THE BRAILLE MONITOR

NOVEMBER, 1980

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 2123O

LETTERS FOR THE PRESIDENT, ADDRESS CHANGES, SUBSCRIPTION REQUESTS, AND ORDERS FOR NFB LITERATURE, ARTICLES FOR THE MONITOR AND LETTERS TO THE EDITOR SHOULD BE SENT TO THE NATIONAL OFFICE.

MONITOR SUBSCRIPTIONS COST THE FEDERATION ABOUT FIFTEEN DOLLARS PER YEAR MEMBERS ARE INVITED. AND NON-MEMBERS ARE REQUESTED. TO COVER THE SUBSCRIPTION COST DONATIONS 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."

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

NOVEMBER 1980

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT

HOW IS PAC'S FIGURE?

HISTORIC VICTORY IN THE JESSIE NASH CASE, AND NOW THE BATTLE SHIFTS TO FEDERAL COURT
by James Gashel

WHO FIGHTS FOR THE RIGHTS OF THE BLIND? ASK THE TENNESSEE VENDORS
by James Gashel

A TENNESSEE VENDOR "TELLS IT LIKE IT IS"

CONVENTION 1980: ASPECTS OF THE MOVEMENT; YESTERDAY MEANS TOMORROW
by John Cheadle

     STATE SERVICES FOR THE BLIND IN TRANSITION: THE VIEW FROM MISSOURI

     SOCIAL SECURITY IN THE 1980's CHANGES, CHALLENGES, AND PROSPECTS

     REPORT FROM DR. DENNIS WYANT

OF MORALS, DILEMMAS, LOCAL AGENCIES, AND NAC: REPORT FROM OHIO

BLIND PARENTS LOOK BEYOND DISABILITY TO RAISE SON

FROM THE PRESIDENT'S MAIL BASKET: REPORT FROM SHARON GOLD

NFB OF NEW JERSEY 4TH ANNUAL CONVENTION
by Sharon Kelly

SOUTH CAROLINA CONVENTION

NFB OF NORTH CAROLINA CONVENTION REPORT, 1980

RECIPE OF THE MONTH
by Lucile Hitt

MONITOR MINIATURES

SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT

In both the September and the October Monitors we made announcements concerning the talking clock. At first we sold this item for $80. Then, we announced in the October issue that we could sell the clock for $68. We are pleased to be able to announce still another price reduction. We are now selling the clocks at $58 each. We have a good supply on hand and can fill orders immediately. This is proving to be one of the most useful and popular items we have ever handled.

Back to contents

HOW IS PAC'S FIGURE?

The Pre-Authorized Check Plan (PAC) has become a major means of funding the work of the National Federation of the Blind. Members of the organization arrange to have a given amount of money sent directly from their checking accounts to the National Federation of the Blind treasury each month. It is gratifying to note the steady increase in the amount of money raised by this method. The total amount of money raised by PAC during the month of June, 1979, was $13,004.17. At this rate the annual PAC contribution would have been $156,050.04. During June, 1980, PAC contributions totalled $15,232.66. At that rate the amount raised during the course of a year would be $182,791.92. During the week of the convention many members increased their PAC contributions. In addition, many Federationists became PAC contributors for the first time. State affiliates that have held conventions during August have also brought increases in PAC contributions. During June 805 people contributed on the PAC Plan. During August, 873. The amount of money contributed on PAC during August, 1980, was $16,401.16—an increase of almost $1,200 or nearly 8% in two months. The increase from June 30, 1979, to June 30, 1980, was $2,228.49, or just over 17%.

If we can increase the amount of money raised by PAC for the National treasury by 8% in two months, surely we can increase it by at least 16% during the next ten months! If we can do this, by the beginning of the 1981 NFB Convention the PAC Plan will be bringing in more than $19,000 per month or more than $225,000 annually.

Let those who say the National Federation of the Blind cannot finance itself read these figures. And this is only one means of supporting our movement. If you would like to contribute to the National Federation of the Blind by means of the PAC Plan, contact NFB Headquarters or Marc Maurer, chairperson of the PAC Plan Committee, 327 Yale, Baltimore, Maryland 21229.

The following table shows the ranking of the states on the PAC Plan for June 30, 1980 and August 31, 1980. You will observe that there are changes for most states. In some cases the ranking is the same but the amount is different. In a great many cases, however, the ranking of the states and the amounts have both changed. To put it simply, during these two months states that have not increased their total contribution on the PAC Plan have generally climbed a step or several steps down the ladder.

Back to contents

HISTORIC VICTORY IN THE JESSIE NASH CASE, AND NOW THE BATTLE SHIFTS TO FEDERAL COURT

by JAMES GASHEL

The case of Jessie Nash v. the State of Georgia, Department of Human Resources, known by its case number as R-S/78-1, will forever go down in history as the first test of the new provisions of the Federal Randolph-Sheppard Act which allows blind vendors to bring grievances before Federally established ad hoc arbitration panels. The three member panel designated to decide what is commonly referred to as "the Nash Case" has now handed down its ruling, and it represents virtually the most complete victory possible for blind vendors who are aggrieved by actions of State Agencies for the Blind who manage the Randolph-Sheppard Programs.

Accounts of the origin of this case have appeared in the Monitor (see the issues for July, 1977 and August, 1978), but a brief recap will help to underscore the real significance of the decision which has now been reached in Federal arbitration. The case began when Jessie Nash, a blind vendor at the Marine Corps Supply Center in Albany, Georgia, learned that her vending facility, located in Building 2200 on the base, was going to be subject to public bid in connection with converting the facility, then being operated as a snack bar, into a full-line cafeteria. The real problem was not so much the conversion, for Mrs. Nash, with appropriate training, was fully capable of operating a cafeteria, but the difficulty arose when State officials responsible for the vending program in Georgia decided, unilaterally without consulting Mrs. Nash, that the State would not submit a bid. The result, of course, was that Mrs. Nash would be out of a job.

It was at this point when Jessie Nash, having been a Federationist for several years, sought the help of our movement. She did not know what to do, but what she did know was that she had literally been abandoned by the State Agency for the Blind, and unless something could be done, and done with reasonable speed, her vending facility would be taken away. The first step was to file a complaint, asking for a State-level hearing as permitted under the Randolph-Sheppard Act. The complaint was filed on February 14, 1977; then, more than two months passed with nothing more than an acknowledgment by the State that the complaint had been received. On April 15, 1977, the vending facility was actually closed, yet nothing had been done to schedule a hearing on the grievance.

It was an unhappy time for Jessie Nash, and a time of challenge for the Federation. Were we to stand by and permit the system of State and Federal agencies to work their will upon Jessie Nash, and in a very real sense to grind her under, as they fully intended to do? Conversely, were we to stand with her and fight vigorously to restore her business opportunity? The record is well established; we chose to stand forth, and we went forcefully into the battle, for we knew the actions of these agencies were not right, and we vowed to find a way to prove it.

At times the obstacles seemed almost overwhelming. On April 18, the Monday following the closing of the vending facility which had been operated by Mrs. Nash, we filed a lawsuit in Federal District Court in Atlanta, Georgia, seeking to block the turnover of the vending facility to the new contractor, the Dinner Bell Catering Service. The suit argued that the contract for the vending facility was illegally awarded to the Dinner Bell, since the Randolph-Sheppard Act gives blind persons a priority in the operation of vending facilities on all Federal property. Furthermore, we argued that Mrs. Nash had not been granted a hearing as required under law and that if the facility was to be taken from her legally, it could not be done until the hearing had been held. The results of this court action were not as immediately productive as we had hoped, although we did get the attention of responsible State officials in Georgia who somehow found it convenient to arrange the hearing within days of the filing of the lawsuit. This much accomplished, the suit, itself, was eventually dismissed voluntarily at the U.S. Court of Appeals level, pending the exhaustion of all administrative remedies available.

So back we went to the State of Georgia, hoping this time to get a hearing. The unfortunate thing was that the Dinner Bell had now taken over the vending facility, and Mrs. Nash had been left completely out of work. Nonetheless, her spirits remained strong and we went forward to try to get the hearing as promised by the State of Georgia. Thereupon we encountered the second major obstacle. This occurred when the hearing officer, after looking at all of the issues, but before actually conducting a hearing as the law requires, concluded that it would not be within his power to grant Mrs. Nash the relief which she was seeking—that is, the return of her vending facility—in as much as there was no power for a State Agency in Georgia to exercise any authority over the decisions of the U.S. Marine Corps. According to this reasoning, the Marines were the real culprits, and Mrs. Nash would have to seek resolution of her grievance elsewhere, since the State of Georgia would be powerless to act on her behalf. Thus the Nash complaint was actually dismissed by the State hearing officer, once again postponing the final day of judgment and sending us in further search of a tribunal which might be able to address the grievance without somehow successfully ducking for cover.

On May 27, 1977, we again moved to bring the Nash case into the Federal arena by filing a complaint with the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, asking that an ad hoc arbitration panel be convened to settle this matter once and for all. Weeks went by, and no response was forthcoming, while the State of Georgia filed a motion hoping to have the case dismissed. Then on August 17, 1977, the response to our complaint came back. Mrs. Nash would have to go back to the State of Georgia, the letter said, for the State had failed to fulfill its legal obligation to provide her with a "full evidentiary hearing," which, according to the general counsel for the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, must be held prior to Federal arbitration of any dispute arising under the Randolph-Sheppard Act. In other words, the hearing officer's dismissal of the Nash complaint was not permissible under the law and served further to prevent a full airing of the grievance. Meanwhile, Mrs. Nash was still out of a job.

Again, the weeks went by, while we waited for the State of Georgia to convene the hearing and grapple forthrightly with the issues. September came and went, and half of October too, but finally we had the hearing, three days of testimony in all, producing a transcript of 587 pages. Our attorneys filed a brief in November, and the lawyer from the Attorney General's office, representing the State of Georgia, was allowed to make a response. Then, under date of December 2, 1977, almost eight months following the closing of the vending facility, the decision from the State hearing officer came—Jessie Nash would have to suffer yet another disappointment, the State had apparently done no wrong. In fact, according to the decision, Mrs. Nash was really the source of the whole trouble over the vending facility, in the first place, since, according to the hearing officer's reasoning, Mrs. Nash knew that the vending facility might be temporary when she was allowed to become the operator. The overall picture presented in the decision was that Mrs. Nash cunningly took the facility, knowing that it could be temporary, and, once she found it to be a lucrative business opportunity, launched a campaign to hang onto the operation, even though she had fully been advised that she would have to give it up. Thus the decision virtually characterized Mrs. Nash as being almost the worst kind of conniving scoundrel one can imagine, and declared that the State officials had acted properly in the circumstances. So said the hearing officer.

In short, that was the upshot of the full evidentiary hearing, except for the finding that there was a vending facility in Leesberg, Georgia which was being operated by a sighted person (allegedly on a temporary basis), and this facility could be made available to Mrs. Nash on November 7, 1977. This was done, and Mrs. Nash again had work as a blind vendor, although it was not nearly the type of business which had been taken from her in April. Moreover, the offer of this alternative vending facility was hardly repayment for the loss which Mrs. Nash had suffered, and it could not by any means excuse the illegal actions of the State of Georgia in failing to protect the business opportunity which Mrs. Nash had lawfully been pursuing in Building 2200 on the Albany Marine Base. Thus, for the second time, the Federation took the matter up with the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, asking once again for an ad hoc arbitration panel to be convened.

Again the months went by, and nothing was done by HEW, while the State of Georgia filed its expected motion for dismissal of the case. By this time the sequence of events should be quite familiar. Even the letters from the State of Georgia to the Secretary of HEW had a repetitive ring—the complaint, they said, was specious and had been brought merely for purposes of harassment. Some harassment; it was as though a person's livelihood meant nothing to the State of Georgia.

It is worth noting at this point that when the complaint was filed with HEW, after we received the decision in December, 1977, there were still no published procedures to govern the conduct of arbitration proceedings in cases involving complaints of blind vendor versus State licensing agency. Thus the Nash complaint had great significance since it was the first blind vendor grievance to come to HEW ready for arbitration as the law allows. Inevitably, much new ground would be plowed, and the pattern would be set for future arbitrations.

Perhaps it was the newness of the entire procedure, or perhaps it was HEW's timidity in telling the State of Georgia that, despite its protests, there would have to be an arbitration. Whatever the reason for delay, all of 1978 and nearly half of 1979 went by before a firm and conclusive directive came down, the grievance would be heard by an arbitration panel and there would be no further delay about it by the State of Georgia. During this year and a half delay, the State continued to file motions for dismissal, alleging a variety of reasons, and at one point there was even some indication that Georgia was "uncertain" as to whether it would actually be willing to participate in the arbitration even if ordered to do so. But, when it came right down to it, participation by the State of Georgia did not become an issue, and the arbitration proceeding went forward.

According to the Federal law, an arbitration panel, convened to hear a dispute involving a blind vendor and a State agency for the blind, consists of three members—one member appointed by the blind vendor, one designated by the State agency for the blind involved, and the third, jointly chosen by the other two panel members, who will serve as chairman. If the two panel members representing the respective parties cannot agree upon the third member, or if any of the parties fails to designate its representative, the Secretary of HEW is to designate the member.

As an aside, it should be noted that under Federal reorganization which has occurred with the creation of the new Federal Education Department, the functions of the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, insofar as the Randolph-Sheppard Program is concerned, have been transferred to the Secretary of Education. Hence, as of May, 1980, when the Education Department opened its doors for business, the Secretary of Education is the convener of arbitration panels under the Randolph-Sheppard Act, and all complaints are filed with the Education Department, since HEW no longer exists. In fact, most of the functions of the Rehabilitation Services Administration, including those carried on by the Bureau for the Blind and Visually Handicapped, were transferred to the new Education Department.

The panel members in the Nash case, representing Mrs. Nash and the State of Georgia, were designated, according to the law, by each party respectively, and since the two panel members failed to designate a chairman, this was done by the Secretary of HEW. Mrs. Nash selected, as her representative, Mr. Harry Vines of Little Rock, Arkansas, formerly the Director of Services for the Blind in that State and at one time the President of the National Council of State Agencies for the Blind. Mr. Vines, it will be remembered, took a brave stand against NAC when the NCSAB was in great turmoil over that issue. The representative for the State of Georgia, Jefferson James Davis, was a lawyer in private practice in the State. Mr. Davis had formerly worked in the State Attorney General's Office in Georgia. The Chairman of the panel, selected by the Secretary of HEW, was Dr. Marian Kincaid Warns, a partner with her husband in a firm known as Warns and Warns Arbitration Service, operating out of Louisville, Kentucky. Dr. Warns is an experienced professional arbitrator. Arguing the case for the State of Georgia was an assistant Attorney General, one L. Joseph Shaheen, Jr. James Gashel argued the case for Mrs. Nash, and received substantial assistance from Marc Maurer in handling legal research and writing of briefs.

So by mid-1979, more than two years after Mrs. Nash lost her vending facility on the Albany, Georgia, Marine Base, the stage was set for the first blind vendor versus State Agency arbitration ever to go through the full process of a hearing before an ad hoc arbitration panel. One case from Tennessee, filed with HEW sometime after the Nash complaint, was actually concluded before the decision came down in the Nash case, but the decision involved a negotiated settlement of the matter by the parties; thus there was not a full-blown hearing and an arbitrated decision. From the outset of the arbitration proceeding involving Mrs. Nash, however, it was obvious that there would be no such settlement in this case. The State of Georgia was convinced that it had not done wrong in allowing the Marine Corps to place the Nash vending facility out to bid, and, for our part, we were equally convinced that there had been a gross violation of the Randolph-Sheppard Act and other statutes.

The physical setting for this arbitration was a conference room, normally used for this type of proceeding, at the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service on Peachtree Street in Atlanta. There, on September 13, 1979, the representatives of both sides met for the first time with the arbitration panel; the occasion was a pre-hearing conference. It was during this session that the issues to be decided by the panel were placed squarely into the record, and here the first sharp differences of viewpoint arose as to which issues were appropriate for a decision by the panel. To provide guidance in dealing with these differences between the parties, pre-hearing briefs were ordered to argue several specific questions, and thus the process of case development and legal research was fully underway.

Both sides were given a week, following the pre-hearing conference, in which to file initial briefs which were mainly concerned with important but technical points, relating to the issues to be considered in the arbitration, as well as how the proceeding itself was to be conducted. This latter question became a critical matter of initial controversy, since the Attorney representing the State of Georgia argued for restricting the presentation of evidence to that which would only supplement the transcript taken at the State-level full evidentiary hearing. He also proposed to have a requirement that either party who wished to supplement the record of the State hearing would have to show the reasons why in advance before presenting any new evidence. Arguing the other side of the question, we contended that the Federal arbitration was an entirely new proceeding, in a sense unrelated to the State hearing. Further, it was pointed out that the Federal Administrative Procedures Act would not permit such heavy reliance on the record of a proceeding which had not been presided over by a duly authorized Federal representative. In the final analysis, this latter argument was compelling, and the hearing in the Nash case was conducted as openly as possible, with an entirely new record being built. As already indicated, there were several other matters in controversy at this initial stage of the proceeding, and in general the panel ruled quite favorably to Mrs. Nash with respect to these issues as well. Thus the case went to the hearing in a good posture, allowing for full and uninhibited presentation of evidence and argument.

The actual hearing in this case consumed four days (two in October, and two in December, 1979), and in addition one-half day was devoted to the taking of three depositions in Albany, Georgia. The hearing record itself is quite voluminous (759 pages in all), with a substantial number of exhibits submitted by each side and jointly. A morning session and part of the afternoon was consumed with direct examination and cross-examination of Mrs. Nash, and a like amount of time was taken to question and cross-examine James Camp, Director of the Business Enterprises Program in the State of Georgia. Camp and two other State officials were actually called as witnesses for Mrs. Nash, although it was recognized from the outset that they would be hostile, which they were. Even so, it was clear that direct admissions by these witnesses, concerning their actions and inactions in the entire matter related to the closing of the Nash vending facility. Would be the best evidence possible to prove the case against the State; it was just a matter of extracting the admissions and getting them placed squarely in the record for the arbitration panel to consider. As the hearing developed, this strategy proved effective—the officials responsible for the vending facility program had to admit under oath that they had essentially done nothing to prevent the vending facility's being terminated by the Marine Corps.

The issues which formed the framework around which the arguments of the parties were constructed raised matters of great significance to the entire Randolph-Sheppard Program, nationwide. The central questions in dispute were these:

(1) Did the Department of Human Resources in the State of Georgia fail to fulfill its obligation under the Randolph-Sheppard Act "to provide blind persons with remunerative employment" when it terminated the Nash vending facility in Building 2200, or when it acquiesced in the termination by the Marine Corps?

(2) Did Mrs. Nash have substantive rights which were violated when the Department of Human Resources failed to file a complaint against the Marine Corps under the Randolph-Sheppard Act alleging that the Marine Corps was not complying with the Act in terminating the vending facility in Building 2200?

(3) Did Mrs. Nash have procedural due process rights which were violated when the Department failed to file a complaint alleging that the Marine Corps was not complying with the Randolph-Sheppard Act in terminating the vending facility in Building 2200?

(4) Did the Department fail to fulfill its affirmative responsibility to negotiate or to employ other alternative procedures to prevent the termination of the vending facility in Building 2200?

(5) Did the Department violate the Randolph-Sheppard Act by failing to make available to Mrs. Nash a training program sufficient to prepare her with the specialized skills for management of a cafeteria-type food service?

(6) Did the Department act in such a way as to deprive Mrs. Nash of the assistance to which she is entitled under the Randolph-Sheppard Act of having the State Committee of Blind Vendors receive her grievance and act as an advocate for her?

(7) Has Mrs. Nash sustained monetary and other damages as a result of any violation of her rights by the Department of Human Resources?

At a glance it can be seen that these questions raise matters of recurrent controversy in the blind vendor program as it operates throughout the country. The overriding issue is what obligation does a State Agency for the Blind have to protect a blind vendor, when there is a threat that, through no fault of the vendor, the vending facility will be withdrawn from the program? Related to this is the inevitable question, what rights does a blind vendor really have? In one way or another these more basic questions became the core of the controversy to be arbitrated by the panel.

According to the State of Georgia, Mrs. Nash (and by implication all blind vendors) had no right to contest the closing of the vending facility she was operating, since this was a matter totally within the province of the State Agency. Thus the State argued that, while it had the authority to contest the actions of the Marine Corps in this particular situation, it chose not to exercise this authority, for reasons related to the overall good of the vending program in the State. This is a common and traditional position taken by State Agencies which merely want to get along as best they can and feel that nothing should be done to rock the boat; it is almost as though the individual blind vendor does not count.

On the other side of the matter was the position which the NFB took on behalf of Mrs. Nash, arguing that a State Agency for the Blind has certain obligations to each blind vendor and that as long as the vendor fulfills his or her part of the bargain by managing the vending facility in accordance with all laws, rules, permits, or contracts, the Agency owes the vendor its best defense. This is an especially important concept since the Randolph-Sheppard Act does not extend authority to blind vendors to deal directly with Federal property managing agencies whenever disputes or violations of the law may arise. In other words, when the State of Georgia simply refused to take any action at all on behalf of Mrs. Nash to preserve the vending facility in Building 2200, Mrs. Nash was powerless to defend herself, even though a defense would likely have resulted in preventing termination of the vending facility. So when it came right down to it, we were really arguing about what a State has to do or does not have to do on behalf of the blind vendors who participate in its program.

The clash of positions in this classic case can be seen best in the following statements taken from the post-hearing memorandum filed by the Georgia Department of Human Resources and the post-hearing reply brief which we filed on behalf of Mrs. Nash. The Georgia Department said:

Irrespective of the many tangential issues which have been addressed in this proceeding, the basis for the Petitioner's (Mrs. Nash's) claim is her assertion that the Respondent should have provided her the opportunity to operate a full service cafeteria at the Marine Corps Supply Base in Albany, Georgia. She asserts that the failure of the Georgia program to contain a provision for the training of blind vendors to operate cafeterias violates the Randolph-Sheppard Act.

This is the way the Georgia Department of Human Resources tried to state the case, but as we pointed out in our post-hearing reply brief, they did not put the matter correctly. We said:

This interpretation of the Petitioner's (Mrs. Nash's) claims is false, misleading, and erroneous.

Nash contends that she was illegally terminated as the operator of the vending facility in Building 2200. She asserts that this termination was illegal for the following reasons:

(1) The Department was obligated under the Randolph-Sheppard Act to provide Nash with remunerative employment but it failed to fulfill this obligation, even though there existed a priority right for Nash which could have been upheld.

(2) The Department illegally deprived Mrs. Nash of her property interest—that is, her license, her status as an employee, and/or the benefits of a public program—since these were taken from her even though she had complied fully with all applicable laws and regulations.

(3) The Department, as a trustee in the administration of the Randolph-Sheppard program was obligated to exercise "ordinary diligence" in order to protect Nash against the termination of her vending facility but neglected to do so in violation of the Georgia trust code.

(4) The Department terminated the vending facility in Building 2200 without procedural due process in violation of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Georgia, the Georgia Administrative Procedures Act, and the Randolph-Sheppard Act.

(5) The Department had an affirmative responsibility to negotiate with the Marine Corps or to employ other alternative procedures on behalf of Nash but failed to take any such actions available to it in violation of the Randolph-Sheppard Act.

(6) The Department was obligated to provide Nash with a training and upward mobility program, and this could have been used to prepare her to operate a cafeteria type food service, but the Department did not do so in violation of the Randolph-Sheppard Act.

(7) The Department was obligated to insure that Nash would receive the assistance and representation of the Committee of Blind Vendors during the decisions which led to the termination of her vending facility, but all of the decisions were actually made and finalized long before the Committee of Blind Vendors considered this matter, thus violating the Randolph-Sheppard Act.

The Department's restatement of the Petitioner's claims is deliberately formulated to emphasize those issues which it asserts are to be resolved within the jurisdiction of State licensing agency discretion. That the Department has a certain degree of discretion in administering the Randolph-Sheppard program within the State of Georgia is not in dispute. For that matter, it is not even disputed that the Department may, as a general policy, elect not to establish cafeteria type food service. The actual matters in dispute relate to the rights which Nash had as a blind vendor and the Department's consistent failure to act responsibly or aggressively to uphold these rights. Thus, while the Department unquestionably possesses some administrative discretion, the various laws and Constitutional provisions which control its operations limit the extent of this discretion and provide its clientele (in this case, Nash) with certain substantive rights which the Department is obligated to observe and protect.

The Department's disregard of its responsibilities to provide Nash with remunerative employment, to protect her property interest, to assure her the protection of procedural due process, to explore and pursue all available alternatives on her behalf, to provide her with training sufficient to preserve the vending location, and to insure the representation and assistance of the Committee of Blind Vendors cannot now be excused with the simple explanation that everything which was or was not done fell within the scope of agency discretion. The Department is not omnipotent, and Nash is not without certain essential rights. Her rights may not be ignored on whim or at the convenience of the Department, for to do so is irresponsible and an abuse of administrative discretion . . .

In short, the issues in this case cannot be simplified so as to exlude those questions which relate to the essential rights possessed by Nash. The Department is not granted the discretion to disregard these rights as it repeatedly did. In fact, it is required by law to uphold these rights, which it repeatedly did not do. This was an irresponsible abuse of discretion, a failure to exercise "ordinary diligence." Adminstrative discretion may not be exercised so whimsically as to result in neglect of the public trust.

This is the way we summed up the issues in the Nash case in our post-hearing reply brief. Under date of July 31, 1980, we received the "Arbitration Award" which now stands as the "final Agency action" at the Federal Administrative level. In other words, this award is the decision of the Secretary of Education and is binding upon the parties, unless it is later reversed in Federal Court. The award, consisting of 51 pages, double spaced typewritten pages, indicates that two of the three panel members, Harry Vines and the Chairperson, Dr. Warns, concurred in issuing the decision which is favorable to Mrs. Nash. The third member (Jefferson James Davis, who represented the State of Georgia) dissented and wrote a lengthy opinion indicating the reasons for his failure to concur with Mr. Vines and Dr. Warns.

The majority opinion, which was written by Dr. Warns, carefully analyzes the evidence presented in the arbitration hearing and the arguments contained in the six briefs which were filed, three each from both sides. Reprinted in full below is the statement of "Relief Granted," which contains the panel's directives as to the disposition of this entire matter. While one might want to disagree some with a few of the points in this final decision (such as reducing the State's liability to Mrs. Nash because of any Social Security or Supplemental Income Payments she received), the more major elements of the decision constitute a resounding victory for all blind vendors and a ringing declaration of fundamental rights, which will inevitably have implications for the conduct of the Randolph-Sheppard Program by each State Agency for the Blind. Here, then, is the section entitled "Relief Granted."

1. The State Licensing Agency is directed to initiate negotiations with the Marine Corps to secure a permit to reopen the vending facility in Building 2200, above, without contingencies in accordance with the Randolph-Sheppard Act, as amended, including the appropriate Regulations.

2. If after 90 days, these negotiations fail to result in the granting of a permit, the Department is directed to pursue all administrative and legal remedies, including the filing of a complaint with the Secretary of HEW requesting that an Ad Hoc Arbitration Panel be convened pursuant to 20 U.S.C. 107d-l (b).

3. If and when such negotiations result in the reopening of the Stand in Building 2200, Nash shall be reinstated as the Operator of such vending facility.

4. As an interim remedy pending the relief granted in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, Nash and the Department shall immediately, upon the receipt of this Opinion and Award, begin good faith negotiations and through mutual agreement arrange for a suitable placement for Nash in another vending facility, if at the time of the receipt of these findings and relief, Nash has not already been placed in an acceptable facility.

5. The refusal by Nash of the offer by the State for reimbursement of travel expenses up to the date of the evidentiary hearing constitutes a waiver by her of a present claim by her for those expenses.

6. In view of the prior finding of an undue delay in granting Nash her statutory rights for an evidentiary hearing forcing her to engage legal counsel, all legal fees relating to the costs of seeking a temporary restraining order and injunction including the appeals, shall be assessed against the Department of Human Resources for the State of Georgia.

7. The Department of Human Resources for the State of Georgia is ordered to pay Nash the difference between what she would have earned on an average weekly basis in Building 2200, and what her actual income including Supplemental Security Insurance (Social Security) excluding income separately earned by Hugh Nash and received by him such as Social Security benefits during the period from April 15, 1977 and the date of this Award.

As previously indicated in Findings 9, Nash refused the offer to place her in the Stand at the Naval Dispensary prior to the close of 2200 and prior to the close of the evidentiary hearing.

For the thirty-nine weeks subsequent to the closing of Building 2200, the grievant shall receive the difference between what she would have received had she accepted the placement at the Naval Dispensary and her average earnings in 2200, or the difference between any Supplemental Security Insurance she received during those 39 weeks. The State shall be entitled to reduce its liability by the deduction of whichever amount (Supplemental Security Insurance or earnings in the Naval Dispensary) is greater, since it is not the intention of the Panel to provide Nash with windfall, but only reimbursement to make her whole during that period. Also excluded shall be payment for any period of time during which Nash was unable to work and requested a leave. Nash shall also receive the benefit of the appropriate pension benefit contributions which she would have received had she been continuously employed.

8. Upon proof that Nash was unable to obtain free legal counsel, or other representation, grievant's representative, James Gashel, shall be paid $100 per day, by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, for all reasonable, actual time spent in preparation for the arbitration hearing, and in the hearing. In addition, appropriate travel expenses and lodging for the taking of the depositions shall be paid complainant's representative by HEW.

9. Arbitration expenses additionally paid by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, shall include personal and transportation expenses for the grievant and witnesses required to be present in the grievant's behalf; the taking of depositions, and the official transcript of the hearing, including furnishing a copy for petitioner's attorney, the expenses and fees of the properly convened Arbitration Panel.

10. In the event the parties are unable to resolve the dollar amounts due Nash under these findings and relief, the Arbitration Panel retains jurisdiction for this limited purpose to resolve this issue. The Panel may request proof including documentation, affidavits, or income tax records (as agreed at the arbitration hearing) to resolve the issue of restitution.

So said the panel in its findings.

On August 14, 1980, the State of Georgia appealed this decision in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The appeal, filed in the form of a "Complaint and Petition for Review of Final Administrative Agency Decision" names as defendants "Shirley M. Hufstedler, Secretary of Education; The United States Department of Education; Robert R. Humphreys, Commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services Administration; the Rehabilitation Services Administration; and Jessie C. Nash." The primary basis for the appeal is the allegation by the State of Georgia that it acted properly within its scope of administrative discretion in failing to protect the vending facility for Mrs. Nash.

Thus we have come nearly full circle, and the battle once again lies within the Federal courts—precisely where we took it April 18, 1977. The difference, however, is that now the State of Georgia must bear the burden of proof. The battle will undoubtedly be long; there will be more hearings, and more briefs will have to be written. But whatever comes, the arbitration panel's decision still stands as an historic affirmation of rights for all blind vendors, and the reasoning contained in the decision, as well as in the case which was argued on behalf of Jessie Nash, will help to move us forward in our struggle, wherever the battle must be joined.

And as a final note, it must also be emphasized that here we have another victory for blind vendors, and indeed, for all blind people, which was achieved solely through the efforts of our own movement. The American Council of the Blind did not do it, and it was not even done by the Council's front organization for vendors, the Randolph-Sheppard Vendors of America (RSVA).

Mindful of this we conclude this article by noting that leaders among the vendors in Georgia, allied with the RSVA, took every opportunity to achieve an arbitrated decision in favor of the State of Georgia and against Jessie Nash. Of course, this behavior really speaks to their own weakness, as well as to the more general weakness and orientation of RSVA, nationwide, but one almost takes pity upon these poor souls as they come forward to testify against one of their own. Probably these vendors do not even realize the full implications which spring from the facts revealed by their testimony, but surely it will be clear to any objective observer that the Agency is fully in control; and, like sheep, these vendors are led. Here, in conclusion, are portions of the transcript of December 13, 1979 wherein a member and the chairman of the Committee of Blind Vendors (Luther Phillips and Michael Lee) both leaders of RSVA in Georgia testified as to their Committee's operational practices and degree of independent action. Considering the implications of their statements, it is no wonder that the State Agency (in the person of its director, Mr. Camp) cracks the whip over the program as the vendors dance to its tune.

Cross-examination of Luther Phillips by Mr. Gashel:

Mr. Gashel:

Q. Mr. Phillips, How well do you know Mrs. Nash?

A. Not very well at all, sir.

Q. You have met her, right?

A. At a distance at the meetings. We have talked, but to actually meet her to talk to her personally, no.

Q. You have never visited her stand location?

A. No, I have not.

Q. Do you know Mr. Camp?

A. Yes, I know Mr. Camp well.

Q. How long have you known Mr. Camp?

A. Well, ever since he has been with the Georgia Cooperative Services, and I don't know how long that has been. I have been with them thirty years, and it was sometime after that.

Q. You have known him ever since he has been in, I guess?

A. Yes . . .

Cross-examination of Michael Lee by Mr. Gashel:

Mr. Gashel:

Q. Who prepares the agenda for the Committee meetings?

A. The representatives contact their operators, and if there is any particular ideas to bring up, we send this to Mr. Camp, and he contacts the chairman.

Q. He contacts the chairman?

A. Right . . .

Q. He provides the agenda to the chairman?

A. Yes, Sir, and it is also provided to the people going to the meeting, too.

Q. When does the chairman get the agenda?

A. About two weeks or three weeks before the meeting.

Q. Is that when all the members get the agenda?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do they get it in written form?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Who calls the meetings to order? When the meetings are held, who calls them to order?

A. The Chairman.

Q. Who is the Chairman?

A. Me . . .

Q. You are familiar with the minutes of the January 28, 1977 meeting as you indicated. Who do those minutes indicate called the meeting to order?

A. Well, what you are saying is what Mr. Camp—actually, the meeting is called to order by the chairman, and then we turn it over to Mr. Camp, because he has the agenda and he can see the agenda better than we could.

Q. So it would be your testimony that Mr. Camp at least called that meeting to order?

A. No, sir. Actually it was called to order by the Chairman himself, but then it was turned over to Mr. Camp.

Q. Let me read to you from Respondent's Exhibit 9. The opening sentence of those minutes says, "Mr. Camp called the meeting to order and reported to the Committee that our collection of set-aside funds was about $7,000 over the same period last year but also pointed out that our sales were about $85,000 over the same period, so our collection of set-aside funds is very close to the collection under the old set-aside rates."

So then at least those minutes reflect that Mr. Camp called that meeting to order. Does he call other meetings to order?

A. He initiated the program after the meeting was called to order. That is the way we did when we'd go down there. We have a meeting coming up December the 18th, and as chairman, I will, of course, call the meeting to order and start it, and then if we have something that Mr. Camp needs to go over the financial statement with us, we will turn it over to him for obvious reasons.

Q. Who writes the minutes of the meetings?

A. Mrs. Tracey.

Q. Who signs the minutes?

A. I'm not sure about what you mean "who signs the minutes."

Q. Whose name appears as the guy whose name they go out over?

A. I don't know.

Q. Again referring to Respondent's Exhibit No. 9, it says, "The next Committee meeting was set for Friday night, April 22, 1977. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at twelve noon. James G. Camp, Executive Director."

So Mr. Camp at least vouches for those minutes. Would that be correct?

A. If you are going by that particular way you are trying to say it, I guess so, yes, sir.

Q. Is Mr. Camp a member of the Committee?

A. Not as an operator, no, sir.

Q. Well, that is not my question. Is he a member?

A. I don't know how to answer that.

Q. Do you consider him a member?

A. Well, he is not a member as such, no, sir. Our Committee, as I explained before, is set up to work in conjunction with administration. That is the reason why we have Mr. Camp at our meetings and supervisors as the situation warrants.

Q. Is Mr. Camp at every meeting?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Has the Committee ever held a meeting without Mr. Camp?

A. No, Sir.

Back to contents

WHO FIGHTS FOR THE RIGHTS OF THE BLIND? ASK THE TENNESSEE VENDORS

by JAMES GASHEL

The American Council of the Blind (ACB) pridefully boasts that it is an organization which strives to help all blind people in the fight for equal rights, and to prove its claims of representativeness, the Council sports several "National Special Interest" affiliates. These organizations amount to front groups for ACB itself, providing, at least in theory, a means of swelling the ranks while maintaining just enough difference in name identification to create, for the unsuspecting outsider, the illusion that there are a whole lot of organizations working hand-in-hand to advance the causes espoused by the Council.

Several of ACB's special interest affiliates have, upon closer scrutiny, turned out to be complete flops, but even so, they continue to exist on paper. The apparent feeling is that the illusion of bigness is more important than its reality. One of the special interest groups which does have some actual membership, however, is an ACB affiliate which goes by the name of the Randolph-Sheppard Vendors of America (RSVA). This organization, as its name suggests, was set up to attract blind vendors into the overall orbit of ACB. As with a couple of the other national affiliates of ACB, RSVA has an independent structure of its own, and might just as well be separate and apart from the Council entirely, as some of its members and a few leaders have openly suggested, but so far it continues under ACB's wing as the flagship of the Council's special interest groups. RSVA has actually formed affiliates of its own in a few States, while in other parts of the country there are vendor's groups which maintain loose ties with the national organization.

According to RSVA doctrine, the principal virtue of the organization is that it consists almost exclusively of blind people who operate vending facilities under the Randolph-Sheppard program. Thus one will commonly hear promoters of RSVA declare that theirs is an independent organization of vendors, unhampered by the broader concerns of a more general blind people's movement. Well and good, for whatever virtue there may be in boasting of your "independence," but the test of a thing is, does it work? In other words, does RSVA, serving as it does the dual functions of fronting for ACB, while also claiming to represent blind vendors, really have what it takes to fight the battles which must inevitably be fought on behalf of its members? Conversely, is RSVA like so many other of the ACB front organizations, and the ACB itself, just a paper tiger, with no will and no resources to do the job which must be done?

To answer these questions it is not necessary to deal in speculation, for RSVA, as great an idea as it may be on paper, is establishing a revealing record of weakness as it operates in the real world of rough and tumble representation of the blind who are Randolph-Sheppard vendors. One example of the record which is being built, is found in Georgia where RSVA leaders testified for the State and against Jessie Nash during the Federal arbitration hearings which resulted in a finding that the State had violated the Randolph-Sheppard Act in several ways. In fact, it is notable that the only witnesses called to testify on the State's behalf against Mrs. Nash were two vendors, both of whom are known to be quite active in RSVA, even outside the State of Georgia. This behavior, itself, hardly bespeaks an organization which fights for vendors' rights; quite the opposite. But the true character and basic weakness of RSVA can best be seen by examining events which are even now unfolding in the State of Tennessee, a State where, at one time at least, the vendors would proudly boast that most of them were active participants in RSVA—and, thus, ACB.

Late last spring we began receiving calls in the National Office of the Federation from several blind vendors in Tennessee. This came as some surprise, in view of the RSVA connection, but the problems which the vendors described were of such a nature that it was obvious that something should be done. The general situation was that the elected Committee of Blind Vendors (mostly members of ACB and RSVA) was being ignored completely by the Tennessee Division of Services for the Blind, the agency responsible for managing the Randolph-Sheppard Vending Program in the State. The Randolph-Sheppard Act mandates the establishment of a representative Committee of Blind Vendors in each state and vests the Committee with certain important legal responsibilities related to policy development and administration of the vending program. It is noteworthy that the law describes the Committee as a "participating" body, rather than an "advisory group." In fact, not once is the term "advise" or "consult" used in characterizing the responsibilities of the Committee of Blind Vendors.

This clear mandate to have a participating Committee, however, seemed to mean little or nothing to the officials in charge of Tennessee's Agency for the Blind, for they were going about their business without even consulting the Committee, let alone providing for some other form of legitimate participation. Vending program rules were adopted by the Agency, for example, with only minimal involvement from the Committee, and the Committee was not even advised that there would be an opportunity for a public hearing when the proposed rules were published for public comment. Some participation, indeed! Worse than that, though, an Operator's Agreement (something which by law must be signed by each vendor in every State) was developed by the Agency completely without any mention of it to the Committee of Blind Vendors.

This was a gross violation of Federal law, but the Agreement, itself, was even worse than the violation. One of the most objectionable conditions of the Agreement placed all managers who signed the form on "probation" for six months, regardless of tenure in the program, and despite unquestioned or even excellent performance. Thus, even experienced managers who were fully in compliance with the law and all of the Agency's rules were expected to sign, thereby agreeing to be placed on probation for six full months, even though they did nothing to deserve this distinction—which they did not consider to be an honor. Nonetheless, some signed, for they felt they had no real option in the matter. Others signed under protest and attached a qualifying statement to that effect. Several, including a substantial number of the members of the Committee of Blind Vendors, refused to sign, daring Agency officials to come and bodily throw them out of their vending facilities. The truly ridiculous part of it all is that the managers who did not sign the Operator's Agreement were immediately placed on probation, just as the managers who signed were, but the difference was that those who refused to sign drew only 30 days probation, far less than the six months awarded to the managers who had gone along with the Agency.

There was more, plenty more, but the plainly illegal Operator's Agreement and the questionable legality of certain program rules illustrate the pattern of behavior of the Tennessee Agency and testify to the Agency's unwillingness to work hand-in-hand with the elected Committee of Blind Vendors. These problems, as well as other violations of the law by the Agency, were described in a two-page position paper issued in the spring of 1980 by the Committee. As expected, the paper brought only a negative reaction from Agency officials, but what the vendors did not expect, is that they also got resistance from the leaders of their own organization, the American Council of the Blind, both within the State and nationally. Many of them said this was even worse than confronting a mulish Agency, and with every good reason they openly resented the shabby treatment which they got from the Council.

Without question there is more than just passing significance in the fact that ACB's State affiliate President in Tennessee was and is one of the biggest NACsters around, one Otis Stephens. Stephens is currently the President of NAC, having assumed that post in the fall of 1979 after Louis Reeves abandoned it. Stephens is a professor of political science at the University of Tennessee, and by virtue of his position (if for no other reason) he is well connected with officials in the State government, many of whom have taken his classes. But when the vendors turned to him for the help which he could and should have offered, his response was to contact Lev Williams, President of the NFB of Tennessee, to enlist Lev's cooperation and assistance in convincing the vendors to "settle down." Needless to say, Lev did not comply with Stephen's request. In fact, Lev thought up a few more issues which the Committee should bring forward to the Agency, and the full scale battle was still on. We do not know (but can certainly guess) what kind of "helpful" representations Stephens made on behalf of the vendors to the Tennessee officials who boss the rehabilitation and vending program and who are his allies in the American Foundation for the Blind-NAC-ACB combine.

Having failed with their State leadership in the ACB of Tennessee, the vendors also turned to Washington for help, contacting the Council's national representative, one Durward K. McDaniel. Durward doubles as legal counsel for the RSVA, so it would naturally fall within his area of responsibility to try to help the vendors in the Tennessee situation. Ah, yes, but this is really where the system breaks down, because, you see, Durward is not always altogether up front about his allegiances. He has served on the NAC board and is cozy with the American Foundation for the Blind, which has given money to ACB. Naturally, the Tennessee vendors felt that if anyone could help them, it would be Durward. Moreover, they had good reason to believe, based on Durward's public claims to be an advocate for blind vendors, that he would want to help. But the thing they forgot to consider was that Durward, in his characteristic way of trying, (as he puts it) to "work constructively with the agencies," had become good friends with the Tennessee Director of Services for the Blind, one Pinckney Claude Seales, and what the vendors failed to realize is that their quest for what they are entitled to from the Division of Services for the Blind fell into second place, behind Durward's primary interest of helping Mr. Seales keep his job. This latter battle, by the way, was lost in mid-June (Friday, the 13th, to be exact), when Seales was dismissed as Director of Tennessee Services for the Blind.

But failing to consider these other elements in the situation, the vendors were shocked when Durward did not respond with open arms to their request for assistance from the national office of ACB. They were surprised, for one thing, when the process of enlisting ACB's help was bogged down by spending several weeks just trying to get hold of Durward, while their telephone calls and letters went unanswered. Somewhere along the way ACB's newly appointed Director of Governmental Affairs, Reese Robrahn, discussed the problems with the vendors, but this did not result in any assistance being offered by the ACB national office. Then, at the ACB national convention, held last summer in Louisville, Durward was asked point-blank, would the national office of ACB come into Tennessee and help the vendors? Reportedly his response was completely noncommittal.

It was about that time when the vendors of Tennessee began to feel deserted by their own organization and turned to the Federation for help. Initially we had some dialogue about the fact that these people were really not Federationists, and we expressed grave concern that there were those in Tennessee who had actively worked against our movement. But at the same time, we did not want this to stand in the way of our offering help to blind people where help is genuinely needed. Also, we knew that there was no other source but the NFB from which the help could realistically and meaningfully come. For their part, the vendors gave assurances that none of them would be a part of any effort to destroy, or in any way obstruct, the Federation, inside or outside the State, and many began to talk as though their past participation in ACB had, perhaps, been a mistake.

The specific issues to be resolved in the Tennessee situation are as important as any we have in the Randolph-Sheppard Program. The concept of a participating Committee of Blind Vendors has great potential, but the possibilities for full participation have not yet begun to be realized. Tennessee may provide the opportunity to do this in a way that has never been done before. In that sense there is great promise for all vendors (whether they belong to the NFB or the ACB) everywhere in the country.

Surely Durward knows this—or he should have known if he had taken a look at the issues at all. But therein lies the problem which the RSVA members will inevitably face as long as they remain affiliated with ACB and seek advocacy assistance from that organization. What the Tennessee experience proves, if there was ever a need for proof, is that the ACB is in the pocket of the agencies. NAC and the American Foundation for the Blind and the ACB and their group cannot meaningfully and aggressively try to help better the lives of the blind when it means opposing State or local agencies—which is another way of saying that they cannot do it most of the time. The fact that the national representative of the ACB is a close friend of the recently dismissed Director of the Tennessee agency is typical of the problem. It undoubtedly helps explain why the ACB did not render assistance to the Tennessee vendors, but it is only part of the explanation. There are many such friendships throughout the organization. Moreover, the ACB has neither the know-how, the resources, the determination, nor the organizational orientation to work aggressively and effectively to bring better lives to the blind; about this there can be no question.

Indeed, the most recent events in Tennessee demonstrate graphically the real difference between the company-union, puppet-like behavior of the ACB and the truly representative people's movement which we in the Federation have formed. The results of our work on behalf of the Tennessee vendors are not fully in at this writing, but already the Agency is well aware that it is now dealing with a totally different kind of organization from its gentle ally, the ACB; and that, with the assistance of the Federation, the causes of the vendors will be heard. The most dramatic event took place in late September when we sat down with agency representatives to develop an entirely new Operator's Agreement and to revise several sections of the rules which were originally adopted with only minimal Committee participation. The session was long (nearly three full days in all), and the process of participation by the Committee and the Agency was much like collective bargaining. In the end, however, a new Operator's Agreement and several sweeping amendments to the program rules were agreed to by both parties; and, if as anticipated, these amendments are finally approved by the Commissioner of Human Services, there will truly be a new day of opportunity and equality for the vendors. Many demeaning provisions were eliminated from the rules, and the vendors will be given the right to withhold set-aside payments if vending facility equipment is not repaired or replaced as necessary—but these are only a few of the changes.

The important thing is that we are now on track toward solving the long-standing problems, and (to one extent or another) every blind vendor in the nation will benefit from the work being done in Tennessee. This is what the Federation is all about, and it is why we have so many strong and committed members—along with a passel of enemies, who would like to block our progress. Whatever comes, we will not be stopped; nor will we allow ourselves to lose perspective. We are a people's movement; we are not handmaidens of the agencies. Let the ACB and its front groups do and say what they will, and let them call us "militant," or whatever. We will be working on behalf of the blind, all of the blind; for we know our purpose as a movement, and we will never lose sight of what we are all about.

Furthermore, the Tennessee vendors now know what the Federation is all about—and they also know what kind of organization the ACB is. They know what the ACB will do (or, more properly speaking, not do) when the pressure is on and the agencies try to control and custodialize. The lesson will not be lost on other vendors throughout the country—or, for that matter, on blind people in other walks of life and occupations. The National Federation of the Blind is independent, representative, and not afraid to act. It has the know-how, the will, and the capacity to respond to the needs of the blind. On the other hand, the behavior in Tennessee of the American Council of the Blind and of its satellite, the Randolph-Sheppard Vendors of America, speaks for itself. Because of its domination by the NAC-controlled agencies, the ACB is totally helpless to act. It does not have the will, the know-how, the mechanism, or the organizational integrity to provide meaningful representation or be a true spokesman for blind consumers.

Back to contents

A TENNESSEE VENDOR "TELLS IT LIKE IT IS"

The Randolph-Sheppard Vendors of America is an affiliate of the American Council of the Blind. Many of the RSVA members do not think of themselves as belonging to the ACB at all, but this does not keep the ACB from exploiting the affiliation or injecting its influence into RSVA actions. As a practical matter, RSVA is totally controlled by the ACB leadership.

If the RSVA were only a front for ACB and if the business stopped at that, there would be little harm in it—just another name and another front. However, it does not stop at that. Many of the RSVA members doubtless believe that they are truly part of an actual, representative organization—one which can and will come to their aid in time of need. That, of course, is not the way it is.

Nowhere is this better illustrated (see the article elsewhere in this issue) than in Tennessee. Recent occurrences in that state demonstrate what RSVA and ACB can and cannot do—their motivation, their spirit, and their worth (or lack of it) when the going is rough and the pressure is on. Curtis Shepherd is one of the Tennessee vendors. He is the President of the Tennessee Vendors Association. He is the National Legislative Chairman of the RSVA. Under date of September 15, 1980, Mr. Shepherd wrote a letter to lone Miller, who is the national President of RSVA. The letter speaks for itself. It requires no comment—but it certainly inspires thought and gives perspective to a great many questions and issues.

For those who may not know, the Mr. Bradford who is mentioned in the letter was formerly head of the Tennessee Business Enterprises (or Vending) program. Durward McDaniel is the "national representative" (or real, behind-the-scenes leader) of the ACB. He has been its moving force ever since the expulsion in 1961 of the dissident group which became the American Council of the Blind. Francis Morton is a Tennessee vendor. He is the Chairman of the Vendors Committee mandated by the Randolph-Sheppard Act. Yvonne Beasley is another Tennessee vendor who is a member of the Committee. M. Pinckney Claude Scales was the Director of Tennessee's programs for the blind until he was allowed to "resign" June 13, 1980. As Federationists know, Otis Stephens is the President of NAC, a principal leader of ACB, and the President of the ACB of Tennessee.

Here is the letter from Curtis Shepherd to Ione Miller:

September 15, 1980

Dear Ione:

I am writing in regard to your question pertaining to Francis Morton's seeming displeasure at a lack of help from R.S.V.A., and how the Organization could help. When you asked me that question in Louisville, during the A.C.B. Convention, I promised to discuss the matter with Francis and get back in touch with you. A lot of things have happened during the two months since you asked me that question. Our problems in Tennessee were seemingly at the breaking point, when suddenly we have found that the new people in the State Agency are using the same old tactics that the former people used. Let me give you a little history and bring you up to date too.

While in Salt Lake City, Utah, during the 1978 (ACB) Convention, Francis and I shared lunch with Durward McDaniel and advised him of our numerous problems in Tennessee. At that time he indicated that Mr. Bradford was our main problem, and offered no additional promises of help, except to ask for printed materials, which I later furnished him with. Since then, Francis Morton, Yvonne Beasley and I have repeatedly shared Tennessee problems with Durward, but to no avail. On Sun., July 13th, of this year, a number of us from Tennessee met with Durward, and again shared numerous problems with him. Finally, after I mentioned that James Gashel, from the N.F.B. had offered Tennessee help, Durward stated that he was sure that "Jim" would like to intrude into Tennessee, but that he (Durward) would be happy to come and be of assistance if he could.

On August 15, '80, the State offered to compromise with the Committee on certain issues, if the Committee would at least pass on a Declaratory Petition for a Departmental Hearing. Both Durward and James Gashel came to that meeting. Those of us on the Committee present at that meeting had the opportunity of seeing that Durward was willing to accept anything that the State Agency offered, while, Mr. Gashel took an entirely different position, stating that the Committee had brought the S.L.A. (State Licensing Agency) this far, and that we should push for full recognition along the lines of Active Participation while we could. We had been secretly advised for several months that Durward could not help us because of his ties with M. Pinckney Claude Scales. And, this information had come from A.C.B. members. In addition we were told that Dr. Otis Stephens was in the process of protecting Mr. Scales, and that he was actively urging Durward to remain out of Tennessee. After we each had an opportunity to compare the way Durward and James Gashel each work, the Committee voted (all in favor except one) to go with Mr. Gashel's help instead of Durward's. Apparently that decision of Aug. 16th traveled fast because Durward immediately shot me off a letter. In that letter he actually went so far as to say that he had never received formal request to come into Tennessee. If he was looking for formal request, he still has not received it. It is a disgrace that a Committee composed of A.C.B. Members, and people that are not aligned with any Organization (but none are members of the N.F.B.) had to call upon another Organization for effective help. (I do stress that the Committee did this in a Non-Organizational manner.) However, the fact remains that many of us on the Committee are hurt deeply, not with you and R.S.V.A., but with Durward, whom we had counted as a trusted friend.

One thing that made the wound even deeper with me, when Durward wrote me the letter, he indicated that he wanted to talk with me during the Tennessee Council Convention Labor Day Weekend. He and I were both there, and he was fully aware that I was there, because I made statements several times, yet he did not even seek to keep his promise of wanting to talk with me.

During the meeting of Aug. 15, '80, the State Agency let it be known in no uncertain terms that they planned to arbitrarily amend certain portions of our Rules and Regulations. Since Mr. Gashel has been selected to help us, and since I was appointed by Francis Morton (our Committee Chairman) to Chair the Sub-Committee on this project, I asked James Gashel to come into Tennessee and help us on this project, instead he suggested that Betty Sue and I come to Baltimore, where they had a staff of people that could help work out our proposals. (Durward, to my knowledge, never invited anyone to go to Washington for help on the Tennessee problem.) We went, and now Mr. Gashel in turn is going to come into Tennessee to help us negotiate with the S.L.A., and if that breaks down, then he will help us begin action that will probably eventually lead to Federal Arbitration.

I tried several times prior to Labor Day to reach you by phone so that I could discuss these developments, but did not get the call through. If my and Tennessee's involvement with the N.F.B. changes the attitude of R.S.V.A. toward me, then please advise me. I am willing to carry out my responsibility as Chairman of the National Legislative Committee, and as a Board Member of R.S.V.A., but I do not think that R.S.V.A. needs to be made aware of the feelings of many of us in Tennessee towards Durward, and also I wanted to be honest with you, so that if this places my role with R.S.V.A. in jeopardy I can now so be advised.

Most Sincerely,

Curtis M. Shepherd_____

Back to contents

CONVENTION 1980 ASPECTS OF THE MOVEMENT, YESTERDAY MEANS TOMORROW

By JOHN CHEADLE

(NOTE: The September and October issues of the Monitor dealt almost exclusively with the Minneapolis convention proceedings. This article completes the convention coverage.)

Everyone has heard the time-honored cliche: "Today is the tomorrow we worried about yesterday." Federationists, however, don't worry much. We analyze, we plan, and we act. Wednesday, July 3rd, was a day of action at the national convention. Steeped in the traditions of democracy, we elected our leaders. We elected those who do represent the blind. Following elections, we gathered. Then, we marched en masse to the very gates of custodialism and all which represents where we had been in too many of our yesterdays. We marched, hundreds and thousands of us, representing tens of thousands more. We marched to the Minneapolis Society for the Blind, and we left them a message: "We know who we are, and we will never go back!"

The Minneapolis Society for the Blind is only one of our battlefronts—one of the most caustic, to be sure, but still, only one. On our march to first-class citizenship we have fought, and will fight, many battles. Deep within ourselves we have battled our own hearts and retched the negative attitudes about blindness from within our being. We have fought to organize and to remain an organized national movement, and we have taken up our cause whenever and wherever it mattered and pressed on toward our goals. Wednesday was, indeed, a day of action. Thursday, too, was a day of action—more subtle, perhaps, but no less significant. We have learned the lessons of the necessity of organization. We know, too, that worry does little to advance the cause of our movement. We in the Federation no longer worry about yesterday, for we believe that "Today is the tomorrow we built yesterday!"

Thursday we had the opportunity to review some of our accomplishments in order to prepare us to plan our actions of tomorrow. Tom Stevens, Director of the Bureau for the Blind in Missouri, reviewed the actions of the NFB which led to his appointment as the Director of that agency. Sandy Crank, Associate Commissioner for Operational Policy and Procedures of the Social Security Administration, spoke to the convention regarding the changes of the past, the challenges of the present, and the prospects of the future. Dr. Dennis Wyant, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Veterans Employment, talked with us about current trends, emerging challenges, and prospects for the decade ahead with regard to employment. All three of these men recognized the importance of the National Federation of the Blind in their particular area and praised our efforts highly.

State Services for the Blind in Transition: The View from Missouri

Tom Stevens is a Federationist who is now the Director of the Bureau for the Blind in Missouri. His selection and appointment were the result of long years of work by dedicated Federationists. The post of director did not just happen to come open, the former director was fired by the Governor—an event in which the Missouri affiliate played no small role. However, the NFB did not rest with this battle won. Rather, we redoubled our efforts to assure that a progressive, positive individual would be selected. The process went on—and on. There were times when many would have given up, but the NFB of Missouri knew it had to prevail. Even when serious negotiations occurred between the Governor and another candidate and the tide of battle seemed to have turned against us, we pressed on and finally, thirteen months later, Tom Stevens was appointed as the Director.

Mr. Stevens credits the efforts of the NFB and our friends with this accomplishment. The Missouri Bureau for the Blind is buried deep within an umbrella agency, and efforts had to be directed to all levels, as well as the Governor, in order to be effective. To put this problem into perspective, Mr. Stevens pointed out the following: The Bureau for the Blind has a budget of $3.9 million and 93 employees. It is responsible to the Division of Family Services, (the director of which was fired at the same time as the director of the Bureau for the Blind, thus complicating the political process even further) with a budget of over $700 million and in excess of 7,000 employees. DFS is responsible to the Department of Social Services, which has a budget of more than a billion dollars and more than 12,000 employees. To reach the Governor, at least one and sometimes two or more layers of bureaucracy must be penetrated. To have impact that deeply into a bureaucratic system requires careful planning and judicious application of resources. Missouri Federationists proved their equality not only to the task, but to themselves and all of us.

Preparations began to intensify as far back as 1978. In that year, and again in 1979, Tom Stevens and other members of the Federation participated in meetings with the Governor in which they presented their recommendations for changes in library services, employment, and the development of a rehabilitation center; the recommendations came to be known as "Dear Governor Letters." In June, 1979, the Governor hired a director for the Division of Family Services and scrapped the list of applicants for the position of Director of the Bureau for the Blind. The DFS Director then established an ad-hoc committee made up of consumers to screen applicants. This committee was chaired by our own Jana Simms. The committee narrowed the number of applicants to four. The Director then appointed a committee of Bureau employees to assist him in the final selection. Oh, for how long have the professionals sought to have the last word??? When the process was completed, Federationists kept up the spirit. Mr. Stevens put it this way: "We had been expecting a decision and there had been a great deal of additional input from Federationists and friends. It is my understanding that in the next few days there were times when the Governor's office was receiving between 25 and 40 telephone calls an hour during the working day! Now that's the involvement of Federationists and friends. So I want to tell you that when I come to this podium, I come as a gubernatorial appointee, but the Governor was powerfully persuaded by our cohorts in Missouri; and there is absolutely no question that, if the input had not been what it was, I would not be the Director of the Bureau for the Blind today. This is one more answer to the question: Why the National Federation of the Blind? The Federation has been the most powerful single, persuasive influence in Missouri in that decision—no question about it!"

This was a tremendous victory, a victory that all Federationists can be proud of; and, while the temptation is to bask in the glory, we must continue our march toward first-class citizenship. There is much work to be done.

The reconstruction of the Missouri agency will not be an easy task. Mr. Stevens reports that there was a 28% turnover in staff during the thirteen-month selection process and that several positions were not filled for months at a time. You can see that much work which was sorely needed was not done. Mr. Stevens also said that: "The 'Dear Governor Letter' which we distributed was not well received by some of the employees of the Bureau for the Blind or by some of the employees in other departments in the large umbrella agency. Then, there was some animosity and some trepidation as I entered the job in the Bureau for the Blind . . . We will have and are having a turnover of staff because of some differences in philosophy. One notion which is relatively well entrenched among the current staff and which I consider to be an implicit denial system says you 'optimize remaining vision.' The problem is, you optimize the remaining vision before you do anything else! That's the real problem." With attitudes like that among the professional staff, it will be difficult to rebuild an effective staff to deal with the five service programs of the Bureau: Vocational Rehabilitation, Rehabilitation Teaching, Business Enterprises for the Blind, Employment Specialists, and Prevention of Blindness. Yet, Mr. Stevens is planning (and he is planning with a warm welcome) for input from the Federation. So long as he continues to build programs which will really benefit blind people, we must continue to assist in the building. This will be a long-term commitment; Mr. Stevens has recognized areas of deficiency which need to be dealt with. His budget recommendations for 1982 include adding 49 employees to the current 93! He says: "... not a single one of those positions is recommended frivolously."

He also recognizes that 83 persons per caseload is too many, and caseload size must be reduced while the number of persons served is increased. Further, an orientation center is badly needed as is an effective public information program. Mr. Stevens pointed out some positive aspects, which will hopefully make the rebuilding easier: 25% of the staff is blind, and during the last two years the amount of federal funds in the state of Missouri available to the Bureau for the Blind has increased from 8% to 13.3% (under Mr. Stevens direction the percentage moved from 11 to 13.3). There is much work to be done in Missouri as well as in the rest of the country; we must keep on marching toward first-class citizenship.

Dr. Jernigan brought this out during the question and answer time: If we do not keep the pressure on, even if the Governor says he'll get angry and not do as we ask, then, we invite second-class citizenship. Mr. Stevens agreed: "In Missouri the Federationists and friends were reacting and that's what made this possible. No question about it!"

Social Security in the 1980's Changes, Challenges, and Prospects

The National Federation of the Blind has, for many years, been dealing with the Social Security Administration. As we move toward first-class citizenship we are painfully aware of the stumbling blocks in our path, and we are determined to remove them—for ourselves, for all blind people, and for the generations to come. Sometimes, with a little realignment and sufficient mortar, we can turn the stumbling blocks into pavement. Sometimes it takes major excavation to remove them and to keep building our path. So it has been and so it is with the Social Security Administration. Thursday afternoon a presentation was made by Mr. Sandy Crank, Associate Commissioner for Operational Policy and Procedures, Social Security Administration. Dr. Jernigan said in introducing Mr. Crank: "Our relationship now is a partnership, a warm and firm relationship. They (the Social Security Administration) know we're an independent organization and we know they are an independent agency of government. From time to time each of us rattles our swords, but we end up marching together to the extent that we can. Mr. Crank verified that SSA and the NFB do, indeed, work together in ways that are important to both of us. He spoke in part as follows:

"The record shows that you as members of the National Federation of the Blind, are doing a tremendous part of facing two major problems: Learning the skills and techniques to carry on as normal, productive citizens and becoming aware of and learning how to cope with public attitudes and misconceptions about blindness. This organization, particularly Jim Gashel, is doing an excellent job in Washington to advance the understanding of blindness. Largely as a result of your efforts, the Social Security Administration, and we who administer it, are making progress. I hope you will agree with me that the Social Security program has become more responsive to the particular needs of blind people, and through your efforts and changes in the law we now have the opportunity to encourage and enable you to carry on as normal, productive citizens in the community. I'm sure that some of our attitudes as an agency are changing. We no longer view blind people simply as beneficiaries of the system. You pay taxes and work just like everyone else does. Those taxes impact upon you just like they impact upon other people. You receive benefits because of disability, retirement or death, just like everyone else receives them. Each year more blind people are coming to work at Social Security to help administer this major program."

Mr. Crank then discussed the progress of the Social Security system over the years, pointing out how it had changed to meet the needs of citizens. He brought with him a variety of materials in Braille, thus emphasizing that one of SSA's policies is to make such items available on a regular basis. He underscored the historical support of Congress and Presidents since Franklin D. Roosevelt and expressed his belief that the American public need have no fear as to the financial well-being of the Social Security system.

In his presentation Mr. Crank had quoted from Dr. Jernigan's speech, "Blindness: Concepts and Misconceptions." He returned to his original quote in order to emphasize the Social Security Administration's attitudes. He said more than he probably thought he said, and during the question and answer period the matter came up for discussion. Following is the paraphrased quote:

"I want to go back to a paraphrase of Dr. Jernigan's speech (Blindness: Concepts and Misconceptions). I'd like to change the context with his permission. I'd like to substitute the word disabled for the word blind. By doing that, hopefully I can help to illustrate my view that the basic concept illustrated in that quotation is valid for all people. The quotation: 'When an individual becomes disabled, he faces two major problems. First, he must learn the skills and techniques that will enable him to carry on as a normal, productive citizen in the community; and second, he must become aware of and learn how to cope with public attitudes and misconceptions about disability—attitudes and misconceptions which go to the very roots of our culture and permeate every aspect of our social behavior and our thinking.'"

Mr. Crank continued: "That concept underscores the importance of our attitudes concerning the nondisabled as well as the disabled. If we're to make real progress in dealing with disability, nearly everyone will have to undergo considerable, but positive attitudinal changes. In the two years or so of testimony before Congress preceding enactment of the 1980 disability amendments, a common theme repeated over and over again was that Social Security induces in people the concept and attitude of permanent disability, and therefore, it virtually imprisoned them in the attitude of being disabled. It provided a mindset that left them with a hopeless and helpless attitude toward overcoming their impairment. It was pointed out in Congress that individuals who overcome these feelings of being disabled and have the courage to become self-sufficient by returning to work are often hampered by the fear of losing their monthly disability benefits and the protection of Medicare benefits. Others fear the loss of Supplemental Security Income benefits, Medicaid benefits and social services. To help reduce concerns about losing benefits which, in effect, operate as disincentives to work, additional provisions were included in the 1980 amendments to reduce the financial risk of disabled beneficiaries who have an opportunity to resume work activities." Mr. Crank went on to explain some of these provisions. He said:

"One work incentive in the new provisions provides for automatic re-entitlement for disability benefits, in many cases for people whose benefits have stopped because they returned to work, but find that they cannot continue to work at the same level. Another important provision is the continuation of Medicare protection, generally for as much as three years after disability benefits have stopped because of a return to work. I am sure that this important extension of Medicare protection will encourage additional numbers of disabled beneficiaries to attempt to return to self-sufficiency. There is another requirement for Medicare which has changed to help those who stay off the benefit rolls somewhat longer, but still find themselves  disabled again and unable to continue work activity. Under this change, if a worker starts receiving Social Security Disability benefits again within five years after they've ended, the protection of Medicare benefits will resume immediately. This means they will no longer need to serve another two-year waiting period in order to get Medicare benefits." Mr. Crank then went on to describe two more changes; these, however, are changes for the disabled and have applied to the blind for years.

Mr. Crank said that the Social Security Administration is proud of its achievement in equal employment opportunities for the blind and other disabled workers and that he believes progress will continue and improvements will continue to be made. He said: "Blind Service Representatives at the GS 7 level at the present time number 209. There are 30 Claims Representatives who are blind at the GS 9 level. Five blind people are employed as management interns and we have a management assistant, an office supervisor, and an employee development specialist. In our central office in Baltimore, approximately 20 blind employees work as computer programmers, personnel management staffing specialists, and in other types of jobs. That is not a large number of people by any measure and certainly we are going to be trying to do better.

"I'm pleased to report that some additional blind employees are beginning their Service Representative training this month in Tampa, Florida. In that connection, I want to make another announcement. Starting with the previous Service Representative class conducted in San Francisco this last spring, all of the trainees entered on duty as employees and were employees throughout the training period, instead of having to complete their training before they were actually hired as employees. (Cheers and applause from the audience.)

"Federationists will remember that the fact that trainees for the Service Representative positions in Social Security who are blind have not been treated as employees of the Social Security Administration while those who were sighted and taking similar training have been treated as employees of the Social Security Administration has been of real concern to us. It has been discussed at previous conventions."

During the question and answer period following the remarks by Mr. Crank, President Jernigan said: "Mr. Crank, when you took my remarks concerning learning techniques and changing attitudes and applied them generally to the disabled, it seems to me that that's one of the problems we have in dealing with many groups and sometimes with Social Security. There is a feeling on the part of many agencies in the government and the average member of the public that blindness and other disabilities are pretty much alike and that what applies to one pretty much applies to the others. We don't think that's true. For instance, you could say that all weapons of war are about the same. They kill people. That is so. You can kill with a bow and arrow and with an atom bomb. However, there is a difference of degree that is so extreme that they become weapons of different kinds. It is true that public attitudes cause some problems for various disability groups. But the gallup polls show that the second most feared condition in the entire nation is blindness. Cancer—and nothing else comes above blindness. Mental impairment, heart condition, deafness, it doesn't matter what it is, blindness is more feared. Nevertheless, our experience is that, if we get reasonable training and equal opportunity, blindness can be reduced to the level of a nuisance. Therefore, 'the difference between what people think we can do and what we know from experience we can do is a wider gap than is found with almost any other disability group. This leads to certain specialized problems. You may want to respond to that in a minute, but first I want to ask you a specific question.

"Blind people who are Claims Representatives at a GS 9 level have had difficulty getting promotions to the GS 10 level and, therefore, they have difficulty getting promotions to any higher position. You say that one problem that must be overcome is that a blind person has difficulty in 'certifying' a birth certificate and other documents that are brought in by a member of the public. As a curiosity let me ask you a question. You are sighted? (Mr. Crank said that he is sighted.) Very good. If I were to bring to you a document which I alleged was my birth certificate, how would you certify it? Suppose it were a forgery or not what I said. What is your safeguard? How would you certify it?"

Mr. Crank: "Dr. Jernigan, I don't want to get into a debate over the certification issue."

Dr. Jernigan: "Nor do I. I'm just asking you a simple question. How would you certify it?"

Mr. Crank: "The word certification here means something slightly different than detecting whether it is a fraudulent document. The certification that takes place is certification on a record in our files that I have seen a document; it has certain characteristics; it appears to be valid; it has a seal on it; it is signed by some authoritative source. It is really recording a visual description of what the document is, so that in the files there is a record that can be regarded as an indication of what probative value that document may have had."

Dr. Jernigan: "The point I'm trying to make to you is something else. That really doesn't give you any protection, it doesn't give the government any protection, and it doesn't give the taxpayer any protection. Let me show you what I mean: If I have any ability at all and I bring to you a document which purports to be my birth certificate, I can probably pass it by the Claims Representative, and the eyesight of that Claims Representative won't make any difference. The real protection to the taxpayer is that if I bring you a fraudulent document, you will have me put in jail. The law will come after me. I'm not trying either to bait you or debate you. But I'm trying to raise the question: Is it really not enough to say, 'Do you have a valid birth certificate?'—and then have the person sign a statement? That's all you're going to get from any Claims Representative, even if there were not alternative methods that a blind person could use to find out the information that is needed, I would think. I realize you can't settle this today and I only bring it up for consideration."

Mr. Crank: "I think your point is well taken. Dr. Jernigan. That will be considered as one of the ways we might overcome the problem. The problem is that it's not just simply Social Security's view that sight is needed. It's also the concern of what was formerly the Federal Civil Service Commission and now is the Office of Personnel Management. I chose that as an illustration and it is not the only one. Your suggestion is one of several that could help to address the problem."

Dr. Jernigan: "I have one more comment and then we'll leave this. I believe that if Social Security decides that it wants to have blind people handle the duties of a GS 10 and that it has found alternative techniques that they can use, the Office of Personnel will tend to go along with that."

Mr. Gashel: "There is a recurring issue, Mr. Crank, which, I think, may fall into your area and maybe you can help us. It deals with what blind people—and I'm specifying blind people—are told about their eligibility for Social Security disability benefits or SSI. You may be familiar with the fact that there are numerous special eligibility rules which apply to the blind. This audience is familiar with it because we've had something to do with getting these into the Social Security Act. Unfortunately, many Social Security representatives are not as familiar with those provisions as they should be. One of the provisions you mentioned today dealing with Supplemental Security Income and the three-year experiment does not apply to the blind, since we've had it since 1974. Yet you or whoever prepared your speech seemed to feel that it did apply to the blind. This is an example of how we often get generalized information that applies to all disabled people when there are special provisions that apply to the blind. There are two things we'd like to talk to you about in this area. First, we need some better public information materials available to blind people about the SSI and SSDI programs. I realize there is an SSDI brochure about benefits for blind people, but we considered it inadequate. There is no SSI brochure concerning blindness. Second, there needs to be specialized instructions for Social Security Claims Representatives so that we're not given inaccurate and inappropriate information. (Applause from the audience.) Recently I taught a Social Security Claims Representative how to figure the benefits for a blind person applying for SSI. I taught the person how to deduct work expenses. That Claims Representative was in Madison, Wisconsin and called me in Baltimore, Maryland to learn how to do it. We shouldn't need to operate that way. The Social Security Administration ought to do it."

Dr. Jernigan: "Of course, I'm familiar with that case, since I participated in it. The problem is that that particular Claims Representative felt that he or she could get the information more quickly and more accurately from us than from Social Security's own headquarters in Baltimore. That is a commentary—not one that is said critically—but one that is an area we both want to work on. It's to your interest, in the interest of the blind and of the taxpayers to get your Claims Representatives able to have the data. Do you want to comment on any of that?"

Mr. Crank: "I'm glad that 30,000 Claims Representatives didn't call you. Let me say that I think the behavior of one Claims Representative in that respect can't be regarded as typical of Claims Representatives in the Social Security system. I won't take a lot of time to tell you about the studies that have been done about the work of our Claims Representatives. You can refer to those studies yourselves. You will find that there is a good bit of confidence that those Claims Representatives do a good job. In an organization the size of ours, you are always going to find somebody somewhere sometime that doesn't do it very well. I'm sorry that Claims Representative felt that that was the way they had to go. We've given some consideration to providing Claims Representatives special information on the provisions that relate to the blind. We haven't committed ourselves yet. One of the things I'd like to ask you for some understanding about is that we're being called upon to administer more and more and more provisions. Each time Congress adds either to our programmatic responsibility or changes the law, it doesn't become simpler to administer; it becomes more complex. That very fact suggests that the suggestion that Mr. Gashel makes is a logical and reasonable one, one that we ought to quickly adopt, simply because of the complexity. With the complexity—the use of added forms and added applications—decision-making logic guides also become problems for Claims Representatives. I just came from talking with District Managers in this state and in Michigan. What they're pleading for from us is to take some of the paper burden off of them so that they can go back to doing their job with the knowledge they have. You see, that's a different kind of pressure. We're trying to find the happy medium between more forms, more documents, more paper work, and the ability to provide people with the right kinds of service and with accurate decisions. We've not ruled out your suggestion, but we're going to give some further thought and study to it. I'm just not prepared to say to you today and make a commitment that that is one particular form that we are prepared to develop and put into use. We will look very closely at how it can best help us and whether it is really a need."

Dr. Jernigan: "As we said, we have had a good deal to do with the provisions that are now in the Social Security Act. Since we also have some 50,000 members and chapters in every city or locality of any size and affiliates in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, and we hear reports from blind people concerning their experiences with Claims Representatives, I would say to you that if you go to the Social Security office right here in Minneapolis or any other local Social Security office in the country, a majority of the Claims Representatives will not be able to give you correct information about the special rules, regulations, and provisions that affect blind people and are written in the law and the regulations as opposed to the generalizations that are there. Please understand that I'm not trying to be critical; I'm trying to work on a problem and bring to you a piece of information which concerns us as well as you—a common problem. In other words, this is not an attack, but an attempt to give information and to work out a solution. If I'm correct in what I said about the majority of Claims Representatives, then that is something that Social Security really should give thought to. If I'm not correct, it behooves us to find some way to communicate so that we, the largest organization of blind people in the country, can see where we've erred in the data we have. Wouldn't you agree that that makes sense?"

Mr. Crank: "Yes, that's a very fair position to take. I would agree with you."

Report from Dr. Dennis Wyant

Dr. Dennis Wyant, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Veterans Employment, is an old friend of the organized blind movement and a long-time Federationist. He spoke to the convention Thursday afternoon, July 3rd, on the topic: Job Opportunities for the Blind: Current Trends, Emerging Challenges, and Prospects for the Decade Ahead.

"Some of the economic forecasters say that by 1990 we may actually have a labor shortage in America. Now I know that seems a little surprising, since it's a long way from the situation we face today. But that's really a possibility.

"What brings about this possibility? Number one is that there will be probably three or four million fewer youth entering the labor market. We look at about 100 million in the labor market today; by 1985 107 million; by 1990 112 million. This number will slowly go up, but not at the rate that it has in past decades. The mix of jobs will also change. With fewer youngsters going into the labor force, there will be fewer school teachers. There will be a change. Instead of the number of people there currently are in elementary and secondary education, there will be more in adult education and vocational information. The energy field will create over three million new positions. Everything that affects conservation of energy creates new jobs. The 55 mile an hour speed limit means that you need more truck drivers. You need more people to provide good insulation. You need more people to try to figure out better ways of conserving energy.

"The trends also show that you will have more in the white collar industry. Almost 25% of all jobs will be in the white collar field. There will be fewer jobs in less technical or unskilled, manufacturing type of work. There will be a lot more emphasis on engineering, electronics, high manufacturing or space-age technology. As employment committees meet and as plans move forward for employment for the future, these trends will have to be taken into account. But these are just forecasts. There are only two kinds of economic forecasters: Those who don't know and those who don't know they don't know. Nevertheless, that gives you a little bit of a look at the future.

"Now let's go back to 1980 when the picture is not as bright. The unemployment rate came out again today: 7.8% for the general nation, and for minorities it's twice as high. We don't have figures for the disabled or for the blind of America. Some of your activities can really help. What I've seen so far of Job Opportunities for the Blind (JOB) is that it's a good program. We need a good data base.

"Job opportunities and employment prospects are affected by many things. The problems in Washington from Mount St. Helens, the problems in agriculture in Texas and Oklahoma and the rest of the Midwest, and the problems created by unprepared high school graduates all have an affect. They create some jobs, but they are a drain on the resources. But I want to repeat what I said about your program, Job Opportunities for the Blind. I want to tell you that the results of that program from December to the present time are that the program has already more than paid for itself.

"I'd like to make a comment on a letter that we received—Secretary Marshall, my boss received—from a man that I've never met named Richard Bleecker of the National Accreditation Council. In this letter to the Secretary he was chastising the Department of Labor for funding the Job Opportunities for the Blind program. Basically, his bottom line is that we shouldn't be funding a program to help blind people get jobs. I know the Secretary found this confusing since he thought this was one of the services we have in the Department of Labor. When I had lunch with him two days ago, he was trying to get some history on it, and he asked what I thought. I said the only thing I could figure out was that, perhaps, he was afraid that if you were too successful in your programs and you placed all the job applicants, they wouldn't have the application pool they need for sheltered workshops. The letter really didn't talk about what the program had done or not done. The way this was handled reminds me of the way things were handled in a church down in the Ozarks that I knew of. It handled its meetings kind of like the NAC meetings. One deacon at that church had gotten word that the church was going to buy a chandelier, so he decided to attend a certain meeting where it would be discussed. Before they got a chance to ramrod it through, he jumped up and said: I have three points I want to make. 1) We probably don't have anybody that could spell it to order it out of the catalog. 2) We probably don't have anybody in the congregation that could play it. 3) I can't imagine why we'd want to buy a chandelier when we so badly need lights in this church.'

"The letter from Mr. Bleecker will be answered. I've given my comment. Mr. Lamond Godwin who is the administrator of the program that runs the JOB program (incidentally, Mr. Godwin sent his regrets that he couldn't be here today) finds JOB one of the most successful of all the handicapped programs. It's certainly no duplication of anything else we're doing. It's an addition and a complement to other things we're doing. As we look at the employment statistics for last year, we see that five million people were placed through the Job Service, but only about 5% were handicapped. We can't even tell you a number on the blind. That's a shame. Through the CETA system there were 1.5 million people placed. During the first quarter of this year, they say we placed 8% handicapped people. I don't know whether we're placing more handicapped people or whether we're just getting a better data base to identify people with handicaps, but I know we can't tell you how many blind people have been placed through the CETA system. That's a problem. If we're going to have a management system to make improvements in the future, we need this kind of information."

Dr. Wyant congratulated the Federation on being a movement to achieve freedom for the blind. He concluded with a strong recommendation that the Federation continue in its work toward first-class citizenship and freedom for all blind Americans.

Back to contents

OF MORALS, DILEMMAS, LOCAL AGENCIES, AND NAC: REPORT FROM OHIO

What does a local service agency for the blind do when it is faced with the threat of losing its United Way funding if it does not seek accreditation—especially if there is nobody to do the accrediting but NAC? What does it do even if it knows how bad and unethical NAC is? How does it decide between conscience and cash, between spirit and survival? How does it make the choice between morals and money?

This is a very real problem in many local communities throughout the country. It is a problem which the blind and their local service agency (the Elyria Center for the Sightless) are now facing in Lorain County, Ohio. It is a situation which local Federationists have had to confront, and the choices are not easy.

As Barbara Pierce recently put it: "The board's problem is that the agency now no longer has a sheltered workshop. They lost their certificate, and to their vast surprise, they are doing as well as the economy will allow. But the director says, and I could not refute his contention, that there is now nothing in this agency for which the Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities (CARF) standards would be appropriate. The board is between the rock and the hard place. United Fund is looking for ways to reduce allocations, and they are saying the lack of accreditation where it is available is the excuse they need to cut the agency slice of the pie. The state is bound by a resolution passed in 1976 by the Rehabilitation Services Commission to require that state-contracted services must go only to accredited agencies. The financial constraints are real and getting more pressing."

This analysis by Barbara Pierce points up again the damage to the lives of blind people which has been done by NAC—and all in the name of "quality services." Unbelievable though it may seem, NAC still continues to insist with a straight face that it is a system of "voluntary" accreditation. How sanctimonious! How destructive! How absolutely unethical, unprofessional, and despicable! The blind of the nation are not now (and never have been) opposed to the principle of accreditation, standards, or improved services. On the face of it, such a charge is absurd. In the name of lofty objectives, NAC has tended to bring us politics, repression, controversy, and poor services.

The board of the Elyria Center for the Sightless voted (doubtless with trepidation and troubled spirits) to bow to the pressure and seek NAC accreditation. Mr. Lugenbeal, the Director of the agency, asked local Federationists to participate in the "self-study," which is part of the NAC ritual. Barbara Pierce examined her conscience and wrote the following letter:

September 2, 1980

Dear Mr. Lugenbeal:

It was with deep regret that we of the National Federation of the Blind learned of the rather precipitate decision to seek NAC accreditation, taken at the July 31 special meeting of the Elyria Center for the Sightless Board. As you correctly state, the Center and the Federation have enjoyed a healthy and creative working relationship for the past six years. We have worked and served on the board, assisted staff when we could, recommended agency services, and made clear at every turn that our grave reservations about much service delivery in this country did not extend to your agency, not because there were no problems, but because clients have always been respected by the agency and the staff has made good faith efforts to work with consumers.

You have asked for a rapid response to your invitation for representatives of the National Federation of the Blind of Lorain County to assist in your self-study toward NAC accreditation. I have consulted with George Gilbert, president of the NFB-LC, and he agrees with my personal decision. I do not believe that any of the officers of the NFB-LC would differ appreciably from my decision, although, because I am not an officer, I can speak only for myself.

I will not surprise you by saying that I have no moral choice but to decline your invitation. Because I intend to circulate this letter among the Board of Trustees, I will explain my position. I realize from listening to the tape recording of the July 31 meeting that many of them will otherwise misunderstand my reasons for this decision.

Unfortunately it is impossible to separate this agency and its work within this county from what is happening across the country in the field of work with the blind. Or rather this separation can only be maintained as long as the agency chooses to remain aloof from the moral and political struggle being waged in the field. Our quarrel is not with the Center for the Sightless nor with the concept of accreditation. As Federation representatives told the board two years ago, our struggle is with the National Accreditation Council.

Because of our fundamental disagreement about the philosophy behind effective rehabilitation and our disagreement about the appropriate role of consumers in an accrediting body, both sides have decided that there really is no way of negotiating a solution. The NFB has concluded that the only sensible course is for those in the field to learn from past mistakes and begin again to build a truly objective accrediting body. NAC, for its part, declared all-out war on the NFB at its board meeting in November 1979 and, at a war council during the Helen Keller Congress, earmarked those of us in every state whom they intended to destroy, professionally, financially, socially.

It is not a game or a gentlemen's disagreement that the Center for the Sightless has stumbled into. You are planning now to ally yourselves with a group of agencies that holds half a billion dollars in assets. I wish to explain to you why we find that we have no choice but to oppose such strength and power.

I have tried to find an analogy that might show you the panorama as I see it. If Communism were stronger as a political force in our country, we might find ourselves in a situation in which strong pressure was brought on us to vote for a whole slate of public officials who were Communists. They might argue rather compellingly that the present government had problems, that there were injustices and inequities going unchecked. They might say further that the common problems that usually follow a Communist takeover—repression, conformity, atheism, an end to competition—could never be a problem here, "Because we have never had problems like that here, and we wouldn't let it happen." Those arguments would not move me. I know too well that good intentions often go down before expediency. People can't help being affected by their professional colleagues who have other, more rigorous ideas. Mussolini made the trains run on time, the Nazis halted inflation, the Mafia employs people who would otherwise be out of work, and the Soviets have educated the poor, but none of these groups can be judged solely by their occasional good deeds.

My comparison of NAC to these commonly admitted menaces may seem to you extreme and inappropriate. I said at the start of this analogy that I was attempting to put the case as we in the Federation know it to be. The NFB-LC cannot separate ourselves from the blind across the country. We see the exploitation and intimidation practiced by agencies in good standing with NAC. However good standards on accounting procedures or architectural accessibility may be, the practices they allow to continue, the attitudes they have about the blind and blindness, and the moral fiber or lack of it they display leave us no choice but to have nothing to do with them and their accrediting process.

In closing, let me say just a word about our posture in the event that an on-site review team comes to the Center. I am an individual only, but I can say that there are many people who care deeply about service delivery in this country and who feel that NAC does more harm than good. NAC's arrival in Lorain County will compel many of us to speak out. We have no wish to damage the agency—you are our service delivery agency—but we will have to make ourselves heard.

Sincerely,
Barbara Pierce

Back to contents

BLIND PARENTS LOOK BEYOND DISABILITY TO RAISE SON

'WHETHER OUR SON CAN SEE OR NOT, HE'LL BE RAISED FROM THE PERSPECTIVE THAT BLINDNESS DOES NOT HAVE TO BE A HANDICAP '

by DAVID HULEN

Courier staff writer

Tom and Rhonda Bozikis, who have been blind since childhood, have always tried to view their disabilities as nuisances rather than as handicaps.

Since they were married three years ago, they've lived alone in an apartment at 301 Washington Ave., and say their lifestyle isn't much different than it would be if they could see.

Through trial and error, they've managed to come up with alternative ways of doing things so that their blindness is more an irritant than a source of endless frustration.

Still, when Rhonda became pregnant for the first time last winter, their families and some of their friends were a little apprehensive.

"A few of them didn't quite know how to deal with it," said Rhonda, 27, who lost her sight as an infant. "It surprised some people. They thought it was impractical for us to have a baby."

"All we could tell them was that we didn't think it was impractical at all," said Tom, 32, who lost his sight to an unexplained eye disease at age 13. "We thought it was the right move for us."

So on July 27 their 8-pound, 4½-ounce son was born at Welborn Hospital. The child, named Michael Gregory, has been in excellent health so far—including good vision.

Tom works at a local market research firm during the day, so a relative spent the daytime hours with Mrs. Bozikis and the baby during their first week home from the hospital. Since then, it has been just the three of them living in the large, two-bedroom apartment.

A not-yet-used crib, swing and miscellaneous toys sit in a corner of the living room, near a bookshelf lined with volumes written in Braille. Although the colors in the rooms of the apartment are bland, sound devices are everywhere: radios, a large stereo system with stacks of records with Braille labels, a television, a tape deck. Next to the tape player are several cassettes on child care.

"Things have been going quite well, actually," Mrs. Bozikis said, sitting with her husband and nursing the infant on the couch of their living room. "That's not to say we haven't had anxieties. But the anxieties didn't have anything to do with our being blind. It never really even entered the picture. We're told the things we've worried about are the same things all parents worry about."

Although it is unclear whether the child will always be able to see—there is a possibility that Tom's blindness could be hereditary—Mr. and Mrs. Bozikis say they're ready to accept whatever happens.

"Look at it this way," Bozikis said. "If our son eventually is blind, we'll be in a better position to help him cope with blindness than sighted parents. We've both been through it. And if he's not, well, I would hope his perception of blindness will be much different than that of most."

Besides the baby's health, Mrs. Bozikis said at first she was a little concerned about giving the baby a bath, although she is getting more confident with practice. Changing diapers and other chores, she said, are easy for her because of her experience at home with her younger brothers and sisters.

Mr. and Mrs. Bozikis rely on buses to get around the city, and a carrying pouch allows them to carry the baby in front while still having both hands free.

"It's so neat to observe the little things the baby's going through," said Mrs. Bozikis, a former local radio news reporter who worked as a teaching assistant with the school system until earlier this year. "He's getting now so he likes to grasp things in his hands, like his rattle or your little finger. The doctor says he's beginning to focus on objects.

"He really likes skin contact. In our situation, especially, it's going to be important to develop strong communication lines early. It's kind of hard now to figure out what his facial expression is. He makes a lot of noise, though. We can't wait until he starts laughing."

Cradling the infant in her arms, she frequently touches her son's face with her fingers and the child does not seem to mind. Tom returns to the room with a small blanket, which he drops on the baby.

"I really don't expect the problems we'll have raising the child will be any different than most other parents," he said. "The thing to remember is that there are alternative ways to do most anything. You just have to have confidence in yourself."

Rhonda said, "the people at the hospital were great. They never doubted that we'd be able to handle this." She said they are considering having another child, although they will probably wait a while. Still, they said they occasionally become irritated with the misconceptions people have about their blindness.

"People have asked me what I'll do when he gets old enough to wander around the house and hide," Mrs. Bozikis said. "That's easy. We'll tie bells on his feet with double knots. People ask us things like how will we keep him away from poisons. That sort of a question bothers me a little bit, it shows some of the misconceptions people have. Of course, we'll do what any thoughtful person would do, you keep poisons out of reach. Just because we're blind doesn't mean we're dummies.

"People say things like, 'well, it's good that you're nursing your baby, that way, you won't have bottles to clean.' And they're serious. People would never say that to someone who could see. It's like washing bottles would be some kind of extra burden on us. People say they hope our son can see so he can be our eyes. Well, that's a nice thought and I'm sure they mean well, but we wouldn't want that. He'll have his own life to live."

Bozikis is vice president of the Indiana chapter of the National Federation of the Blind, a group which has taken an activist role in pushing for legislation it believes would give blind people a better chance at succeeding in the mainstream of society. The basic philosophy of the group, which has had an often-stormy relationship with the American Association for the Blind, is that blind people should not receive charity, only a fair chance, he said.

"Whether our son can see or not, he'll be raised from the perspective that blindness does not have to be a handicap," Mrs. Bozikis said. "Ideally, by the time he's grown we'd like it to be so people would read a newspaper article like this and say 'So what. What's so unusual about blind people raising kids.'"

Back to contents

FROM THE PRESIDENT'S MAIL BASKET: REPORT FROM SHARON GOLD

Lancaster, California

September 13, 1980

Dear President Jernigan,

The enclosed brochure of the National Federation of the Blind, Western Division, is being distributed in an effort to raise public awareness of blindness. White Cane Safety Day, and the National Federation of the Blind.

On October 11, 1980, the National Federation of the Blind, Western Division will hold a Walk-a-Thon in the Oakland, Sacramento and San Fernando Valley areas. Members in these areas will give this brochure an especially broad distribution in an effort to promote interest in the Walk-a-Thon. As a part of this effort, local members are planning visits to schools to talk about blindness and to widely distribute these brochures and Braille alphabets to school children.

You will note that this brochure has been written in a way that would, with minor appropriate adjustments, allow for its use by other affiliates.

Cordially,

Sharon Gold, President
National Federation of the Blind,
Western Division

WHITE CANE SAFETY DAY

OCTOBER 15th

On October 15th, citizens of this State and Nation will honor WHITE CANE SAFETY DAY as annually proclaimed by the President of the United States and the Governor of California.

The purpose of WHITE CANE SAFETY DAY is to make the public sensitive to the White Cane as a symbol of the independence of the blind and to promote public awareness of the blind as equal and productive citizens within the community.

It is at this time that we remind all citizens that persons carrying a White Cane or using a dog guide are legally blind and have equal rights, under the law, to housing; to all places to which the public is invited including, but not limited to, places of lodging, amusement, and recreation; to all modes of public transportation; and to all the streets and byways of our communities.

It is at this time that we remind motorists that the law requires that drivers exercise appropriate care when approaching blind persons.

It is at this time that we remind employers that competent blind persons can be and are employed within the broad spectrum of competitive labor and within the professions.

With the proclamation of WHITE CANE SAFETY DAY, citizens are reminded that blindness can happen to anyone at any time. The NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND reminds citizens that blindness need not be a tragedy. The NFB believes and has proven that with opportunity and training a blind person can compete on equal terms with his/her sighted colleagues.

The NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND, a 40 year old organization of blind persons, provides

. . assistance to newly blinded persons in adjustment and orientation, including referrals to appropriate agencies

. . public education, including the production of films and literature for the purpose of removing social, economic, and legal barriers against the blind

. . employment opportunities for qualified blind persons

. . legal assistance to victims of discrimination

. . White Canes, Braille watches, and other special aids and appliances to the blind, at or below cost

. . scholarships to qualified blind college students

. . consultation and other services to parents and educators of blind children

. . assistance in the research, development, and evaluation of new technical aids and appliances

. . leadership and personal development training seminars to qualified blind persons

. . Brailled and recorded magazines and newsletters of interest and importance to the blind

For more information of WHITE CANE SAFETY DAY, on blindness, or on the services of or membership in the NFB, contact your local chapter of the NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND.

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND
WESTERN DIVISION
Sharon Gold, President
807 West Avenue J
P.O. BOX 1522
Lancaster, California 93539
(805) 942-1955

Affiliated with the NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND
Kenneth Jernigan, President
1800 Johnson Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21230
(301) 659-9314

Back to contents

NFB OF NEW JERSEY 4TH ANNUAL CONVENTION

by SHARON KELLY

The 4th annual Convention of the NFB of N. J. was held May 2, 3 and 4, at the Holiday Inn Jet Port in Elizabeth. This convention was special because we were privileged to have Dr. Kenneth Jernigan as our national representative. Many had a chance to meet Dr. Jernigan for the first time, while others renewed old acquaintances. Dr. Jernigan's eloquent banquet speech on Saturday evening was inspiring to all of us.

The Saturday program was informative, lively and clearly demonstrated the need for future action. Dr. Jernigan reported on our latest victories and challenged us to do more to reach our goals. We had a first hand experience of the NFB's role as watchdog over state agencies. The N. J. Commission used $150,000 from the Vending Machine Income fund for the Workshop and Home Industry programs. This is a violation of the Randolph-Sheppard act. Mrs. Krajczar, Executive Director, stated that all money was returned to the Vending Machine fund. As Dr. Jernigan stated, "Would the money have been returned if the watchful eyes of consumers were not present."

Mrs. Krajczar reported on the Commission's future plans. The pros and cons of Independent Living programs were also discussed.

On Saturday afternoon, we discussed the Commission's "progress" on its 504 Self Evaluation. The state's employment opportunities and problems were also thoroughly discussed. President Sofka reported that our goals for the coming year will be to work more closely with the legislature, to make sure that AI498 Blind Injury Liability Public Facility becomes law and to strengthen our movement by forming new chapters, etc. Throughout the convention, we passed 8 resolutions. We sent a mailgram to Governor Byrne insisting that he sign the Identification Drivers' Licenses for the Disabled act.

Back to contents

SOUTH CAROLINA CONVENTION

Members and non-members attending the 1980 convention of the National Federation of the Blind of South Carolina the weekend of August 1, 2, and 3, 1980, agree that it was the most successful to date. This was the 24th Annual Convention of the NFB of SC. The University of South Carolina in Columbia hosted the three day meeting. It was the first time the NFB of SC had held its annual convention at a state university or college. However, the Capstone House proved to be a fine convention facility. Approximately 300 were in attendance. A number of dignitaries from throughout the state were present. Issues included education of the blind, public attitudes, employment opportunities, technology, recreation, legislation and a variety of other features. No fewer than 20 chapters and divisions reported on their activities during the past year. Throughout the three day meeting one could sense the air of excitement, enthusiasm, and unity. There was an outpouring of concern and dedication seldom if ever seen in similar organizations. On Friday afternoon, August 1, delegates and dignitaries from throughout South Carolina began to arrive. Friday evening there were meetings of the Resolutions Committee, the Student Division, and Blind Vendors. Both the Student Division and the Blind Vendors Association have new Presidents. The Student Division President is Mrs. Vickie Darnell of Charleston and Edsel Doyle of Columbia is the new President of the South Carolina Blind Vendors.

Saturday morning Donald Capps (First Vice President of the NFB and President of the State affiliate) reported to the convention. He reminded the delegates that the organization was entering its fifth decade of service. Mrs. Phyllis Petty represented the S.C. School for the Deaf and the Blind. There were two important panels on employment opportunities and technology for the blind. In the area of technology, the convention was pleased to have representatives from Kurzweil, TSI, Maryland Computer Services, and Apollo.

Mr. Steve Prine, State Librarian for the Blind and Physically Handicapped, spoke at the Saturday afternoon session. The convention also heard from Earl and LeVett Jeffcoat of the S. C. Association for Blind and Visually Handicapped Children. Both are Federationists with Mrs. Jeffcoat serving as Secretary of the Association. Another Federationist, David Stewart, spoke to the convention concerning the S. C. Association for Blind Athletes. David is a gold medal recipient. Following the Saturday afternoon session the delegates did take time out for an Ice Cream Social at the Historic Horseshoe area of the campus which also featured a cakewalk. The Saturday evening banquet is always the real highlight of the convention. There were a number of awards and scholarships presented during the banquet. Also, President Capps presented a charter to Mrs. Gloria Bowers, President of the Low County Chapter of the NFB of SC, representing the 19th chapter of the state organization being organized in April. Jerry Whittle was the recipient of the "Andy Anderson" scholarship presented by Mrs. Earlene Gardner on behalf of the Aiken Chapter. Doris Bell, associate member of the Laurens County Chapter, was recognized by the State President for exceptional service to the NFB of SC being presented with the first President's citation. James Sims, President of the Columbia Chapter and member of the Federation for more than 30 years, was the recipient of the annual "Donald C. Capps Award." In recognition of outstanding service, C. A. Gatlin of Charleston was the recipient of the annual "Associate Member Award." Mrs. Sheila Compton, President of the Florence Chapter, received the "Dr. Samuel Lawton Memorial Scholarship Award" of $300. The 1980 recipient of the "Ellen Beach Mack Home Award" was Mr. Willie Boyd of Grey Court. This year the award was in the amount of $776.27. President Capps presented the organization's "Distinguished Service Award" to Mr. M. L. Outz of Laurens.

The banquet speaker was Rep. Paul Cantrell of Charleston. Mr. Cantrell made an excellent presentation concerning the Federation's sponsored legislation providing for equal treatment in jury service by the blind.

On Sunday morning Marshall Tucker and Mary Middleton led the devotional and memorial service.

Suzanne Bridges, Executive Director of the Federation Center of the Blind, reported solid progress for the Center during the past year.

C. A. Gatlin, Chairman of the 1981 Baltimore National Convention Fund, entertained the group with many humorous stories concerning the bus trip to Minneapolis in July. C. A. also distributed approximately 5,000 tickets to be sold statewide to assist in the 1981 convention trip. Sheila Byrd, State Secretary, reported on the plans of the Study and Research Committee concerning employment opportunities for the blind.

The following officers were re-elected: President—Donald Capps, First Vice President—Robert Bell, Second Vice President—Mattie Bell Gatlin, Secretary—Sheila Byrd, and Treasurer—Marshall Tucker. Members selected to a three year board position included Wayne Walters of Anderson, Mary Middleton of Charleston, W. P. Stonger of Florence, Despo Zouras of Greenwook, Joe Gulledge of Rock Hill, Gary Williams of Spartanburg, Earnest Pollard of Sumter, Mrs. Gloria Bowers of Varnville, Reggie Baker of Lancaster, and Odell Austin of Orangeburg was elected to complete one year of an unexpired three year term. As stated in the beginning it was a super convention and provided the delegates with the momentum and inspiration needed to work for optimum progress in the coming year.

Back to contents

NFB OF NORTH CAROLINA CONVENTION REPORT, 1980

The eleventh annual convention of the NFB of North Carolina was held in Goldsboro at the Holiday Inn September 26-28.

The convention was gaveled to order at 9:15 Saturday morning by the president Hazel Staley. Following the welcoming ceremonies the president presented her annual report.

The theme of the convention was "The Blind at Work." There was a discussion of 504, blind persons in civil service employment, job interviews, and types of jobs that persons with varying degrees of education can do. Dr. Jernigan, Mrs. Anderson, and Mr. Medlin from our national office attended the convention. Dr. Jernigan's banquet address was, as always, superb.

Mrs. Staley, who has served eight years as state president, announced that, for personal reasons, she could not seek re-election. She was awarded a plaque and a silver tray at the banquet on Saturday evening.

At the business meeting on Sunday morning the following officers were elected: president, Byron Sykes of Greensboro; first vice president, Mike Human of Marion; second vice president, Dan Hollar of Statesville; secretary, Andy Rector of Greenville; and treasurer, Larry Brommer of Wilmington. Board members elected for two-year terms were: Ralph Wilkins of Asheville, Charles Parker of Rocky Mount, and Louise Weeks of Rockingham. Board members elected for one-year terms were Joyce Walters of Smithfield and Hazel Staley of Charlotte.

Back to contents

RECIPE OF THE MONTH

by LUCILE HITT

LUCY'S SQUASH CAKE

(Note: Lucile Hitt is from Bluefield, West Virginia.)

2 average size yellow squash
3 eggs
1 cup sugar
1 1/2 cups flour
1 teaspoon baking soda
1 teaspoon vanilla
1 teaspoon nutmeg
1 teaspoon spice

Back to contents

MONITOR MINIATURES

From the Federal Office for Handicapped Individuals:

The publication, "Pocket Guide to Federal Help for the Disabled Person," produced by the Office for Handicapped Individuals, U.S. Department of Education, is now available on one flexible sound-sheet playable on National Library Service for the Blind talking book machines.

This brief but informative pamphlet describes government benefits and services available to handicapped persons.

Free copies of this publication may be ordered from the Clearinghouse on the Handicapped, Room 3106, Switzer Building, 400 Maryland Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20202. When contacting the Clearinghouse, please specify whether the print or recorded edition of the Pocket Guide is being requested.

Women's Catalog Available
by Kady van Deurs and Eileen Pagan
Box 99 RD 1,
Monticello, NY 12701:

We have just finished a catalog—WOMANBOOKS FOR WOMEN WHO ARE BLIND AND OR PHYSICALLY CHALLENGED. We made it because women who are blind told us they can't find the books they need. They said they can't find feminist books and lesbian books. They said they need a catalog of women's books in format for the blind.

We ran a list of 7,000 titles (the holdings of WOMANBOOKS bookstore in NYC) against 25,000 titles at National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped, Library of Congress, Washington D.C. and against 45,000 titles in the 1979/80 Recording for the Blind Catalog. We have arranged the books by 37 subjects—subjects like feminism, lesbian, abortion, rape. The Goddess and witches—categories which do not appear in existing catalogs. And there is an author index. We've included both RFB and NLS titles in the same catalog to make it easier for women to find books.

We have read the catalog on to 7 tracks with a beep system. Beeps indicate subjects and also letters of the alphabet in the author index.

Women who need the catalog can get it by sending two high quality 90 minute cassettes (or $3) to: G.A.L.B., Suite 502, 110 East 23 Street, NY NY 10010. Sighted women can help by sending dollars or tapes to GALB to make the catalog available to women who cannot afford $3.

From Don Gilmore of Illinois—There is a new talking calculator on the market which seems to have exciting possibilities for blind persons in several jobs. It is the Cannon Canola SP I260-D, available from any Cannon Office Products Wholesaler at $399.95. This calculator is a desk top model with full business functions, a florescent digital display, a tape print out, and a 128-entry memory. Mr. Gilmore is a storekeeper-2 for the Department of Health in the state of Illinois and has found this machine most suitable for his work. For more information, contact your local Cannon dealer.

Persons who have material or equipment for writing Braille, New York Point, or other tactile systems used in the 19th Century should write to: Miss Elizabeth Harris, associate Curator of Graphic Arts, Division of Graphic Arts, M H T, 5703 Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560. The material will be considered for inclusion in an exhibition on writing for the blind in the 19th Century, which is currently on display at the National Museum of Historic Technology in Washington.

New publication: Smith-Kettlewell Technical File is now being published and is intended to replace the Braille Technical Press. The first issue of this new quarterly magazine is free and can be ordered in Braille, on recorded discs, or in large print from Mr. Bill Gareey, editor, Smith-Kettlewell, Institute of Visual Sciences, 2232 Webster Street, San Francisco, CA 94115. Subscriptions for the four issues in 1981 will be: Braille, $12.00; disc, $6.00; large print, $12.00. For further information or subscriptions contact the editor at the address above.

From Sharon Omvig:

On September 20-21 Jim and I attended the annual convention of the National Federation of the Blind of Colorado—and what a fine convention it was! Seated next to Jim at the banquet were Mr. and Mrs. Lee Scott of Denver. Jim asked them to become members-at-large associates of the NFB, and they were delighted to do it. The Scotts by the way, are the parents of Congresswoman Pat Schroeder, who as Federationists know is a long time and staunch supporter of the Federation.

Dick Porter, President of our West Virginia affiliate, has recruited an associate whose name immediately catches one's attention. The Honorable John D. Rockefeller IV, Governor of West Virginia, now is a Sponsoring Associate of the National Federation of the Blind. Dick has set a good example for the rest of us. How many other governors can we enroll as associates?

From Millie Stokes, President, National Federation of the Blind of Delaware:

If New York passes a Jury Bill, they will be the second state east of the Mississippi, not the first. Delaware passed their Bill last April.

From Tom Anderson:

Recently, a new chapter of the NFB of Kansas was formed. It is the Douglas County Chapter, a chapter which serves the area surrounding Lawrence.

The following were elected as officers: Tom Anderson, Lawrence, President Charles Hallenbeck, Lawrence, First Vice President, Sharon Luka, Baldwin, Second Vice President, Brandon Hunt, Lawrence, Secretary, and Loren Buntemeyer, Lawrence, Treasurer. I think this chapter has real potential

From Paul Burkhardt:

At its September meeting, the National Federation of the Blind of Massachusetts Student Division elected the following officers to serve the coming year:

President, Albert Sten
First Vice President, Clare Schneider
Second Vice President, Bonnie MacMulkin
Recording Secretary, Karen Glazebrook
Corresponding Secretary, Paul Burkhardt
Treasurer, Peter Donahue

Back to contents