meant a week's delay in processing since the credit committee's meeting day had gone by at that point.
I found that any other way I wanted to finance that car, I had to come up with a large down payment plus the almost three hundred dollars for the warrantee. I was getting really discouraged. Finally, I found another dealer who had a similar warrantee arrangement and a similar Ford, but a Ford a step lower on the model line than the first. The car I finally purchased came from Schneider Ford in Kansas City, Missouri. The Ford financing went through in two hours flat, and I am delighted with my new vehicle. All the same, I am not simply letting Jack Roach and GMAC go on their merry way discriminating as they please. I am filing charges against Jack Roach with the Kansas Civil Rights Commission. Unfortunately, GMAC is in Missouri. There is nothing in our state Civil Rights law covering the handicapped, and our White Cane law doesn't cover credit. A bill is before the state Senate this year to add handicapped to the Civil Rights Act, but not in time to help me. I have to file charges through EEOC against GMAC on grounds of sex, which I think may have been a minor factor, but I am convinced my blindness is the major reason I was told I had to have a co-signer. This is just another case where some sighted person has the idea because we are blind we can't be responsible enough to incur a large debt without a co-signer.
Louis Reeves is the President of the National Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually Handicapped (NAC). He is also head of the Office for the Blind in the state rehabilitation program in Arkansas. Mr. Reeves and the rest of the NACsters are fond of talking about "quality services" and "high standards." They are also fond of distributing newspaper articles, especially those that criticize others in the field. Therefore, Mr. Reeves and NAC will doubtless feel that we are performing a public service in reprinting the following item from the April 5, 1979, ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT. Headlined "Court Rules Office of Blind Biased in Hiring, Promotions," the article says:
A federal court at Little Rock ruled Wednesday that the state Office of the Blind and Visually Impaired has not adequately followed an affirmative action plan in its employment practices for blacks and women and ordered compliance.
Eight Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Gerald Heaney, of Duluth, Minn., who was sitting as a visiting to help ease the caseload, ruled on a 1975 discrimination suit in the form of preliminary findings but said the findings were firm although a final order which will set out all persons eligible for relief from the OBVI will not be issued for about 90 days.
Heaney said Florence Smith, the original plaintiff in the racial discrimination suit, is entitled to reinstatement as a counselor with the state agency.
She worked as a counselor with the agency from February 1974 until her discharge in December 1974.
Heaney further ruled that the woman is entitled to back pay from the date of her discharge until the date the final order is issued.
Heaney designated the class of persons the ruling could affect as all blacks and women who applied for a position with the agency and all blacks and women who are past present or future employees of the agency.
Heaney said the agency has practiced discriminatory employment practices before and since an affirmative action plan was instituted in 1974 but that the discrimination was not the sole fault of Lewis Reeves, the head of the department.
Heaney said a large measure of the fault goes to the interrelationship between the state agency and its parent state departments, the Social and Rehabilitative Services and the Human Services departments.
Heaney said statistics indicate few blacks were employed by the Office of the Blind until the late 1960s and that few are currently hired or promoted to clerical or higher scale jobs.
He said the administrators of the three departments have the view that counselors should be white males. Most supervisors, he said, are white males with better salaries than blacks or women.
Training for higher scale jobs is not easily obtained for blacks, Heaney found, and the training is often better for whites.
Heaney further found that vacancies in higher scale jobs were not made known to women and blacks as readily as to white males.
The exact number of persons who may be eligible for benefits in the class action decision isn't known. . . .The following lists show the rankings in the Associates Contest as of September 30. The first list gives the name of the recruiter, followed by the state of residence of the recruiter, followed by the number of associates, followed by the amount of money brought in. The second list gives the ranking of the states according to the number of associates recruited by people living in that state. The third list shows the states that have no associates to their credit from June 1, 1979 through September 30, 1979. For full details concerning the contest and the effort to recruit associates, see the MONITOR for October/November, 1979.
Last year's contest was won by George Russell of Texas, who confidently predicted at the Miami Beach convention that he would walk away again with the prize after next summer in Minneapolis. However, George would do well to look to his laurels; for Gail Flateau is on the move and well in the lead. She shows no sign of slowing down. In a recent letter she said:
"The Associates program has brought me to all kinds of businesses and professions. When you talk to a person about it, you feel pride in the movement, and you feel confident enough so that you can answer all the questions without fumbling. I think because of personal experience I feel confident enough to explain the movement from past years to present. The key to working on the program is persistence. Don't let someone tell you, 'Well you have to wait, and we will let you know.' This is usually just an excuse. If I don't have a commitment in a week (yes or no) they definitely hear from me."
"Another suggestion is to speak to the person who handles contributions for the business or company, not to that person's secretary. By all means don't just hand an individual a form and leave. Nine times out of ten the form will end up in the garbage can. Once I bothered a secretary 18 times and finally got to her boss. He gave us $100. As you can see, persistence does pay. You meet a lot of people, young and old. You get to express the love you have for the Federation. Ideals are not worth much unless they are accompanied by hard work. We need each and every one of you to go through your community and express the importance of this movement."
FEDERATIONISTS RANKED BY NUMBER OF ASSOCIATES | |||
|---|---|---|---|
1 |
Gail Flateau, Fla. |
58 |
$1,200 |
2 |
Trish Miller, Md. |
10 |
205 |
3 |
Ehab Yamini, Ga. |
10 |
130 |
4 |
Verla Kirsch, Ia. |
10 |
100 |
5 |
Sharon Gold, Cal. |
8 |
240 |
6 |
E.U. Parker, Miss. |
8 |
156 |
* 7 |
Peggy and Curt Chong, Minn. |
8 |
136 |
8 |
Thomas Mills, Al. |
8 |
103 |
9 |
Dale Hamm, Al. |
8 |
95 |
10 |
Carl Conner, Ark. |
8 |
80 |
11 |
Kenneth Jernigan, Md. |
7 |
110 |
12 |
Max Parker, Ga. |
7 |
89 |
13 |
Charles Masterson, NY |
7 |
80 |
14 |
Lucy Rattoli, W Va. |
6 |
551 |
15 |
Al Maneki, Md. |
6 |
77 |
16 |
Lillian O'Day, Mich. |
6 |
77 |
17 |
Mary Irons, Pa. |
6 |
60 |
18 |
Sue Micich, Wisc. |
6 |
60 |
19 |
Pauline Murphy, Mo. |
6 |
60 |
20 |
Allen Sanderson, Ak. |
6 |
60 |
21 |
Ron Burt, Ind. |
5 |
90 |
22 |
Steve Machalow, Md. |
5 |
90 |
23 |
Searcy Ewell, Ark. |
5 |
65 |
24 |
Vera Jones, Al. |
4 |
134 |
25 |
Sheila and Dave Samson, Ohio |
4 |
95 |
26 |
John Knall, Ohio |
4 |
74 |
27 |
Charles Erickson, Ia. |
4 |
71 |
28 |
Hank LaBonne, La. |
4 |
57 |
29 |
Jim Omvig, Md. |
4 |
56 |
30 |
Reni Jackson, Ky. |
4 |
55 |
31 |
Mary Ellen Reihing, Neb. |
4 |
42 |
32 |
Thurmann Hill, Texas |
4 |
41 |
33 |
Sue Haynie, Md. |
4 |
40 |
34 |
Mary Ellen Anderson, Md. |
3 |
110 |
35 |
Bill Munck, Md. |
3 |
70 |
36 |
Barbara Pierce, Ohio |
3 |
61 |
37 |
Jim Shaffer, Minn. |
3 |
46 |
38 |
Jim Glaza, Ia. |
3 |
45 |
39 |
Lev Williams, Tenn. |
3 |
45 |
40 |
Peggy Woodward, Colo. |
3 |
45 |
41 |
Sharon Cox, Ore. |
3 |
32 |
42 |
Marla Ripley Williams, Md. |
3 |
32 |
43 |
Ed Meskys, NH |
3 |
30 |
44 |
Cathlene Nusser, Neb. |
3 |
30 |
45 |
Ralph Sanders, Md. |
3 |
30 |
46 |
Susie Stanzel, Ks. |
3 |
30 |
47 |
Art Segal, Penn. |
2 |
$210 |
48 |
Jerry Pittman, Md. |
2 |
111 |
49 |
Cindy Martin, Ore. |
2 |
110 |
50 |
Scott Lewis, Wash. |
2 |
60 |
51 |
Glenn McCoy, S.C. |
2 |
45 |
52 |
Pat Gormley, Md. |
2 |
35 |
53 |
Al Harris, Mich. |
2 |
35 |
54 |
Mike Hingson, Mass. |
2 |
35 |
55 |
John Salvatore, Ill. |
2 |
35 |
56 |
Allen Schaefer, Ill |
2 |
35 |
57 |
Larry Streeter, Texas |
2 |
35 |
58 |
Karen Mayry, S.D. |
2 |
22 |
59 |
Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, Penn |
2 |
22 |
60 |
Jesse Williamson, Ga. |
2 |
22 |
61 |
Tom Bozikis, Ind. |
2 |
21 |
62 |
Steve Handshu, Mich. |
2 |
21 |
63 |
Terry Harris, Idaho |
2 |
21 |
64 |
Max Aguilar, Wyo. |
2 |
20 |
65 |
Tami Dodd, Ia. |
2 |
20 |
66 |
Dora Mae Dohbins, Cal. |
2 |
20 |
67 |
John Duffy, Colo. |
2 |
20 |
68 |
Robert Bockerstett, Mo. |
2 |
20 |
69 |
Cheryl Finley, Ia. |
2 |
20 |
70 |
Clarita Golender, Md. |
2 |
20 |
71 |
Lynn McCallum, Idaho |
2 |
20 |
72 |
Barbara Nabutovsky, Fla. |
2 |
20 |
73 |
Craig Olsen, Neb. |
2 |
20 |
74 |
Sharon Omvig, Md. |
2 |
20 |
75 |
Eric Smith, Minn. |
2 |
20 |
76 |
Howard May, Conn. |
1 |
151 |
77 |
W.G. Stout, Texas |
1 |
100 |
78 |
Jean Agin, Md. |
1 |
50 |
79 |
Mabel Conder, N.C. |
1 |
50 |
80 |
Diane Corson, Ia. |
1 |
50 |
81 |
Don and Pam Gillman, Ill. |
1 |
50 |
82 |
Phyllis Fuller, Ak. |
1 |
27 |
83 |
Virginia Coorey, Ohio |
1 |
26 |
84 |
Diane McGeorge, Colo. |
1 |
26 |
85 |
Marsha Bangert, Neb. |
1 |
25 |
86 |
John Ford, Mont. |
1 |
25 |
87 |
Andy Hoffman, Ohio |
1 |
25 |
88 |
Shirley Morris, Md. |
1 |
25 |
89 |
Darrell Nather, Ak. |
1 |
25 |
90 |
Dick Porter, W. Va. |
1 |
25 |
91 |
NFB of Denver |
1 |
25 |
92 |
Evelyn Ray, R.I. |
1 |
25 |
93 |
Judy Sanders, Md. |
1 |
25 |
94 |
Victor Scheer, Ohio |
1 |
25 |
95 |
Hazel Stanley |
1 |
25 |
96 |
Black Hills Chapter, S.D. |
1 |
15 |
97 |
Sheila Byrd, S.C. |
1 |
25 |
98 |
Lorraine Rovig, Ia. |
1 |
12 |
99 |
Rhoda Dower, Mo. |
1 |
11 |
100 |
Kathleen Chapman, Md. |
1 |
11 |
101 |
Margo Downey, La. |
1 |
11 |
102 |
Jeanne Marie Moore, Colo. |
1 |
11 |
103 |
Stewart Prost, Minn. |
1 |
11 |
104 |
David Stayer, N.Y. |
1 |
11 |
105 |
Ralph Wilkens, N.C. |
1 |
11 |
| FEDERATIONISTS WITH ONE $10 ASSOCIATE | |
|---|---|
106 |
Ruth Ashby, Colo. |
107 |
Ed Beck, R.I. |
108 |
Steve Benson, Ill. |
109 |
Louise Boudreau, R.I. |
110 |
Roger Drewicke, Minn. |
111 |
Alan Dalton, Vt. |
112 |
Mary Drury, La. |
113 |
Holly Frisch, Ill. |
114 |
Ari Gamliel, Mass. |
115 |
Reba Hancock, S.C. |
116 |
Carrie Harris, Cal. |
117 |
Dianne Huckaby, Ore. |
118 |
Anna Katharine Jernigan, Md. |
119 |
Edith Kamrad, Ohio |
120 |
Hermelinda Lopez de Miller, N.M. |
121 |
Denise and Gary Mackenstadt, Mass. |
122 |
Donna Maglin, N.H. |
123 |
Kathleen McGrew, Ore. |
124 |
Ron Metenyi, Md. |
125 |
Roy Miller, Texas |
126 |
Hershell Moore, Mo. |
127 |
John Mullen, Mich. |
128 |
Leonard Payton, Ia. |
129 |
Peggy Pinder, Ia. |
130 |
Larry Posont, Mich. |
131 |
Bob Ray, Ia. |
132 |
Cecelia Ross, Ill |
133 |
George Russell, Texas |
134 |
Willis Saunders, W. Va. |
135 |
Harold Snyder, Wash. D.C. |
136 |
Sharon Waller, Mass. |
137 |
Olivina Whitaker, Mass. |
138 |
Orville Williams, Colo. |
139 |
Curt Willoughby, Ia. |
UNSIGNED FORMS |
||
|---|---|---|
Unsigned, California |
1 |
$25 |
Unsigned, Florida |
1 |
10 |
Unsigned, Indiana |
1 |
10 |
Unsigned, Ohio |
1 |
50 |
Unsigned, Texas |
1 |
10 |
Unsigned, West Virginia |
2 |
110 |
Unknown |
1 |
10 |
* Trish Miller, who heads the Associates Committee, says: "Although we are listing couples in the rankings, most people agree that it is not fair for two people to compete against one. Therefore, for purposes of the contest, associates listed as being recruited by two people will be equally divided between the two. For example, John and Mary Jones have recruited 16 associates. Each will be credited with 8. If they have recruited an odd number of associates, they may decide which one gets credit for the extra associate."
In addition to the $7819 in associate contributions which has come in to the treasury, $251.25 in contributions less than $10 $25 has come in on associate forms. Among others, Charles Masterton of New York has gotten 23 contributions totaling $102.50, Lillian O'Day of Michigan has gotten 27 contributions totaling $57, and Verla Kirsch of Iowa has gotten 16 contributions totaling $31.75.
| ASSOCIATES LISTING BY STATE, SEPTEMBER 30, 1979 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Rank |
State |
# of Recruiters |
# of Associates |
Amount of Associate Money |
1 |
Maryland |
20 |
62 |
$1,137 |
2 |
Florida |
3 |
61 |
1,230 |
3 |
Iowa |
11 |
27 |
358 |
4 |
Alabama |
3 |
20 |
332 |
5 |
Georgia |
3 |
19 |
241 |
6 |
Ohio |
8 |
16 |
366 |
7 |
Minnesota |
5 |
15 |
223 |
8 |
Michigan |
6 |
13 |
163 |
9 |
Arkansas |
2 |
13 |
145 |
10 |
California |
4 |
12 |
295 |
11 |
West Virginia |
4 |
10 |
696 |
12 |
Pennsylvania |
3 |
10 |
292 |
13 |
Texas |
6 |
10 |
206 |
14 |
Colorado |
6 |
10 |
148 |
15 |
Nebraska |
4 |
10 |
117 |
16 |
Missouri |
4 |
10 |
101 |
17 |
Illinois |
7 |
9 |
160 |
18 |
New York |
2 |
8 |
91 |
19 |
Mississippi |
1 |
8 |
156 |
20 |
Indiana |
3 |
8 |
121 |
21 |
Alaska |
3 |
8 |
112 |
22 |
Oregon |
4 |
7 |
162 |
23 |
Massachusetts |
6 |
7 |
85 |
24 |
Louisiana |
3 |
6 |
78 |
25 |
Wisconsin |
1 |
6 |
60 |
26 |
South Carolina |
3 |
4 |
70 |
27 |
Kentucky |
1 |
4 |
55 |
28 |
Idaho |
2 |
4 |
41 |
29 |
New Hampshire |
2 |
4 |
40 |
30 |
North Carolina |
3 |
3 |
86 |
31 |
Rhode Island |
3 |
3 |
45 |
32 |
Tennessee |
1 |
3 |
45 |
33 |
South Dakota |
2 |
3 |
37 |
34 |
Kansas |
1 |
3 |
30 |
35 |
Washington |
1 |
2 |
60 |
36 |
Wyoming |
1 |
2 |
20 |
37 |
Connecticut |
1 |
1 |
151 |
38 |
Montana |
1 |
1 |
25 |
39 |
New Mexico |
1 |
1 |
10 |
40 |
Vermont |
1 |
1 |
10 |
41 |
Washington D.C. |
1 |
1 |
10 |
42 |
Unknown State |
1 |
1 |
10 |
148 |
426 |
$7,819 |
||
MRS. KENNETH BATCHELDER
Ingredients
1 pound hamburger
1/3 cup olives
1 pkg. taco Seasoning
1/3 cup water
1 cup dairy sour cream
cheese
corn chips
Brown hamburger, add olives, stir in Taco Seasoning and water. Cover and let simmer.
Line a pyrex pie plate or oblong dish with one can Crescent dinner rolls, top with crumbled corn chips. Add hamburger mixture, top with sour cream, sprinkle with grated cheese, top with more chips. Bake at 375 degrees, for approximately 25 minutes.
The Kurzweil Reading Machine Model III (KRM III) has been installed in Ellis Library at the University of Missouri-Columbia.
Plans for its installation were begun by the National Federation of the Blind in 1977.
The KRM III is available for public as well as student and faculty use.
We note with sadness the passing of two prominent Federationists:
On April 29, 1979, death came to Helen Hart, who was president of the New Jersey affiliate in 1975-76 and spearheaded the reorganization and rebuilding which occurred in the state.
Robert Whitehead, a longtime leader in Kentucky and a former member of the National Board of Directors, also had a fatal heart attack. He was attending the convention of the NFB of Kentucky when the attack occurred, and death followed shortly. This is the way the beloved "Colonel" would have wanted it, active to the end and working for the cause when the curtain fell.
July 9, 1979, the National Rehabilitation Information Center (NARIC) announced that it is beginning to publish its newsletter (The Pathfinder) in Braille.
The newsletter is printed six times each year and is a means to share information on the services, resources, new technology, problems and solutions of NARIC.
Subscriptions to the Braille edition of The Pathfinder are $5.00 per year. For a free introductory copy, contact the Center at:
The National Rehabilitation
Information Center
8th & Varnum Sts., N.E.
The Catholic University of America
Washington, D.C. 20064
(202) 635-5826 (voice) or 635-5884 (TTY)
The NFB Teachers Division is selling thank you notes and stationery printed with the NFB Logo and the words "I support the National Federation of the Blind." High quality thank you notes are priced at $3.00 for 12 and $6.00 for 25. Stationery available in either blue or white comes in packages of 12 for $2.00 or 25 for $4.00. Order from: Allen Schaefer, Treasurer, NFB Teachers Division, Box 141, Mazon, Illinois 60444 Telephone (815) 448-5520 or Sharon Gold, Secretary, NFB Teachers Division, 44114 N. 30th Street West, Lancaster, California 93534 Telephone (805) 942-1829.
Mrs. Lucy Dechaine of Alexandria, Virginia writes: "I thought your readers might be interested in knowing about a collection of Braille and taped books and pamphlets on infant care, child health, accident prevention, family nutrition, and experiences of blind parents. These materials are located at the Talking Book Department of John Marshall Library, Rose Hill Drive, Alexandria, VA 22310. They are available on free loan to any blind person anywhere in the United States who writes to request them. Anyone who writes should indicate areas of interest and ages of children so that the librarians can send appropriate materials."
From Carl and Irene Wyatt:
"Just a note to inform you of the death of one of our members of the Kansas City chapter.
"Gwen asked me to tell you also, that Ruth, in her will, made a $500.00 bequest to the Jacobus tenBroek fund.
"Helen Ruth Hill was a very active and dedicated member of the Kansas City chapter of the NFB for over ten years. Her support was generous in every way, her willingness to help in any task was her greatest pleasure.
"Ruth received the Jacobus tenBroek award at our state convention in 1973. She will be missed by everyone in the Kansas City chapter."
Science Fiction and Fantasy readers should contact Ed Meskys, RFD 1, Box 63, Center Harbor, New Hampshire 03226 by Braille, cassette or regular letter for further information about a new service to start later this year. This service, run in cooperation with the New Hampshire regional library, will include the recording of additional books, magazines and fanzines in the Science Fiction and Fantasy fields, the exchange of privately recorded books, and the publication of bibliographies available from agencies other than the Library of Congress.
Also, in cooperation with the project, the committee of the 38th World Science Fiction Convention is making this convention completely accessible to the blind. Progress reports and other material will be available in recorded form to those blind members who identify themselves as such. The convention, Noreascon 2, will be held over the Labor Day weekend of 1980 at the Boston Sheraton Hotel. Join now so that you can gel recorded versions of all nominees for the Hugo Awards, and be eligible to vote for all awards. Send the membership fee, $30, to Noreascon 2, P.O. Box 46, MIT Station, Cambridge, MA 02139.