                   CLOVERNOOK TRIES AND FAILS
            TO CORNER THE MARKET ON BRAILLE MAGAZINES
                       by Kenneth Jernigan

     On March 28, 1995, a meeting occurred at the headquarters of
the National Library Service for the Blind and Physically
Handicapped of the Library of Congress on Taylor Street in
Washington, D.C. It might on the surface have appeared to be a
run-of-the-mill gathering of government officials, private
agencies, and blind consumers--undramatic and soon forgotten. But
such was not the case. In its own way this meeting exemplified
most of the problems now current in the blindness field:
budgetary constraints, shifting political balances, new
alignments, and the search for innovative initiatives and
solutions. And there was drama. In the ebb and flow of the polite
exchanges and measured phrases, there were both strain and the
threat of future conflict.
     To understand the implications, one needs a certain amount
of background. To begin with, there is a federal organism called
the Committee for Purchase from People Who are Blind or Severely
Disabled, ordinarily simply referred to as the Committee for
Purchase. This committee determines what products the federal
government will buy from sheltered workshops and is composed of
fifteen members. Some of these members serve because they are
employed by certain federal agencies: Department of Defense,
Department of Labor, Department of Justice, etc.; and some serve
because they are appointed by the President of the United States.
The Committee (the Executive Director of which is Ms. Beverly
Milkman) puts items that it decides the federal government should
purchase from sheltered shops on a list called the Procurement
List. Items on the Procurement List are not put out for
competitive bid but are bought directly from the approved
sheltered shop.
     The Committee for Purchase works through two private,
nonprofit organizations--National Industries for the Blind (NIB),
and National Industries for the Severely Handicapped (NISH). The
law which makes all of this possible was passed in 1938 and was
known as the Wagner-O'Day Act. Purchases made under the Act were
limited to workshops for the blind. In 1972 Senator Jacob Javits
offered an amendment to the Wagner-O'Day Act (subsequently known
as the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act) providing that purchases should
also be made from sheltered shops for the severely handicapped.
     National Industries for the Blind (NIB) is a separate,
identifiable organization, serving as the intermediary between
sheltered shops and the Committee for Purchase. It awards
contracts to sheltered shops and is largely composed of sheltered
shop officials. It has a paid staff, the recently appointed
Executive Director being Judy Peters, and it takes five percent
of every contract it gives to a sheltered shop.
     All of this may seem far removed from the March 28 meeting
called by NLS, but such is not the case. And there is more. The
organization which many of us used to think of merely as the
Clovernook Printing House for the Blind (an organization which
produced Braille books and magazines) was always more than that.
From 1934 to 1955 it was a regional library for the blind in the
Library of Congress network. Originally it was a home for blind
women, and it later became (as it is today) a sheltered workshop.
Its official name is now the Clovernook Center--Opportunities for
the Blind; and it is, as it always has been, located in
Cincinnati.
     For a long time Clovernook has bid in the competition to
produce Braille magazines for the National Library Service for
the Blind and Physically Handicapped of the Library of Congress
(NLS), and it has always received some of the contracts. This is
partly true because Clovernook has often submitted the low bid,
some say because of the sub-minimum wages it pays its blind
workers--but there are other factors. NLS feels that it is
desirable to have as many organizations as possible producing
Braille and competing for the business. There would be obvious
disadvantages to having only one or two Braille producers, with
the leverage that such a monopoly would permit. Be that as it
may, there have always been competitive bids.
     But this year a new wrinkle was added. Clovernook served
notice that it intended (and it has the right to do this because
of its status as a sheltered shop) to request the Committee for
Purchase to remove Braille magazines from the competitive bidding
system and place a large number of them on the Procurement List.
Thus it would have a monopoly. Obviously this would hurt other
Braille producers and might even drive some of them out of
business. Although Clovernook's prices might initially be
reasonable, the damage to other Braille producers and the
possible ultimate monopoly caused alarm bells to ring.
     So the groundwork was laid, and the stage was set. It only
remained for the situation to be formalized, and that was
accomplished by a letter from Dr. Gerald Mundy (Clovernook's
Executive Director) to Mr. Frank Kurt Cylke, Director of NLS:

                                                 Cincinnati, Ohio
                                                 January 16, 1995

Dear Mr. Cylke:
     I wish to inform you that the Clovernook Center--
Opportunities for the Blind is taking the necessary steps for
placement of the magazine production work performed under
contract with the National Library Service for the Blind and
Physically Handicapped on the federal Procurement List as
provided for under the provisions of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act.
This decision has been reached after thorough consideration of
our agency's options concerning continuation of employment
opportunities for the consumers we serve.
     As you know, Clovernook has a long history of providing
quality and timely Braille magazine production for NLS.
Throughout that history the NLS/Clovernook cooperative effort has
produced high-volume, high-quality Braille for NLS patrons. In
turn, this cooperative effort has provided ongoing employment for
the more than fifty people who are visually impaired and multiply
disabled within Clovernook's Braille printing operation.
Beginning with the contracts for 1993, magazine-production awards
were made strictly on price with a new costing method; quality
and timely delivery were no longer factored in the award formula.
As a result Clovernook lost a large percentage of the magazine
work that was providing employment to the people we serve.
Beginning in January, 1993, Clovernook was forced to lay off
eleven people who are blind and multidisabled from its bindery
operation. Given that Clovernook's mission is that of offering
employment opportunities to people with visual impairments, we
have concluded that the course of action we are pursuing is the
only option that will assure Clovernook sufficient on-going
employment opportunities for those we serve in our braille
printing operation.
     We will be requesting the National Industries for the Blind
to provide the President's Committee For Purchase From People Who
Are Blind or Severely Handicapped all necessary information for
placement of our 1995 magazine production work on the federal
Procurement List. Please be assured that we continue to be
committed to excellence in our Braille magazine production and to
meeting the performance specifications of the NLS for quality and
on-time delivery that you have become accustomed to in dealing
with the Clovernook Center.

                                                       Sincerely,
                                           Gerald W. Mundy, Ed.D.
                                               Executive Director

     Dr. Mundy's formal letter brought a formal response, but
perhaps not the one he expected. The occasion was the annual NLS
meeting of Braille producers--usually scantily attended, but not
this time. There was a full house, and a court reporter to take a
verbatim transcript.
     Much of what follows is taken from that transcript with only
enough editing to remedy the phrasing, eliminate redundancy, and
smooth out the more obvious grammatical misadventures--my own as
well as those of others. The meeting started at 9:30 in the
morning, and Mr. Cylke began by saying that there were
microphones on the table and in the audience and that a
stenographer was taking a transcript of the meeting. He then
introduced those present: Dr. Tuck Tinsley and others from the
American Printing House for the Blind, Louisville; Ms. Pat
Johnson and others from Associated Services for the Blind,
Philadelphia; Mr. Geoffrey Bull from Braille International,
Stuart, Florida; Mr. William Raeder and Ms. Eileen Curran from
the National Braille Press, Boston; Dr. Gerald Mundy and others
from Clovernook, Cincinnati; Mr. Joe Sullivan from Duxbury
Systems, Littleton, Massachusetts; and representatives from
National Industries for the Blind and the Committee for Purchase.
In addition, a number of NLS staff members were present, as was
an observer from the Canadian National Institute for the Blind.
Finally, James Gashel and I were there representing the National
Federation of the Blind. If others were present, I am unaware of
it.
     When the preliminaries were finished, Mr. Cylke began the
meeting as follows:

                        Opening Comments
     This Braille Producers Meeting is, as you know, normally
held every year. Because of some extenuating circumstances we did
skip a year, but we are back on schedule. I believe you are all
aware of the first item on the agenda, but for those who aren't,
let me read you a letter that I wrote to Jerry Mundy on the 17th
of January:

Dear Dr. Mundy:
     I am writing with reference to our telephone conversation of
last Thursday when you informed me of plans to have production of
Library of Congress Braille magazines placed on the Procurement
List of the Committee for Purchase from People Who are Blind or
Severely Disabled. This letter is to ask that you attend the
Braille producers meeting scheduled for Tuesday, March 28, here
in Washington. At that time I suggest that you present your plans
and address the impact of such action on the community of Braille
production facilities and on individual readers of Braille
magazines. As there is no more important topic currently under
discussion, I am sure you will have a large and attentive
audience. [Which you do.]
     If you agree, I will ask Lois Mandelberg to place you on the
agenda for 9:00 a.m. You may consider the time as open, with no
constraints.

     That letter was carboned to several people, including most
of the people in this room. But, for Geoff Bull, who wasn't
onboard at that time and for others, that sets the stage for this
meeting.
     Bill Price, who is head of our business operation here; Brad
Kormann; and I met with Beverly Milkman some time ago. I believe
approximately a month ago. And we asked that any action to place
the magazines being produced by Clovernook on the List be
deferred or at least held until we had this meeting, where Jerry
Mundy could bring to you his reasons for doing so. We indicated
that everyone who was a producer at this time was a not-for-
profit for-the-blind organization. While they didn't fall under
the rubric of the committee, it seemed to us that there certainly
would be an impact. I won't go into the details of what those
impacts are, but there would be an impact on them. And there
would also be an impact on the blind community through the
increased costs and related probable cuts of the magazines that
will be produced. Ms. Milkman agreed to that, and I indicated
that I would send a transcript, an unedited transcript, of the
conversations that would be held at the meeting. That is why we
have a court stenographer here. He will be here through the whole
day, but he will produce two documents: one of the first part of
the agenda through noon, or whenever we complete our work--and
then the second. The first piece will be transmitted to Beverly
at that point.
     Yesterday Jerry called and asked if he could show a video,
and we said, yes, of course, he could if he would like.
     I turn the meeting over to you, Jerry, at this point.

                      Comments by Dr. Mundy
     Dr. Mundy: Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
     First of all, just to express our thanks for John and
Charlotte and myself for having the opportunity to be here today.
This is the first producers meeting that I have attended. I know
I have had staff attend meetings here in the past, over the
years. And of course, as you know, Charlotte [that would be
Charlotte Begley] has been very much involved in the Braille
authority as well in terms of our representation there for a
number of years, and we have had other staff prior to Charlotte
being involved. So, delighted to be here today.
     One of the reasons that I brought along the videotape was
that I thought it would be an opportunity for us to present our
organization to you in sort of a concise way. It is an eleven-
minute videotape that we developed within the last year and a
half or so. We developed two tapes. These are developed as public
relations and education tools as well as a sales tool. The tape
that I would like to show you this morning is a good
representation of what we do at Clovernook and the products that
we produce at Clovernook. And since we are talking about Braille
production here, there is a segment of the tape that deals with
that aspect. And it will give you a good flavor, I think, for
what we do in our Braille printing house and who it is we employ,
because I think that is an important element of what we are
talking about here, at least from our perspective. Our major
mission at Clovernook is to employ people who are blind,
particularly those who are multi-disabled blind.
     So if we have a person in the back there who would start the
tape. It has a good audio, so those of you who cannot see I think
should get quite a bit of it as well.
     [Whereupon the videotape was shown. After this Dr. Mundy
said:]
     That and the other video that we have produced are available
to anyone who wishes to either borrow them or keep them on file.
We will make them available to you for either purpose.
     Moving along then to my comments. What I have done is, I
have a brief presentation here that I will read to you. It is
available in large print and in Braille. So those of you who wish
to take a copy of it with you are certainly welcome to a copy.
     Also I noticed in the materials that are provided to all of
us here with the agenda, Mr. Cylke has provided correspondence
related to the Braille magazine program. And unless I missed it,
I don't believe the letter that I wrote to you originally was
included in there, Kurt, and if that letter was available to
people through you, that would be fine. Or I can make it
available if people would like.
     Mr. Cylke: The letter that followed your telephone call?
     Dr. Mundy: Pardon me?
     Mr. Cylke: The letter that followed your telephone call?
     Dr. Mundy: Yeah, that is it. But the original letter that I
sent to you regarding placing the magazines on the Procurement
List. That was dated January 16th. That is not included in the
packet. So if anyone would like to have a copy of that letter, I
would be happy to mail it to you if you want to leave a business
card with me or if you want to provide it, Kurt, whatever.
     Let me just go ahead and present to you what we have
prepared here. It is brief. I have, as you know, John Mitchell,
our Director of Manufacturing, and Charlotte Begley, our
supervisor of transcription, of course, here as well. They can
answer questions in areas of detail that I cannot answer as well
as they. So certainly they will be free to enter into the
discussion on this as well, if you have questions at the end of
my presentation.
     You will also notice that my presentation does not vary a
great deal from the letter that I wrote to Mr. Cylke back in
January. I think it is fairly straightforward. It presents why we
wish to place the magazines on the federal Procurement List. So
with that introduction I will go ahead and read this brief
presentation.
     The mission at Clovernook Center is to provide
individualized training and opportunities for people who are
visually impaired, particularly those with additional
disabilities, to enable the attainment of an optimal quality of
life.
     A little bit about our history. Clovernook was established
in 1903 by Florence and Georgia Trader as a residence for
homeless blind women. In addition to residential services,
Clovernook provided employment to the people that it served
through its workshop. One area of employment that Clovernook
developed was the translation and production of Braille reading
materials. In 1931 when the Library of Congress began providing
reading materials to citizens who are blind, Clovernook expanded
its Braille printing operation to produce books for this program.
     As time went on, the program, which today is known as the
National Library Service, NLS, expanded the services provided to
include over twenty-five Braille periodicals and more than 300
Braille books annually. In response to the increased need for
low-cost, reliable Braille production for NLS, Clovernook
invested heavily in its Braille printing operation during the
1960's to increase its production capacity from seven million
Braille pages annually to over fifty million Braille pages
annually. This increase in capacity brought about a large
increase in employment opportunities within the printing
operation, whereby today Clovernook employs over forty-five
individuals who have visual impairments in the production of
Braille reading materials. Most of these individuals have
multiple disabilities.
     Comment on recent changes: the Braille production work
performed by Clovernook for the National Library Service has
always been awarded on an annual basis through competitive bids.
Until the 1992 bid request, the awards were based on a formula
which factored in price, quality, and performance and timeliness
of delivery. It was a 40/30/30 basis respectively for those three
areas. Starting with Fiscal Year 1993, NLS dropped consideration
of quality and delivery through a point system in determination
of awards. Since this change Clovernook has seen a sharp drop in
the awards it receives for magazines from NLS and a corresponding
decrease in employment opportunities for people with visual
impairments. The loss of some magazines was by less than one
percent on the bid price, with prices being cut by producers as
much as 39 percent between 1992 and 1993 in order to win the
publication. If the formula for awards in 1992 had been used for
1993 work, Clovernook might have retained at least two magazines
that were awarded to other producers.
     The NIB affiliation: Since 1979 Clovernook has been
associated with the National Industries for the Blind (NIB).
Through this affiliation we are able to place federal
procurements on set-aside, to provide employment opportunities
for people who are blind. This process falls under the Wagner-
O'Day Act of 1938 and then expanded to people with severe
disabilities by the Javits Amendment in 1970. Clovernook
currently produces nine different file folders for the Federal
Government under this legislation. Although we could have,
Clovernook did not elect to add work performed for NLS to this
Procurement List, this procurement process. Our reasons for not
doing this were twofold: (1) Pricing for the magazines was high
enough to cover our operating expenses and provide additional
revenues to help offset losses in other program areas, such as
rehabilitation, supported living, and community rehabilitation.
     And number (2) NLS has a history of opposing attempts to
place items on set-aside under Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act.
     And in summation, in light of Clovernook's mission of
providing employment opportunities as well as the change in the
NLS bid process and a changing market, we are now pursuing
placement of Braille magazine production work performed under
contract for NLS on Procurement List set-aside under the
provisions of JWOD.
     And that is our statement. And if there are some questions?
     Mr. Cylke: I would like just to make a comment, and then you
will notice on the agenda Bill Raeder has asked to make a
statement. I will then entertain statements from anyone else, and
we can enter into it.
     Mr. Jernigan has just asked to be put on the List.
     On February 24, 1995, Jerry, you wrote to Congressman Robert
Portman and included the same basic comment that you just did
about the quality and so forth. On March 2 you sent me a copy of
that letter and that statement, and on March 2 I addressed that
point. You had that from the second, for the last twenty-six days
or so. And I would like to read for the group the paragraph.
Those of you who have the package can see it, but those of you
who don't have it, it is not in Braille. And this is the
paragraph:
          A review of the attachment by NLS staff indicates
     that the document contains a mix of correct and
     incorrect information. You are correct in stating that
     the system of numerical rankings in paragraph M-1 of
     the Braille magazine solicitation was changed, although
     the change actually occurred for 1993, not 1992.
     However, you are not correct in stating that NLS
     dropped consideration of quality and delivery when
     determining awards. Both are, in fact, considered when
     evaluating a bidder's responsibility and production
     capacity. A review of records indicates that the
     technical determinations of Clovernook's capacity for
     1990 through 1995 were not affected in any way by this
     revision. Unless an agency had experienced difficulty
     in the quality or delivery of Braille magazines in a
     prior year which negatively impacted our estimate of
     production capacity, the award of magazines was based
     on the lowest bid up to the production capacity.
     Clovernook had not experienced difficulty in Braille
     magazine production during those years.

     And then the letter goes on, the next paragraph saying, "The
award of Braille magazines is consistent with the FAR, Federal
Acquisition Regulations, and is awarded to the lowest responsive,
responsible bidder. And the Clovernook history from 1990 to date
is nineteen magazines in 1990, sixteen in '91, seventeen in '92,
twelve in '93, seven in '94, and back to sixteen in '95."
     Bill Raeder, would you care to make your presentation?

                     Comments by Bill Raeder
     Mr. Raeder: Thank you, Kurt.
     Jerry, let me first address you. You and I have talked on
the phone about this since January 17. And we understand what you
are doing, and I want to say that we clearly interpret what you
are doing as being your interpretation of what is the best
interest of Clovernook and that you are not doing this for the
purposes of hurting National Braille Press or other agencies or
people whom we serve. And I appreciate the cooperative attitude
that you have had on the phone with me and the long-term good
relationship between our two agencies. I will say that in England
they define, for politicians, the word "friendship." Friendship
for politicians is those people who agree with you on a current
issue. Fortunately we are not politicians here. We are producers
of Braille books and agencies serving blind people with a mutual
interest. And whatever the outcome here, I expect that a
continuing friendship between our agencies will endure.
     Notwithstanding that, you know and I know that, if your
proposal or application is accepted by the Committee, then other
agencies, at least National Braille Press, will be hurt. So I
have asked to be put on the agenda here to make a statement to
that effect, to expose the other side of the issue. And so we are
here to explain (if in fact Braille magazines must be put on the
Procurement List) how we feel that will hurt National Braille
Press and blind people at large.
      My first argument is, indeed, that National Braille Press
would be hurt if the Committee were to adopt your proposal and
your application. Clovernook may be a sheltered workshop, but
Clovernook is not the only agency that hires blind people.
National Braille Press has had, as its policy and its practice
since our founding in 1927, to provide employment for blind
people. And this is done not only in the direct labor area, but
also in the management area. And it is done on a competitive
basis. Our blind employees are paid and hired on a competitive
basis with their sighted counterparts.
     And if we go through our organizational chart, with respect
to those departments that relate to the production of Braille
magazines, including management, we can see where our employees
are indeed blind and where they are not. Starting with myself as
Executive Director of the National Braille Press, I am blind and
have been the Executive Director since 1975. To my right is
sitting Eileen Curran, who is our Director of Operations with the
responsibility for our Braille contracts and the supervision and
management of the whole production staff. She is blind. Her
assistant is the Assistant to the Director of Operations, who is
responsible for the input of these jobs, the administrative
intake of jobs, and the flow of the administrative work through
the job process, including scheduling and troubleshooting in the
production process, who is also blind. Our transcription
department at this time has no blind people in it. But it has had
at times in the past, and there is a possibility for that in the
future.
     Our Braille proofreading department, as one might suppose,
is made up of all blind people. In our plate fabrication
department our PED operator is blind. Our pressing, both print
and Braille, at this time does not happen to have any blind
members, but there have been in the past and could well be in the
future. And our collating, packaging, and shipping department is
made up substantially of blind people and has been historically.
     Some thirteen out of twenty-two employees, or better than 50
percent of our employees who are involved in the production of
Braille magazines for NLS or elsewhere, are legally blind.
     Now some of these people are being hurt, have been hurt in
the recent round of bidding here at NLS for NLS magazines. In
spite of the fact that we know paper costs and other costs have
gone up, presumably labor costs have gone up. And for the most
part prices and bids on NLS magazines have gone up. By
Clovernook's own acknowledgement, you have bid aggressively in
this last round and won a large share of the magazines. Counting
dollars rather than magazine titles, my understanding is that
this year you have won 69 percent of the magazine dollar contract
from NLS versus 39 percent last year, versus 48 percent average
over the prior five years, prior to this. And so 69 percent is a
significant increase over the five-year history, and NBP has been
hurt. We were almost put out of the NLS magazine business.
     And our blind employees are hurt. We have had to reduce
hours on the part of six employees, six blind employees. And, in
fact, if it were not for the employees themselves, some of them
would have been laid off. But they got together and said, rather
than laying some off, which would be very hurtful to have a
paycheck totally cut out, let's all, in one department, reduce
our hours so that nobody needs to suffer the ultimate ax.
However, in spite of that, one person we did have to lay off
altogether, and that person has totally lost their paycheck. So
blind people elsewhere benefit from the work provided by NLS. And
I don't like to see our people hurt. I don't like to see
Clovernook's people hurt. But I don't want to see the particular
hurt that comes out of the aggressive bidding of Clovernook in
this past year made permanent.
     A second argument is that there is already provision in the
law whereby Clovernook has favorable treatment in the bidding
process at NLS. As does NBP and as does each and every non-profit
agency interested in serving blind people. And that law (which is
it?) 89-522, is implemented by NLS by providing a 10 percent cost
or 10 percent price bidding handicap to agencies that are non-
profit and are serving blind people. So there is already this
benefit in the law that provides us agencies serving blind people
with a handicap against the broad commercial market that might be
interested in bidding for government work.
     I don't believe that the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act or 89-522
was designed to benefit one agency or one group of blind people
over another. I believe that those laws were implemented to
provide blind people with a benefit as a whole, not to set some
of us off in penalty against the benefits gained by others. And
so I think, therefore, that in keeping with those two laws it
would be inappropriate to add this additional handicap.
     A third argument is that we are not here about file folders
or military supplies or other goods and services that are
necessary in the running of our government. We are talking about
Braille magazines, which are mandated by Congress as a direct
service from our taxpayers to the blind citizens of our country.
And the government contracts with us to produce those goods,
Braille magazines. And the budget, as we all know, is very
limited for that Braille production. And in the current Congress
it is likely to be at least as limited in the immediate future.
And it is my understanding from talking with Beverly Milkman at
the Committee, that, if this proposal is adopted, NLS will be
required to pay approximately five percent more for the magazines
in order to pay the fee of NIB for the monitoring of the work at
Clovernook to assure that quality and prices are in line.
     I believe there is an additional dollar cost because, as I
think we producers all know, the competitive bidding process has
been an effective mechanism to maintain price control. To the
credit of NLS, back in the '70's the agency here, NLS, developed
a longer list of vendors than they previously had so that there
could be some very real competition. And now there are basically
five of us that compete for these magazines. And the bidding, as
we all know, has been tough. And that is a means of controlling
price. If these magazines are taken off the open market for
bidding and put on the Procurement List, they will no longer be
subject to the direct price control of the marketplace. Yes, they
will be subject, as I understand it, and I don't pretend to
understand it fully by any means, but yes, they will be subject
to monitoring by NIB to see that the price continues to be in
line. But that monitoring, I think we must recognize, by NIB, is
not being done by what is, I think we can suppose, a totally
disinterested party. And so, therefore, I can only conclude that
the prices that NLS will be paying for magazines will be hampered
some if these magazines are put on the Procurement List.
     And so for these reasons--the surcharge of whatever it is,
approximately five percent--plus the lack of direct price control
by the marketplace, is going to cause a cost increase in the NLS
Braille magazines. Now given the tight budget, what does this
mean? It doesn't mean taxpayers are going to pay more. It means
Braille readers are going to get less. And I do not believe that
that was the intent of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act: that services
be decreased to blind people.
     Now I started with my first argument that NBP would be hurt.
And actually there is another way in which NBP would be hurt. We,
like, I suppose, Clovernook and the other producers, gain
strength from the work that we do at National Braille Press. It
provides us with a body of work that supports the production
structure, the staffing pattern, the machinery, and plant onto
which we can piggyback our other work. We don't really make any
profit on the Braille magazines, but it does provide the
structure that keeps the plant really rolling because NLS is our
largest single customer.
     Now we have been using that strength to conduct our own
publishing program and direct service to blind people. And the
books that we have been publishing are designed to provide
practical information that helps blind people prepare themselves
for opportunity and challenge in life: cookbooks, helping cooks
to cook or parents to parent or computer operators to use their
computers or books to inspire people who are not computer
operators to get started and books on employment. Our Take
Charge: A Strategic Guide for Blind Job Seekers, published in
Braille a few years ago, won the President's Committee book
award. So the strength that we have gained from the Braille
magazine production has redoubled, so to speak, by strengthening
our publishing program in direct service to blind people.
     In my conversation with Beverly Milkman, I became aware that
she was concerned with fairness and how her committee makes the
decision. And although we clearly advocate that no magazines be
put on the Procurement List, because the provisions of the Act
are covered by 89-522 in terms of giving some benefit to blind
people and because we don't want to hurt some blind people for
the benefit of others, it is possible that her committee may
decide against what we advocate and in favor of what Clovernook
is asking. And if that happens, then fairness changes. Fairness
now, and how the work is distributed to those of us who produce,
is guided by the marketplace and by the rigor with which NLS
conducts the bidding process. If magazines are to be put on the
Procurement List, then fairness becomes a subjective decision on
the part of the Committee. And I would like to say that, if it
comes to that, then Clovernook ought not to get the 69 percent
that they gained this year because of aggressive bidding, but
rather the average of what they have gotten, say over the last
five years--48 percent. And they ought not to get the magazines
on which others have been competitive, but get the work on which
Clovernook has traditionally been competitive.
     So, in conclusion, because of the very nature of this
product, a direct service to blind people, and because of the
very nature in which the product is being produced by agencies
serving blind people, such as National Braille Press with over 50
percent of the people involved in this production being blind
people, [we urge] that the Committee in its wisdom decide that it
is not necessary to put these magazines on the Procurement List
in order to benefit blind people.
     We have read the notice put in the Federal Register by the
Committee, and we intend to respond to their invitation for
further information. And we intend to respond by direct
communication in addition to what Mr. Cylke is providing, the
minutes of these meetings, to express our concern.     
     And, Jerry, let me close by saying I appreciate your
forthrightness, and that is a good ingredient in our interagency
communications. And so I appreciate the opportunity, Kurt, to
come here and express my own forthrightness as to how NBP would
be hurt and what we have advocated. Thank you.
     Mr. Cylke: Thank you. Are there any producers who would like
to make a statement before we enter into a discussion?
Geoff Bull, did I see you raise your hand?

                    Comments by Geoffrey Bull
     Mr. Bull: Yes, please, Mr. Cylke. Since I would like to make
my presentation and questions directed to Mr. Mundy, perhaps I
can move down the table. Okay. Thank you. Jerry, first of all,
could you tell me when you decided to submit this proposal?
     Dr. Mundy: Well, as we notified Mr. Cylke in January of our
intent to place these magazines on the federal Procurement List,
that decision did not come about quickly. You know, we had given
a good deal of serious thought to this for quite a long period of
time prior to finally making the decision and then my discussion
with Kurt on the phone.
     Mr. Bull: Okay. This was my thought, that you had been
discussing this for a long time and--
     Dr. Mundy: Not an easy decision.
     Mr. Bull: This seemed a very opportune time to make the
application. This recent increase in Braille, I note, brings you
up to a point that you haven't reached for five years? Is that
right? I believe you have not been at this level of magazine
production for the past five years.
     Dr. Mundy: For four years. Historically, I think as we all
know around the table, Clovernook has done the lion's share of
the Braille magazine business. And as we pointed out in my brief
presentation, the two years prior to this current contract year
have been quite a bit below that area. And that is what really--
     Mr. Bull: I am taking Mr. Raeder's figure as 1990 to allow
for this level. Could you tell me, Mr. Mundy, a little bit about
your handicapped-staff percentages? What percentage of your staff
relating to magazine production are handicapped?
     Dr. Mundy: John will speak to that since he supervises that
area.
     Mr. Mitchell: The Braille Production Department is comprised
of three main departments: the first being the transcription,
which is a consolidation of both transcription and proofreading.
That department currently has twenty-one employees, eleven of
which are blind. The press operation room has six employees.
Currently there is one individual in that operation that is
blind. And then the binding operation has approximately thirty-
five employees, all of which but one are blind, thirty-four out
of thirty-five.
     Mr. Bull: So you have forty-six out of about sixty-two, if
my mental arithmetic is keeping up here.
     Mr. Mitchell: That is correct.
     Mr. Bull: So that is approximately 75 percent in round
terms.
     Mr. Mitchell: That is correct. And that includes supervisory
staff.
     Mr. Bull: I am very pleased to hear that. I notice the note
of anguish, anxiety, and maybe a touch of anger in Mr. Raeder's
voice when he was going over the staff, the handicapped staff,
who may be affected by any radical change in magazine policy. I
share that anguish, that anxiety, and a little bit of the anger
when I look at my own staff. I, too, am blind, as the president
of the company, completely accountable to the board of directors
for the company's operation. I have only been in the chair for
the past month, and I am already reviewing a couple of very
strong candidates for middle management amongst our handicapped
staff. We have one handicapped member in the transcription
department. All the proofreaders are blind, our press, our plate-
embossing operator, who is a wonderful young man, very
productive, with the help of a very strong magnifier can just
read the screen from a few inches, so he can produce the correct
files. We don't have anyone in the press department at the
moment, but we are peeking into other areas, by taking people
from the Job Service Department, and we are also very much
involved with the schools who are bringing their severely
handicapped people into our production process on a job
experience basis.
     We only have approximately 25, 28 percent of our staff who
are handicapped. Bill, I am aiming at your figures. They are
wonderful. Do you have any formula, any equation, any philosophy,
Jerry, that makes 75 percent of the staff applicable for
monopolistic status as opposed to 50 percent or 25 percent? What
is the formula here?
     Dr. Mundy: Well, if we are talking about a formula that
relates to doing work under the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act, there is
a ratio of direct labor, blind direct labor related to sighted
direct labor, that one must meet in order to qualify under the
Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act, produce under contract.
     Mr. Bull: What is that, sir?
     Dr. Mundy: Seventy-five percent.
     Mr. Bull: Seventy-five percent. You have just about reached
the magic figure.
     Dr. Mundy: Well, we--And the way it applies, too, Geoff, is
that it applies across the board in an organization; at least it
has with us for many years. We have always had to apply our blind
labor in our printing house against the total ratio in our
organization because we have contracts to produce the file
folders that you heard about a little earlier.
     Mr. Bull: Right.
     Dr. Mundy: So we have had to meet that ratio overall for our
total employees who work in the employment center.
     Mr. Bull: So if Bill and I can get up to 75 percent, we can
make an application?
     Dr. Mundy: That is correct. And I would encourage you to do
that.
     Mr. Bull: Very good. Now the level of magazine production
that you are currently at, that is a satisfactory one for you as
far as remaining at that level indefinitely? Because presumably,
will you be part of the bidding process in the future?
     Dr. Mundy: Well, I guess you are asking a couple of
questions there. The major reason that we wish to place these
magazines on the List is to stabilize our employment.
     Mr. Bull: We would love to do that.
     Dr. Mundy: Right. So what we are attempting to do now is to
do just that. Our employment dropped considerably in the two
previous years, and we had to lay something like eleven people
off. So that seriously concerns us. And so that is part of the
reason for pursuing the magazines. And then the second part of
your question was what, would you mind repeating it?
     Mr. Bull: I have forgotten it, too. Oh, are you going to
bid?
     Dr. Mundy: Oh, yes, thanks. In talking with Beverly Milkman,
at the Committee, it was her feeling that, if these magazines are
placed on the List, that we should not, that we should agree not
to bid on the other magazines.
     Mr. Bull: You are giving the four of us the 30 percent to
squabble over.
     Dr. Mundy: That was her statement to us. We have no problem
with that.
     Mr. Bull: Generosity, Jerry.
     Dr. Mundy: You asked the question; I understand.
     Mr. Bull: What factors do you see were prevailing that
enabled you to come into the '95 magazine-bid process at several
percentage points below your previous bids? How were you able to
do this?
     Dr. Mundy: You want to answer that?
     Mr. Mitchell: Sure, I am the individual who is basically
responsible for the generation of bid information. And quite
frankly, we took the information that had been gathered over the
prior two years, established trends by the other producers and
how they were bidding the various publications, and established
what we believed to be a price that we could quote to assure that
we would win the work.
     Mr. Bull: Was this a price that was economic?
     Mr. Mitchell: As a package, it certainly is.
     Mr. Bull: As a package it is.
     Mr. Mitchell: That is correct.
     Mr. Bull: So, therefore, why are you fearful of the
competitive process if you feel you can hold at these prices? Why
do you not stay with the competitive process? Because if you are
able to bid at this level and why you haven't bid before, I don't
fully understand, but why do you fear the competitive process?
     Mr. Mitchell: Well, one thing again, that occurred, and if I
may I would just like to use Ladies Home Journal as an example of
the impact that we feel that the change in the awards formula for
the Fiscal Year 1993 publications had. Braille International at
that time had dropped their pricing 39 percent from 1992 to 1993
to gain control of that publication and then dropped it an
additional, I believe, 15 percent between 1993 and 1994 to retain
publication for an additional year.
     Mr. Bull: I think that was probably related to the purchase
of a second Heidelberg Press, but I can't--
     Mr. Mitchell: Well, to answer your question, I think that we
feel that this is a prerogative that Clovernook has. We realize,
too, that it has an impact; and, if it was Utopia, we would
prefer that this impact not take place. However, we have to be
concerned with Clovernook's interests and the employees of
Clovernook. And this is essentially why this action is being
taken.
     Mr. Bull: I think what concerns me is either you put in a
bid below costs and chose that point in time to make your
application for the Javits-Wagner-O'Day. If that is the case,
then we must be aware of future trends. You put in a bid that you
feel you can hold to, and you have no fear of the competitive
process. Now whichever case that may be, I am concerned. If it
does mean that you put in a low bid and chose your moment in time
to make the application for the JWOD, then we have to be very
wary about any pricing increases in the future because, let's
face it, we have X number of dollars purchasing, X number of
dollars from the government potentially producing Braille
magazines. Now away from the competitive process, or indeed if
you put in a low bid here which you cannot hold to, that X is
going to increase and the X cents per page (two cents, three
cents, four, five, six, seven cents per page) will go up. If the
budget is fixed, the amount of Braille produced for the Braille
user is going to go down. And I think that is the aspect that
concerns me most here.
     There are the ambition and motives of Clovernook, and some
of them I understand, but they are being put before the needs of
Braille and the Braille user. Braille is a very scarce and
precious commodity. We cannot jeopardize it through the ambitions
or motives of one producer. You cannot, you cannot jeopardize
Braille in this way. And I ask you to reconsider your
application, because I feel without the restraints of costs,
quality, and delivery--and as a Braille manager I know how well,
how wonderfully well this competitive process works in keeping
all three of those in check--without those restraints I feel
there will be a decrease in Braille. I have other points, but I
don't want to monopolize the floor at this point. Thank you.
     Dr. Mundy: I would like to speak to the costs, the figures
that you are alluding to, Geoff, and that Bill mentioned a little
earlier. In terms of the...I believe it was stated something
about the increasing cost as a result of placing the magazines on
the Procurement List. And I would like John to just review for
you a little bit of what impact that would have.
     John, would you like to--
     Mr. Mitchell: Certainly. Just overall, for Fiscal Year 1994,
according to the attachment that was to Mr. Cylke's letter, which
was Braille magazine comparison of awards by producer and year:
if you will look at 1994, the total was $1,888,864. 1995 awards
dropped more than eight percent to $1,729,976. And the
information that Mr. Raeder had concerning the notion of a five
percent increase on the magazines that are in question with
Clovernook pursuing placement on the Procurement List is correct.
It still would come nowhere close to the level for the outlay for
1994.
     Mr. Bull: Well, we are not comparing apples with apples
here. There are apples and oranges all mixed in here. What
essentially I am saying is, if there is any increase in cost,
particularly without those strengths of the competitive process,
we will have less Braille.
     Mr. Cylke: I would say at this point let's see if there are
any other presentations, and then we can start the discussion
later.
     Are there any other producers? Yes, ASB.
     Ms. Johnson: Yes.
     Mr. Cylke: And if you would just identify yourself for the
record.
Comments of Pat Johnson
     Ms. Johnson: Pat Johnson, Associated Services for the Blind.
     The mission of Associated Services for the Blind is to
promote the self-esteem, independence, and self-determination of
blind and visually impaired people, providing them with training,
education, materials, information, and support.
     Over thirty years ago, before government involvement in the
Brailling of magazines, Associated Services for the Blind in
joint cooperation with the Curtis Publishing Company Brailled the
Ladies Home Journal, Jack and Jill, and Children's Digest. When
ASB was asked to surrender these magazines to the Library of
Congress National Library Service, the agency was assured they
would always have the opportunity to provide these magazines to
blind consumers. Since that time ASB has lived up to its part of
the agreement by continuing to purchase and update equipment for
translation and high-speed duplication and has continued to hire
blind and visually impaired people in its Braille department. At
present 50 percent of the staff that produce Braille magazines
are visually impaired.
     The loss of revenues from Brailling magazines will have a
substantial effect on the operation of ASB's Braille department,
requiring drastic cuts. Many visually impaired staff will lose
their jobs. However, even though we see our losses to be
substantial, the greater loss would be involving people
throughout the United States. Once competition is removed in the
production of Braille magazines, we believe that service to the
end user will deteriorate. And forcing magazines out of the
Library of Congress National Library Service and making them
available under the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act to agencies within
National Industries for the Blind, the wrong signal will be sent
to all blind people.
     We would be encouraging blind and visually impaired people
to take employment in supported situations at minimum wages, with
dependence on government supplemental income, rather than
encouraging blind and visually impaired people to seek jobs at
competitive wages and benefits in the open job market.
     We at Associated Services for the Blind are strongly opposed
to the action of the Clovernook Center. Such action will result
in a deterioration of service to blind people throughout this
country. And we see such an action as regressive in that it
encourages dependence, poor self-esteem, and condemns blind and
visually impaired people to the work life within a sheltered
workshop. We will do everything we can to prevent the
implementing of the proposal as we hear it today. Thank you.
     Mr. Cylke: Thank you, Pat.
     I want to ask if there are any printing houses: There is
one, would you care to make any comment?

                    Comments by Tuck Tinsley
     Dr. Tinsley: I would like to start off just with a
statement. The fact, Jerry, that you are a trustee of APH, when I
asked you about the situation, if you understood the possible
crucial impact on the rest of us, you said that it was your
charge as Executive Director of Clovernook to present this
information to the Committee and then see what happens. That is
your charge. When I did sit at the table, I saw this letter to
Congressman Portman, which surprised me, which is a political
approach also. So personally I need to let you know that did
bother me when I saw that.
     The non-profit organizations sitting around this table
provide products and services very necessary and do to a great
extent complement one another. NLS provides the books in
alternative formats and equipment. National Industries for the
Blind provides employment. That is your major focus. And the
others of us provide services and products and, believe it or
not, do provide employment opportunities for the blind. APH at
this point has over eighty disabled employees. It is important
for NIB to recognize and respect the significance of the very
limited contractual opportunities that the rest of us have to
provide products for fees. Mr. Raeder elegantly pointed out that
these are fees which are crucial in supporting the other valuable
services and important products, many of which are orphan
products, which we were all chartered to provide. That is the
reason we exist.
     NLS provides us by far the largest opportunities, the
largest bulk of contractual opportunities. NLS has recognized the
significance of these contracts and with the 10-percent rule
gives preference to non-profits, whose true primary role (I do
say true primary role; I want to emphasize that) is to provide
services to the blind. The charters of APH and the other
organizations around the table are limited in the products that
we can provide. And we provide our services to a very limited,
finite population. My understanding is that NIB workshops are not
limited for the populations for which they can provide products.
     The increase in the set-aside continues to chip away and has
taken a heavy toll on the others of us, APH included. We had the
six-cassette container. It is now in Mississippi. The four-
cassette container is now in Royal Maid, also Mississippi. IRS:
NIB has taken that, part of that, to Louisiana. We are talking
about magazines now. What is to stop NIB from setting up a tape-
duplication facility? As more and more are set aside, there is
less and less available for us. Not 15 percent impact, but 10
percent and 5 percent and 10 percent and 5 percent and 10 percent
and 10 percent. That is 50 percent, and soon we are gone. This is
and will be devastating if it continues, and it could leave us
with nothing available and nobody providing products and services
but NIB sheltered workshops. And that would be a sin. Thank you.
     Mr. Cylke: Thank you, Tuck.   Mr. Jernigan, you asked for
time.
                  Comments by Kenneth Jernigan
     Dr. Jernigan: It has been a most refreshing kind of
conversation, and candid. Very rarely do I ever hear anybody
speak as directly and unequivocally as I have heard. It was
several decades ago, I guess--Dr. Mundy said: "In Utopia, I could
afford to be concerned about the rest of you. My job is to take
care of Clovernook"--I am minded of a man who said that what is
good for General Motors is good for the nation. He lived to say
that he really didn't mean it that way. He had been
misunderstood--but it stuck. What is good for Clovernook is not
necessarily good for the blind. It may be--but not necessarily.
I have some concerns, and I will state them quickly. Then I want
to tell you what, since we are an action-oriented organization,
we (meaning the National Federation of the Blind) propose to do.
     In the first place I would be curious to have, if I could,
some answers from producers--and I think that the first question
can be a yes/no question. Maybe not. I wish to know if you have
any employee that you pay less than the minimum wage. Now surely
that is a yes/no. Who wants to start that?
     Dr. Tinsley: I will start it.
     Dr. Jernigan: Do you?
     Dr. Tinsley: No.
     Ms. Johnson: No.
     Dr. Jernigan: Okay. Now wait--for the record that is APH and
ASB.
     Mr. Raeder: National Braille Press does not.
     Dr. Jernigan: No.
     Mr. Bull: A long way away from that at Braille
International.
     Dr. Jernigan: Do you?
     Mr. Bull: A long way away from--
     Dr. Jernigan: You do not.
     Mr. Bull: That is right.
     Dr. Jernigan: Dr. Mundy?
     Dr. Mundy: We pay sub-minimum wages to some people.
     Dr. Jernigan: Thank you.
     Now for the second question I want to ask--and I don't want
to be misunderstood as to the purpose of the question. This is
not the time to discuss whether NAC is a good or a bad outfit.
This is not the time to discuss whether one should or should not
be accredited. I wish to know: Are you or are you not NAC-
accredited?
     Dr. Tinsley: No, APH.
     Mr. Raeder: No.
     Ms. Johnson: No.
     Mr. Bull: No.
     Dr. Jernigan: APH, no; ASB, no; Braille International, no.
Dr. Mundy?
     Dr. Mundy: We have been accredited by the National
Accreditation Council since mid-70's.
     Dr. Jernigan: The answer is yes.
     Dr. Mundy: And we are happy to be accredited.
     Dr. Jernigan: Yes, I understand you are pleased with it. The
answer is yes.
     All right, now I ask you to consider those two answers and
then let me tell you these things.
     If you are going to use sub-minimum wages and your
competitors don't use sub-minimum wages, there is some problem in
a level playing field for competition. If you are going to spend
part of your money on NAC and if it is as controversial as the
majority of the field believes that it is, that becomes a factor
in some people's thinking, although not in other's. But now to
the main issue. Mostly the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act is set up to
see that people in sheltered employment can sell products, can
make products--not primarily to sell those products to other
disadvantaged minorities, but to the government at large. The
blind are a disadvantaged minority. And I tell you very frankly
that the National Federation of the Blind, although it may wish
all of you well, is not primarily concerned with any one of you
producers. It is primarily concerned that blind people in this
country have an opportunity and a fair shake. And I believe that
that is what Congress will be concerned with. We have had a talk
with Beverly Milkman. We have said to her: "If this goes forward,
you may expect that we will do our utmost. We will bring every
possible influence to bear that we possess. And we will give it
top priority--because we believe this proposal damages blind
people."
     In January we had occasion to hold a Washington seminar, and
as part of that some of our people wanted to talk to their
Congressional representatives. My count was that somewhat over
500 blind people went to Congressional offices. At that time we
were unaware of some of these things. Otherwise our priorities
might have been different. We primarily talked about Social
Security at that time. I suspect we will go back. And I suspect
we will want to inform the members of Congress that, in the name
of an act that is supposed to help people with disabilities,
blind people in our judgment are being hurt and deprived (or are
potentially being deprived) of reading material, which is a
program that I think is dear to the hearts of the Congress of
this country. And we will not be unmindful of Mr. Raeder's
comment about the 5 percent. In fact, many in Congress probably
do not know that NIB takes 5 percent of everything that is
produced in order to pay the fee, and I wonder how they will
react when they understand that, regardless of other
considerations, every page of Braille that is produced under this
proposed system will have a 5 percent levy on it. I have a
feeling that many of them won't like it.
     I would say to you in conclusion (because I don't need to
talk long--I think what I have said is clear) that many of you
know that NIB as well as all programs for the blind is now under
severe pressure. There is talk in Congress (and serious talk)
about the possibility of eliminating special agencies for the
blind as far as the federal government is concerned. There was a
conversation held no longer ago than Sunday of this week with
major groups in the cross-disability field, talking about the
elimination of agencies for the blind. We were represented at
that meeting and did what we could to advocate the position that
agencies for the blind should continue.
     One of the groups that is under severe pressure as far as
its very existence is the whole Javits-Wagner-O'Day system, NIB
and the Committee for Purchase. I suspect that a major fight in
this area may be sufficient to tip the scale for people who
already think that that program is a problem. You know that very
often there has recently been talk of decentralizing purchases
and of local communities' not going through any centralized
procurement system. I believe you are playing with dynamite. I
believe that Clovernook is asking for trouble where no trouble
need exist.
     I want to conclude by saying to you that the National
Federation of the Blind will take action with reluctance because
we respect the players around the table here, the producers.
There has been a growing harmony in the blindness field in recent
times. There has been more and more a combining to try to save
programs and to try to improve programs. The kind of conflict
which will occur if this proposal goes forward will dwarf many
conflicts of the past. I tell you again, with real reluctance,
that the National Federation of the Blind will do everything in
its power to talk to Congress about all of the ramifications of
this and to talk to the Executive Branch of Government. We will
not be swayed--and we will be heard!
     Mr. Cylke: Thank you. Jim, if you would like to come to the
table.
                    Comments by James Gashel
     Mr. Gashel: I am the Director of Governmental Affairs for
the National Federation of the Blind, and I want to follow Dr.
Jernigan's remarks in a couple of respects. For those of you who
don't know and for the record here, I personally am involved with
the Congressional activity that impacts upon blind people having
Braille and books and with the general policies pertaining to the
Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act and rehabilitation, etc. I know that a
lot of you are not involved in the Washington-type activity every
day. You read the newspapers, but I want to give you my take on
this.
     And, Jerry, it is quite frankly to say that I am not even
sure this is a good move for Clovernook. Let's start there. But
even if it is, it is certainly not a good move for blind people
and definitely not a good move for the Javits-Wagner-O'Day
Program. And ultimately if the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Program were
to go down, it would defeat your whole strategy. Now I don't know
whether you have been checking the news or not, but affirmative
action is not the most popular thing here. It may be in
Cincinnati. I don't know. But it is not the most popular thing in
Washington. And quotas are definitely not the most popular thing
in Washington. It so happened that the Javits-Wagner-O'Day
Program was created in 1938, before our country got to be against
quotas. But the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Program is the ultimate quota
program. The ultimate quota program. Yet it has so far escaped
notice as being the ultimate quota program, but after the Javits-
Wagner-O'Day Program was enacted, the Americans with Disabilities
Act was enacted. The policy of the Americans with Disabilities
Act is for employment in the competitive labor force and
employment on the basis of equality. The social conditions are
not now the same, and the employment conditions are not now the
same for blind people that they were in 1938.
     And if, as Dr. Jernigan has said, the Congress were made
aware (and they basically are not aware) of the fact that the
Javits-Wagner-O'Day Program is the ultimate quota program and is
really segregated employment for blind people, not integrated
employment, which is anti-federal policy today, then I think that
the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Program would on its own merit not stand
today. And Congress will know about that if an application like
this goes forward, because an application like this is
fundamentally not in the best interests of blind people.
     I did a little calculation of the numbers. I am not sure
they were all presented here, but it seems to me that employment
of blind people would be diminished as a result of this proposal.
I didn't even hear you, Jerry, say that employment of blind
people in Cincinnati would be increased, just that it would be
stabilized at 75 percent of sixty-two people, or something like
that--that it would just be stabilized. Yet a number of the
producers around the table said employment of blind people would
go down. So I suspect, if we looked across the industry here,
that what we would really be looking at is diminished employment
opportunities for blind people, not more employment
opportunities. I don't think that would stand the test of our
modern thinking about employment opportunities, let alone stand
the test of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Program. When you go before
the Committee for Purchase, what they are ultimately going to
want to know is what does this application do to employment of
blind people--not employment at Clovernook, but employment of
blind people, period. If they have to say that the numbers are
going to go down--well, that application ought to go down. I
think you ought to withdraw the application rather than
subjecting it to that kind of scrutiny.
     I guess the last thing I would say, just adding to what Dr.
Jernigan said, is this: the National Federation of the Blind a
couple of years ago made as a priority in legislation to deal
with the problem that we were having on the appropriations for
the NLS program, because that program was going down, down, down.
And it went down in real dollars--not just in 1993 inflation.
That was a wake-up call to us. And we said, "Wait a minute. The
number of books is going to go down. The number of magazines is
going to go down unless we wake up and do something about it."
And we did. We went to the Congress last year, and it is on the
record. We took people to the hearings. We testified at those
hearings. And the NLS appropriations went up by about six
percent. Now, that ultimately is to the benefit of blind people
and can mean more books and magazines. It is also to the benefit
of the producers.
     But what you are talking about here is a project that would
mean a real cut in the purchasing power of the NLS appropriation.
And one thing that Congress has focused on more than anything
else right now is, in terms of the NLS program, that blind people
want more purchasing power out of this program and want the
highest appropriation that Congress can possibly approve.
Fundamentally Congress is not going to like the idea that it is
going to cost more to purchase a certain number of magazines from
one supplier. That is fundamentally inconsistent with what the
Congress is looking at right now. And I just think that opens up,
not only the appropriation, but the whole purchasing idea under
the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act, to the kind of scrutiny that you
ought not to be bringing upon this field right now. Thank you
very much.
     Mr. Cylke: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to
make a statement at this point? Then I suggest we are running
just a little off our agenda. Let's take a fifteen-minute break
and come back at quarter past eleven, and we can continue the
conversation. [Whereupon, a short recess was taken, and then the
meeting was reconvened.] 

                           Discussion

     Mr. Cylke: We are still on the same topic, which is the
Clovernook matter. Are there any comments, or is there any
discussion that you would like to entertain?
     Ms. Curran: I have a question.
     Mr. Cylke: Would you identify yourself and then--
     Ms. Curran: Eileen Curran from National Braille Press.
     Jerry, you mentioned that, when NIB looks at your Braille
production to see if you have 75 percent blind people, and you do
at the moment, you then said they look at the whole agency as
well. If you were to increase the number of blind people in your
file folder business in five years and decreased the number of
blind people in your Braille production, would you still be
considered eligible for Braille production of magazines on
procurement for--
     Dr. Mundy: The way the ratio is figured is on the basis of,
at the present time at least, on the basis of the total number of
people employed in the employment centers in terms of that ratio.
And I believe I am correct on that. We have people from NIB who
could probably comment on that better than I. But we have been
working under this for a number of years, and that is essentially
it.
     Ms. Curran: Okay, but there is no guarantee that it would
stay that way for Braille magazine production, will stay with 75
percent blind people.
     Dr. Mundy: I would like to add, though, I think it is
extremely important that people understand our mission. I opened
with my comments in terms of what Clovernook's mission is, and
that is to employ visually impaired blind people, particularly
those who are multi-disabled blind people. If we were to look at
the constellation of the people we employ in our Braille
printing, you would see that a very large percentage of those
people employed there are multi-disabled. We have been doing this
for many years. We have employed people in that area. We have no
plans to decrease that number of people. In fact, we changed our
name in 1990 because we wanted to be able to express what we are
doing, and that is providing employment opportunities for people
who are visually impaired, especially those who are multi-
disabled and blind. So we are not looking toward a decrease in
the number of people that we are employing. We are looking toward
increasing that number of people.  
     So while there have been some comments in terms of how it
might cause a decrease overall in terms of the number of people
producing Braille, we believe that, while this is stabilizing our
employment of those we employ presently, it will give--it will
enable us the opportunity to provide additional employment in the
future.
     Mr. Mitchell: If I could just add something.
     Mr. Cylke: If you could just give your name.
     Mr. Mitchell: John Mitchell with Clovernook. The comment was
raised earlier about the concern that they didn't hear of any
additional employment opportunities being created by this move.
Since October, since the announcements of the awards for the
magazines, Clovernook has hired nine additional individuals who
are blind in the production of these Braille publications. Now
certainly, if this is pursued and we are successful, it will not
require any additional labor at this time, beyond what was hired
starting in October of 1994.
     Mr. Cylke: Are there any other comments? Jim Gashel?
     Mr. Gashel: I am the one that raised the question about the
additional employment opportunities. And what I was really
talking about is this: you have already created the additional
employment opportunities through the bidding process, so that is
not being done under the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act. The test under
the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act is do you create additional
employment opportunities, and what you are telling us is that you
won't--at least not right now. Nobody knows several years down
the line. But that is one thing that the Committee for Purchase
looks at. They boldly tell the Congress, "We created through this
program X thousand new job opportunities for blind and severely
disabled people." Your number would be zero right now as I
understand it. Now, what you also need seriously to look at is
what this does to employment of blind people, not just in
Cincinnati, Ohio, but in Philadelphia, and Louisville, and not to
exclude the rest of you--also in Boston.
     Mr. Bull: Florida.
     Mr. Gashel: Yeah, not to exclude--wherever these places are.
You are part of a global economy almost. You are at least part of
the U.S. economy--and part of the employment opportunities for
blind people throughout this entire country. You really ought to
have a little broader vision than Cincinnati. That will be the
test--and I would challenge you other producers to get your
figures together because we need to show what impact this action
would have on employment opportunities for blind people. We know
it won't increase any at Clovernook. That is the answer to that.
Now, the question is: will it decrease employment opportunities
for blind people in these other locations--and the answer to that
is clearly yes. The number I don't know, but I think we ought to
get that number together.
     Mr. Cylke: Thank you.
     Dr. Tinsley: Tuck Tinsley, APH. Is there a representative of
the President's Committee for Purchase?
     Mr. Heyer: Yes, there is.
     Dr. Tinsley: Wonderful. Could you tell me how you determine
whether or not you place a product on the Procurement List? If
something is tossed to you, what goes through your committee's
unified head?
     Mr. Heyer: Okay, I am John Heyer. I am with the Committee
for Purchase from People who are Blind or Severely Disabled. The
question as I understand it is what does the Committee consider
when it makes a decision to add something to the Procurement
List?
     Dr. Tinsley: Yes, sir.
     Mr. Heyer: Okay. We have in our regulations--there are
several factors. One is what is just being discussed, the
creation of employment for people with disabilities; the
capability of the organization to provide the service that is
being considered; the impact on the current or most recent
contractor for the item; and also we consider any other comments
which we receive during the comment period. And as I think it was
noted earlier, there is a comment period currently going on
concerning the proposal to add the sixteen magazines which
Clovernook is currently producing to the Procurement List.
     Dr. Tinsley: What are the parameters of the impact? What
characteristics do you look at in determining whether or not
there is an adverse or a negative impact?
     Mr. Heyer: Okay. The term which is in our regulations is
severe adverse impact on the current contractor. We look at the
bottom line on this really, and it dates from some litigation
early in the Committee's history: a situation in which as a
direct result of the Committee's action, the contractor which is
currently providing it, particularly if it is a contractor which
has been doing this same item for a long time and has become
dependent on it, that they could well go out of business. That is
the worst case, bottom line. Obviously the Committee is not going
to cut things quite that close. We do look at the situation, the
contractor, how big a piece of that contractor's business is
involved here, what is likely to happen as a direct result of the
addition of these particular items. Is there a preceding history;
is this something where this contractor has been impacted in the
past by other actions of the Committee in adding things to the
Procurement List?
     Dr. Tinsley: So the cumulative effective action is--
     Mr. Heyer: Is a factor, yes.
     Mr. Cylke: Are there any comments or points?
     Dr. Tinsley: This might be naive, but I am not sure of the
flow of the money. If $10,000 is set aside--that is, take $10,000
away from NLS budget, does it go directly from Congress to NIB,
or does it flow the other way?
     Mr. Heyer: No, it continues to flow through NLS. Basically
the way the program operates is, once something has been put on
the Procurement List, any government agency which wishes to buy
this particular item is required to go to the designated non-
profit agency that the Committee has established through this
process, and they would continue to contract with the agency--in
this case, presumably, assuming that this were added to the
Procurement List, NLS would continue to buy the specific Braille
service of the specific magazines from Clovernook.
     Mr. Cylke: If for example, Tuck, (and as you know we are
going out with a survey of our magazines) if the magazine
selection changed and fourteen of the sixteen magazines happen to
be produced by Clovernook, but it was determined that they would
not be produced any longer, Clovernook would then be losing all
but two magazines. You would have the other fourteen open to
competitive bid.
     Dr. Tinsley: And does the agency that was contracting in the
past have a voice in this, knowing that--
     Mr. Heyer: Oh, yes.
     Dr. Tinsley: Okay, so NLS would have a voice in this also.
     Mr. Heyer: They are consulted. We have been, you know, we do
work with them. We have worked with them in other items that have
been set aside. We do ask, look to them particularly in the areas
of capability, particularly in this case being as Clovernook is
the current contractor for the magazines in question. I think
this is a factor that at least partly has already been addressed.
     Mr. Cylke: Yes, it should be clear that the notification of
this action came from Jerry Mundy to us, not from Beverly
Milkman. And the initiation of the meeting that we had with Ms.
Milkman was at our initiative. To my knowledge, Bill, have we had
any contact from them about the announcement in the Federal
Register or anything? Bill Price?
     Mr. Price: No.
     Mr. Cylke: We have not been contacted by you.
     Dr. Jernigan: I want to ask the representative of the
Committee for Purchase a question. Suppose that these are put on
the Procurement List, and then suppose that a year or two years
from now prices are raised. What kind of review both nominal and
real does the Committee have on price increases?
     Mr. Heyer: Well, the Committee is required by the law to set
an initial fair market price and to review the price and to
adjust as conditions warrant. The Committee has a rather
complicated pricing system, which determines if the price does
remain in the market ballpark. You have heard this 5 percent
kicked around. Basically what we are looking at would be the
median of the bids, plus or minus about 5 percent. And the price
is normally kept in this range. The price is also any price
changes. We do discuss them with, in this case NLS, and attempt
to get a concurrence.
     Dr. Jernigan: One more question: since there are very few
producers of Braille magazines in this country, do you have any
idea how you would set a fair market price if Clovernook became
the only producer of Braille magazines and if it increased its
prices?
     Mr. Heyer: I would like to say I think that it is extremely
unlikely that that is going to occur. I mean the price basically.
It is a situation where, as we have indicated, there are sixteen
magazines currently being proposed, and I would like to mention
that basically under this proposal that is the maximum number
that can be added to the Procurement List. The Committee may
determine, for reasons of impact or otherwise, to add a lesser
number than the sixteen. So I mean, they may add one. They may
add none. So I think the chances that they would be totally,
dominate the entire market--I think particularly given the sort
of thing I have heard today--and this I understand will be
transmitted to the Committee as part of their decision--I think
it is unlikely that it could take over the entire market. And I
don't think that is what is intended.
     Dr. Tinsley: Mr. Heyer, you said you weighed the position of
the person you're providing, or agency you are providing services
to. Do you know NLS's position on this request? Yes, or no? I am
just wondering.
     Mr. Heyer: I am not sure that I understand. We haven't
gotten a formal position as yet. We have had some things, I must
apologize, I am just standing in for Ms. Milkman, who is out of
town. I have been out sick a good long while, so I have not been
involved in any of this other than be told, "Come and listen to
see what is going on."
     Dr. Tinsley: Okay, may I address a question to Mr. Cylke?
Mr. Cylke, for the record could you or would you mind stating
NLS's position on this request?
     Mr. Cylke: At this point in time what we have communicated
to Beverly Milkman is that we wish to present the impact on the
Braille production community for consideration by the Committee.
We expressed--concern perhaps is too strong--but reservations
about the ability of the Committee to the point that Mr. Jernigan
just raised, the ability to identify appropriate price levels,
ability to have producers continue in the manner that they are
producing now. And at this point it is an exploratory situation.
But I do wish to stress that at no point has the Committee
contacted us. I was unaware until I heard at the table this
morning that the announcement was put in the Federal Register. I
was told that the progress would not take place until after this
meeting. So, that it is--
     Mr. Heyer: I would like to clarify that if I could based on
what I was told. As I understood it, it was our understanding
that the Committee would not make a decision until after this
meeting. However, because of the length of the administrative
process, which we are required to go through under our law, it
was necessary for us to put this notice in the Federal Register.
And I apologize for the fact that apparently word did not get to
you on that.
     Mr. Cylke: Not only did word not get to me on that, I wasn't
aware that that was the position of the Committee.
     Mr. Heyer: All right. Well, that was basically what was
relayed to me.
     Mr. Cylke: Yes, I understand.
     Mr. Raeder: Point of information. Bill Raeder here. We have
read the notice in the Federal Register, which came out about two
weeks ago. And it invites comments up to April 10th.
     Mr. Heyer: Right. Yes, this is basically--we are required to
put this notice out with a thirty-day comment period. And I would
urge you to get the comments in, although I understand that a
transcript of what is going on today will be provided to the
Committee.
     Mr. Cylke: Yes.
     Mr. Heyer: And the Committee will consider anything that was
said in this room this morning. If you would care to comment
directly, there is an address in there. I have a couple of copies
of this notice if anyone would like to see it or to get our
address. We would like to see something by the 10th. We are not
firmly inflexible. We will not slam the door in your face if it
is not on our desk by the end of that day. But we would like to
see it shortly thereafter at the latest, so we can continue. What
we need to do at this point is to provide all the information the
Committee is required to consider and give them a chance to vote
on this matter.
     Mr. Cylke: Are there any other questions or points?
     Mr. Gashel: Mr. Cylke, I would just say this: With respect
to the Federal Register notice; now we have that. Jerry, apropos
of the comments that have been made around here, quite frankly,
unless we were to hear from you that this application is not
going to go forward, there is a lot of activity that is going to
have to go forward. Because it is very clear from what our friend
from the Committee for Purchase just said, their administrative
process is going forward. And that means that the whole thing is
up in the air. The Congress will be involved as we have
discussed. The Appropriations Committees will be involved.
     This is right at the time when the NLS appropriation is on
the table. Mr. Cylke doesn't have to tell you how delicate that
is. It has been quite delicate in recent years. This is right at
the time when the whole subject of the Rehabilitation Act and its
reauthorization and its folding into employment and training
programs in general is being considered. All of that is on the
table on Capitol Hill. And we will absolutely have no choice,
unless. . . . You are the only one really, in effect, in control
of this process. You could abort it today by withdrawing that
application. And I realize that is a tough decision. It is the
best decision for blind people.
     I hope you will make that decision because otherwise you
give the rest of us (and I think that is true of all of the
producers in this room as well as the National Federation of the
Blind) absolutely no choice but to do the things that we have to
do for the broader benefit of blind people. The big thing for you
to do would be to withdraw that application and show how much
more interested you are in preserving these programs and in
helping them grow rather than constraining them.
     I would just like to ask one question of the man from the
Committee, and that is: if we want there to be one, is there an
opportunity for a public hearing before the Committee?
     Mr. Heyer: This is something basically, what I would ask you
to do would be to make a request to the Committee to see if a
public hearing would be an appropriate thing to do. Normally the
Committee does not get into public hearings, although we have on
occasion had them. Particularly, what we normally do is we permit
interested speakers to come to one of our committee meetings. And
I do believe we have a committee meeting on, early in April. It
would be possibly an appropriate time for this.
     Mr. Cylke: Thank you. Any other questions?
     Mr. Decker: I have one comment.
     Mr. Cylke: This is Jack Decker.
     Mr. Decker: Jack Decker from American Printing House. As I
look at the comparison of dollars going to each of the facilities
over the years, I notice in the last year that all facilities
except one went down from the total dollars awarded. Two of the
facilities--and we are one of them--are at a level that we would
have to seriously look at whether we should continue in Braille
magazine production. There is just not enough dollars there to
warrant coming back. As long as you have the 1.6 million dollars
sitting out there that if you are competitive, if you have a shot
at, you keep coming back. But if you take two thirds of it away,
then we really have to seriously look at whether it makes sense
to continue coming back. So I think there is a real possibility
that one to two of the Braille magazine producers may not be here
in the future if this happens.
     Dr. Jernigan: I would like to say something to Mr. Heyer.
For the record I tell you that there is a room full of people
here--and that ought to be enough to make a record. We request a
hearing before the Committee.
     Mr. Heyer: All right, sir. Well, I will report that back to
the Committee. Under our regulations the Committee has to make a
determination as to whether that is appropriate, and we will be
getting back to you quite shortly on that.
     Mr. Cylke: Bill Raeder.
     Mr. Raeder: I would like to endorse the comment from Jack
Decker here a moment ago, that National Braille Press was so hurt
by the current round of bidding for Braille magazines that it is
a major subject before our next executive committee meeting as to
whether we would be continuing in Braille magazine work at all
for NLS.
     Mr. Cylke: Bill Price.
     Mr. Price: Bill Price. You know, I would like to respond to
Tuck's question, which Mr. Cylke did respond to, whether or not
we had made our position clear to the Committee at any point. We
did have the meeting that was mentioned earlier with Mr. Cylke
and Brad Kormann and myself with Beverly Milkman and Will Harmon
and another person from the Committee or from the NIB. One of the
things that we did, in fact, point out to Ms. Milkman personally
in that meeting was our real concern. And I will say I think we
expressed it as a concern. I certainly meant to get it across as
a concern that it isn't just simply removing sixteen magazines,
and then the other people would have all the competitive
opportunity to bid on what is left.
     My concern is now (and it was expressed to Beverly Milkman)
that it has a significant impact on the competitive process that
remains. Just as you have stated, our process here for
procurement would be significantly impacted in a negative way and
just for the reasons that Jack Decker and Bill Raeder have just
mentioned. We would be concerned about who would be left to bid
on the magazines, what the prices of those bids would have to be,
and the overall impact on our procurement and the cost to
magazines. That, indeed, was stated more or less in that manner
in that meeting with the Committee.
     Dr. Tinsley: If you preface what you said by "We are opposed
to it," it makes it really clear.
     Mr. Cylke: I didn't state it that way because it is
inappropriate for me to do so, but Bill has--Yes?
     Mr. Bull: Geoff Bull, if I may come back? On the subject of
the impact that this proposal would have, Braille International
is one of the new kids on the block. We came in 1979, and I think
we made a useful contribution in bringing the cost of Braille
books into a very competitive area. I think we made a significant
impact upon Braille books.
     In '93 we moved into premises twice the size we were
currently occupying, at great expense, in anticipation of having
a competitive market in the magazine production area. We at
Braille International are going to have to review our situation
very, very seriously if this proposal goes through.
     I would also like to elaborate on a fact that Bill Raeder
mentioned, because I think it is a very important one. And it is
the platform that the government funding gives us to do other
things. We are not using government funds to produce Braille for
individuals or employees of small companies, church groups,
organizations of the blind--but we do have the equipment, the
staff, and the building, which affords a wonderful platform to
make available these other Braille projects, which are so
preciously and desperately needed. And our base is decreased
through the amount of funds available for other purposes. Then
there must be an ongoing effect on the availability of Braille to
the low-volume user. Also with the lower margins and
disproportionately high overheads arising from the lack of the
magazine funding, this I think would have a roll-on effect
against the cost of Braille books, because our overheads would be
higher proportionately, and our margins would be slimmer. So I
think that would have a roll-on effect in other areas regarding
price. Thank you.
     Dr. Mundy: Kurt, I know you are nearing the end of the time
for comment here, and I just wanted to be able to say (and this
is Jerry Mundy for the record). I just wanted to be able to say
at the end of our discussion here that one of the things I said
during my presentation earlier is that we did not arrive at the
decision to proceed with placing magazines on the Procurement
List in an easy fashion. It was not something that we made a
decision on overnight. It was something that we gave a lot of
serious thought to. So I want to reinforce that. It was not an
easy decision.
     Secondly, I think it is extremely important that you all
understand that we are here today, and we are listening very
closely to what you have had to say. The process continues. As
Mr. Heyer has already pointed out, the process is yet to be
culminated with the decision.
     I am willing to follow the process through. As I said at the
beginning, this was not an easy decision. I think I stated
clearly in my presentation why we decided to do so. And I still
believe that that was the appropriate decision on our part. Our
intent is, of course, not to have adverse effect on any of the
other members of the Braille production community. That was not
our intent. It is not our intent yet. We frankly believe that we,
as a major producer of Braille (and have been for many, many
years), are not having any more of an adverse impact on the
Braille-producing community by doing this than if we were not to
do it. We are simply now able to stabilize the employment of our
people and allow us to employ more people in the future by doing
this. So that is my comment. Thank you.
     Dr. Tinsley: Jerry, you said you were listening--
     Mr. Cylke: This is Tuck Tinsley.
     Dr. Tinsley: Yeah. You prefaced it by saying you are
listening, but did you hear what we said, because I am concerned
with your last comment, that you don't see a negative impact. Do
we need to go through it again?
     Mr. Bull: Are you disputing everything that we have said
this morning?
     Dr. Mundy: It will, of course, be in print, and I suppose we
could listen to it again on tape, if we wish to. So I, you know,
what I am saying to you, Tuck, and to the other members of the
group here, is that we have taken what we have heard here today
very seriously, and we will continue to do so. I don't know
whether that answers your question. I think I heard what was said
here.
     Dr. Tinsley: Okay.
     Mr. Cylke: Are there any other final comments? I would just
add one point. It should be understood that, in the system in
which we live, the placing of the magazines on the List is not
under NLS control. And it is not under our control whether we
agree or disagree with that placement on the List. We have by
legal constraints to act. That is why we don't express an
opinion.
     The meeting today was not to direct any comment at all from
the Library of Congress, but to open it up to a public hearing so
that producers could indicate the impact on them and so that
consumers could reflect the impact on them. I have heard what has
been said, and I trust that Mr. Heyer and others have heard it. I
know that Ms. Milkman will have access to the testimony, and that
is what we can provide. At this point I will close this part of
the meeting and say thank you very much.

     After these remarks by Mr. Cylke, the meeting was adjourned.
Those who were present went their separate ways and doubtless
pondered what they had heard.

                      The End of the Story

     And what of the rest of the story? It speaks with an
unmistakable voice and is quickly told. The lesson is clear and
requires no comment:

                                                 Cincinnati, Ohio
                                                    April 5, 1995

Dear Mr. Cylke:
     Once again thank you for taking the time to talk with me by
telephone yesterday. After considerable thought we have made the
decision to withdraw our application to the President's Committee
for Purchase from People Who are Blind or Severely Disabled to
place sixteen (16) magazines on the Federal Procurement List. In
order that there be no confusion, the magazines referred to are
those listed in the Federal Register, Vol 60/#47/Friday, March
10, 1995.
     We look forward to continuing the good working relationship
we have with you and your staff in the future.

                                                       Sincerely,
                                           Gerald W. Mundy, Ed.D.
                                               Executive Director
               The Clovernook Center--Opportunities for the Blind

cc:  Beverly Milkman, Executive Director, President's Committee
     Judy Peters, President, National Industries for the Blind


[LEAD PHOTOS/CAPTIONS:] May 16-17, 1995, Canadian and U.S.
delegates assembled at the National Center for the Blind in
Baltimore for the spring meeting of the North America/Caribbean
Region of the World Blind Union.  They gathered in front of the
main entrance during a break in the afternoon session May 16. 

[Photo #1: Portrait Caption: Frank Kurt Cylke, Director of the National
Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped] 

[Photo #2: Portrait Caption: William Raeder, Executive Director of National
Braille Press] 

[Photo #3: Portrait Caption: Tuck Tinsley, President of the American Printing
House for the Blind] 

[Photo #4: Kenneth Jernigan stands in front of the TED 600 Braille embosser
and pushes the run button. Caption: Kenneth Jernigan operates the TED 600
Braille embosser in the International Braille and Technology Center for the
Blind]
