N.C. Surprise From the Legislature

N.C. Surprise From the Legislature

Herman Gruber

North Carolina Agency

Survives Surprise from Legislature

by Herman Gruber

From the Editor: On Tuesday morning, July 21, I

was at my desk when the phone rang. It was Wayne Shevlin, Second Vice President of the NFB

of North Carolina. His news was dismaying, but all too familiar. The state agency was in

deep trouble, and the affiliate was swinging into high gear to rescue it if it could be

done. Wayne had already talked to President Maurer and Peggy Elliott, and now he was

turning to me for a crash course in media relations and help with writing a press release.

Of course I dropped everything to do what I could. The rest of the exciting story appears

in the following article written by Herman Gruber, President of the National Federation of

the Blind of North Carolina. It was first published in the August, 1998, edition of News

and Views, a publication of the NFB of North Carolina. Here it is:

How many times must we go to the brink? The

answer is that we will go as long and as often as we need to.

The North Carolina Commission for the Blind first

came into existence in 1937, two years after the Social Security Act was passed by

Congress. The Commission for the Blind offered quite a comprehensive array of programs.

There were Social Service, Medical Eye Care, Business Enterprises, and Rehabilitation

programs in a single agency.

The commission functioned as a stand-alone agency

until 1972 when the state government reform act was passed. Then it was encompassed by the

umbrella department known as the Department of Human Resources. It goes without saying

that the layers of bureaucracy now grew and the number of bases to be touched multiplied.

None of this did anything good for consumers nor for those who had the responsibility of

administering and directing the programs. Still it was much better than being a part of

some division whose mission was generic.

In 1989 the Governor Morehead School became part

of what was now the Division of Services for the Blind. The addition of the school further

expanded the comprehensiveness of services available from a single agency. In some ways

this was unique in that it now offered a network of services that ranged from infancy

through adulthood.

As has been the experience in so many other

states with a specialized agency serving the blind, periodically it is necessary to defend

the existence of a separate agency. When new governors and new legislatures arrive and

bring with them their efficiency studies and their re-organization studies, sometimes,

seemingly for no reason at all, it has been necessary to fight to maintain our specialized

status.

Fortunately we have always been able to withstand

the challenge. As long as our resolve is there and we are willing to put mind and effort

to it, perhaps we can continue to survive. We can be sure that survival will not come

automatically. It will come only as long as we are determined it should and we are willing

and have the collective will to defend it.

Our latest challenge began in December, 1996,

when the

General Assembly authorized the Peat Marwick firm

to conduct a

re-organization study of state government. When

it was done and

the recommendations were made, there were the

usual suggestions and outright recommendations for merger. Fortunately the General

Assembly did not mandate the implementation of all these recommendations. However, it did

recommend that the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) study the Marwick report

and implement any changes that the department deemed appropriate. Once more we should have

recognized that our wake-up call had come.

Beginning in the spring of this year rumors began

to circulate that the Division of Services for the Blind, the Division of Vocational

Rehabilitation Services, and the Division of Deaf and Hard of Hearing would be merged into

a single division. During a conference with some other consumers on June 16, I asked Mr.

Peter Leosis, who is Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services and is supervisor of

the Division of Services for the Blind in the department, if there were plans to merge DSB

with other divisions such as Vocational Rehabilitation and the Deaf. The answer was that

he had no plans to merge. We hoped merger would now be a dead issue.

Only one month later to the day, on July 16 at a

sub-committee Budget meeting, Representative Charlotte Gardner, one of the sub-committee's

three co-chairs, unexpectedly introduced a special legislative provision to merge the

Division of Services for the Blind, the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, and the

Division of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing into the Division of Disabilities. The Special

Provision was also co-signed by the remaining two chairs, Representatives Cansler and

Clary. The blindness community certainly was not consulted, nor was there even token

inquiry, so far as we can tell.

Since the special provision was entered at the

eleventh hour of the committee's budget considerations, it would appear that they

recognized there would be strong opposition, and they hoped the last-minute introduction

of the bill would minimize any possible response. As usual, they underestimated the

National Federation of the Blind. They didn't appreciate how fast we could put a plan in

place and rally the forces—or did they?

Immediately the wheels started turning. As soon

as I received a call informing me of the events of the sixteenth, I set out to discover

the next step in the budget process, which turned out to be for the special provision

merger to go to the full Budget Committee of the House of Representatives on the

twentieth. We alerted our members and urged them to contact members of the Budget

Committee and try to persuade them to vote against the special provision.

When the full committee met, I was there along

with my wife Penny and our legislative chairman and Second Vice President, Wayne Shevlin.

It was not long till we learned we would not be allowed to speak. Representative George

Holmes, who was presiding, announced that no statement by members of the public would be

allowed. This closed one avenue we had hoped would be open to us. It did not sound

promising, but we determined to stay until the end. We did. When the full committee

finished its deliberations and passed its budget bill, the special provision was still

alive. Based on comments during the hearing, I had the distinct feeling that not all

proposed amendments to the Human Health Services budget had been heard when discussion on

this budget was closed at 11:00 p.m. We were resolved that we would still find a way to be

heard. We were not finished yet.

In the meantime various people in this affiliate

had talked with President Marc Maurer, Jim Gashel, Peggy Elliott, and Barbara Pierce.

Though they were miles away, they really were ever so close. We were sure our national

leaders were supporting us in every way, including their presence if necessary.

In consultation with our leadership, we planned

our strategy. It would be necessary to call our plight to the attention of the public and

the press and initiate personal contact with members of the conference committee charged

with resolving differences between the budgets passed by the House and Senate. Fortunately

the Senate budget did not include the merger provision in the House budget.

During the following days many Federationists

along with friends gave many hours of serious devotion and dedication to taking our fight

to the members of the General Assembly. One of the real strengths that emerged from this

crisis was the way in which so many made calls, contacts, and visits, led by

Federationists such as First Vice President Hazel Staley, Second Vice President Wayne

Shevlin, and chapter presidents. These actions were critical to the successful outcome.

These challenges can often bring our strengths to the fore. I assure you this one did.

Although North Carolina has previously faced

threats of consolidation, those earlier threats were administrative and were not an act of

our elected officials. The process had never gone this far before.

We began planning a small rally for Thursday,

July 23, outside the capitol to hand out flyers and attract media attention for a larger

gathering planned for Thursday, July 30. In the meantime we were busy contacting members

of the legislature who were likely to be on the Conference Committee. Incidentally, we

felt we were making good progress with some of the Senators who were likely to be on that

critically important committee.

The unexpected and devastating news of the

special provision had come on July 16. Then with equal suddenness on July 23 came the

victorious news that the special provision had been deleted on the floor of the House

during the previous evening's deliberations and subsequent actions. So much had transpired

in seven long, arduous days.

Why did it happen? A number of factors figured in

the final equation. Federationists all across the state were rising to the occasion. Not

only were we coming to the battle, but it seemed that other blind people, and those

interested in the blind, were joining the crusade in unprecedented numbers. It was

heartening to see that interested people from all corners of the blindness community were

ready to join the fight. We had organized our campaign, notifying the security force that

we planned to demonstrate, calling the press to tell them what was happening, then

beginning to circulate a press release. It was clear to everyone paying attention to the

situation that we intended to use every resource at our disposal, and I don't believe

anybody doubted our determination.

Our many attempts to convince our representatives

were coming to full fruition. Representative Martha Alexander, with whom we had discussed

the crisis and who had previously served on the Consumer and Advocate Advisory Committee

for the Blind, opposed the special provision on the floor and was successful in having it

deleted. Though the vote was close, fifty-seven to fifty-five, the victory was still sweet

and one to be savored. The day the emergency ended we were flooded with emotions. First we

were grateful. Then we remembered how quickly the whole thing had arisen in the first

place. Our experience is a grim reminder that what happens once can happen again. But we

will not be denied the joy of victory.

We must remain watchful, and we must be ever

ready and prepared to do what we have to do. Perhaps some victories are not finally won

but must be won again and again.

We must thank those in the General Assembly who

helped us by their vote. We must thank our national leadership who stood by us with more

than words. We must thank every person who made a telephone call, sent a fax, spoke a

word, or wrote a letter. It may well be that without any one of these components the

victory would not have been ours. But we all did our part, and for the moment the danger

of having our state agency swallowed whole and our services diluted has been averted.