DECEMBER, 1981
VOICE OF THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND
THE BRAILLE MONITOR
PUBLISHED MONTHLY IN INKPRINT, BRAILLE, AND ON TALKING-BOOK DISCS BY THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND
KENNETH JERNIGAN, President
NATIONAL OFFICE
1800 JOHNSON STREET
BALTIMORE. MARYLAND 21230
LETTERS FOR THE PRESIDENT, ADDRESS CHANCES, 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 TOR THE BLIND—IT IS THE BLIND SPEAKING FOR THEMSELVES
THE BRAILLE MONITOR
PUBLICATION OF THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND
DECEMBER 1981
MORE MEETINGS AND CORRESPONDENCE WITH NAC AND THE AMERICAN FOUNDATION FOR THE BLIND
by Kenneth Jernigan
AMERICAN FOUNDATION FOR THE BLIND SPEAKS AT 1981 NFB CONVENTION
NFB OF NEW HAMPSHIRE RECEIVES HONOR AND RECOGNITION
ACB LEADER OPPOSES NFB JURY BILL
by Kenneth Jernigan
REVITALIZED NFB OF WASHINGTON CONTINUES VITAL
JOB OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE BLIND REPORT TO THE 1981 NFB CONVENTION
THE FEDERAL ROLE IN JOB OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE BLIND
VICTORY IN TEXAS: SANDRA STREETER WORKS IN DALLAS
by Marc Maurer
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS TURNS DOWN UNION FOR BLIND WORKERS IN HOUSTON
by James Gashel
FINANCING THE MOVEMENT
by Kenneth Jernigan
RECIPE OF THE MONTH
by Tina Clancy
It is that time of year again-time to plan for next summer's NFB convention, and what a convention it will be! We are going back to Minneapolis.
In 1982, as in 1980, we will headquarter at the Leamington Hotel. Its rooms are spacious; its air conditioning is flawless; and its services superb. Again, after the Leamington has been filled, we will be using the Curtis Hotel, which is immediately across the street from the Leamington. On a first come first serve basis, rooms will first be assigned at the Leamington, then at the Curtis.
The rates are: single rooms $18.00: doubles and twins $22.00; and $6.00 for each additional person in the room. There will be no charge for children under the age of 12 who stay in the same room with their parents.
All requests for reservations should be sent to the Leamington Hotel, 1014 Third Avenue, South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55404. Phone (612) 370-1100. For each room reservation include a check or money order in the amount of $20.00 made payable to the Leamington Hotel. This deposit must be included in order for your reservation to be made. The $20.00 (which is not refundable) will apply toward your room bill. Your request for reservations should include the following: 1) Your name and address; 2) Your date of arrival; 3) Your date of departure; and 4) What kind of room you want-single, double, triple, or quad.
Registration will begin Sunday, July 4; but as usual in recent years, many of the delegates will probably arrive by Friday, July 2. The meeting of the Board of Directors (open to all) will take place Monday morning, July 5. Business sessions will continue Tuesday morning, Tuesday afternoon, Wednesday morning, Thursday morning, Thursday afternoon, Friday morning, and Friday afternoon. Final adjournment will occur at five o'clock Friday afternoon. The banquet will be held Thursday evening, July 8.
At the 1981 convention in Baltimore increased time was allotted to resolutions and business. However, we were still unable to get everything in. Accordingly, even more time will be set aside for this purpose at the 1982 convention. The agenda will be so arranged as to allow sufficient time for full discussion and debate of all resolutions.
An important part of the convention is the door prizes. Chapters and affiliates should begin now to collect these. In the past we have informally put a minimum value of $25.00 on prizes; but many have been worth considerably more. If you wish to mail door prizes to Minnesota before next summer, send them to Robert Cecrle, 1350 Nicollet Mall, Apt. 2110, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403.
One of the high points of next summer's convention should be the announcement of the winners of the Associates Contest. Remember that the first prize is $1,000, the second prize $500, the third prize $200, and the fourth prize $100. It will be remembered that Sandy Sanderson of Alaska was the 1981 winner, but a number of other people are making a strong challenge this year.
Joyce Scanlan, the capable President of the NFB of Minnesota, can be reached at 4445 Grand Avenue, South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55409. Phone (612) 332-5414. Joyce and the other Minnesota leaders say that they are going all out to make this the best convention we have ever had.
The Twin Cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul are ideal for a July convention. Minnesota has a worldwide reputation as a summer resort area, and the bracing climate and magnificent scenery fulfill the promise. Minnesota is known as the Land of Lakes—with almost fifteen thousand in the state, six within the city limits of Saint Paul. This is sure to be our greatest convention ever. See you in Minneapolis—and get those reservations in!
by Kenneth Jernigan
In the August, 1981, issue of the, Monitor I brought you up to date on the negotiations which have been going forward between the National Federation of the Blind on the one side and the American Foundation for the Blind and NAC on the other. That article was written in June. There have been a number of developments since.
In the first place, Mr. William Gallagher, Executive Director of the American Foundation for the Blind, attended the NFB convention in Baltimore July 7. He spoke at length and engaged in discussion with the members and leaders of the Federation (see article later in this issue). The next development came shortly after the convention. Under date of July 16, 1981, Dr. Otis Stephens responded to my letter of June 5:
Knoxville, Tennessee
July 16, 1981
Dear Dr. Jernigan:
This is written in response to your letter dated June 5, postmarked July 7, regarding our prospective meeting at the University of Tennessee during the week of September 7-11. I am pleased that this time is acceptable to you and suggest that we schedule the meeting for Wednesday, September 9 or Thursday, September 10. Perhaps we can agree on the final details by phone within the next few weeks. I concur with your observation that "pleasant and chatty meetings," without more specific efforts to resolve the issues that now divide us, are counter-productive. Accordingly, I suggest that we establish an agenda of questions to be addressed at our September meeting in Knoxville. By adopting a format of this kind in advance, we should be able to make measurable progress and avoid the futility of a mere war of words.
Before addressing other matters, I must take exception to your characterization of my May 1 memorandum to the NAC Board as less than an accurate statement of the purpose of our May 13 meeting, Mr. Gallagher's projected role in it, and the underlying issues. I enclosed a copy of that memorandum along with my first written communication to you as a means of sharing information in the context of our search for mutually acceptable ways to improve relations between NAC and NFB. With the same objective in mind, I am now enclosing a copy of my May 21 memorandum to the NAC Board reporting on the meeting held in your office on May 13.
Your expression of interest in having "harmony and peace prevail in matters concerning the blind" has my endorsement. The importance of including the National Federation of the Blind in the growing consensus on major issues such as accreditation has never been greater.
I have given serious thought to your observation at the May 13 meeting, reiterated in your letter, that "NAC and its allies" are part of the problem. My perception of NAC is that it provides a mechanism through which blind and sighted persons are bringing about a higher level of accountability among agencies in this field. The process of formulating, revising, and implementing accreditation standards is strongly influenced by many organizations of and for the blind. It is not dominated by any single group or interest. The accreditation process is influenced by a variety of viewpoints from consumer organizations, professional groups, agencies serving blind persons, and representatives of the general public. I am confident that the National Federation of the Blind, as one of the major consumer-oriented organizations in the United States, could play a significant and constructive part in the accreditation process. You told me in Baltimore that you support the concept of standards and accreditation, but that you do not believe NAC functions in accordance with the principles inherent in that concept. I hope to be able to convince you that NAC is a responsible and representative accreditation organization, that it is in fact the appropriate accrediting mechanism for residential schools and other agencies providing services to blind persons.
With reference to the Department of Labor matter that you brought to our attention in Baltimore, I have made inquiries and have confirmed the fact that a meeting between Dr. Bleecker and officials of the Department did take place on March 26. On that occasion Dr. Bleecker did criticize the leadership of NFB. Although this session occurred a few days after the AFB-NFB discussions of March 20-21, arrangements for the meeting were made several weeks earlier. This meeting should be placed in the broader perspective of existing NAC policy with respect to the "NFB Leadership." As I have previously indicated to you, this policy is open to future modification or recision, depending on the willingness of the National Federation of the Blind to moderate in some tangible and significant way its opposition to NAC.
This is a time for mutual forbearance and for an earnest attempt on both sides to identify areas of future cooperation-to try to achieve the harmony of which you have spoken. I will do my best to help bring about this result. In closing, let me take this opportunity to thank you and Mrs. Anderson for the hospitality extended to Mr. Gallagher and me during our visit in Baltimore. I look forward to an opportunity to reciprocate when you and members of your staff come to Knoxville in September.
Sincerely,
Otis H. Stephens, President
National Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually Handicapped
cc: Richard W. Bleecker
William F. Gallagher
As Dr. Stephens said in his letter, he enclosed a communication he had sent under date of May 21, 1981, to NAC leaders:
TO: Board of Directors Presidents Council
FROM: Otis Stephens, President
DATE: May 21, 1981
SUBJECT: Report on first meeting in peace initiative with NFB
Pursuant to the arrangement summarized in my May 1st memorandum to you, William F. Gallagher and I met with NFB President Kenneth Jernigan and his administrative assistant Mrs. Anderson on Wednesday afternoon, May 13th, in Baltimore. The purpose of this meeting was to explore the resolution of conflict between NFB and NAC. I believe that the four hour discussion was productive and that its continuation on the University of Tennessee campus, in a projected meeting, late this summer, is warranted.
We covered a wide variety of issues, ranging from combat in the "political arena," to the structure and operation of NAC, and the respective roles played by NAC and NFB in seeking to advance the best interests of blind persons in the United States. Our dialogue reflected significant philosophical differences but, perhaps more to the point, it underscored the fact that our perceptions of NAC accreditation—its goals with respect to standard-setting and evaluation of services—are far apart. It would be a mistake to minimize the divergence of our views and to expect that the differences that now sharply divide us can be resolved easily or quickly. Given the broad extent of these differences, however, it was encouraging that we could openly and seriously talk also about means by which to move from confrontation to forbearance and ultimately toward tangible cooperation. Mutual trust is, of course, a necessary element in the success of negotiations between organizations whose disagreements are as deep and protracted as those between NFB and NAC. Whether that mutual trust can be achieved is a question which, at this point, only the actions and statements of those who represent each organization can answer.
The integrity of accreditation and NAC's central role in shaping and implementing that process within the field of service to blind persons will not be compromised in the negotiations that have been initiated. That is ultimately the point on which agreement, or at the very least, forbearance must be achieved if this effort is to be worthwhile.
The tone of the May 13th meeting was, on balance, positive. We had an open, candid exchange of views. I listened closely to Dr. Jernigan's comments, disagreeing when I believed him to be in error. He gave me a fair hearing as well. Mr. Gallagher and I were treated with courtesy, and the meeting ended on a note of cordiality. Dr. Jernigan accepted my invitation to hold our next meeting on the University of Tennessee campus in Knoxville. We are exploring a mutually convenient date in late August or early September.
Let me take this opportunity to thank those of you who have called or written expressing encouragement in this endeavor. Unity in the field of service to blind and visually handicapped persons is a vital goal, well worth pursuing in spite of the difficulties that must be encountered in moving toward it. I will continue to keep you informed regarding developments in this important area.
cc: William F. Gallagher
Under date of July 30, 1981, I responded to Dr. Stephens as follows:
Baltimore, Maryland
July 30, 1981
Dear Dr. Stephens:
I have your letter of July 16, 1981, and I thank you for it. I also thank you for sending to me your letter of May 21, 1981, to the NAC board and others.
You are, of course, aware of events surrounding Mr. Gallagher's appearance at the NFB convention July 7, 1981. I know this because of subsequent conversations I have had with him.
Mostly your letter of July 16, 1981, does not deal with the questions raised in my letter to you of June 5, 1981. The reasons for that letter and for the delay in mailing it are clearly set forth in the August Monitor. They were also set forth in my public discussions with Mr. Gallagher on the platform at our recent convention.
Mr. Gallagher publicly admitted that he did not "chair" our May 13 meeting. He gave no satisfactory explanation concerning the conduct of Dr. Bleecker with respect to the attempt to destroy JOB, nor have you given any. Neither you nor Mr. Gallagher has given any plausible explanation concerning your behavior with respect to that matter in the weeks and months following our May 13 meeting. In fact, the tone of your letter would imply that you condone Dr. Bleecker's unethical behavior.
You continue to pretend that you believe the NFB leadership is not representative of the membership and that you may attack the one while purporting to support the other. I have already told you that this is insulting and unacceptable. Your own behavior gives tacit recognition to this fact since you continue to carry on negotiations with me and other leaders of the organization.
In view of the fact that NAC is mentioned rather prominently in this year's NFB Convention banquet speech, I would suggest that you listen to that speech (a cassette copy is being sent to you under separate cover) and that we then discuss an agenda for our fall meeting.
Very truly yours,
Kenneth Jernigan, President
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND
cc: Mr. William F. Gallagher
On August 7 and 8 representatives of the Federation went to New York to meet with representatives of the American Foundation for the Blind. The meeting was held at the Foundation building, and (with the exception of Irving Schloss) both sides were represented by the same people who had met in March at the National Center for the Blind in Baltimore. My perception of that meeting (and I think it was shared by all of the other NFB representatives) is summarized in a letter which I sent to Mr. Gallagher under date of August 10, 1981:
Baltimore, Maryland
August 10, 1981
Dear Mr. Gallagher:
As I reflect upon our meeting last Friday and Saturday, I feel that it is probably desirable to share with you some of my thoughts. In one way or another almost all of us indicated that we thought this second meeting was different in character from the first.
You chaired our opening session Friday morning, and there were relatively few surprises. You and other Foundation staff members reviewed our conversations during the past few months (drawing, as you will remember, certain inferences and conclusions with which we disagreed). Then, you and the members of your team gave a general description of the structure and operation of the Foundation. We found this interesting and worthwhile.
After lunch (which we shared in our meeting room) I chaired. The Federation team gave our version of what has been happening during the past few months. We read the correspondence I have been having with Dr. Otis Stephens, and we said that it appeared to us that the Foundation had not worked in good faith. We documented and gave specific examples.
Toward the end of the afternoon session the exchanges became very blunt. Even though both sides said they did not believe certain things which members of the other side alleged, there was very little personal hostility. In fact, Mr. Brod began a line of discussion which seemed to spark a good deal of interest. He said that in the beginning it was not necessary for us to trust or like each other but only to find common ground and mutual objectives.
I agreed with him but said that it seemed to me there were no common grounds—at least, none specific enough to have any meaning. As I said at our March meeting, if the organized blind and the American Foundation for the Blind could actually come to an understanding of what the real problems of blindness are and could work together to try to solve those problems, the potential good would be incalculable. However, as I also said at that time (and as I have repeatedly said since), I seriously doubt that we have enough in common in the way of goals and objectives to make such an alliance possible. Further, there is every evidence that the Foundation violated almost every commitment which it made at the March meeting. I refer to the failure to provide as promised the article on May 15, the broken pledge to de-politicize NAC, and the misrepresentations contained in the letters of Dr. Stephens.
We had dinner together Friday evening, and there was certainly no lack of cordiality. I had hoped that the good feeling would continue in the Saturday morning session, but it did not. The mood was not so much one of hostility on your part as of seeming disappointment.
I was to chair the first hour of the Saturday morning session. I tried to emphasize the need for decisive action if we were really to make any progress. It is obvious that the method I chose was totally misunderstood.
There are many definitions of poetry. Mine is that it is a telescoping and condensing of prose to such a degree that new perspectives and understandings can be gained by the overview. In other words, I believe that a thing should be said in the clearest possible way. If it can be said in prose, that is the medium which should be used. Only if prose is too bulky to permit relationships and perspectives to be seen should poetry be used.
Apparently you expected me and the rest of the Federation representatives to continue for a full hour in the vein of the day before, but I thought we had said all that there was to say. Therefore, I quoted to you from Shakespeare. I said: "There is a tide in the affairs of men . . ." This passage from Julius Caesar (taken in the context of our conversations) said more clearly than any other words I could have used what I felt had to be said. I assumed that the passage (I quote it as a postscript at the end of this letter) was not so obscure as to require further reference or so abstruse as to need elaboration. Therefore, I relinquished the rest of my time to you. You seemed to be taken totally off balance. You were apparently talking to someone when I gave the quote, so you asked me to repeat what I had said. Maybe it was not that you were talking but simply thought the repetition would bring clarification. Apparently it didn't. I told you that we would be willing to respond to any issues you might wish to raise and that we would gladly engage in further discussion.
You said that we had not responded to your proposals at the NFB convention, and I told you that I remembered no proposals. You said that you would suggest that the American Foundation convene a meeting of the National Federation of the Blind, the American Council of the Blind, the Blinded Veterans Association, and the organization for the parents of blind children which you are creating. You said that, after this conference of what you called the four consumer groups was held, the Foundation should convene a second conference, this time bringing together the "four professional organizations" and the four consumer groups. Of course, you and the Foundation would plan it, stage it, largely finance it, and control it. The Foundation would emerge as the "big daddy" of everything and everybody connected with blindness—a commendable goal (at least, from your point of view) if you could bring it off. In other words, as the saying goes, "nice work if you can get it." But, of course, you can't get it. The blind have not come this far on the road to independence just to hand it all over to the Foundation. I told you that it never occurred to me that you seriously made any such proposal.
We have met with the Foundation on the theory that the Foundation leads the agency forces. You certainly do not lead or control all of the agencies. An increasing number of them are beginning to work sensitively and cooperatively with the blind as partners. In fact, as you know, we believe that one reason that you have been interested in these meetings with the Federation is our growing strength and your loosening hold on the agencies.
Still, this does not mean that you are without strength. As we see it, the ACB and your organization of parents, along with a number of agencies in the field, are satellites and come within your orbit. We certainly do not object to your holding as many meetings with them as you like. Your own memo "to the field" of March 23 says that you recognize your leadership among the agencies and ours among the consumers.
At best, your proposals were diversionary. As we discussed it among ourselves after the meeting, some of our group thought that you really believed we would be taken in by the maneuver and would participate in your series of meetings. Others believed it was all simply a political ploy. My own opinion is that (perhaps, for the first time ever) you came face to face with the hard reality of life as it is and the blind as they are. We will gladly explore with you ways of working together, but we certainly will not come into your orbit as simply another satellite. Regardless of how much control you may have over the agencies (and as you know, we think that is evaporating), we will not permit you to become the "boss dog" of the consumers as well. If you are truly interested in bettering the lives of the blind, we will work with you in good faith and harmony, but we will not be your subordinates or your underlings.
At our Saturday morning meeting I told you that we thought we must either make a quantum leap toward progress or achieve nothing at all. Gradual steps will not do in the present situation. We will gladly put the past behind us if you can bring yourself to accept the realities of the present and the future. If you cannot do this, then all of the conferences and rhetoric in the world will not help.
As we said to you at the conclusion of the meeting, the time for us to exchange articles for publication has passed—at least, for the time being. That commitment has already been made and broken. If Dr. Stephens still wishes to meet with me, I am willing to do it. The Federation team told you that we believe another meeting with the Foundation should be held, probably not before November or after February. We shall wait for you to indicate your choice of times.
Meanwhile I hope this meeting finally brought home to you the real problems which we face and the determination and dedication to purpose and belief which the Federation has. If these talks prove to be productive, it can truly mean a new day for the blind but it cannot be on the old terms and with the old philosophy.
Very truly yours,
Kenneth Jernigan, President
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND
Julius Caesar, Act IV, Scene III:
"There is a tide in the affairs of men.
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat;
And we must take the current when it serves;
Or lose our ventures."
Under date of August 14, 1981, Dr. Stephens wrote me as follows:
Knoxville, Tennessee
August 14, 1981
Dear Dr. Jernigan:
This is written to confirm the arrangements for our forthcoming meeting and the agenda that we discussed by phone this morning. I understand that you will be arriving in Knoxville by 2:00 p.m. Thursday, September 11. This schedule would permit discussions on Thursday afternoon and Friday morning. Mr. Gallagher expects to meet with us, as does Mrs. Anderson, and perhaps one additional representative from the National Federation of the Blind and the National Accreditation Council respectively. I would like to invite you and your colleagues to join us for dinner on Thursday evening.
The agenda items that you and I discussed may be summarized as follows, although not necessarily considered in this order:
(1) existing policies of NFB and NAC with regard to each other;
(2) exploration of ways in which these policies might be modified or rescinded;
(3) our divergent assumptions about the function and purpose of NAC accreditation;
(4) NAC's relationship with AFB and other agencies and organizations in the field;
(5) the possibility of NFB participation in the structuring and implementation of NAC's standards and in the further development of policies regarding accreditation.
Please let me know if you wish to modify any of these items or make additions to the agenda . . .
I look forward to your Knoxville visit and to resumption of the discussions we began in Baltimore last May.
Sincerely,
Otis H. Stephens, President
So the plans were made, and August blended into September. On the Wednesday after Labor Day Mrs. Anderson; Miss Myrick, who is my secretary; and I started driving to Knoxville. We arrived on schedule, and the meeting began Thursday afternoon. There was only one unpleasant surprise. Besides Dr. Stephens and Mr. Gallagher, Dan Robinson was present. Dan Robinson (as many will remember) was President of NAC in the early 1970's. He was totally insensitive, insufferably arrogant, ignorant about everything dealing with blindness, and devoid of any redeeming feature of social grace or personal affability. In short, he was dull, dreary, ill tempered, and blessed with no wit or sense of humor. From the beginning of the meeting it was clear that time had brought no improvements. He was the same old Dan, as full of hate and condescension and custodialism and the need to dominate as ever. Mostly the Thursday afternoon session was a repeat of former meetings. The Foundation—NAC team said we ought to get together and have unity (that is, that we ought to accept NAC, give support to it and the other agencies, and have peace and harmony on AFB terms); and we, just as insistently, repeatedly said that there can be no peace as long as NAC remained unreformed, as long as many of the agencies continued to engage in illegal and unprofessional practices, and as long as the very people who are hired to give services to the blind spend their principal effort at peripheral activities.
That night Dr. Stephens took us to the campus faculty club for dinner, and the evening was largely occupied with socializing and chit chat. The Knoxville get-together was my second meeting with Otis Stephens and my first opportunity to observe him at length and in depth. He measures up well. He is personable and bright, does not lose his cool under stress, and seems to have decent instincts. As I told him the following morning, it is a shame that circumstances so worked out that he fell in with the NAC crowd. If we had got to him first, he would probably have made a good Federationist.
The Friday morning meeting brought a change in mood. Early on, Dr. Stephens made a proposal which, I must confess, shocked me; and I believe my response shocked him. He said that if the Federation would moderate its attitudes towards NAC he would recommend that NAC reconsider its policy statement which says that the NFB leadership is not a constructive force in the field of work with the blind. I asked him why in the world he thought we cared in the slightest what NAC said about us, and he replied that he had thought it was of some importance to us and that we objected to the NAC policy.
With that out of the way, we turned to other matters. Both Mr. Gallagher and Dr. Stephens asked me to name specific things which NAC could do that would make the Federation change its attitudes and begin to be supportive. I began to tell them. As I proceeded to detail some of the unethical behavior of NAC, the meeting (for the first time) turned personally hostile and nasty. This was not the doing of Dr. Stephens or Mr. Gallagher but of Dan Robinson. In the midst of the discussion he turned to me and said (and these were his exact words), "shut up!"
I said something to this effect to him: If I treated you as you deserve, I would come over and punch you in the nose, but I don't think you would have the guts to do anything about it. Therefore, from this point forward, I will have nothing more to do with you. Then, I turned to Dr. Stephens and spoke in substance as follows:
"Dr. Stephens, you now have three alternatives. (1) I can leave the meeting, and we can stop any further conversations right now. (2) You can ask Mr. Robinson to leave the room, and we will continue without him. (3) We can continue the meeting, but on modified terms. I regard Mr. Robinson as a social bore and a person with whom I wish to have no contact whatever. I will have no further conversation with him, and I do not wish him to speak to me again. If he wants to raise questions about anything I have said, then I would ask that he direct his questions to you. If you wish to direct them to me, you may do so. I feel that this man is probably unable to be dominant in his home or his business, and. therefore, that he probably bolsters his insecurities by custodializing and condescending toward blind people. Whatever our philosophical differences, you and I have been personally courteous to each other, but this man is grossly offensive, the sort of individual you would not invite into your home or willingly meet in any other social situation. I would ask that I not be invited to any future meeting at which this man is present."
Dr. Stephens seemed distressed at Mr. Robinson's crude behavior and opted for alternative three. We continued the meeting, and Mr. Robinson said scarcely another word. He acted like a small boy who had been sent to bed without his supper and was sulking about it, with just a tinge of shame and servility thrown into the bargain. He may be a big man in the accounting industry, but what a living advertisement of lack of sensitivity, diplomatic inability, and gauche behavior!
After the Friday morning meeting, Dr. Stephens and I had a long one-on-one conversation, and I believe Dr. Stephens and Mr. Gallagher also talked. It was agreed that Dr. Stephens and I would get together for additional meetings; the first one here in Baltimore and the second one at a place of Dr. Stephens' choosing, probably at the University of Tennessee. By the time you read this article, at least the first of those meetings will undoubtedly have been held.
All of this brings us back to the point at which we started last year when all of these talks and maneuverings began. The fundamental questions then are the fundamental questions now: Can NAC (given all of its background of unethical behavior and abuse of the blind) ever really change and behave decently? For that matter, does it even want to? Can the blind ever trust NAC or any of its principal leaders? Since those leaders have available to them all of the evidence which we possess, is it really believable that they do not know what is going on and what NAC has done to hurt blind people and blight their opportunities? Is it possible that a single one of the NAC leaders can really think that NAC contributes to "quality services" for the blind or that its accreditation is positive instead of negative?
Be this as it may, we are prepared to continue to meet and negotiate with the American Foundation and NAC as long as there seems to be the slightest chance of reform and improvement. We want peace, not conflict; and we are prepared to go the extra mile to achieve this goal. If the American Foundation for the Blind (with all of its money and potential) could really change direction and work with the blind instead of against us, what great things could be accomplished!
Mr. William Gallagher, Executive Director of the American Foundation for the Blind, spoke to the convention delegates Tuesday afternoon, July 7. His appearance must be viewed against the background of the discussions, meetings, and negotiations (see Braille Monitor, August, 1981) which have been taking place for the past year between the Foundation and the Federation. In introducing Mr. Gallagher, President Jernigan said:
"The Foundation is a force in this field. It has money; it has power. We deal in a world of reality. What the Foundation does will have an effect on the lives of blind people. Mr. Gallagher has come here (he didn't have to come) as an invited guest. He may very well not agree with (in fact, he may find unpleasant) some of the things that I have said in the Presidential Report that I have just given. But he has shown in the past that he is willing to hear what is said. Furthermore, he has done graciously what some of his predecessors have done grudgingly—that is, he has come to speak to us. In fact, he said that he would like to come to speak to us. I appreciate that. It is one thing to welcome him as a guest. It is another thing as to whether we agree with him. We may, and we may not. It depends upon what the Foundation does. Nevertheless, he has begun to move from the rigid stance that some of his predecessors have taken. I think that it is necessary for us to talk directly and in a straightforward manner if we are really to accomplish anything at all. However much we may disagree on policy matters, personally we wish Mr. Gallagher well as an individual. Mr. Gallagher."
Then, Mr. Gallagher addressed the convention. He said that he hoped all groups in the field could resolve their differences and get together. Except for proposals that the Foundation convene meetings of various groups to talk about differences, Mr. Gallagher spoke in general terms.
Perhaps the tone and substance of Mr. Gallagher's speech can be capsulized in the following brief excerpt:
"It is no secret," he said, "that we have a strong commitment to NAC. It is no secret that you have a poor relationship with NAC. We believe in standards and accreditation. You believe in standards and accreditation. We have a financial and a moral obligation to NAC. You, at this time, differ with NAC and their current structure. You've heard Dr. Jernigan indicate the relationship that we've had since December, and I appreciate that he had the opportunity to share this with you. These negotiations are not easy for him or for me or for either organization. My current recommendation at this time is to attempt to bring the organizations together, to have a continuation of dialogue between the groups. I was pleased to hear that Dr. Jernigan is still going to meet with Dr. Otis Stephens. It will take time, and we may not reach any common understanding."
Part of the presentation came in the question and answer period, which followed Mr. Gallagher's formal remarks. In part, it went like this:
President Jernigan: "I have some comments. If you take what you said and what I said, each in its own way may be a good enough thing, but you would think we lived in different worlds. Our comments didn't relate to each other. I told you and others told you earlier that certain things were givens, as far as we were concerned. Let me hit one or two of those and ask you if you care to comment on them.
"First I want to settle with you something about the leadership and the membership of this organization. When I speak, I don't speak simply with my voice, and I don't speak just the things that I think. I take seriously the policies laid down by the membership of this organization. You have here somewhere in the neighborhood of fifteen hundred to two thousand blind people. They are from every state in this nation. I am their elected president, and I am pledged to do what this group wants done or else cease being its president. I want to make clear to you that as long as NAC has the policy that it has in attempting to say that the NFB leadership is irresponsible, but they are willing to work with the membership—that is unacceptable to us. That is insulting, and it's not the way it is. That's in the nature of a comment, and you may want to reply to it.
"Let me raise something else. Unless we can deal with the things that we talked about—criminal actions, which have occurred on the part of certain agencies accredited by NAC (and that's not a matter of speculation) and gray area actions, which are not professional in nature, but which are borderline criminal in nature—unless we can work on that kind of thing, then there isn't anything we have to talk about as I see it. Specifically, beyond that, we have to deal with the basics of trust. As I understand it (and I don't mean to be insulting), there isn't any if, and, maybe. You told me when we met on the twentieth and twenty-first of March (and you told me in the presence of seven staff members from the Foundation and seven leaders of the Federation—fourteen witnesses). There was an absolute, ironclad, unconditional commitment that both of us would send to the other a document for publication, and we would send it on May 15th. It would be evidenced by postmark. On the thirteenth of May you told me (when I raised the question with you) that you weren't prepared to do that. If that kind of commitment can be made and broken (especially in the atmosphere where we hammered out the agreements), how can we rely on other things we are told?
"One more question, and then I'll give you the floor to deal with any of that. And, of course, I'll be glad to answer any questions you care to raise with me.
"You and Dr. Stephens told me that you were unaware of Dr. Bleecker's going to the Department of Labor and trying to get funds withdrawn from our Job Opportunities for the Blind program. When I raised questions with you as to how that could be, you said you would look into it and give me a report. You did not give me a report. When you called me on June 8, you said nothing about that until I asked you about it. You said that you were going to meet with Dr. Bleecker and look into the matter that night with Dr. Stephens. You said you would give me a report. You called me again on June 12. You did not mention the matter, and I didn't this time. Until this very day, you have not mentioned the matter. If that kind of thing occurs (and I've given you two specific examples of very clear-cut failures to meet commitments), how can we really talk about funding of programs or block grants or other things and have it be meaningful? I hope you understand the spirit in which I am raising it—not in anger, not in criticism, but simply to say to you: If we can't work at that level, then how can we work at all?"
Mr. Gallagher responded: "I hope that we can stay and be in the same world. We have talked about how it would be wonderful if we had mutual trust in each other, if we had confidence in each other. We have talked about your coming in good faith, and I hope that you believe that I am coming in good faith. I will say that on May 13, when we met, I mentioned to you that I was not ready at that time to present my article on the fifteenth. I believe, also, you were a little concerned. But you did say: 'Could you give me another date?' I said I would give it to you soon, and you said maybe sometime this summer we could do it. I agreed we would do it some time during the summer. I have reviewed with the staff people from AFB about the commitment on May the fifteenth. My impression was that, if we were not going to do it, then I would let you know before the fifteenth. Some of the staff at AFB felt the same way you did, that we did have a commitment to make the presentation or to send the article on the fifteenth. At that time I was not ready to do it. It was not in regard to the amount of work that I have to carry. It was not that I just didn't have the time to sit down to write it. I felt that during these negotiations I would want a postponement. This is why I called to say: What about if we do it on June 29 or any convenient day for you late in June. Then we could publish it in our newsletter some time during the summer or early fall, depending upon when our newsletter would be going out. Then you would be able to do the same thing with the Braille Monitor. You then told me what you have just told the group, that we would talk about it today and hold off any decision until this time. I will be glad as of today to work with you on any date that you feel is convenient this summer to exchange the articles.
"The other issue had to do with the Executive Director of NAC and his relationship or visit to the Department of Labor. Dr. Stephens and I had mentioned to you that we did not know that Dr. Bleecker was visiting the Department of Labor and was criticizing the National Federation. Early in June the President of NAC, talking with the Executive Director and the staff and the Board of Trustees or the Board of Directors of NAC, stated that NAC is in the business for standards and accreditation, not in the political scene. They will get out of the political scene if some organizations feel that they are very active in this arena. So the situation stands that NAC will not do any political arena work at this time. If so, the Board of Directors have stated that they will work with the appropriate staff members on that association."
Don Morris was next recognized: "Mr. Gallagher, in the fall of 1980 at a meeting of directors of workshops for the blind and of agencies for the blind, you were a panelist along with Mr. Spaar and Mr. Coppage. In that panel Mr. Spaar said that he'd proposed a plan wherein low-functioning blind people should be placed on farms in the South so as to minimize the cost of keeping them and so as to eliminate their being a burden on their families. As a panelist, you had the opportunity to respond to that and chose not to. In the remarks that you made on that panel, you said (and I believe this is very nearly a quote) that you believe that blindness is not just a physical characteristic, not like being right-handed or living in a big house. You further said that you feel that the blind do not speak for themselves. At that meeting Rosalie Gossard, a blind woman from Maryland (and she's present in this meeting), asked a question: What body of blind people selected you to offer those views on behalf of the blind? She was shouted down in that meeting. She was told that it was an inappropriate time for her to speak, that she was there to hear, and not to be heard. She is at this meeting to be heard and to hear from you. Would you please respond to those items."
Mr. Gallagher answered: "My philosophy and my practice is that I strongly believe that multi-handicapped blind persons should remain in the community or in the appropriate vocational, educational or housing situation. I am not one that believes that we should isolate any blind persons. I am not one that feels that we should have segregated homes for the blind. If you had an opportunity to read the New York Times newspaper a couple of years ago, both Rami Rabby and myself were quoted stating that isolated or segregated programs for the blind in housing would set the blind movement back fifty years. Maybe it was the only time that Rami and I agreed up to that point. I also feel that blindness is more than an inconvenience. My philosophy and training have been that blindness is a severe blow to the individual, the newly blinded person, the family members. But I do feel, with appropriate education and professional training, that this individual with rehabilitation can take his rightful place in the community in this complex society of ours. If you remember, in the two panels, the young woman who did ask Harry Spaar some questions was on the early morning program and was not during the panel program. I do feel that many associations of the blind do speak for their association but do not necessarily speak for all of the blind in the country. Because an individual is blind, he or she does not necessarily speak for other individuals who are blind. I think we are all individuals and should be recognized as individuals. Organizations of the blind should speak for that organization. National organizations for the blind should speak for that association. I don't feel that we at AFB control the blind movement. I don't feel that we control blind persons. I don't feel that we should even attempt in this direction. This interferes with the dignity of the individual. I feel that we should set up a program to offer services to professional persons who are working with blind persons and also to offer services that are necessary to blind individuals. Thank you very much for your question."
Dr. Jernigan next commented: "Mr. Gallagher, let me say a word about speaking for all the blind. Please understand the sense in which I believe the National Federation of the Blind speaks for all blind people. That sense is not that every blind person is a member. Incidentally, a minority of the people voted for the man who is currently President of the United States if you consider the two hundred million plus people in this country. Some are children, some are older people and didn't get to the polls, some are ill, some are simply non-voters, some voted for the Democrat, some voted for other groups, and some got mad and just wouldn't vote at all. Yet, President Reagan speaks for all of us. He speaks for you and me, whether you voted for him or not, whether you are capable of voting or not, whether I am, or whoever. Now, the question comes: Who can speak for the blind? Well, if nobody can speak for them, then the agencies with a lot of money and a lot of power can speak for them, or for us. That's a problem. Witness this group here. You won't find any other group in this country this year that's this large. You're going to another one (the ACB) a little later. See if they have this many people in their audience. The National Federation of the Blind is the largest organization of blind people in this country. It has members from every state and every locality of any size. It meets and threshes out its policies in open convention. Anybody who wants to become a member and is willing to abide by the constitution and policies of the organization can become a member, can vote, and can have his or her say. What we do affects all blind people. We can't help that. The blind are judged by each other. Therefore, the alternative to having us speak for the blind is to have somebody far less representative speak for the blind. Since we do affect all blind people (whether we like it or not and whether they like it or not) by the legislation we work with, by the people we meet with, by our public presentations, public service announcements and the rest of it—in those senses and in that context, I believe we speak for all blind people in this country. That's the sense in which we mean what we've said."
Mr. Gallagher replied: "Dr. Jernigan, may I just mention to the members that yesterday I had the privilege and the opportunity to speak to the Council of Citizens with Low Vision. This was in St. Louis. Today I've had the privilege and the opportunity of speaking with you and your members. Tonight I fly to St. Louis to speak to the American Council of the Blind tomorrow. You, today, are saying that you have the largest membership. I go there tomorrow. They say that they have the largest membership. Maybe we should sit down and count heads and determine how many members we have in all of these associations."
Dr. Jernigan: "Mr. Gallagher, there's a simple way to put it to the test. Go to their convention hall or their banquet and count. Come to this one and count. I know there are members back home, but this will tell you something about who's really there. If we don't have twice as many members in any session as they have in their peak session, then come and tell me about it."
Muzzy Marcelino had the next comment. He said: "When I heard what you said, I could not escape the thought that you really are not coming to grips with the problems of NAC's accreditation. NAC's accreditation is specious! Are you oblivious to the misdeeds, the unprofessional conduct of agencies for the blind that have been cited over many months in the Monitor? How can you condone accreditation of such agencies?"
Mr. Gallagher replied: "Again, may I say that I believe in NAC, I believe in standards, I believe in improving standards, and I believe in accreditation. NAC has also looked into some of the situations, and also they have confidentiality where they cannot share with the group some of these situations. I also may say that they have, in many cases, and in some cases and some situations, taken accreditation away from an organization because of maybe poor practice. I do feel, and feel strongly, that if we can all work together and to help the accrediting process and that if ninety to ninety-five percent of all agencies and schools throughout this country are accredited, then we are going to find even better quality service. You won't send your mother or your father to a hospital unless it's accredited. You will not send your children to an educational program unless it's an accredited program. And I think that blind persons who are seeking services from agencies and schools should also have this same opportunity and privilege and confidence that this agency is an accredited agency. This is why I want to continue these dialogues. This is why I think we should keep having a relationship. So that we can see that all of the agencies will be coming under some type of accreditation, whether it's the plan today, or we improve on it in the future or the very near future."
Dr. Jernigan: "Mr. Gallagher, the interesting part about that is this: It's the two different worlds we live in. You say you are for standards. We say we are for standards. You say you are for quality services. We say we are for quality services. You say that's why you support NAC. We say that's why we oppose NAC. You say blind people ought to have accreditation of their agencies. We say blind people ought to have the right to meaningful accreditation and that what NAC does hurts blind people, lowers the quality of services, and lowers standards. You say that it raises standards and raises the quality of services. This brings up the very question I raised with you in our first conversation. Since we have such a different view (whether ours is false and yours true or yours is false and ours true) since we don't have anything that we agree on except maybe the generalities of peace and motherhood and apple pie, what do we really have to talk about? That is a fair question."
Mr. Gallagher: "I feel, as I have mentioned, that if we do not continue the dialogue, we're only going to end up hurting the blind children and the newly blinded adults and the older person with the visual impairment. Sure, we differ on many situations, but I think the only way we can work these situations out is to sit down and work them out within the blind family unit, and not necessarily in the newspapers or television or in the presence of the general public. I think some of these things have got to be worked out and that we've got to have some serious negotiations, and this is the reason why I am here today. This is the reason why I believe that Dr. Jernigan and his members of the Federation will visit the Foundation in August to sit down and try to work things out. This is why Dr. Otis Stephens in good faith came to Baltimore to talk to Dr. Jernigan and to continue the dialogue so that we can take a look at what are some of the serious differences and what are some of the basic differences and how can we work on these."
Dr. Jernigan: "Mr. Gallagher, did you say to me before you came to Baltimore that you were going to moderate the meeting?"
Mr. Gallagher: "No, not really. I just felt it was going to be the three of us."
Dr. Jernigan: "Thank you."
Al Evans next spoke. He reminded Mr. Gallagher that the National Federation of the Blind has a policy of working toward minimum wage for blind persons who are employed in sheltered workshops, as well as for those who are employed elsewhere. He then asked Mr. Gallagher: "Do you support across-the-board minimum wage entitlement for blind shop workers?"
Mr. Gallagher responded: "I feel that minimum wage is not the answer. People who are working in sheltered shops should be getting more than the minimum wage. The minimum wage is just a basic financial arrangement, and people cannot live on the minimum wage. I would hope that we would be able to work it out so that individuals could be getting much more than the minimum wage. I also feel that if an individual can make minimum wage and is in a sheltered shop environment and that they are not paying him the minimum wage and he can make the minimum wage, then I think they are wrong. I also think that if the person is in the sheltered shop and making the minimum wage or better, then we should try (the state vocational counselors, the placement specialist in the voluntary agency) should help this person who is making the minimum wage to be in the community and to compete with the sighted peers in that community. I also feel that individuals who are in a sheltered shop program who cannot make the minimum wage, then if we are going to subsidize that individual, I think that we as a group should reach out to the government, whether it's on the state or federal or local level, if we are going to subsidize that individual to the minimum wage. I don't feel that the voluntary sheltered shop program is going to subsidize. I only feel and worry that what they will do is to close the shop, cut back, not accept the individual who is multiply handicapped, and allow this person to sit home. I want this person to be in some type of work environment, whatever his capacity may be."
Dr. Jernigan asked: "Is this fair, though? You say that in certain instances as the system now operates, you would favor paying certain blind persons less than the minimum wage?"
Mr. Gallagher replied: "If the person is unable to make the minimum wage, then I don't feel the voluntary agency is going to do this. I think that they will not accept that individual in the program. If we are going to give this person the minimum wage, then it has to be a subsidy from the government, from state or federal programming."
Dr. Jernigan said: "If I understand correctly, then, you're saying that in some situations as the system now operates, you would favor less than the minimum wage?"
Mr. Gallagher: "Dr. Jernigan, I'm not quite sure what you are saying on this. If the person is making less than the minimum wage, that you feel that we should then (or the sheltered shop should) give the minimum wage to this person, not from a subsidy?"
Dr. Jernigan: "I'm not saying anything. I'll be glad to answer a question from you if you want me to. It seems to me that this is a yes or a no. Are there circumstances now where you feel that, under the present system, certain blind persons ought to be paid less than the minimum wage?"
Mr. Gallagher: "They are earning less than the minimum wage."
Dr. Jernigan: "Whatever they are earning, do you feel that they ought to be paid less than the minimum wage?"
Mr. Gallagher: "Yes."
Dr. Jernigan then said: "My answer, Mr. Gallagher, is: I do not believe any blind person working in any sheltered shop under any circumstances at the present time ought to be paid less than the minimum wage." (Applause from the audience)
Mr. Gallagher responded: "I think if we are talking about the multiply handicapped who can't make even fifty percent of the minimum wage—the average blind person today could very easily make the minimum wage in a sheltered shop or in a community. He has or she has the quality to do this. I don't think we are talking about the average individual. If the average individual who is blind is not making it, then I think there is something wrong in the situation, either with the individual or with the system or the sheltered shop itself."
Dr. Jernigan: "Mr. Gallagher, my problem is this: Some blind people may be severely multiply handicapped and others (no matter what you do) are going to find a way to get out and make a living. But with the present governmental system, which permits the certificates of exemption, and with the Labor Department telling us that they know of violation after violation, and with the kind of certificates that the shops can get, I'm afraid that the present system is used as an excuse to pay many blind people subminimum wages who can earn minimum wages if they were paid fairly. I am also afraid that in the present situation, there is an incentive to do precisely that. That is our concern."
Mr. Gallagher: "I think also that the Federation and the appropriate people from other consumer groups and the sheltered shop groups should sit down and try to work out this arrangement."
Peggy Pinder was next recognized. She said that the Federation is concerned about the fact that all blind people have difficulty getting jobs in agencies serving the blind, not just blind women. In addition, she said that the Federation has studied NAC thoroughly and feels no need to study it further. She concluded: "Your image of blind people and ours is so fundamentally different that I wish you would try to explain to us again how it is that dialogue of any kind is going to help when you're coming from such a different world from the one that we live in."
Mr. Gallagher: "I agree with you that statistics on employment in the United States is not accurate. We do many times see that individuals or states classify individuals as being placed on a job, and it may not be the type of arrangement that we would like to see. The dialogue I still feel is the only answer to solve some of these difficult problems that we do have. I do feel that if we do not, and that we still continue this friction (this so-called war in the field of blindness) that we are not going to get the appropriate legislation that we need. As we go to politicians they will say: We are not going to get in the middle of this situation. Get your own home in order before we will help. In talking to some of the organizations of and for the blind, they say the same thing. Let's work together. Let's push, and we can move some of the legislation to get the appropriate services that we think are needed for the individual who is newly blinded or for the parents who are just in the process of raising a blind youngster."
Dr. Jernigan: "We think our house is in order. You see, if you had a situation where the steel workers went to a company that was manufacturing steel and somebody said: Why don't you people get your house in order. After all, you are all just manufacturing steel, the steel workers and the steel company. If somebody said that, they'd laugh at you. The steel workers are one thing, and the companies are another. As we see it from our world (and think about it a minute), we see the Foundation heading up a coalition dealing with NAC, the Affiliated Leadership League, and the ACB; and then we think there is the organized blind movement. You may think that's not the way it is, or something else. But that's the way we see it. And if you're going to talk to us, you ought to know how we see it to commence with. We don't believe that there is all this great multiplicity. We believe there are two forces in this field—that you head up one of them and that we head up the other. That's the way we think about it."
Mr. Gallagher: "You say your house is in order. I say AFB's house is in order. I am sure the NAC people think their house is in order. I am sure ACB will state that their house is in order. But when we all go to the state or federal politicians, they say to us that your house or the blindness system is not in order. This is why I think we've got to work together, so that we can show them a united front and unity and oneness."
Dr. Jernigan: "You see, we don't think NAC has a house. We think you own it. We don't think ACB has a house; we think you own it. We think that it's your house."
Mr. Gallagher: "I'm going to start collecting rent if we have all these tenants."
Dr. Jernigan: "I think you are. You've already collected a lot of it."
There were other questions and other answers. Federationists continued to press Mr. Gallagher to try to get him to understand our concern with the role that the American Foundation for the Blind is playing and to try to get him to share our concern. Mr. Gallagher continued to reiterate his view that the American Foundation for the Blind wants to sit down and talk with all kinds of groups and that this should resolve all disagreements. It was as if he were saying: "It would be nice if there were no disagreements between us, so let us pretend there are not."There are many signs which point to the growing prestige of our movement. One of these occurred in New Hampshire in September when the State Senate expressed its appreciation for the work of the Federation and its pride in the organization's accomplishments. The resolution reads as follows:
WHEREAS, a resolution is a means whereby the Senate may recognize the contributions of an outstanding group, and,
WHEREAS, the National Federation of the Blind of New Hampshire has for twenty-five years been committed to the goals of security, equality and opportunity for the blind, and,
WHEREAS, this organization was founded in 1957 with seven members and has grown to several hundred, and,
WHEREAS, the National Federation of the Blind in New Hampshire has been committed to educating the public to the important contributions that blind people can make to society, creating opportunities for blind persons and promoting awareness of blind issues among those in public life, and,
WHEREAS, the organization introduced and supported the landmark legislation of 1973, the "Bill of Rights for the Blind," guaranteeing equal treatment and equal opportunities for the blind, and,
WHEREAS, the National Federation of the Blind of New Hampshire through public education, legislative advocacy and service referral has greatly advanced the rights of blind people in New Hampshire, now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Senate of the State of New Hampshire does hereby express its pride at the accomplishments of the National Federation of the Blind of New Hampshire and thanks them for their contributions to the State of New Hampshire.
Robert B. Monier
President of the Senate
Laurier Lamontagne
Senate Whip
ATTEST: September 23, 1981
Wilmont S. White
Clerk of the Senateby Kenneth Jernigan
I am repeatedly approached by well meaning people who say something to this effect: "Why can't the National Federation of the Blind and the American Council of the Blind (and, for that matter, NAC and the American Foundation for the Blind and the agencies) get together and form a common front? After all, you are all working for the same thing. It is destructive for the 'blindness community' to be divided and advocate different things. Legislators and members of Congress (not to mention governors and such like) will take a 'hands off' attitude if the blind themselves don't even know what they want."
There is a basic fallacy in this logic—or, more properly put, this lack of logic. It is the underlying premise that we are all working for the same thing. The truth, of course, is that we are not. There are essentially two groups in this country involved in matters concerning blindness. The first of these is led by the American Foundation for the Blind. Besides the Foundation, it consists of the Foundation's creature the National Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually Handicapped (NAC), many old line custodial agencies, and the American Council of the Blind. These outfits form a loose coalition, and NAC has always admitted that more than half of its budget year after year has come from the American Foundation for the Blind. At one time or another the ACB has also received money from the Foundation. Even though these agencies and organizations sometimes quarrel among themselves and don't seem to trust each other very much, they generally stick together and can always be counted on to oppose measures which would bring reform to the field—or, to put it another way real independence and opportunity for the blind. They appear at each others meetings, serve on each others boards, and (at least, at times) bail each other out financially.
The other group in the field consists of the National Federation of the Blind and a growing number of progressive agencies that are truly interested in seeing the blind gain independence and first-class status. The agencies in this group have so structured their programs and philosophy that they do not regard the growing strength of the organized blind movement as a threat to their interests.
Although there are some individuals and organizations that are on the fringes and others that shift from one camp to the other, the two groups in the field are distinctly separate and totally antithetical in their outlook and behavior. It is not difficult for the average person in this country to understand that farm organizations may not at times be working for the same thing that officials of the Agriculture Department are working for. No one has trouble understanding the fact that labor and management (even though they may work in the same building and with the same company) do not always have the same objectives. No one has any trouble understanding that an organization of women advocating the ERA is not working for the same goal as an organization opposing the ERA. This is true even though both groups may be largely composed of women and protest that they have only the best interests of women at heart. Yet, many people seem to have great difficulty understanding why everybody who is blind, claims to be interested in the blind, either is (or claims to be) doing any sort of work relating to the blind, has any relative or friend who is blind, is a professional in the field, or is a member of an organization of the blind or a group dealing with blindness can't get together and function as a team.
"After all," such people piously say, "you are all working for the same thing, so why can't you get together?" But (how often must it be said!) we are not all working for the same thing—at least, not unless you make it so general that it is meaningless. This is why we cannot get together. There are two opposing philosophies competing against each other (each exemplified by a distinct group of individuals and organizations), and one will prevail. The other will cease to exist or diminish to a position of irrelevance. It cannot be otherwise. In fact, it is happening now, and this is what all of the fuss in the field of work with the blind is about.
The AFB and its satellites are losing ground. Their decline is absolutely inevitable. They represent a bygone era, and the old order (as it always does) is giving way to the new.
An incident which recently occurred in Illinois illustrates all of this as well as anything can. Floyd Cargill is one of the leaders of the American Council of the Blind. He is also an official of the Illinois state rehabilitation agency. When he speaks, it is hard to tell whether he is speaking for his agency, the ACB, or himself; but it really doesn't matter. The philosophy seems to be the same, and the results are what count.
I have known Floyd Cargill for many years, and (although he is blind himself), he is no friend to blind people. When we organized the National Federation of the Blind of Illinois in the late sixties, he made a halfhearted attempt to join, but it was clear that he was not acting in good faith. He wanted to create disruption and dissension. He virtually admitted as much in a public meeting. He is no Federationist and has no wish to be. His philosophy is not our philosophy.
In 1975 in San Francisco I attended the meeting of the National Council of State Agencies for the Blind, and even though at that time I was the Director of the Iowa Commission for the Blind, Floyd Cargill tried to raise objections to my presence. That was too much even for the most reactionary of his colleagues, and I participated in the meeting without further incident. Mr. Cargill is happy enough with the ACB affiliate in his home state of Illinois, but as would be expected, he has taken every opportunity to bad mouth the Federation and oppose its projects.
The most recent instance of this behavior occurred during the weekend of September 12 at the time of the NFB of Illinois convention. We have been trying to pass a bill through the state legislature saying that no person may be denied the right to serve on a jury because of blindness. And who should publicly attack the jury bill? None other than Floyd Cargill.
Steve Benson, the President of the National Federation of the Blind of Illinois, wrote me a letter about it and sent newspaper clippings:
Chicago, Illinois
October 6, 1981
Dear President Jernigan:
I am enclosing two articles pertaining to the 1981 NFBI convention. The Decatur Herald article contains remarks of Floyd Cargill, a longtime employee of the Illinois Department of Rehabilitation Services (IDORS) and its predecessor agency, and an active member of the ACB affiliate in Illinois. Cargill's comments reflect not only ACB's view of blindness and the blind, but also the view of the majority of those working in the blindness field in Illinois. His remarks clearly show why agencies for the blind are so often perceived as adversaries rather than partners in the rehabilitative process.
Present at our convention were two people who have served on juries within the last year and a half. One of those was elected foreman by his peers. I don't believe those jurors were concerned with the possibility that the presence of a blind person "could impair justice." Those jurors were obviously in full control of the most important faculty needed to evaluate evidence, their ability to reason.
Eighteen years ago, one of Cargill's colleagues told me that I couldn't become a teacher and, further, if I persisted in the pursuit of a degree leading to a Teacher's Certificate, my rehab funds would be cut off. I persisted; funds were not cut off. I taught tenth grade English to 150 students daily for two years; and Cargill and his ilk still deny the possibility that blind people can and do participate fully in the whole range of activities of contemporary society.
Frankly, Mr. President, the only "barricade" I see in this instance is the muddle-headed thinking of the Floyd Cargills of the world. As for our "noise," yes it exists, but he and his kind don't hear it for what it really is, the unified voice of our thousands clearly articulating our philosophy and our policy; clearly singing:
"To aid the blind's long struggle we have formed the NFB;
To free them from their boundage of workshop and agency;
To give a hand to all the blind wherever they may be;
Our cause goes marching on."
Sincerely,
Stephen Benson
President, NFBI
by Dana Cvetan
Herald & Review Staff Writer
(Reprinted from the Decatur Herald Saturday, September 12, 1981)
Effingham—The governor doesn't have to do it. Legislators, Christian Science practitioners, lawyers, journalists and pregnant women are almost always let off the hook.
Most people probably would rather skip the inconvenience of jury duty, but a certain segment of the population usually is prohibited from serving, stirring the resentment of the National Federation of the Blind.
Approximately 125 people, most of them blind, are meeting through Sunday at the Effingham Best Western Motel for the 13th annual convention of the National Federation of the Blind of Illinois. They will take positions on issues affecting the blind, including the right to serve on juries.
The NFB, which represents 10 percent of the nation's blind, has been lobbying several years for legislation to prohibit exclusion of blind people from juries. In Illinois, the NFBI has failed in the last four years to win passage of such a bill.
Peter Grunwald of Chicago, NFBI's state legislative chairman, said he and other blind people resent exclusion because it brands them "incapable of evaluating and judging evidence."
"We're looking to have all the rights and benefits and responsibilities of citizenship. We're willing to take those responsibilities rather than perpetuating the stereotype that blind people are helpless," Grunwald said.
Another view was expressed by Floyd Cargill, who said state federation's stand on juries is too extreme, because there are instances in which court evidence must be viewed and the presence of a blind juror could impair justice.
Cargill is a specialist in blind rehabilitative services with the Illinois Department of Rehabilitative Services.
There is no law stating that blind people may not serve on juries, but existing law is often interpreted to mean that.
Jurors must be "in control of the faculties," needed to evaluate evidence, Cargill said.
"As long as the nature of the trial allows it, the law allows for a blind person to serve on a jury," Cargill said, though he admitted that blind people are "almost always" dismissed from jury duty.
Cargill, who is blind, called the NFB "militant," adding, "I don't have too much sympathy with this group. They just make a lot of noise."
Allen Schaefer, NFBI vice president, said, "We're not denying (blindness) limits you. We just feel blind people are capable to be jurors.
"Visual evidence is a problem, but there are alternative ways of dealing with it—it can be described."
Grunwald claimed that evaluating evidence "has more to do with intelligence than visual acuity."
He added that most visual evidence is not judged by what the jurors see, but rather by what the "experts" say about it.
"If I was told a document had Howard Hughes' signature on it, I wouldn't be able to tell for sure because I don't know what his handwriting looks like. The evidence is usually there only for the jury to see it's there. The experts take care of everything else."
Grunwald added, "I would estimate that only in a miniscule proportion of cases is visual evidence of earth-shaking importance."
Cargill countered that even a "miniscule" number of trials requiring eyesight should not have blind jurors.
Denying Schaefer's charge that he "likes to put blind people down," Cargill said he would favor a more conservative rewording of the law.
"A clause could be inserted saying, 'No person shall be denied the right to serve on a jury merely because they're blind.' I would oppose any kind of law that said blind people cannot serve on juries—but let's not barricade the law," he said.
Schaefer said NFBI "is mostly interested in changing the general attitude of many of our people in Illinois."
He admitted that serving on juries is not an end in itself, but a weapon to "fight old stereotypes of the blind being hopeless and helpless."
by Margit Willis
Daily News Staff
(Reprinted from Effingham, Ill., Daily News Saturday, September 12, 1981)
Stephen Benson has been a teacher, typist, insurance agent and puppeteer, but he hasn't been a social caseworker. He was turned down for the job because he was told he wouldn't be able to negotiate darkened stairways and halls. Stephen Benson is blind. Every stairway and hall he has ever gone down has been darkened.
Benson is president of the National Federation of the Blind in Illinois, an organization working for better legislation and an improved image for blind people. He is in town this weekend for their annual convention, being held at the Best Western hotel.
"We're not an organization that does things for blind people," he said. "We're an organization of blind people which says we're capable of doing for ourselves."
According to Benson, the inability to see is not the biggest problem most blind people face. He feels the biggest barrier to the blind is the attitudes of the sighted public and of the blind themselves and it is an attitude that goes back to the beginning of time. "Way back when vision was a matter of survival, blindness was synonymous with inability to function, synonymous with darkness. It calls up all sorts of notions about black and evil sorts of things," he said. "Blindness does not deprive a man of his ability to reason. It is not a deprivation of one's ability to make his own decisions, or a deprivation of one's ability to carry on his daily actions."
"What we hope to do through this convention and with all of our activities is to remedy these kinds of attitudes and make it clear to the public that with alternative techniques, blindness can be reduced to the level of nuisance," he said.
With the right opportunities and training and the uses of alternative techniques such as Braille, white canes and "common sense," Benson feels the blind can compete equally with the sighted public. "That's not theory, that's established fact," he said. "There are blind people in this country working in all kinds of positions."
There are many things a person can do without sight. Benson is an avid basketball fan and used to play regularly. He had his share of hits and misses. "That's pretty much how most people play basketball," he said. He has been to both coasts and up and down the United States with, he says, no more trouble than the average traveler. A sighted person reads signs and asks directions. Benson just asks directions.
Benson taught English at Gordon Technical High School for two years. At one time, one of his students asked the six-foot, two-inch tall man if there was a reason for why he took such long steps when he walked. "Yes, I have long legs," he replied.
"They didn't stop to think that taking long steps has nothing to do with being able to see," he said. "It has everything to do with confidence."
Benson feels that it is confidence and belief in one's self and one's abilities that determines success. He said many blind people grow up having simple tasks done for them and are told they are unable to do certain jobs because they cannot see. According to Benson, being blind does not mean a person can't do something. "We say, if I can do this and I can do that, there must be all sorts of other things I can do," he said. "Presumably, the horizons are unlimited."
Since the time of the revitalization of the National Federation of the Blind of Washington earlier this year, there has been increasing momentum for the Federation in the state. As reported earlier in the Monitor, the Governor of Washington proclaimed the month of June "National Federation of the Blind Month."
The evidence that the progress continues can be found in events surrounding the NFB Walk-A-Thon held in Seattle, October 10. A prominently placed newspaper article promoting the Walk-A-Thon appeared September 6. It featured Terry Ray, who is a member of the South King County Chapter and will be one of those participating in the Walk-A-Thon. John Flanagan, another member of the South King County Chapter, was instrumental in getting the Mayor of Seattle to proclaim October 10, 1981, "Federation of the Blind of Washington Walk-A-Thon Day." There seems little doubt that the revitalized NFB of Washington will become one of the strongest affiliates in the nation. The Mayor's Proclamation reads:
WHEREAS, the National Federation of the Blind of Washington is an organization of blind citizens working to improve the quality of life for all blind people; and
WHEREAS, Saturday, October 10, 1981, tins Federation is holding its annual Walk-a-thon; and
WHEREAS, a major focus of the walk will be to make the public aware of the Federation's campaign to dispel the stereotypes about blindness and to replace them with a positive image which says that blind people are very normal;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, CHARLES ROYER, Mayor of the City of Seattle, do hereby proclaim Saturday, October 10, 1981, as FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF WASHINGTON WALK-A-THON DAY in Seattle.
Charles Royer, MayorThe 1981 Convention of the National Federation of the Blind was memorable for many things (the rally on the Capitol steps, the tour of the National Center for the Blind, and the annual banquet), but nothing was more noteworthy than the discussions surrounding Job Opportunities for the Blind, our joint effort with the Federal Department of Labor to secure competitive employment for the nation's blind. All of Thursday afternoon, July 9, was devoted to this topic. Duane Gerstenberger (JOB Director) and Ramona Walhof (Assistant Director) began the session by giving the background and setting the tone. They told what was being done and gave the statistics. The audience responded with enthusiasm and excitement. And, indeed, how could it be otherwise! Over a thousand applicants. Increasing success with more than seven blind people a month being helped to achieve competitive employment. Hopes fulfilled and progress toward realization of the age old dream of equality for the blind in the marketplace.
All of this was underlined and emphasized by the employment panel which followed the presentation by Mr. Gerstenberger and Mrs. Walhof. The four panel members are active leaders of the Federation, well known in the movement; but the details of their jobs (the facts about their means of livelihood) were a revelation to many and a source of pride to all. The diversity of the occupations represented can be seen from the listing in the agenda:
Cheryl Finley
Junior High and Elementary Librarian
Clarion Community School
Clarion, Iowa
Diane McGeorge
Medical Computerized Word Processor Technologist
University of Colorado Health and Science Center
Denver, Colorado
David L. Samson, Operator
Resistance Welding Machine
Inland Manufacturing
A Division of General Motors
Dayton, Ohio
James Willows
Electronics Engineer
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Livermore, California
"If you were a kindergartner enrolling in school in Clarion, Iowa, after the first few days of school, you would come to the library, and you would meet Miss Finley. You would learn about books, you would have books read to you, you would have stories told to you, and you would see the use of puppets. Some people say this can't be done by a blind person. I am a blind person, and I am a librarian. Kindergartners through sixth graders in Clarion learn about the library. They learn about books, and they learn about appreciating reading. Third through sixth graders learn how to use the card catalog, what the Dewey Decimal System is, and how to find things in the library. When they start in a class they also learn about me. They're introduced to me, and we talk about what it is to be blind. They ask questions. Children (if you've ever been acquainted with them) are not afraid to ask questions.
"Last Christmas I taught students from kindergarten through the sixth grade the first five letters of the Braille alphabet. It was fun. I really enjoyed it, and so did they. In kindergarten through sixth grade, we learn how to check out books by ourselves. We learn how to come into the library and to be independent and not always to need the help of another person. In the easy corner for people who want to check out a very easy book, we have Twin-Vision books (supplied by the ABB). I read these books to the children. I have children or another teacher read stories to me, and I tell these stories to other children. In third through sixth grade, we learn about reference books and how to find information in these books. There are a lot of displays and bulletin boards in the library to attract the children's attention.
"Then when you enter Junior High, you still have Miss Finley as your librarian in another building just a little ways around the corner. Junior High students learn about the library-how to use reference materials and the Readers' Guide. We expand on the things the children learned in elementary school. I introduce the materials and show them how to use them, and the children do the work themselves.
"For about the last year, I have been doing some investigating on obtaining a talking computer terminal to make my job as a librarian more efficient. I would like to have the card catalog accessible to me as a blind librarian. I have discussed these matters with the Iowa agency and have been questioned as to whether I really needed the machine. I am going to keep working on it, and I am going to get appropriate services from that agency.
"The National Federation of the Blind has given me a nickname I greatly enjoy: Marion the Librarian from Clarion. Because of my involvement in the National Federation of the Blind, I am proud to say to people: I am a librarian, and I am blind. I tell people, and I tell the children I work with about the NFB all the time. If any of you are ever told that a blind person can't be a librarian, send them to Clarion, and I'll show them how it's done. My next venture in reading and in working in the library is to write a children's book. I've thought of the title. After I get it written, you will all hear about it. I will probably sell you a copy. It will be: Marion the Librarian is Blind."
"As it says here, I am employed at the University of Colorado Health and Science Center. In that capacity I transcribe Medical records, and I have been doing that for some number of years. I first used an electric typewriter. I have also used the MTST, the Mag Card II, and other word processing equipment. When the hospital got into the word processing field, part of the question that was asked was: Where do I go to get this training? I want to tell you where I obtained my training. It might be helpful to you.
"The other women that work in the office were sent to a school that the IBM people were sponsoring. I was the only blind employee, and I was not sent to that school. Everybody told me: Well there's a lot of reading, so we can't train you. But someone will train you after the others get their training. I thought that was kind of strange, but I was kind of passive about it. I decided: That probably is alright. Maybe I couldn't handle it. And that's what happened. One of the other women in the office was assigned to train me. When she finished the training, she taught me to run the equipment.
"Later we changed some equipment again. That time I was to go and take the training with the other people, except that I was to have a special class by myself. That really began to rub me the wrong way. You understand, all this time I was progressing in the National Federation of the Blind.
"Then almost three years ago the computerized word processing equipment came in. We are now using the WANG word processing system. Possibly you've seen it advertised on television. When it came time for that class, I said: I believe I don't need any special help. I can be trained along with the other operators when the class comes around. As it worked out, I was not in Colorado when the class came around. However, there was no problem with that. Attitudes do change slowly, but it is through the NFB that those attitudes change. Don't you ever forget it. When I returned to Colorado from my trip, I took about a one-day course with the WANG word processing people who trained the other operators, and then I went into the facility in which I worked and began using the equipment.
"You saw a good example of a computerized word processor at our National Center for the Blind earlier this week. The terminals you saw at our Center are very similar to the terminals that I use, in fact perhaps exactly the same. Basically, once you learn how to use one of them, you can use them all. We input the medical records (you just type them in, and the machine looks just like a typewriter). The words appear on a screen that looks like a TV screen, and the operator does certain mechanical operations, and the material is put into a memory bank. Then we print out our work. In our office, each operator does all of these things. So I do the entire operation. At first I used the equipment with no adaptations whatsoever. WANG word processing has practically no sound in its operation, and that makes it a little difficult for a blind person. Therefore, I thought that a talking terminal or a terminal with Braille output would be helpful to me in my work. There were no talking terminals or Braille output available at that time, so I decided I could use an Optacon with the CRT lens to read the screen. I had a certain amount of letter writing back and forth with rehabilitation services. I said it fell under the rehabilitation amendments of 1978 which provide for post-employment follow-up, and I finally did prevail. They paid for part, and I paid for part. In Colorado we have a miserable law, which is called a means test, if you can believe it. When I quit it's going to be interesting to see who really owns the CRT lens and the Optacon. Anyway, that's how we did it.
"I believe that a talking terminal would be much faster than an Optacon and a CRT lens, but the Optacon has been very helpful in my job. I do not proofread with it. It would be far too slow to proofread the amount of material that I do in a day. I spot-check and do a number of other things with it. I use it every day, and it is helpful. I could do more with Braille output or a talking terminal.
"The transcribing is similar to what all medical transcribers do. We take all kinds of dictation at the teaching facility in which I work. There is a large variety. Of course, I must be equipped to deal with all kinds of new medication and new techniques developed by physicians. I keep a constant file of these new terms. There is not available in Braille any good PDR—that's a Physician's Desk Reference—that I'm aware of. Therefore, I make my own cards on these new medications that are available. I do the same thing with new surgical techniques and medical terminology. Some people will say that you need an extremely expensive medical dictionary. I have not found that to be the case. It would take up a great deal of space in the office. If you think you need it and you can get your employer to buy it for you, fine. What I do have is a medical speller, and it's very helpful. It does not give definitions, but it does give the spelling. It's from Dorian's Medical Dictionary and it is not the most recent edition, but it has been extremely helpful to me. Rehab did not purchase that for me, but I bought it from a person who had been a medical transcriber and was getting out of the business.
"That's a summary of what I do, but of course, I'd be glad to answer questions on areas I have not covered."
First Vice-President, Don Capps, was chairing the Convention at the time. He said: "Thank you Diane. All of that is very fascinating, but I think you may have been a little too modest for us. Would you tell the audience about your line count and your quality and quantity as it compares with your co-workers. I'm not going to tell you how that question came to be. But you go right ahead and tell us. I think the audience should know."
Mrs. McGeorge responded with some embarrassment: "Well, there are different line counts that an operator has to maintain. For the first number of months there, you must produce 500 lines a day. After you have been there for a year, you must produce 600 to 850 lines a day to be considered a standard worker. I just received a standard evaluation (we're evaluated once a year) and my line count was 1,016 lines a day."
"I have been working as a resistance welding machine operator for Inman Manufacturing, which is a division of General Motors, for twenty-seven years. It's the only job I ever had. There are only two blind people there, and the last time they hired a blind person was in 1961. We manufacture parts for automobiles—weather stripping that goes around doors and windows, seat pads, and other things made of foam rubber. I work in the steering wheel insert department. The insert is the part of the steering wheel that is assembled before it's sent to be molded in plastic and vinyl or whatever is called for.
"Let me tell you how I got my job. In a large company, there is an open-house every so often. They invite the public in to see how the automobile is built. When I was looking for a job, GM had one of their better years, and they had an open-house. I called Personnel and asked for a guide to go through the plant with me, and I saw several jobs that I knew I could do. I didn't just think I could do them. I knew I could. Therefore, I made an appointment with the Personnel Manager. I went in and we talked about the jobs I knew I could do. And that's the way I put it to him. I told him that I knew GM and other large companies were in business to make money. I was sure I could help them do that.
"We don't have enough time for me to tell you how many jobs I've been on in that company. I worked on a bench job for about two and a half years. GM no longer has any kind of bench jobs. It's all automated. I've been operating a welding machine probably seventeen years. In this time I've operated different kinds of welding machines. I've also operated riveting machines and some punch-presses, and some others.
"In General Motors every job has a classification, and you cannot go from one position to another unless there is an opening in that classification. If you don't have seniority, you don't stand a chance to change classifications very often. The older employees will grab the easiest jobs. The easiest jobs are usually the newest. When they come out with a new piece of equipment, usually it makes that job easier.
"I operate a welding machine. I put a fixture in the machine. It depends on what part of the steering wheel I am trying to build. The shape of the fixture will vary. It may be an inner hub with spokes running right and left or something else. Once the fixture is in there, I just place the parts in there and reach up and push buttons. Then the item is welded. There's nothing complicated about it. One time they put me on a new job to see if I could do it. I could, and the foreman was very pleased. I said, 'You know, this is so easy that even a sighted person could run it.'
"During the last three or four years I have operated several machines that I am now denied the right to operate. Between OSHA and GM Safety Department, and probably my union, I am having a problem. With my twenty-seven years, I don't have to worry about my job. If that ever comes, I will get full retirement. But I'm not going to allow them to do that. But OSHA is ruining industry for the blind. Recently, they made a decision that I cannot run anything that has moving parts or a conveyor. There's nothing else left for me to run. I will be back to work next week. Decisions will have to be made about what I can do and what I cannot. If the company refuses to allow me to operate a machine and then decides I can do it, I can file a grievance for back pay that I missed. They are also talking about transferring me out of my department. They can't really do that unless I sign my department away. They have to find three jobs that they think I can do which pay within five cents of what I'm doing now. It won't be a loss of money, but its a problem. GM and other industries have many jobs that blind people can do. The money is there. The benefits are good. I would like to see other blind people employed in the kind of situation I'm in."
"I'd like to go back a little ways to give you an idea of the process I've worked through to get into my current position. I was working as an electronics engineer for the Lawrence Livermore Lab at the time I lost my sight. After some medical work I went to the California Orientation Center for the Blind. They had a little more consciousness of the Federation philosophy in those days, and they were a great deal of help to me in making me realize that I could continue to function as a blind person. I was fortunate to meet two very fine Federationists at the Orientation Center: Nancy Smalley and Gail Hall. They were a great deal of help to me in making me realize that I could go back to work and be a good, functioning engineer. By the time I finished my course at the Orientation Center, I had been talking with the lab. They decided to take me back. They had a function that they wanted to implement, and they had wanted to implement it for some time. It was called a vendor-liaison person. This person would know what was going on inside a department and work with outside vendors of equipment and keep vendors in touch with people in the departments. When I went back, I wasn't rated as an engineer; I was rated as an electronics engineering coordinator, which is not a professional position there. Had I been a little stronger Federationist, I don't think I would have gone back in that way, but that's what I did at the time. Of course, this position was picked because of stereo-typed thinking. They said, Aha! A blind person can talk on the telephone. All Jim has to do is talk to these people on the telephone and everything will be fine. I soon realized that you can't get anything done just talking on the telephone. I had to go over and meet the vendors coming in and talk to them personally. I found out there was a fringe benefit because they often liked to do their conversing over lunch. I got a few free lunches out of it.
"To make a long story short, within a few weeks, I had this job down to where it was taking about a quarter of my time. I then talked to some of my colleagues there and discovered that they were in need of mathematical analysis. No one there had the time to do it. Well, my degree is in mathematical physics, and I had learned Nemeth code at the Orientation Center. I said, Alia! This would be much more interesting. Then I started doing this on the side and doing the vendor-liaison work, too. Eventually, I moved into reliability and statistics work full time and left the vendor-liaison. I should mention that the vendor-liaison job still exists at the laboratory, so it wasn't just a make-work job.
"Within a year of the time I went back, I realized that I was being underpaid and undervalued for what I was doing. I talked to the company, and they did restore me to my professional status as an electronics engineer.
"While I was working in the reliability and statistics field and quality control, a young, summer student came to work for me. This guy had a theory that: If you couldn't do it with the computer, it wasn't worth doing. Of course, this isn't true. You found out at the National Center that a lot of things can be done well with the computer, and for other things computers aren't really necessary. But this student aroused my interest in computer programming and eventually worked through several different assignments in the computer programming field to work toward what I am doing now.
"What am I doing now? I spent many years working on large computers. Lawrence Livermore lab has the largest computing facility in the free world, and it may be the largest in the world. For quite a few years I worked with large computers. I programmed in what they call higher level languages. This is writing your program in an English-like language. The one I worked in happened to be called Fortran. I would write my programs in Braille and enter them into the computer by means of a terminal. Then I would run them into a compiler that would turn them into the kind of language that the computer understands, which is just ones and zeros. The computer is not too bright. Then I would put it through another program called the loader, which would load it into the computer, and I could start running it. Someone would come and say, I need a program to do this. I would sit down and design the program—write it in Braille, and then I would be ready to enter it into the computer. For a while I worked with the standard teletype, and it was O.K., but we soon worked out a Braille model of the teletype, so that I could type in and then get Braille back out when the computer responded to me. We wanted to make this modification as simple as possible. We found that we could do it just by slipping a rubber tube over the platten to give some resiliency and by taking the print cylinder off and putting little pins in the right places. Then we could make Braille with it. But we couldn't get the sixty-four combinations that you have in Braille. We realized that if you broke the Braille cell in half vertically down the middle, you could make any Braille character just by hitting the proper character twice. This way you only have eight combinations, or seven non-blank combinations on the cylinder. We've worked up the soft-ware to make it work. I think that's kind of an interesting way to make it work, and I've been using it for years. So I enter my programs with a standard program, and I get responses back in Braille. I've been able to work very independently this way. The lab has had so many teletypes they didn't want to give them up, but we are now going to faster terminals. We are now in the process of working up the little micro-processor (or small computer) to put between the computer and my terminal, which would still be my Braille teletype. My little interface will get things out of the computer faster, but my teletype will still look the same way it has.
"For about the last fifteen months I've been working on small computers or mini computers. This is a really big field. You know about many of the hobby computers. I'm working on a PDP-11, which is the same type of computer we have at the National Center, although it's a different model. I now write my programs in what is called assembly language, which is closer to the machine language, and I enjoy it.
"I keep files in Braille. I rough draft reports by typing them. I have a reader record material for me at home to keep up to date in the computer field. I have small amounts of reading done by colleagues in the lab. In the last couple of years I've had some surgery and have some of my sight restored. I am now able to work with a closed circuit TV. That is slower than reading with human readers, but it will solve any problem with quick stuff at work. I do everything else the same way I always did—reading Braille from the tele-type, etc.
"I'd like to mention one incident that occurred you might be interested in. I'd been going along well getting the normal merit raises each year until one year I got a pretty low raise. I went to talk to my Division leader about it and asked him why I had gotten this small raise. He was kind of noncommittal about it. I told him: It's been my experience in the lab that when you get this small a raise, you're really not needed around here. It's generally meant to tell you something. He said with some excitement, 'Oh, no, no, no, no, Jim, you're doing fantastic work for a handicapped person.' I hope you'll pardon my language, but it loses something if I change it. I said, 'God damn it, Alex, I think I'm doing as good a job as any other engineer in your Division. Have you really evaluated me honestly on that basis?' He thought about it, and he came back later and said: 'No. I haven't evaluated you honestly.' I've had no trouble getting decent salary increases since then."
Bob Lagroane: "One cannot help but be impressed by the array of talking computer terminals and other synthesized speech products that we see, such as the talking clock. A lot of it is recent vintage. Eleven years ago back in 1969, I witnessed a paper presented by Jim Willows on what I believe was the first synthesized speech device. Would you like to tell us your part in that, Jim?"
Jim Willows replied: "Yes, we did put together a talking terminal in the lab. I used it for a while. It was a fairly unsophisticated device compared to what we have today. Bob may well be right; it may well be the world's first talking terminal. Soon, we were able to put together the Braille teletype. I found (since the Braille gave me hard copy) that it was much more useful to me than the talking terminal. Therefore, we never did pursue the' talking terminal to make it into a better device."
Dr. Jernigan said: "Jim let me interrupt and say something. We owe Bob Lagroane some thanks for what he said. Enough people try to put us down as blind people. I wish to heaven that some of you in the Federation would stop being so modest about what you've done! We need to make it known to the world that we've done something and counted for something and are capable of doing things. Some of you say about your accomplishments: Oh, you mean that. Well, it never occurred to me that anybody would want to know about that. In other words, why didn't you say so, Jim Willows'? What right have you got to hide our light under a bushel?"
Then Dr. Jernigan made the following statements: "Maybe OSHA has done a lot of things to improve safety. I don't know. I haven't seen the evidence of it. My experience is that OSHA has made some of the strangest, most unreasonable rules I have ever seen.in my life. Let me say this to you Dave Samson: We don't want to cause you problems on your job. If you are willing to have us do so, we ought to talk to the OSHA people. It affects a lot of us. We can put Jim Gashel or Bob Eschbach on it, but we really ought to try to negotiate. We ought to try to see if we can't educate these people to the fact that if you have done a thing for many years, that's proof positive of something. We ought not to let ourselves be eroded away by more silly government regulations. But we don't want to cause you problems on your job. If it won't, we ought to work on this, and I'll ask Jim Gashel to do that with you."
by Fernando Alegria
An important part of the JOB presentation at the 1981 NFB Convention on Thursday afternoon, July 9, was the address delivered by Fernando Alegria, Director of the Office of Special National Programs and Activities, Employment and Training Administration, United States Department of Labor. Mr. Alegria has worked closely with us in the coordination of the Job Opportunities for the Blind program. His presentation followed the employment panel and he said in part:
"In the Department of Labor we deal with a lot of special groups. I'd like to tell you a little bit about our Title III programs in the Office of National Programs. The Secretary of Labor is mandated by the legislation to serve any group in the United States that has a particular disadvantage in the labor market. I think you would agree that you fit that category to some degree. Let me name some of the other groups. First of all there are the offenders. They have a criminal record; and, therefore, they are unable to get jobs. Then, there are people with limited English-speaking ability—Hispanics, like my ancestors. There are single parents and individuals who lack educational credentials. There are the physically handicapped, older workers, youth. The Secretary of Labor goes so far to say that if there is any group that he feels needs special assistance, he is allowed to include it in the category of groups we work with at the Labor Department.
"Today what I would like to focus on is what the Federal government is doing for blind people and other handicapped people. I think we can separate the role of the Federal government into two broad categories: direct job assistance and affirmative action.
"Let's talk a little about what we're doing for job assistance. As most of you know, there are a lot of jobs at the local level and the national level that meet the needs of blind and handicapped people. You can get special education for blind youth, for example. You can get special equipment, orthopedic devices, rehabilitation services. It goes the whole gambit. At the Labor Department, we provide the missing link-the jobs. It's one thing to get a blind person up to the point where he or she is ready to get a job, but it's something else to actually get the job. That's what we're all about at the Labor Department.
"At the local level there are 473 prime sponsors. It's a network throughout the United States (consisting of cities like the city of Baltimore or Austin, Texas), that work with local offices to assist in providing jobs for the handicapped. We also work through the employment service office. Nationally, we have six ongoing separate programs for the handicapped, one of which is your JOBS program that we have been talking so much about today.
"Your JOBS program is one of the best of the handicapped programs. Going a little further, let me say that the handicapped programs as a category are also producing much more (for some reason) than the rest of our programs. Let me give you some statistics. These programs provided on-the-job training for 5,735 participants. They placed nearly 4,000 persons in unsubsidized jobs at an average cost of $600 per placement. Six hundred dollars may or may not be a lot of money. But let me tell you that our programs for the so-called nonhandicapped cost us $2,000 per placement for the national (OJT) On-the-Job Training and the targeted out-reach program. How you can do it for $600 is beyond me. The point is you're doing it. Furthermore, all of the people that you placed were economically disadvantaged. Thirty-seven percent were females; thirty-three percent were racial minorities; and in addition, some programs (and particularly your JOBS program) provided a range of conferences, seminars, and services which included something like 800 employers and 1,000 handicapped individuals. I really think that having employers at these conferences is of the utmost importance. It's the employer who does the hiring. As I have heard time and time again, some employers are not sensitized to the fact that blind people and other handicapped people can do the job just as well as sighted people. There are some blind people who can't do the job, but they couldn't do it if they were sighted. That goes for everyone.
"The funding is the area that we're all concerned about. As you know, the Congress is trying to balance the budget, and there have been an awful lot of cuts. At least for fiscal year 81 our title III budget, which is the national budget, was cut drastically. However, we went through and eliminated or reduced the non-effective programs. I'm happy to say that the handicapped programs stayed intact. We didn't do you any favors; we didn't give you any edge. Simply, your performance spoke for itself. You were good enough to stay without change.
"It's a little too soon to know about the future. Congress is meeting at this very moment trying to resolve the fiscal 82 budget. We are anticipating that there will be some cuts. However, if things go the way we think they will, there should only be small reductions in the handicapped programs. There may be none, but we'll have to see what the future brings. At this point we don't know what will happen, but we're optimistic.
"Aside from the role of the Federal government in direct job assistance, there is a secondary area that I talked about—namely the affirmative action area. In a way this is even a bigger and more important role. The Federal government came to realize that in order to provide equal employment opportunities for the blind and other physically handicapped persons, it would have to use essentially the same tools and tactics that the government had to use in the sixties to integrate the racial minorities into the mainstream of society. These are the affirmative action programs. The basis for these programs is Title V (Section 501 through 504) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Let me say that it hasn't been easy to implement the regulations that resulted from the legislation. There were (and still are) a small number, a minority, of blind people who don't like the idea of competitive employment. They prefer the custodial type of employment. I can tell today that there are not too many out there in this crowd.
"The second point is that a lot of employers and institutions express concern about the expense of making facilities accessible to handicapped individuals. There were rumors (some false) about the cost of study aids for handicapped students. Finally, the Department published its proposed regulations back on January 4, 1980. We were surprised at the number of comments that these regulations provoked. We got over 100 comments from individuals and organizations. Many of the individuals gave the Department good ideas to provide better safeguards to insure that the handicapped get a fair shake in the labor market. A lot of these ideas were incorporated into the regulations, and are now in effect. Although there are still some persons and organizations that question the need for these regulations, I think I can give an emphatic yes to the fact that they are needed and are doing a lot of good.
"I spent a lot of time studying the annual report that your organization submitted to the Labor Department, and I've also heard today the number of incidents where fully-qualified blind and handicapped persons can do a job, but they don't get it because the employers refuse to believe that you're able to do it. These regulations allow the Department of Labor and yourselves to take some action to insure that you do get a fair shake.
'In conclusion, I would like to say that there is no doubt that the Federal government is playing an important role providing job opportunities for the handicapped. In my judgment, the real progress with employers is being made by each one of you out there, who are performing well in your daily jobs and showing your employer that you are capable and able to do a job as well as any sighted person.
by Marc Maurer
Sandra Streeter is a charming, intelligent National Federation of the Blind member who was first employed by the Social Security Administration as a Teleservice Representative in 1973. Even though she took time out for family matters (Sandra has two daughters, Aaron and Jennifer) by April 1976 she had gone as high as a Tele-service Representative can go. Mrs. Streeter was faced with a very familiar problem. Until the last few months the Social Security Administration has (with certain notable exceptions) tended to follow the unwritten policy of not hiring blind people to perform any job except that of Teleservice Representative. Largely as a result of NFB efforts, the policies and procedures of the Social Security Administration with respect to enlightened behavior concerning employment of the blind have (see the October and November, 1981, issues of the Braille Monitor) undergone dramatic changes.
The Sandra Streeter case constitutes part of the picture of change in the Social Security Administration. Mrs. Streeter was working in a small office in Grand Prairie, Texas. In order to advance from her position she must move into a different job classification and into another location. If she stayed in Grand Prairie, she could not get a different job. If she remained a Tele-service Representative, she could never get a promotion.
In order to become more productive and to advance her career, Mrs. Streeter began to apply systematically for jobs in the regional office of the Social Security Administration in Dallas. We in the National Federation of the Blind had long known that the Social Security Administration would not consider blind applicants for any job except Teleservice Representative. We had fought this battle a long time. In response to NFB urging, approximately one year ago the Social Security Administration (recognizing the historic discrimination which it had practiced) agreed to establish a class for seven blind applicants for the position of Claims Representative. However, the effort did not go far enough and was, at best, halfhearted. The Social Security Administration decided that blind people should be permitted to be Claims Representatives at a grade nine level but would not be considered for a grade ten Claims Representative position. In addition, this "special" class for blind applicants became widely known as the "Atlanta Experiment."
Part of Mrs. Streeter's duties as a Teleservice Representative were to train other newly hired Teleservice Representatives. On several occasions Mrs. Streeter found herself training sighted Teleservice Representatives. Often these people went on to become Claims Representatives at a higher salary and a higher grade in government service. The opportunity was, however, not open to Mrs. Streeter. She was told that no additional blind applicants for the Claims Representative job would be accepted until the Social Security Administration saw how the "Atlanta Experiment" worked out.
On February 29, 1980, Mrs. Streeter applied for a job as an Equal Opportunity Specialist in the Dallas regional office. Leo Vidaurri took her application and interviewed her for the position. Mr. Vidaurri's behavior confirmed the fact that blind people might be interviewed for Social Security jobs, but they would not be hired. Between the time of her interview on February 29, 1980, and the time that Mrs. Streeter learned she would not get the job, several discriminatory incidents took place. First, Mr. Vidaurri explained that an Equal Opportunity Specialist must do a lot of reading. He wondered how blind people could do that. Mr. Vidaurri went on to tell Sandra Streeter that the Texas Commission for the Blind had told him that partially blind people could be Equal Opportunity Specialists, but totally blind people could not. Later, after the interview, Mr. Vidaurri told a colleague at Social Security that blind people could not be Equal Opportunity Specialists. He expressed amazement that blind people would even try. When Mrs. Streeter inquired about her application in March of 1980, she was met with various responses. Mr. Vidaurri told her that he had not received her application. Nevertheless, Mrs. Streeter received a ratings sheet showing that she was eligible for the job. When this ploy did not work, Mr. Vidaurri informed Mrs. Streeter that the Social Security Administration was re-evaluating the position. Consequently, it would not be filled at this time. In a last effort to justify the actions of the Social Security Administration, Mr. Vidaurri finally settled on still another reason for not hiring Mrs. Streeter. This time he said the President had imposed a hiring freeze. Mrs. Streeter argued that she was asking for a promotion, not for a new job. If the Social Security Administration moved her from one job to another this would not increase the number of the people employed at the agency. None of these arguments did any good. Apparently the Social Security Administration had made up its mind. Mr. Vidaurri thought blind people were not capable. Sandra Streeter would not get the job.
With the assistance of the National Federation of the Blind she then took the step she had hoped to avoid. She filed a Complaint of Discrimination against the Social Security Administration. That was many months ago. Now, at long last, (after hundreds of pages of documentation, numerous negotiating sessions, and with the new attitudes which are surfacing at the Social Security Administration) the Sandra Streeter case has been brought to a successful conclusion. We are happy with the outcome, and (although there are doubtless die-hard exceptions) we believe that most of the people at the Social Security Administration are happy with it too. The Social Security Administration is giving Sandra a career position in the regional office. The text of the settlement agreement is as follows:
1. The Social Security Administration agrees to employ Sandra Streeter in the Dallas Regional Office at the GS-7 level effective October 4. This will be a career appointment.
2. The Social Security Administration will provide a reader to Sandra Streeter for the efficient performance of her job in Dallas.
3. The Social Security Administration will hold Sandra Streeter harmless for all expenses of her case.
4. The Social Security Administration will remove from the personnel file of Sandra Streeter any reference to this case.
5. All costs of this action shall be borne by the party incurring same.
6. The Social Security Administration will consider Sandra Streeter for promotion in accordance with the Regional Merit Promotion Program.
7. Sandra Streeter agrees to withdraw all claims against the Social Security Administration legal, equitable, or mixed arising from these proceedings present, past, and future except those arising from any future violation of this agreement.
Our negotiations with the Social Security Administration through the years and our efforts in the Streeter case underline and emphasize the reason for our movement and the positive results which it achieves. Because of the time, the money, and the labor spent by the Federation in the Streeter case, every blind person in the nation is a step closer to freedom and self-respect, to full citizenship, and to first-class status in society. But there is more: The people at the Social Security Administration are freer, too, and so is every other person in the nation. The National Federation of the Blind is not just making life better for blind people—but for all people.
by James Gashel
A ruling handed down on August 10 by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has denied union representation for the blind workers at the Lighthouse for the Blind of Houston. This is a setback by any standard, but it should not be regarded as fatal. The ruling can be overturned or possibly reversed by the same court if we can convince the judges to reconsider their decision. In the meantime, we must bolster ourselves with the knowledge that we are right and learn from this experience. Here are the details from Houston.
In April, 1980, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) cited the Lighthouse for the Blind of Houston for "unfair labor practices" and directed that collective bargaining take place with the union which had been chosen by a majority of the workers in Workshop A at the Lighthouse. This was the second time that the NLRB had issued such an order. The first instance occurred in Cincinnati, where workshop management had also refused to recognize the union. Although it came along several months in advance of Houston, the Cincinnati case is still on appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
In both instances, Houston and Cincinnati, the NLRB made precedent setting rulings by ordering collective bargaining. We have reported the details of these actions in previous issues of the Monitor. It was a long struggle, spanning more than a decade, to get the NLRB to assert jurisdiction and direct that union representation elections could be held in sheltered workshops. Once this was done—first in Chicago, in 1976—it took another battle for pro-union workers actually to win an election. This happened first at the Cincinnati Association for the Blind in 1978. By 1979 the shopworkers in Houston had also chosen to have collective bargaining. The final tally of the votes in Houston showed a margin of greater than 2 to 1 in favor of representation by General Drivers, Warehousemen, and Helpers Local Union 968, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffers, Warehousemen, and Helpers of America, known more commonly as the "Teamsters." But the real battle was only beginning.
Having lost the election, the Lighthouse in Houston refused to bargain. This was a legal tactic, amounting to an appeal of the original "Decision and Direction of Election" issued several months earlier by the NLRB. Then came the Board's enforcement order, which, as expected, the Lighthouse also stubbornly ignored. So the matter proceeded to federal court.
In a case of this type the general council for the NLRB goes before the United States Court of Appeals, seeking to have the Board's orders enforced. The net effect is that the court rules on whether the Board's position is a correct interpretation of the National Labor Relations Act or whether the Board's rulings are an abuse of administrative discretion. Parties with a "substantial interest" may enter the litigation as "intervenors" if the court allows them to do so. In this case the Federation exercised this right, although our motion to intervene was vehemently contested by the Lighthouse. The court, however, accurately perceived our interest, and we were allowed to become a party in support of the NLRB. Thus, we filed briefs and presented oral arguments to the court.
But in the final analysis the outcome in the Court of Appeals was not at all favorable. Written by Judge Beer, the decision falls back on a recitation of the ill-conceived but apparently still popular myths concerning sheltered workshops. For instance, great homage is paid to the "rehabilitation" objective of the Lighthouse, even though the record being scrutinized by the Court plainly showed that the Lighthouse workers in question did not receive rehabilitation services and that no effort was being made to place them in competitive industry. These facts were not contested by the Lighthouse whose Board Chairman-Elect testified that "everything the workers do in the Industrial Division Workshop is intended to produce a product and operate so they can work as close to a private industrial situation as they would find if they went to work for any other employer." Then, here is how the same Lighthouse official described the efforts made to place blind workers in employment outside the workshop: "a pretty modest program," "not very sophisticated," and "kind of haphazard."
Yet, the court seemed oblivious to these admissions. Moreover, the ruling once again drags out the issue of whether the workers are employees. This question had been put to rest by the NLRB as far back as the Chicago case in 1976. The Cincinnati and Houston decisions elaborated on the Board's position that blind shopworkers are employees, not "clients," but now the court has expressed a contrary opinion. While acknowledging that the employees in Workshop A at the Lighthouse are "employees in the generic sense of the word," the court asserts as fact the erroneous conclusion that "the fundamental relation between those individuals and the Lighthouse is different in many significant aspects from a normal employment relationship. The focus of the Lighthouse's employment concern is upon rehabilitating its clients and providing the maximum service possible to sheltered workshop clients. For example, regular employees in a typical industrial environment are hired because they have the skill and ability to perform the work involved. Workshop clients, on the other hand, are referred to the workshop by a counselor or social worker precisely because of their inability to perform work in the competitive job market." This conclusion does not just smack of custodialism, it is the essence of it. Yet, this is the unmistakable philosophical orientation of the court. Further, the decision fails to give recognition to the main reason why there is such a high unemployment rate among the blind and why so many blind people are referred to sheltered shops for employment. It is not, as the court says, that blind persons are referred to shops "precisely because of their inability to perform work in the competitive job market." Rather, the reason is more likely to be that the blind are denied opportunity to even try out for jobs in the competitive labor market or to acquire the skills which would equip them to perform successfully in it. Very often it is not lack of ability but lack of opportunity that drives the blind worker to the sheltered shop, the subminimum wage, and the miserable working conditions.
Then there is the issue of whether anyone who works for a charitable non-profit institution is protected by the National Labor Relations Act. The Lighthouse claims not to be a profit-making company, despite having $237,000 in excess income from industrial operations during 1977, the only year under review. Imagine that! Yet, the court concludes that this profit of $237,000 and the Lighthouse's overall sales of $4,620,000 for the same year are not sufficient to show that the Lighthouse is involved in interstate commerce. In the court's own words: ". . . the so-called $237,000 profit made by the Lighthouse in 1977 represents only a negligible impact on commerce in light of all the circumstances here. If it were not for the monies received from the federal government as well as other charitable agencies, the Lighthouse would have lost money in fiscal 1977. Further, the vast majority of the products produced at the Lighthouse go to the General Services Administration of the United States government pursuant to the Wagner-O'Day Act. Under this statute the GSA must purchase the Lighthouse products at a price fixed by a presidential committee. Moreover, it is undisputed in the record that the main purpose of the Lighthouse is to provide a wide range of services to blind and disabled persons in order to enhance the quality of their lives. . . ."
So, by a few strokes of the pen, the court has redefined the whole idea of work. These workers at the Lighthouse are not really employees, says the court, because, you see, they are handicapped. Since, according to the court, these poor unfortunate souls are handicapped, the benevolent Houston Lighthouse takes them in. Presumably the work they do is a side benefit, never mind the fact that sales from the workshop amounted to 88.5% of the Lighthouse's revenue in 1977. How could the court ignore such an obvious example of productive enterprise? And, why did the court fail to apply the well-established standard that jurisdiction under the National Labor Relations Act will be invoked when the employer's business generates annual sales amounting to more than $50,000 in interstate commerce? A principal factor in the reasoning of the decision on this point seems to be the extent to which the Lighthouse contracts with the federal government for priority sales under the Wagner-O'Day Act. It is a novel argument to think that federal contracting can now be used as a means of justifying an exemption from the National Labor Relations Act, but this is exactly what the court is suggesting. Does it then follow that General Motors and Boeing Aircraft and Firestone are also exempt because of their government contracts and that their employees should be denied the protection of the NLRB?
Without belaboring the point further, it is obvious that in reaching its decision in the Houston case, the court failed to apply any of the normal standards and tests ordinarily used to determine whether a given group of workers, or a particular industry, will be subject to the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Act. By any of the normal standards, as the Board found when it ordered an election at the Houston Lighthouse, what goes on in Workshop A can only be described as common, ordinary work. Furthermore, the people who are assigned to do that work can only be regarded as "employees." The amount of their productive activity, alone, testifies to this. But, also, the workers are subject to all of the usual disciplinary procedures and supervisory arrangements commonly found in industry. The only essential difference in the Houston plant and any comparable setting in competitive employment is that most of the workers at the Lighthouse are blind. Apparently it need not be any more complex than that. So the decision comes down foursquare against the Board's often repeated proposition that sheltered workshops should be looked at on a case by case basis. According to this decision, there is no room for the Board to exercise its discretion in the matter, for it seems that there can never be a circumstance where blind or handicapped workers could be covered by the National Labor Relations Act. Never mind the productivity or gross sales of a workshop. All it needs to do is to assert that it is "attempting to enhance the quality of life" for these poor unfortunate individuals, and the workshop has earned an automatic exemption from NLRB jurisdiction.
And where do we go from here? The decision of the Fifth Circuit is not necessarily the law of the land, and it could well be reversed upon reconsideration, if the court decides there is reason to do so. Otherwise, while the decision of the Fifth Circuit will be looked to by other federal judges, especially those in the Sixth Circuit who will shortly hand down a decision in the Cincinnati case, the ruling in Houston is not controlling and need not serve as a major deterrent to our efforts to achieve collective bargaining for blind workers in sheltered workshops. In short, we must now move on from Houston and, if necessary, take our case to every court in this land. If we fail there we can go to the Congress to appeal for a change in the law. Whatever else, we must not diminish our efforts or become discouraged about the prospects. Let us put the past behind us and look to a future of challenge and possibility. Let us march across the country into every sheltered workshop and, if necessary, into every federal court. In the end we shall prevail, for our cause is just and our quest for equality is right.
As this article is being written, we have just learned that the NLRB has petitioned the court for a rehearing of the case. It is not only the blind who are unwilling to let matters stand as they are. Apparently the NLRB is also prepared to fight. Hopefully, the court will reverse its August 10 decision. If not, the case may very well go to the Supreme Court for final adjudication.
As we have often said, the climb to freedom is not easy. It is long and painful. However, we are drawing ever nearer to the goal, step by step and day by day. The determination and the incentive come from the blind themselves. The vehicle is the National Federation of the Blind.
by Kenneth Jernigan
Month after month we report in the Monitor and on Presidential Releases the accomplishments we are making to improve the lives of the blind. We talk of the new publications, the legal cases, the presentations to Congress, the seminars, the organizing efforts, the distribution of new aids and appliances such as the talking clocks and the calculators, and (for that matter) the Monitor and the Presidential Releases themselves. It is easy to take pride (and we should take pride) in these visible signs of our progress, but it is also easy (if we are not careful) to forget that we have a personal responsibility in making it all happen. In short, it is easy to be glad the Federation is doing what it is doing while failing to personalize the fact that it can only happen if we make it happen, not only with our hopes and hearts but also with our money.
However, more and more of us are making the commitment and assuming the responsibility. It is true that we have a ways to go in getting more of the members to do their share, but it is equally true that an increasing number are making a real sacrifice to finance the movement. The spirit, the dedication, and also the contributions have never been higher. Each day we are moving closer to the time when we can stand on our own and finance ourselves. That day will surely come, and when it does, we will have closed the last chink in our armor. We will be invulunerable to those who attack and disparage us—those who would, if they could, would destroy our movement.
This article is a status report on our efforts at self-financing. Primarily it focuses on PAC (Pre-Authorized Check Plan) and on the Associates program. This is not meant to underplay or de-emphasize the value of the donations from individuals and affiliates, for those are indispensable. In fact, there has been a heartening increase in donations during the past few months. Rather, we are trying here to emphasize the great value of the work of the ordinary, rank-and-file member of the movement.
We still have fewer than 900 members on the PAC Plan. The number should be ten times that many, and it can and must be. A sizable number of the people who are now PAC contributors thought only a short time ago that they could not afford to be. As to Associates, there is not a one of us (regardless of how little money we may have) who cannot sell Associates. It is a means whereby the individual member can do something directly and personally which is vitally important to strengthening the movement.
This movement is ours. It will be as strong or as weak as we make it. No one will do the work for us; and, indeed, they should not. One of the principal sources of our pride as an organization is that we as blind persons have banded together to do for ourselves and stand on our own. The following statistics and data show which affiliates and which individuals are carrying the load in the PAC and Associates programs.
First let us deal with PAC. The data which is presented here was compiled October 22, 1981. It was current at that time. It does not reflect PAC cards which had been promised but not received. It only reflects PAC Plans then in operation:
| RANK | NAME OF STATE | NUMBER OF PAC |
MONTHLY PLEDGE | AVERAGE MONTHLY PLEDGE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1 |
Maryland |
60 |
$2,173.50 |
36.23 |
2 |
Iowa |
50 |
$1,426.00 |
28.52 |
3 |
California |
53 |
$1,012.50 |
19.10 |
4 |
Colorado |
34 |
$937.00 |
27.56 |
5 |
Minnesota |
30 |
$853.50 |
28.45 |
6 |
Missouri |
33 |
$750.00 |
22.73 |
7 |
Michigan |
22 |
$672.50 |
30.57 |
8 |
Illinois |
21 |
$566.00 |
26.95 |
9 |
Massachusetts |
41 |
$559.00 |
13.63 |
10 |
Kansas |
221 |
$536.00 |
25.52 |
11 |
Ohio |
36 |
$461.00 |
12.81 |
12 |
South Carolina |
60 |
$460.50 |
7.68 |
13 |
Texas |
29 |
$427.50 |
14.74 |
14 |
New York |
20 |
$427.00 |
21.35 |
15 |
Nebraska |
26 |
$381.00 |
14.65 |
16 |
District of Columbia |
11 |
$352.00 |
32.00 |
17 |
Virginia |
21 |
$325.00 |
15.48 |
18 |
Washington |
9 |
$290.00 |
32.22 |
19 |
Idaho |
26 |
$290.00 |
11.15 |
20 |
Kentucky |
16 |
$282.50 |
17.66 |
21 |
North Carolina |
20 |
$267.00 |
13.35 |
22 |
Alaska |
12 |
$256.50 |
21.38 |
23 |
Louisiana |
16 |
$250.66 |
15.67 |
24 |
Florida |
12 |
$220.50 |
18.38 |
25 |
Pennsylvania |
16 |
$198.50 |
12.41 |
26 |
Mississippi |
14 |
$198.50 |
14.18 |
27 |
Tennessee |
8 |
$180.00 |
22.50 |
28 |
Arkansas |
15 |
$180.00 |
12.00 |
29 |
Indiana |
12 |
$168.00 |
14.00 |
30 |
Connecticut |
12 |
$136.00 |
11.33 |
31 |
Oregon |
11 |
$125.00 |
11.36 |
32 |
Wisconsin |
7 |
$122.00 |
17.43 |
33 |
Utah |
11 |
$122.00 |
11.09 |
34 |
Alabama |
6 |
$110.00 |
18.33 |
35 |
West Virginia |
9 |
$106.00 |
11.78 |
36 |
New Jersey |
6 |
$100.00 |
16.67 |
37 |
New Hampshire |
10 |
$93.00 |
9.30 |
38 |
New Mexico |
9 |
$87.50 |
9.72 |
39 |
South Dakota |
11 |
$75.00 |
6.82 |
40 |
Georgia |
4 |
$52.50 |
13.13 |
41 |
Montana |
4 |
$45.00 |
11.25 |
42 |
Hawaii |
2 |
$40.00 |
20.00 |
43 |
Arizona |
4 |
$35.00 |
8.75 |
44 |
Oklahoma |
4 |
$30.00 |
7.50 |
45 |
Rhode Island |
3 |
$25.00 |
8.33 |
46 |
Nevada |
3 |
$15.00 |
5.00 |
47 |
Maine |
1 |
$12.00 |
12.00 |
48 |
North Dakota |
2 |
$10.00 |
5.00 |
49 |
Delaware |
2 |
$10.00 |
5.00 |
50 |
Wyoming |
1 |
$5.00 |
5.00 |
51 |
Vermont |
1 |
$2.00 |
2.00 |
As of October 22, 1981, 867 people were on the PAC Plan. The average gift for each contributor was $19.02 per month. The total monthly pledge was $16,490.16. This projects to a total annual PAC Plan contribution of $197,881.92. We are drawing ever closer to the time when we will ass (and permanently stay above) that elusive $200,000. 00 per year figure.
Now, let us turn to Associates. The data for this report was compiled October 27, 1981, and it represents all money from sale of Associates from June 1, 1981, through October 27. As Federationists know, the June 1 date marks the beginning of the current Associates contest, it will end May 31, 1982. At next year's NFB convention in Minneapolis four prizes will be given. The person who has sold the most Associates will receive $1,000.00 in cash. The second prize will be $500.00. The third will be $200.00, and the fourth will be $100.00. Anybody can win. It is simply a matter of work and determination.
It will be observed that Sandy Sanderson of Alaska (last year's winner and this year's Chairman of the Committee on Associates) is not in first place. However, Sandy is coming on fast, and he invites anybody to beat him who can. Fourteen states have not turned in a single Associate since June 1 of this year. This is not good, and must be changed.
No state is doing as well as it could. If all of us would put a little effort into the matter, the Associates program could finance the entire movement. Nevertheless, we are making progress. Here are the statistics:
RANK |
NAME OF STATE |
NUMBER OF ASSOCIATES |
AMOUNT OF MONEY COLLECTED |
NUMBER OF RECRUITERS |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1 |
Maryland |
107 |
$1,561.00 |
11 |
2 |
Alaska |
100 |
$1,437.00 |
4 |
3 |
California |
58 |
$799.00 |
14 |
4 |
Missouri |
56 |
$665.00 |
7 |
5 |
Illinois |
51 |
$580.00 |
12 |
6 |
Colorado |
44 |
$700.00 |
9 |
7 |
Alabama |
38 |
$565.00 |
5 |
8 |
South Carolina |
26 |
$295.00 |
7 |
9 |
Idaho |
22 |
$260.00 |
3 |
10 |
Indiana |
22 |
$222.00 |
4 |
11 |
South Dakota |
21 |
$327.00 |
2 |
12 |
Maine |
18 |
$685.00 |
8 |
13 |
Connecticut |
18 |
$402.00 |
5 |
14 |
Mississippi |
13 |
$162.00 |
3 |
15 |
Louisiana |
9 |
$225.00 |
4 |
16 |
Ohio |
8 |
$716.00 |
5 |
17 |
Iowa |
8 |
$201.00 |
6 |
18 |
West Virginia |
8 |
$105.50 |
2 |
19 |
Texas |
8 |
$96.00 |
4 |
20 |
New York |
7 |
$182.00 |
5 |
21 |
Virginia |
7 |
$100.00 |
2 |
22 |
New Jersey |
6 |
$205.00 |
3 |
23 |
Nebraska |
6 |
$77.00 |
4 |
24 |
New Mexico |
6 |
$60.00 |
2 |
25 |
Michigan |
6 |
$60.00 |
3 |
26 |
Montana |
5 |
$54.00 |
2 |
27 |
Utah |
4 |
$131.00 |
3 |
28 |
Kansas |
4 |
$55.00 |
2 |
29 |
Washington |
4 |
$40.00 |
2 |
30 |
Minnesota |
3 |
$35.00 |
2 |
31 |
Rhode Island |
3 |
$30.00 |
2 |
32 |
Arkansas |
2 |
$35.00 |
2 |
33 |
Pennsylvania |
2 |
$20.00 |
1 |
34 |
Georgia |
1 |
$26.00 |
1 |
35 |
New Hampshire |
1 |
$25.00 |
1 |
36 |
North Carolina |
1 |
$25.00 |
1 |
37 |
Oregon |
1 |
$10.00 |
1 |
It will be observed that from June 1, 1981, through October 27, 704 Associates were recruited. Only 155 of us did the recruiting. This is far too low. If only a few of us are left to carry the entire load, the task will be impossible. Each member of the organization should recruit at least five or ten Associates during the year. It is simply not that hard to do. The total money brought in through the Associates program from June 1 through October 27 is $11,173.50. This is substantial, but think what it could be if all of us worked at it. During the period under discussion the following states have not turned in a single Associate: Arizona, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee. Vermont. Wisconsin, Wyoming.
Here is a list of recruiters of Associates rank:
RANK |
NAME |
STATE |
NUMBER OF |
AMOUNT |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1 |
Ralph Sanders |
Maryland |
83 |
$1,000.00 |
2 |
Allen Sanderson |
Alaska |
71 |
$860.00 |
3 |
Tom Stevens |
Missouri |
39 |
$436.00 |
4 |
Alan Glickman |
Illinois |
34 |
$370.00 |
5 |
Dale Hamm |
Alabama |
28 |
$435.00 |
6 |
Lee Hagmeier |
Alaska |
19 |
$417.00 |
7 |
Marlene Welch |
Idaho |
19 |
$190.00 |
8 |
Sharon Gold |
California |
18 |
$261.00 |
9 |
Nancye Fox |
Indiana |
18 |
$180.00 |
10 |
Karen Mayry |
South Dakota |
17 |
$232.00 |
11 |
Diane McGeorge |
Colorado |
16 |
$335.00 |
12 |
Dora Dobbins |
California |
14 |
$140.00 |
13 |
Donald Capps |
South Carolina |
13 |
$165.00 |
14 |
Katharyn Kitty Myers |
Colorado |
12 |
$135.00 |
15 |
Dinah Smith |
California |
9 |
$135.00 |
16 |
Al Maneki |
Maryland |
8 |
$99.00 |
17 |
Jay Spitzley |
Alabama |
7 |
$85.00 |
18 |
Al Evans |
Massachusetts |
7 |
$70.00 |
19 |
Dottie Burke |
Mississippi |
7 |
$70.00 |
20 |
Suzanne Bridges |
South Carolina |
7 |
$70.00 |
21 |
Margaret C. Cavanaugh |
Alaska |
6 |
$105.00 |
22 |
Jacquilyn Billey |
Connecticut |
6 |
$100.00 |
23 |
William Munck |
West Virginia |
6 |
$77.50 |
24 |
Debbie Butler |
Virginia |
6 |
$75.00 |
25 |
James Willows |
California |
6 |
$61.00 |
26 |
Carol Ebner |
Colorado |
5 |
$60.00 |
27 |
Frank Gaulden |
Louisiana |
5 |
$65.00 |
28 |
Cathlene Schroeder |
New Mexico |
4 |
$50.00 |
29 |
Benjamin Alk |
Connecticut |
4 |
$137.00 |
30 |
Anna Marklund |
South Dakota |
4 |
$95.00 |
31 |
Judy Sanders |
Maryland |
4 |
$85.00 |
32 |
Nick Whitney |
Missouri |
4 |
$82.00 |
33 |
Wesley Blackman |
Missouri |
4 |
$56.00 |
34 |
Darrel Nather |
Alaska |
4 |
$55.00 |
35 |
Mary Brunoli |
Connecticut |
4 |
$55.00 |
36 |
John Ford |
Montana |
3 |
$44.00 |
37 |
Barbara Pierce |
Ohio |
3 |
$626.00 |
38 |
Joann Giudicessi |
Massachusetts |
3 |
$520.00 |
39 |
Ken Gould |
New Jersey |
3 |
$150.00 |
40 |
Curt Willoughby |
Iowa |
3 |
$121.00 |
41 |
Ruth Anne Schaefer |
Illinois |
3 |
$70.00 |
42 |
Kenneth Jernigan |
Maryland |
3 |
$61.00 |
43 |
E. U. Parker |
Mississippi |
3 |
$60.00 |
44 |
Gary Thompson |
Texas |
3 |
$46.00 |
45 |
Raymond Graber |
Kansas |
3 |
$45.00 |
46 |
Sandy Kelly |
Colorado |
3 |
$45.00 |
47 |
Tina Clancy |
Nebraska |
3 |
$32.00 |
48 |
Melba Barlow |
Mississippi |
3 |
$32.00 |
49 |
Betsy Zaborowski |
Colorado |
3 |
$30.00 |
50 |
Gail Thompson |
Michigan |
3 |
$30.00 |
51 |
Mike Hingson |
Massachusetts |
3 |
$125.00 |
52 |
Don Gillmore |
Illinois |
3 |
$110.00 |
53 |
Rhoda Dower |
Missouri |
3 |
$100.00 |
54 |
Bill Hughes |
Louisiana |
2 |
$75.00 |
55 |
Premo Foianini |
Utah |
2 |
$60.00 |
56 |
Mary Ellen Anderson |
Maryland |
2 |
$45.00 |
57 |
Junerose Killian |
Connecticut |
2 |
$35.00 |
58 |
Lucy Carpenter |
New York |
2 |
$28.00 |
59 |
Bobbie Tipton |
New Jersey |
2 |
$26.00 |
60 |
Michele Lavender |
Connecticut |
2 |
$21.00 |
61 |
Donna Munck |
West Virginia |
2 |
$21.00 |
62 |
Arthur Tackman, III |
New York |
2 |
$26.00 |
63 |
David Wolfe |
Indiana |
2 |
$21.00 |
64 |
Debbie Whitney |
Missouri |
2 |
$21.00 |
65 |
Stewart Prost |
Minnesota |
2 |
$20.00 |
66 |
Barbara Shaidnagle |
Texas |
2 |
$20.00 |
67 |
Ken R. Schad |
Illinois |
2 |
$20.00 |
68 |
Cecelia Ross |
Illinois |
2 |
$20.00 |
69 |
Christine Roberts |
Colorado |
2 |
$20.00 |
70 |
Lola Pace |
Texas |
2 |
$20.00 |
71 |
Jim Omvig |
Maryland |
2 |
$20.00 |
72 |
Pauline Murphy |
Missouri |
2 |
$20.00 |
73 |
Jim Mitchell |
Michigan |
2 |
$20.00 |
74 |
Lawrence Marcelino |
California |
2 |
$20.00 |
75 |
Denise Mackenstadt |
Washington |
2 |
$20.00 |
76 |
Gary Mackenstadt |
Washington |
2 |
$20.00 |
77 |
Homer Jackson |
Ohio |
2 |
$10.00 |
78 |
Lonnie Harmon |
Idaho |
2 |
$100.00 |
79 |
Mattie Gatlin |
South Carolina |
2 |
$51.00 |
80 |
Frances Gambardelli |
Rhode Island |
2 |
$50.00 |
81 |
Barbara Cheadle |
Missouri |
2 |
$50.00 |
82 |
Marc Maurer |
Maryland |
1 |
$100.00 |
83 |
Ellen Robertson |
New York |
1 |
$50.00 |
84 |
Unknown |
Colorado |
1 |
$26.00 |
85 |
Mary Evelyn Smith |
Idaho |
1 |
$26.00 |
86 |
Sharon Omvig |
Maryland |
1 |
$25.00 |
87 |
Patricia Munson |
California |
1 |
$25.00 |
88 |
Pat Eschbach |
Ohio |
1 |
$15.00 |
89 |
Ivey Hines |
Georgia |
1 |
$26.00 |
90 |
Pat Gormley |
Maryland |
1 |
$26.00 |
91 |
Doris Willoughby |
Iowa |
1 |
$25.00 |
92 |
Unknown |
Louisiana |
1 |
$25.00 |
93 |
Unknown |
Massachusetts |
1 |
$25.00 |
94 |
Unknown |
Virginia |
1 |
$25.00 |
95 |
Ruth Swenson |
Nebraska |
1 |
$25.00 |
96 |
H. E. Stutters |
Iowa |
1 |
$25.00 |
97 |
Loraine Stayer |
New York |
1 |
$25.00 |
98 |
Hazel Staley |
North Carolina |
1 |
$25.00 |
99 |
Joy Smith |
California |
1 |
$25.00 |
100 |
Ray McGeorge |
Colorado |
1 |
$25.00 |
101 |
Donna Maglin |
New Hampshire |
1 |
$25.00 |
102 |
Vera Jones |
Alabama |
1 |
$25.00 |
103 |
Melba Galloway |
California |
1 |
$25.00 |
104 |
Joe Fletcher |
California |
1 |
$25.00 |
105 |
Mrs. Benni Conner |
Arkansas |
1 |
$25.00 |
106 |
Unknown |
New York |
1 |
$20.00 |
107 |
Vernell Wynne |
California |
1 |
$15.00 |
108 |
Curtis Chong |
Minnesota |
1 |
$14.00 |
109 |
Mary Willows |
California |
1 |
$11.00 |
110 |
Karl Smith |
Utah |
1 |
$11.00 |
111 |
Joe Money |
Indiana |
1 |
$11.00 |
112 |
Dorothy Hagg |
California |
1 |
$11.00 |
113 |
Lugenia Williams |
South Carolina |
1 |
$10.00 |
114 |
Ramona Walhof |
Maryland |
1 |
$10.00 |
115 |
Unknown |
Pennsylvania |
1 |
$10.00 |
116 |
Eileen Truschke |
Illinois |
1 |
$10.00 |
117 |
David Ticchi |
Massachusetts |
1 |
$10.00 |
118 |
Milton Taylor |
Utah |
1 |
$10.00 |
119 |
Larry Streeter |
Texas |
1 |
$10.00 |
120 |
Al Sten |
Massachusetts |
1 |
$10.00 |
121 |
John W. Smith |
Nebraska |
1 |
$10.00 |
122 |
Victor Scheer |
Ohio |
1 |
$10.00 |
123 |
Allen Schaefer |
Illinois |
1 |
$10.00 |
124 |
Lorraine Rovig |
Iowa |
1 |
$10.00 |
125 |
Evelyn Ray |
Rhode Island |
1 |
$10.00 |
126 |
Althea Pittman |
Maryland |
1 |
$10.00 |
127 |
Joseph Phillips |
Pennsylvania |
1 |
$10.00 |
128 |
Alphonso Owens |
Kansas |
1 |
$10.00 |
129 |
Debra Money |
Indiana |
1 |
$10.00 |
130 |
Louis Lucero |
California |
1 |
$10.00 |
131 |
Preston Jackson |
Louisiana |
1 |
$10.00 |
132 |
Bill Isaacs |
Illinois |
1 |
$10.00 |
133 |
David Hyde |
Oregon |
1 |
$10.00 |
134 |
Margaret Hutton |
Alabama |
1 |
$10.00 |
135 |
Shelley Hutchinson |
Nebraska |
1 |
$10.00 |
136 |
Linda Hurlock |
Montana |
1 |
$10.00 |
137 |
Steve Handschu |
Michigan |
1 |
$10.00 |
138 |
Gail Hall |
California |
1 |
$10.00 |
139 |
Joe Gonzales |
New Mexico |
1 |
$10.00 |
140 |
Dolores Fleming |
Massachusetts |
1 |
$10.00 |
141 |
Searcy Ewell |
Arkansas |
1 |
$10.00 |
142 |
Charles Erickson |
Iowa |
1 |
$10.00 |
143 |
Charlene Elder |
Illinois |
1 |
$10.00 |
144 |
Lizzie Dudley |
Alabama |
1 |
$10.00 |
145 |
Al Dimarzio |
Ohio |
1 |
$10.00 |
146 |
Connie Davis |
Illinois |
1 |
$10.00 |
147 |
Jerry Darnell |
South Carolina |
1 |
$10.00 |
148 |
Vickie Darnell |
South Carolina |
1 |
$10.00 |
149 |
Della Cook |
Illinois |
1 |
$10.00 |
150 |
Carol Clark |
Iowa |
1 |
$10.00 |
151 |
Mrs. Donald Capps |
South Carolina |
1 |
$10.00 |
152 |
Paul Burkhardt |
Massachusetts |
1 |
$10.00 |
153 |
Tom Blume |
New Jersey |
1 |
$10.00 |
154 |
Stephen Benson |
Illinois |
1 |
$10.00 |
**TOTALS** |
704 |
$11,173.50 |
||
by Tina Clancy
(Note: Tina Clancy is a Federationist from Lincoln, Nebraska.)
Wash 7 or 8 medium sized potatoes, do not peel. Boil about 15 minutes. Rinse with cold water, then peel. Slice potatoes in cassarole dish. Add 1 teaspoon of salt, 1 stick of margarine, 2 cups of half and half cream, and top with 2 cups of shredded cheddar cheese. Bake for 90 minutes at 350 degrees.New Talking Calculator:
The Federation is now selling a portable talking calculator. It is made by Sharp Electronics, the same company which makes the talking clock. It is 5 and 3/4 inches long, 3 inches wide, and 1/2 inch thick. So far as we know, this is the first truly portable talking calculator. Its memory is not erased when the machine is turned off, and it has square root and percent keys. Best of all, we are able to sell this calculator for $56.00. We should be able to fill orders promptly. Of course, we can still sell the Panasonic calculator for $100.00, but for most purposes the Sharp seems to be a better buy.
From Al Evans:
It is with regret that we report the death of Lester Stott, long-time Federationist from Massachusetts. He died Sunday, October 11, at age 69. He was a thirty-year charter member of the Massachusetts affiliate. He had attended every Massachusetts convention and many of the national conventions.
From Lewis M. Davis, Assistant Regional Commissioner for Program Operations, United States Department of Education, Region IV, Atlanta, Georgia:
Dear Dr. Jernigan:
I read with interest your article entitled "Diabetics, Kidney Transplants, and a New Service" which appeared in the October 1981 issue of The Braille Monitor. Ms. Mayry is to be commended for picking up and moving on the "network" idea. Without doubt, this is a vital element of service for anyone having to wrestle with the decision of transplant vs. renal dialysis.
About two years ago, at the request of then HHS Secretary Califano, the office of Service Delivery Assessment in Region I conducted a national study of selected Renal Dialysis Programs in the United States, and some attention was given to the matter of transplants. Although I don't recall the precise details of the report, I do recollect that local structure, resources, etc. were fairly well described, and I believe it would be most helpful reading for any individual who would plan to become active, in any capacity, within this particular community. I regret that my copy of the study has "disappeared," but if one desired a copy, it could be secured from:
Mr. Michael Makowiecki, Director
Service Delivery Assessment
Department of Health and Human Services
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Room 2411
Government Center
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
Again, I enjoyed the article, and appreciate the information it shared.
From Perkins School for the Blind:
Announcing . . . An International Symposium on the Past, Present, and Future Roles of Residential Schools for the Blind: "Visions of the Future" at Perkins School for the Blind, Watertown, Massachusetts, U. S. A., June 20 - 23, 1982
If you are a teacher, psychologist, social worker, rehabilitation counselor, or parent interested in the education of blind and visually impaired persons . . .
The Perkins School for the Blind invites you to help celebrate its Sesquicentennial Anniversary by participating in An International Symposium on the Past, Present, and Future Roles of Residential Schools for the Blind, to be held on the Perkins campus beginning Sunday, June 20, 1982, and continuing through Wednesday, June 23, 1982.
From Connecticut:
Reverend Howard May, President of the NFB of Connecticut, called the National Office early in October to report the death of Bruno Andreoli, President of the New Haven Chapter. Ben Snow, the acting President of the New Haven Chapter, also called. Bruno, who was only 29, was apparently in good health. He is survived by his wife Linda and their four month old baby girl. He attended the 1981 national convention in Baltimore and was very active in the movement.
Hadley School:
About a year and a half ago the Hadley Correspondence School for the Blind in Winnetka, Illinois, hired a new President. He was Frank Penland from Virginia. We have learned that Mr. Penland has now left Hadley. Further details are not available at this time.
From John Holly of Mississippi:
Dear Dr. Jernigan:
We were organized in Madison on June 13 of this year with seventeen members. We have lost one in death since that time and yet have grown to a membership of twenty-one. We still have others that should come into the movement—but just give us time. We'll get them. We have a good working group. We are raffling off a shot gun, and as of yesterday we had sold a little over seven hundred dollars worth of tickets and have only been selling on them for about three weeks. I am really proud of the people in the Annandale Chapter. They are good workers. Also, we already have letters going to our Congressmen and Senators concerning the disability insurance bill for the blind.
Here is another bit of news for you: Dennis Neeley of Jackson, Mississippi (our state Vice President) and Dottie Burke of Salem, Oregon met at the NFB convention in Baltimore this summer. They came to my home on Saturday morning, September 26, and were married here in Madison that same morning at 10:00 a.m. They spent the rest of the weekend with us. We were glad to have them and hoping Dennis and Dottie the very best of a long and happy life of marriage.
From the Fall, 1981, Standard-Bearer, the official publication of the National Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually Handicapped (NAC):
NATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS URGE GREATER USE OF NAC ACCREDITATION
Delegates attending the American Council of the Blind and the Affiliated Leadership League of and for the Blind of America conventions in July unanimously adopted resolutions which would make greater use of NAC accreditation. Both resolutions urge that the allocation of public and private funds to agencies and schools for the blind be conditioned upon the attainment of accreditation. ACB and ALL, both of which are NAC Sponsors, plan to share their resolutions with governmental and other funding sources that support services to blind and visually handicapped people.
In a related development, NAC Sponsor National Industries for the Blind recently advocated greater use of accreditation by its affiliated workshops. In the July-August 1981 issue of its newsletter, Opportunity, NIB executive vice president George J. Mertz said "In this increasing aura of public accountability, agencies for the blind must prove the value of their programs in order to secure those necessary Federal and State dollars. Fortunately for us, agencies serving the blind have a very effective tool to prove their worth; namely, the National Accreditation Council . . . NIB wholeheartedly supports the NAC accreditation process and encourages all of its affiliated agencies to consider NAC accreditation."
North Carolina Convention:
The 1981 convention of the National Federation of the Blind of North Carolina was held September 25 - 27 in Charlotte. Marc Maurer represented the National Office. Hazel Staley succeeded Byron Sykes as President, and Byron was elected Secretary. George Best of Charlotte was elected Treasurer. Elected for two-year terms on the Board were: Jo Anne Moore, Kenly; Joe Hays, Raleigh; and Burford Caudle, Winston-Salem. The convention was well attended, and enthusiasm was high.
From Virginia:
The officers for the Winchester Chapter of the NFB of Virginia are: Amy Barnes, President; Lois J. Everline, First Vice President; Robert Adams, Second Vice President; Lillie G. Adams, Secretary; Bill Lundmark, Treasurer; and Board Members Evelyn Baker and Bernice Lundmark.