                       THE BRAILLE MONITOR



                    Kenneth Jernigan, Editor
                Barbara Pierce, Associate Editor


     Published in inkprint, Braille, on talking-book disc, 
                        and cassette by 


              THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND 
                     MARC MAURER, PRESIDENT 
 


                         National Office
                       1800 Johnson Street
                   Baltimore, Maryland 21230 

                             * * * *



           Letters to the President, address changes,
        subscription requests, orders for NFB literature,
       articles for the Monitor, and letters to the Editor
             should be sent to the National Office. 

                             * * * *
 


Monitor subscriptions cost the Federation about twenty-five 
dollars per year. Members are invited, and non-members are
requested, to cover the subscription cost. Donations should be
made payable to National Federation of the Blind and sent to: 
 

                National Federation of the Blind
                       1800 Johnson Street
                   Baltimore, Maryland 21230 

                             * * * *

THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND IS NOT AN ORGANIZATION
SPEAKING FOR THE BLIND--IT IS THE BLIND SPEAKING FOR THEMSELVES



ISSN 0006-8829THE BRAILLE MONITOR
A PUBLICATION OF THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND

                            CONTENTS

                                                   FEBRUARY, 1993

JACOBUS TENBROEK: THE MAN BEYOND THE MOVEMENT

EARNING OUR DAILY BREAD: THE BLIND IN AUTO BODY REPAIR
by Daryel White

VICTORY IN THE DENNIS GROSHEL CASE
by Marc Maurer

HOW TO MAKE A BRAILLE WAVE
by Bonnie Simons

PERSONAL ASSISTANT SERVICES: ANOTHER KIND OF PAS

THE BLIND STUDENT TEACHER IN PUBLIC EDUCATION 
by Fred Schroeder

CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND 
AND THE AMERICAN DIABETES ASSOCIATION

TUTORS EXTRAORDINAIRE

NOTICE CONCERNING RESOLUTIONS
by Marc Maurer

NFB NETWORK: A NEW CONCEPT FOR LONG-DISTANCE SERVICE
by Sharon Gold

RECIPES

MONITOR MINIATURES
















     Copyright National Federation of the Blind, Inc., 1993[PHOTO: Portrait of Jacobus tenBroek. CAPTION: On October 30,
1992, more than 150 of Dr. Jacobus tenBroek's former students
gathered in San Francisco for a testimonial dinner in his honor.
As guests entered the room where the event was to take place, the
first thing they saw was an easel supporting an enlarged copy of
this picture of Dr. tenBroek.]

                        JACOBUS TENBROEK:
                   THE MAN BEYOND THE MOVEMENT

     From the Associate Editor: Probably every state affiliate of
the National Federation of the Blind still boasts some members
who were lucky enough to have met Dr. tenBroek or even to have
known him well. As I travel to various state conventions, I meet
these people, and what strikes me is the delight and reverence
that seem to suffuse each of them as the recollections begin to
flow and the anecdotes of his activities and pronouncements are
retold and savored. I regret deeply that I never met our beloved
founder, but I cannot truly grieve for my loss because in a very
real sense he lives on in everything we do and every step toward
equality we take as a movement. As Dr. Jernigan has said, "It
would be equally accurate to say that the man was the embodiment
of the movement or that the movement was the expression of the
man." 
     All of us recognize to varying degrees the truth of Dr.
Jernigan's statement. What we take with less seriousness and
understand with far less clarity is the profound effect Dr.
tenBroek has had on the world beyond the National Federation of
the Blind and the blindness field. Dr. Jernigan tells the story
of boarding a train in Boston four or five years ago and
overhearing several young people, obviously law students,
vehemently arguing about the effect of tenBroek on the legal
point they were debating. Somehow our very reverence for Dr.
tenBroek within the context of our own knowledge of his greatness
has served to diminish our appreciation of his larger
contribution to the American scene and the direction of legal
thought in the twentieth century. 
     It has been given to that other group of people whose lives
have been irrevocably changed and profoundly enriched by Dr.
tenBroek's influence (his students) to broaden our understanding
and deepen even further our appreciation of our founder's
contribution to the world. In the September, 1992, issue of the
California Monthly, the publication of the Alumni Association of
the University of California at Berkeley, one of those students,
Frank Winston, set forth his recollections of Dr. tenBroek. Here
is what he said:

[PHOTO: Dr. tenBroek sitting at his desk using a Braille writer.
CAPTION: Dr. tenBroek was always surrounded by books. His wife
Hazel told the testimonial dinner audience that two of the
reasons the couple bought the Shasta Road house in which they
lived for many years was their growing family and growing
library. In this picture Dr. tenBroek's Hall Braille writer sits
on the walnut stand he always used, and his law books are ranged
behind him as he works at his desk.]

                       On Jacobus tenBroek
                      by Frank D. Winston 

     In February, 1951, I was a seventeen-year-old freshman who
needed to satisfy Speech 1A or English 1A. Confidently thinking I
had a gift of gab, I enrolled in an eight o'clock "pre-law" class
taught by Professor Jacobus tenBroek, Berkeley class of '34,
Boalt School of Law class of '38. He was an attorney, having
earned doctorates in law from Boalt and Harvard. His class
focused on analyzing scholarly writings and U.S. Supreme Court
cases dealing with Constitutional law. It turned out to be a more
miraculous class than any beanie-sporting freshman had the right
to expect.
     One unusual factor was that tenBroek had what to most of us
would be a handicap--he was blind. No stranger visiting his
course would ever have guessed it, though. From the opening
class, when he took the roll of his twenty-five students on
Braille cards, until the next class when he looked directly at
you before calling your name (he asked you to sit in the same
area each time, though not any assigned seat), you knew you were
in for a very bright ride.
     Terror was instilled if you ever dared to be late to his
class. As soon as you entered his classroom, he would track you
after two steps and identify who you were and where you were
headed. The dreaded colloquy would go something like this:
     T.B.: "Greenwood, any idea what time it is?"
     G.: "Yes, sir. Ten minutes after the hour."
     T.B.: "It is fifteen minutes after the hour."
     G.: "Yes, sir."
     T.B.: "Greenwood, do you know what time this class starts?"
     G.: "Yes, sir. Ten minutes after the hour."
     T.B.: "After what hour?"
     G.: "Eight o'clock, sir."
     T.B.: "And by what clock? The Campanile?"
     G.: (Resignedly) "Yes, sir."
     Jacobus tenBroek reminded you that it made no sense to raise
your hand in his classroom when you wanted attention, because he
couldn't see it. Nor did it make sense to call out his name,
since everybody knew it. Professor tenBroek's solution was to
invite you to interrupt him (or a fellow student) by shouting out
your own name and hoping for recognition. By that simple
technique we all got to know the names of our less timid
classmates very quickly.
     TenBroek led his classes while methodically stroking his red
goatee, perhaps to slow the pace of his constant inquisition. He
had a great ability to take any side of an argument. It didn't
matter what side you took, because he would confirm or create a
controversy anyway, to your great discomfort. And if you read
aloud from any case and left out a word, he would immediately
jump in and correct you.
     Fellow tenBroek alumni and colleagues may well have been
inspired to their accomplishments by his tutorship. They include
retired California Supreme Court Justices Allen Broussard '50,
Boalt '53, and Frank Newman, Boalt '41; State Senator Dan
Boatwright '56, Boalt '59; Appellate Court Justices Robert
Puglia, Boalt '58; Fred Marler '54; Boalt '59; and Coleman Blease
'52, Boalt '55; former U.S. Commissioner of Immigration Alan C.
Nelson '55, M.B.A. '58; University of Texas law professor (and
Chicago Eight co-counsel) Michael Tigar '62, Boalt '66; and many
other prominent Cal grads.
     TenBroek was always a strong advocate for the rights of the
disabled. In 1940 he founded the National Federation of the Blind
(NFB), the largest and most influential of the organizations
representing blind people. His wife Hazel worked with him in NFB
activities and remains active in the organization. Hazel tenBroek
also became a key member of an advisory group to Alan Nelson '55
when he served as State Director of Rehabilitation in the early
1970's.
     Professor tenBroek died in 1968, but generations of students
remember his charm and wit, the fun of his classes, and his
scholarship. Michael Tigar, in remembering tenBroek, told the NFB
convention in 1968: "Professor tenBroek taught by the Socratic
method, [but] was Socratic in more than technique. He really
compelled us to confront fundamental issues....In the University
community, too, he was a fierce and formidable defender of
academic freedom for students and teachers. If Socrates had had
such a defender, Athens's hemlock supply would not have been
depleted."
     Recently, as I carefully read a major decision of the U.S.
Supreme Court's 1991-1992 term, I trembled with the recognition
that if I dared to skip or misread a word, tenBroek's voice would
ring in my ears, forcefully reminding me of the importance of
rational reading. Nor will I forget his concern for the poor and
disadvantaged, which he championed long before it became
politically correct. Hail Cal! Hail tenBroek!     

     There you have one student's recollection of Dr. tenBroek,
and he is not alone in the warmth and gratitude he feels toward
his professor and guide for the impact he had on his students'
lives and cast of mind. A group of Berkeley alumni who remembered
Dr. tenBroek's influence on them began planning a dinner to honor
their teacher and mentor on October 30, 1992. In order to
assemble the invitation list, they asked Mrs. tenBroek to prowl
through old files in search of Dr. tenBroek's class lists. The
task was enormous, but it was clearly necessary if all the former
students who wanted to come were to be notified. More than one
hundred fifty of them dropped everything and came, many from
across the country, to be together for this absolutely unique
evening of tribute, recollection, and laughter.
     Among those invited, of course, were Dr. Jernigan and
President Maurer. Unfortunately, the general assembly of the
World Blind Union was taking place that week in Cairo, and the
presence of both NFB leaders was required. Dr. Jernigan, however,
prepared a tape-recorded message, which was played to the guests
at the beginning of the evening's festivities. Here is the text
of his remarks:

[PHOTO: Jacobus tenBroek and Kenneth Jernigan seated at a desk
examining building blueprints. CAPTION: In 1961 Dr. tenBroek
visited Dr. Jernigan at the Iowa Commission for the Blind in Des
Moines. Here the two examine blueprints.]

     The purpose of this dinner tonight is to bring together as
many of us as possible whose lives were touched by Jacobus
tenBroek. It would not be possible, obviously, to bring all of
the people together who fall into that category. Recently, when I
talked to Alan Nelson, I told him that nothing would keep me away
from this dinner except the fact that I am going to be out of the
country. I also told him that I would like to share with you the
preface that I wrote in 1990 to a little book called Jacobus
tenBroek: The Man and the Movement. I first put this book
together in 1968 when Dr. tenBroek died, and it was reissued in
1990, on the fiftieth anniversary of the National Federation of
the Blind. 
     The preface tells as well as I know how--at least in brief
form--some of the things that Dr. tenBroek meant to me and the
relationship we had. Here is the preface: 

   I first met Jacobus tenBroek in the summer of 1952. He was in
the prime of his vigor as an author, a college professor, and the
leader of the organized blind movement in the United States; and
I was the newly elected president of the Tennessee affiliate of
the National Federation of the Blind. We were immediately drawn
to each other--he as mentor and role model and I as protege and
willing student. But our relationship was not one of difference
and distance. Rather, it was one of collegiality and partnership
in a joint effort--the bringing of equal rights and first-class
status to the blind.
   In 1953 I moved to California to work on the faculty of the
state orientation and adjustment center for the blind, and since
the Center was in Oakland and Dr. tenBroek lived next door in
Berkeley, we were in constant communication. During the next five
years I spent many delightful hours in the tenBroek home, where
Dr. and Mrs. tenBroek served sumptuous meals, entertained
interesting guests by the roaring fire in their 1,600-square-foot
living room, and provided mental stimulation and lively talk. For
me it was a time of growth--of finding myself, of making lasting
commitments, and of determining what my life's work would be.
   In 1958 I moved to Iowa to become director of the state
Commission for the Blind, but my relationship with Dr. tenBroek
did not weaken. Year by year it grew stronger as we worked in the
common cause of building the National Federation of the Blind.
Through the trials of the organization's civil war, the
rebuilding of the mid-1960's, and the period after he learned
that he had cancer in 1966, Dr. tenBroek and I were an
inseparable team. He faced his terminal illness as he faced
everything else in his life, matter-of-factly and looking to the
future.
   By the fall of 1967 it was clear that he had only a few months
left, and I began to write and assemble Jacobus tenBroek: The Man
and the Movement. It was never intended as a print or Braille
publication but as a recording of the actual sounds of his
speeches. He died on March 27, 1968, and that very afternoon
(with heavy heart) I finished my work on the master tapes and
sent them off to the recording studio.
   The national convention was held in Des Moines that summer,
and every person who attended was given the recording of Jacobus
tenBroek: The Man and the Movement. That was twenty-two years
ago, and much has happened during the intervening time. The
Federation has grown in power and influence; the National Center
for the Blind has been established in Baltimore; and a whole new
generation of blind Americans has come to leadership in the
movement. But essentially the National Federation of the Blind is
still the organization which Jacobus tenBroek planned and loved
and labored to build. The basic philosophy is the philosophy
which he propounded; the underlying structure is the structure
which he established.
   Therefore it seems particularly appropriate in this year of
the fiftieth anniversary of the National Federation of the Blind
that Jacobus tenBroek: The Man and the Movement be reissued--and
this time not only in recorded form but also in print and
Braille. He was the first president of the organization, and he
will be a principal element in the administration of the last
president, whoever and whenever that may be. In writing this
preface and working to issue this publication, I give tangible
expression to the debt which I owe to Jacobus tenBroek and to the
love which I bore him. He was the guiding force of my formative
years and the touchstone of integrity by which I have measured
the actions of my later life.
   The third generation of the movement is now in the flower of
its strength, and the fourth generation is coming to maturity.
The National Federation of the Blind is in good hands, and the
spirit of Jacobus tenBroek is vibrantly alive in the unity of
purpose and the drive to freedom of its leaders and members.

                                                 Kenneth Jernigan
                                              Baltimore, Maryland
                                                    May 18, 1990 

     That is what I said in 1990, and I can do no better on this
occasion. May this be a wonderfully pleasant event, filled with
gusto--just the sort of thing Dr. tenBroek would have enjoyed. 

[PHOTO: Dr. and Mrs. tenBroek stand at the head table during an
NFB national convention banquet. CAPTION: Dr. and Mrs. tenBroek
at a National Federation of the Blind convention.]
 
     There you have Dr. Jernigan's remarks to the testimonial
dinner, delivered by tape recording because of his absence from
the country. As a memento of the evening, each dinner guest was
presented with a print copy of the book, Jacobus tenBroek: The
Man and the Movement. As President of the National Federation of
the Blind of California, Sharon Gold was also invited to speak to
the assembled guests as part of the evening's program. Here are
her remarks: 

     Mr. Chairman, members of the dinner committee, and
distinguished guests: 
     It is a privilege to take part in this tribute to the great
teacher and leader Jacobus tenBroek. I did not have the
opportunity to meet, know, and study under Dr. tenBroek
personally; yet Jacobus tenBroek has been my mentor and has
directed my life and the lives of all blind people, whether or
not we knew the living man. 
     The American journalist and author Walter Lippmann said,
"[T]he final test of a leader is that he leaves behind him in
other men the conviction and the will to carry on." Measured by
the highest standards, Dr. tenBroek has met that test, and this
gathering of his students tonight is but one more example of the
strength of his leadership. 
     Many people knew Jacobus tenBroek as an author, a scholar, a
university professor, and a constitutional lawyer. So profound
were Dr. tenBroek's writings that his treatises are still studied
by law students across the country. Others know him as the
founder and first president of the National Federation of the
Blind. Jacobus tenBroek conceived of this organization as a
vehicle enabling blind people to speak out on issues of concern
to them. It was his call to the blind in 1940 that resulted in a
constitutional convention in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, at which
he directed a handful of blind people representing seven states
in the founding of the National Federation of the Blind. 
     For twenty-eight years, President tenBroek led the blind of
this nation and the world. He taught us that through organization
and collective action we can be equal partners in society. He
taught us that blind people need not be wallflowers clinging to
the periphery of life but that we should step out and step into
the mainstream, walking the streets and byways with our heads
high and spirits proud. 
     The speeches and documents written by Dr. tenBroek, which
address the rights of the blind and disabled, are the foundation
of the philosophy of the National Federation of the Blind. As he
traveled the length and breadth of this country and other
nations, President tenBroek's following increased and young
leaders emerged. When Jacobus tenBroek died in 1968, the torch
passed to his protege Kenneth Jernigan, the leader of the new
generation of informed blind Americans. Expanding the foundation
that Dr. tenBroek built, Dr. Jernigan led the Federation's growth
to a membership of more than 50,000 blind people. 
     The third generation has now assumed the leadership of the
National Federation of the Blind. Under the presidency of Marc
Maurer, a young attorney who grew up in Iowa, the organization
continues to grow and mature. As it grows, the teachings of
Jacobus tenBroek live on, and those of us who have come to the
organization since the late 1960's still turn to his writings for
strength and guidance. 
     In the last years of Dr. tenBroek's life he put much effort
into organizing the blind of other nations. This very evening Dr.
Jernigan and President Maurer cannot be with us because they are
continuing Dr. tenBroek's efforts on behalf of the blind of the
world. As the President of the North America/Caribbean Region of
the World Blind Union, Dr. Jernigan is in Cairo attending the
quadrennial meeting of the WBU, to which President Maurer is also
a delegate. 
     No remarks about Dr. tenBroek would be complete without a
word about his widow Hazel, who has devoted more than fifty years
of her life to improving the lives of blind Americans. During the
twenty-four years since Dr. tenBroek's death, Hazel has worked
diligently to promote the organization she helped her beloved
husband found. During these years she has continued to honor
their partnership and has kept the faith they shared. We
affectionately call her "Mrs. T". She is a leader in her own
right and, to me, a wonderful personal friend. Mrs. T's favorite
evening activity is to invite as many Federation members for
dinner as the dining room table will accommodate and to discuss
the current work of the NFB. Of course, the evening is never
complete without a story or two about Chick and the Shasta Road
house. 
     The blind are an emerging minority, and the National
Federation of the Blind has led the way in our quest for first-
class citizenship. With conviction and the will to carry on, we
go forward in our march with the Federation song on our lips:
"tenBroek has sounded trumpet which shall never sound retreat; We
have sifted out the hearts of blind before our Judgment Seat; Oh,
be swift all blind to answer and be jubilant your feet; Our Cause
goes marching on." 

     Those were the remarks that Sharon Gold made at the tribute
dinner for Dr. tenBroek. When she delivered her annual report to
the 1992 convention of the National Federation of the Blind of
California on November 7, she attempted to capture the spirit of
the dinner for her hearers. Here are excerpts from her report: 

     To the members of the National Federation of the Blind,
Jacobus tenBroek's life and leadership were profound. Dr.
tenBroek conceived of a national movement of blind people that
would be self-directed and would establish the right of blind
people to determine their own destiny. He led blind people to
form the NFB at a time when the blind were virtually barred from
the mainstream of community life. Because of his wisdom and
foresight, we are assembled here today to share our ideas and
ideals through the 1992 Convention of the National Federation of
the Blind of California. 
     Jacobus tenBroek was a great American. He was a
constitutional lawyer, a renowned author, a respected teacher,
and professional colleague. For twenty-five years Dr. tenBroek
was a member of the faculty of the Speech and Political Science
Departments at the University of California at Berkeley. He also
served a term as chairman of the Speech Department. 
     Last Friday evening, October 30, a testimonial gathering was
held in San Francisco by Dr. tenBroek's former students. These
men and women traveled from near and far to honor and pay tribute
to the University professor who taught them more than Speech 1A.
Not only did Dr. tenBroek have a profound influence on the lives
of his fellow blind, he also had a profound influence on the
lives of his university students, many of whom have gone on to
become noted lawyers, university professors and deans, lawmakers,
state appellate justices, California Supreme Court Justices, and
a U.S. Commissioner of Immigration. 
     Dr. tenBroek died in 1968. Now, twenty-four years later,
over one hundred fifty of his former students gathered to
celebrate the influence that this great man had on their lives.
Frank D. Winston, a San Francisco immigration attorney and one of
the organizers of the tenBroek Tribute Dinner, was the master of
ceremonies for the event. Mr. Winston said of Dr. tenBroek,
"There are an incredible number of people on whom he had an
impact. In many cases he is the only professor they remember from
their entire college careers." 
     In his opening remarks Mr. Winston said in part, "In the
1930's, when Jacobus tenBroek first applied to teach at the
University, he was denied that privilege, as he was later at
other schools and universities. We know of his scholarliness and
his intensity. But he threatened the university, not with a
lawsuit, but with his very style by saying, `I will teach for
free; and at the end of the semester, if you are convinced that a
blind professor cannot operate, then you fire me.' He later
became chairman of that same department that didn't wish to hire
him. It's because of that fortitude that we are here tonight."
     During the evening's program one of the committee members
roamed through the crowd with a portable microphone. Former
students stood and spoke from their hearts about the life and
teachings of Professor tenBroek and how he touched their lives
and careers. 
     One of Dr. tenBroek's students said, "I have extremely fond
memories, memories of awe of Jacobus tenBroek--the ability he had
to open up, make you think, make you read, substitute reason for
bias and prejudice. I am very pleased that I was asked to come
here tonight to remember this great man. He played a great, great
part in my life."
     Another student posed the question, "What kind of an affair
is this?" He then responded with his own answer, "I'll tell you
one thing it is. It's a tremendous joy and pleasure to know that
so many of us have come together simply to celebrate the fact
that this great man touched our lives. I think we ought to give a
lot of applause to the people who took time to organize this
event this evening."
     Another of Dr. tenBroek's former students chose to attend
the tenBroek Tribute Dinner even though he was celebrating the
conclusion of twenty-five years of directing the Continuing
Education at Bar of the University of California Extension
Service. He said, "Even though it is my retirement day, my last
day, I'm going to share it with the people who took tenBroek, as
I did."
     Yet another student said, "I think tenBroek touched all our
lives, and, as has been noted, many of us have probably been
influenced by him more than anyone else we had in college. It
reminds me of some lines from Henry Wadsworth Longfellow's poem,
`The Psalm of Life.' It goes like this:

     Lives of great men all remind us 
     We can make our lives sublime, 
     And, departing, leave behind us 
     Footprints in the sands of time.

I think tenBroek left great footprints."
     Dr. Jernigan has said of Dr. tenBroek that so much a part of
Dr. tenBroek's life was the National Federation of the Blind that
you cannot separate the man from the movement or the movement
from the man. Although they did not say it like this, throughout
the Tribute Dinner, the statements of Dr. tenBroek's former
students reflected the sentiment that you cannot separate the man
from his teaching or the teachings from the man. The students
came to celebrate the greatness of Jacobus tenBroek. Because he
was a blind man and the founder and first leader of the National
Federation of the Blind, Dr. tenBroek's students could not pay
tribute to their teacher and mentor without bringing honor to the
National Federation of the Blind. Thus these wonderful students
advanced the cause of blindness and touched each of our lives and
the lives of all blind people to follow us by every testimonial
word they said. 


[PHOTO: The tenBroek family seated on a sofa looking at a photo
album. CAPTION: This family portrait was taken in 1958. Young
Jacobus (Dutch) was thirteen, Anna was ten, and Nick was five.
The family are seated in the lower section of the large living
room in the Shasta Road house.]

[PHOTO: Dr. tenBroek embraces his son Nicolaas. CAPTION: Dr.
tenBroek and Nicolaas.]

[PHOTO/CAPTION: Dr. tenBroek repairs the children's scooter while
Anna and Nick look on.]

     That is the way Sharon Gold assessed the significance of the
tenBroek testimonial dinner. In mid-January the videotape
recording of the event became available, and it was clear to
everyone who saw it that Miss Gold had been correct when she said
that in her report she had only quoted a few of the many moving
anecdotes and testimonials. It seemed unfair to deny Monitor
readers the pleasure of sharing a number more of the evening's
highlights. Therefore, what follow are summaries and
transcriptions of many more comments and reminiscences:

     Frank Winston, the writer of the magazine article printed
earlier, served as the evening's master of ceremonies. A few
minutes after the dinner began, he directed the attention of the
audience to the back of the room, where apparently the hapless
Greenwood of Winston's Cal Monthly reminiscence was to be seen
slipping in late. Then followed a tenBroekian interrogation about
the scheduled time of the dinner, the current time, and the clock
by which the time was to be determined. It was clear that
everyone in the group recognized the style of the interchange,
and it set the tone of the evening. 
     After Dr. Jernigan's remarks had been played, Mr. Winston
pointed out that it was fitting that this dinner was taking place
in 1992 since the previous July the Americans with Disabilities
Act had begun protecting an even broader group of disabled
citizens. He went on to say that the commentary on the Act and
the Congressional testimony all reached back to the language of
advocacy that Dr. tenBroek's students remember and recognize from
his advocacy of the blind in the forties and fifties. Reading the
history of what followed, Mr. Winston continued, shows clearly
that Dr. tenBroek's thought translated into advocacy, not only
for all those with physical and mental disabilities, but for
everyone who is disadvantaged. When the civil rights movement
gathered force and power in the sixties and seventies, its theme
and leadership style were based on that which Dr. tenBroek's
students had observed in him in the fifties. "His messages of
those early years are vibrant in society today." 
     One of the guests reported that he had worked as a reader
for one of Dr. tenBroek's colleagues in the Speech Department.
One day the professor mentioned that Dr. tenBroek was going to
build a retaining wall on his property the following weekend and
that he supposed he would be a good guy and volunteer to help
him. On Monday morning the student inquired about how the
building project had gone. The professor's answer was short and
very much to the point: "I got a hell of a lesson in how to build
a retaining wall." 
     The speaker went on to say: "When I took Speech 1A, I didn't
know what to expect--whether it was going to be a class in
rhetoric or how to stand up and give a speech. I found out it was
a course in how to think. Like most freshmen I was a slate upon
which nothing had been written when I entered college, and he
[Dr. tenBroek] wrote very rapidly and very well." 
     A theme running through the comments was the speakers' awe
at Dr. tenBroek's ability to make them think and to seize on an
argument opposing their own in order to stretch their minds. One
speaker described a five-minute speech that he gave in support of
national health insurance. He presented his argument, annihilated
the opposing points of view, and concluded with the statement,
"National health insurance is as American as apple pie and needed
more." Dr. tenBroek, a man of Dutch ancestry, immediately shot
back, "Who told you that apple pie was American?" 
     One man pointed out that in his Speech 1A class a fellow
student turned up a copy of Dr. tenBroek's book The Anti-Slavery
Origins of the Fourteenth Amendment and began using tenBroek's
arguments to bolster his own positions in class discussions. The
speaker reported that it made no difference; Dr. tenBroek still
destroyed his arguments. 
     Several people spoke of Dr. tenBroek's great humanity. One
speaker remembered a day when he and another student were both
late for class. He was running for student government office at
the time and was under a great deal of pressure as a result. When
the students arrived, Dr. tenBroek began needling the other
student in his accustomed way. The student responded by pointing
out that he was not the only one late that day. Dr. tenBroek
immediately shot back, "I don't see your name as anybody running
for public office." And Mrs. tenBroek remembered a time when her
husband learned that one of his students was going to lose a
much-needed scholarship to medical school because he had earned a
B in Speech. When he learned about the problem, Dr. tenBroek
said, "He's going to be a fine doctor some day; his grades show
that. Why should I hold him back?" So he changed the grade to an
A. 
     Another man remembered an incident during a tenBroek class
in which a young woman, who appeared to be attending college
solely in order to find a husband, timidly spoke her name in the
discussion one day. She had never made a contribution before,
partly because she was unsure of herself in the academic rough
and tumble of the class and partly because there were so many
brash and self-assured students vying for the opportunity to
speak. But Dr. tenBroek heard her voice and recognized her.
Gently, with none of the needling that he reserved for most of
the students, he drew out of her the ideas she had only half
formed and helped her construct her thoughts and argument. The
speaker concluded by saying, "I learned from that what it meant
to be a great teacher, and I'm sure she did too."
     A number of people in the audience were senior faculty
members at universities across the country. Several spoke of Dr.
tenBroek's impact on their own teaching. Frank Winston mentioned
that Dr. tenBroek's students were required to say their own names
when they were seeking recognition. Since Dr. tenBroek was blind,
this seemed a reasonable accommodation. But Winston makes the
same demand on his students today because he has found that it
encourages oral participation much more effectively than hand-
raising does. 
     Dr. Stanley Lyman, a professor of sociology at the
University of Southern Florida, told with much gusto the story of
his first teaching job. He was twenty-two and a new graduate of
the University of California at Berkeley. He had never studied
with Professor tenBroek, but he was told by another member of the
Speech faculty to go see tenBroek because he was prepared to
offer Lyman a job as a lecturer in the Speech Department. He was
very nervous during the interview and hesitantly asked what text
book he would be expected to use in teaching Speech 1A and 1B.
Dr. tenBroek tossed him a mimeographed booklet and said, "Use
this." It was a collection of Supreme Court cases: Yick Wo v.
Hopkins, Buck v. Bell, Korematsu v. the United States, and
others. 
     Dr. Lyman said, "Dr. tenBroek, I've never even had a course
in Constitutional Law. My B.A. is in sociology." 
     And Dr. tenBroek said, "Lyman, can you read?" 
     "Yes, sir," Lyman said.
     "Good," Dr. tenBroek said. "I'm pleased to learn that. You
take this book of cases home, and you read them. Next week you'll
start teaching, and five weeks from now I'll come sit in your
class, and if you're no good, I'll fire you. Have we got a deal?"
     Dr. Lyman went home and spent a difficult weekend poring
over the book, but Monday morning he began teaching. Five weeks
later, to the day, Dr. tenBroek was there, sitting in the rear of
the classroom. Lyman said, "I knew there was one rule: there was
to be no lecturing in Speech 1A. The professor was to conduct a
Socratic dialogue.... You were to get the answer out of the
students. I was pouring sweat and asking questions."
     At the end of the class Dr. tenBroek suggested that they
walk back to his office together. As they were walking, Dr.
tenBroek said, "Well you're all right, Lyman. You've got just one
problem: you are standing too close to the front seats in the
room." Lyman was astounded that Dr. tenBroek knew where he had
been standing. Dr. tenBroek then explained that he had noticed
that he was getting good discussion in response to his questions
but only from the people in the front half of the room. He
himself had had some difficulty hearing what Lyman was saying, so
he concluded that he had been standing close to the front desks.
He suggested that from then on Lyman stand with his back against
the blackboard so that he would remember to throw his voice to
the rear of the room. 
     One speaker said that Dr. tenBroek did more than use the
Socratic method to teach his students that they could employ
their intellects to explore both sides of a question. To them he
was almost the embodiment of Socrates. The attorney who made this
point most clearly went on to tell a story about a classmate of
his who was always the first to shout out his own name for
recognition. One day, when Dr. tenBroek had called on the young
man, he said with great conviction, "Well, Dr. tenBroek, the
answer to that question would require a value judgment." 
     After a brief silence Dr. tenBroek answered, "Phillips,
don't you know that the most important judgments you will make in
life are value judgments?" The speaker went on: "There was
absolute silence in the room. It was the first time that Dr.
tenBroek had told us that the content of our lives and of our
decisions and of what we really thought was actually more
important than the argumentation we were learning in his class.
It's true, lawyers argue both sides, but the most important thing
that a lawyer can do is to make his or her own value judgments.
This was one of Dr. tenBroek's legacies, and I wanted to pass it
on this evening." 
     One member of the audience had brought his wife and his son.
Like seven other offspring of tenBroek students, the boy was
named Jacobus tenBroek. After paying tribute to his former
teacher as the man who had taught him to think and who had first
persuaded him that there are more important things in life than
having fun, he related the following recollection: "People have
mentioned his academic prowess, but he was also an incredible
advocate. I remember sitting in the hallway in Wheeler Auditorium
when the December resolutions were being discussed in support of
the Free Speech Movement [at Berkeley in the early sixties]. We
[the students] couldn't go inside the Academic Senate, but we
could sit on the outside and listen to that debate. Lo and
behold, our beloved Professor tenBroek was leading the floor
debates on behalf of the resolution that would have supported the
students. We saw him in a much different role, not talking
academically about the importance of the First Amendment, but in
life, on the floor, as an advocate conducting that debate. The
man was absolutely awesome. I would never want to face an
advocate like Professor tenBroek in a court room. I doubt if any
of us could go toe to toe with him. He wasn't just an academic in
the academic setup; he was also on the street with the students.
     "One of the lasting impressions I have of him is--certainly
that great demeanor he had and how erect he was--standing on the
corner of Telegraph and Bancroft after all the kids had been
arrested in the Free Speech Movement. He was about to go down to
Berkeley Municipal Court to make an argument that all the charges
should be dismissed in the interest of justice. He stood there, a
very tall man on a little riser, making his argument about why it
was unjust and in conflict with the First Amendment to proceed
with those prosecutions. I learned a lot from him about the First
Amendment, that it wasn't just a sterile document; it was
something to be lived and fought for among professors and on the
streets of the country. The other thing I learned from him was
how important the Fourteenth Amendment was, and the true meaning
of the Fourteenth Amendment. I have since become a civil rights
attorney, and I feel that in a small way my life is dedicated to
what I learned from him about the importance of equality in the
Constitution and how hard it is to obtain that equality. The
lessons all derive from Jacobus tenBroek.... I learned a lot of
lessons from him, and my life would not be what it has been
without having had the wonderful opportunity to meet this truly
incredible man." 
     A woman who had been Dr. tenBroek's student in a
constitutional law class during the early forties recalled the
time when she saw his passion break through his professorial
calm. The class was discussing welfare, and the students were
"spouting our own attitudes which we had picked up from the
popular press." She noticed that Dr. tenBroek's face was growing
redder and redder until he finally exploded, "Poverty is not a
crime!" 
     She went on, "That burned into my mind; I have never
forgotten it, and I think that more than anything else it has
helped to guide my life." 
     An attorney with a particularly distinguished legal career
stood to make a confession of what he had learned from Dr.
tenBroek about ethics. In 1962, while he was in law school, he
received a call from Dr. tenBroek offering him a job as reader.
The preceding day another professor had also offered him a job as
a course reader. The student told Dr. tenBroek that he had to
call the other man "because we had kind of a tentative agreement.
I need to talk to him, and then I'll get back to you." Dr.
tenBroek inquired what he meant by using the word "tentative."
The student stammered that he was sure that the other professor
would understand. 
     Dr. tenBroek said with great firmness, "Well I understand.
You're in law school now?"
     "Yes."
     "Do you know what an offer is?" 
     "Yes."
     "Well it's withdrawn." 
     One man invited the audience to remember their dismay upon
being told that speeches in tenBroek classes could be no longer
than five minutes. When the students protested about the
limitation, Dr. tenBroek's response was, "There is no subject on
Earth about which any of you knows enough to speak for more than
five minutes." 
     The final speaker of the evening was Fred Korematsu, whose
case (Korematsu v. the United States) went to the Supreme Court
in 1944. He had resisted the internment of Japanese Americans
during the Second World War, but he lost the case. In 1954 Dr.
tenBroek wrote a book, Prejudice, War, and the Constitution,
which argued powerfully that the First Amendment rights of
Japanese Americans had been trampled by the mass internment and
that the decision of the Supreme Court had been in error. As
everyone now knows, the case was retried several years ago, and
this time Fred Korematsu won. Everyone who referred to this case
during the testimonial dinner acknowledged what is commonly
recognized in legal circles: that Dr. tenBroek's book had
irrevocably altered the way in which the legal world views
Korematsu v. the United States and was the direct cause of the
reversal in the Supreme Court's decision. 
     So the evening ended. It would be well for all of us to
recognize the importance of what Dr. tenBroek's former students
have taught us. The founder of the National Federation of the
Blind made contributions to the world far beyond his work in the
organized blind movement. His influence is still being felt as a
force in legal thought today. His students recollect and pass on
the principles and habits of thought that he taught them, just as
we do, and his wisdom, integrity, and clarity of vision will
continue to change the world in the coming century, not only in
the field of work with the blind, but in the entire sweep of
American society. 
     But perhaps the most fitting way to conclude this tribute to
Jacobus tenBroek is to quote a poem written by his granddaughter
Kelly after she visited her two grandmothers last year and read
at the dinner by her father Dutch tenBroek. The family went to
the cemetery in which Dr. tenBroek is buried, and this is the
poem she wrote. It expresses a sentiment that is true for all of
us: 

His grave was amongst the many, 
And I had to help search for it. 
There it was, looking out across the valley,
     the bay, and the trees. 
I could feel the wind rushing through my hair
As I looked at the overwhelming sight. 
There he has rested for twenty-four years. 
As I looked at the worn-away Braille,
The tears came flowing into my eyes and would not stop, 
For this man I've never known was a large part of my life. 
He is more a part of me than I have ever known. 


[PHOTO: Daryel White standing at podium microphone. CAPTION:
Daryel White.]

                    EARNING OUR DAILY BREAD:
                  THE BLIND IN AUTO BODY REPAIR
                         by Daryel White

     From the Associate Editor: Some of the most lively,
interesting, and inspirational agenda items at our national
conventions are the presentations made by our own members who are
earning their daily bread in occupations that many people would
think closed to blind employees. At the 1992 convention in
Charlotte, North Carolina, one young man captivated the audience
with his story of returning to auto body repair after he became
blind. Now meet Daryel White, vice president of the St. Louis
County Chapter of the National Federation of the Blind of
Missouri and a first-rate employee at Marty's Body Works:

     I'm proud to be here today to tell you a little bit about
what I do to earn my daily bread. I'll begin by telling you where
I was and how I got to where I am today.
     I'm from St. Louis, Missouri. Approximately five years ago I
lost my eyesight. For about six months I sat and thought I was
never going to amount to anything in life. A rehab counselor came
to my home, and by the time he left I was even more convinced
that I had no future. Then about six months later a
rehabilitation teacher knocked on my door. I said, "Who are you?"
It had been about six months since the rehab counselor had come,
and here she was. She asked me a few questions, which I answered.
She said to me, "What did your rehab counselor tell you?" 
     I said, "Well, he looked at me and said I wasn't going to do
anything with my life but be what I call a housewife." At that
time I didn't know any different. I had just lost my sight, and I
thought maybe that's all I could ever be. This bright young lady
really impressed me when she first came into my home. She showed
me how to do things that I didn't think I could do, but more than
anything else, she told me something I could hardly believe: she
said that I could do whatever I wanted to--that I could do what I
had done before I became blind. 
     This lady's name was Patty Page. She introduced me to her
brother, a man who has taken me as far as I can go in making my
life better. His name is Homer Page, and he is president of the
National Federation of the Blind of Colorado and one of the
Boulder County Commissioners. I went to meet him while he was
visiting at his sister's home. I'll remember this till the day I
die; we were sitting at his sister's table, and he asked me what
I wanted in life. I told him that I wanted to do what I had been
doing when I was sighted--have my own home, have my own job, and
live as I was then. He looked at me and said, "You will have
that." 
     I said "o.k." But in my mind I thought, "Well, this guy's
really lost it." 
     He went over to the phone and made a call to a lady who in
my heart has really become like my mother.
     I first met her in Denver when I came off the plane from St.
Louis. I could hardly even walk. I mean I had hold of this
stewardess like she was my savior! When I got into the gate area,
this woman came up to me and said her name was Diane McGeorge.
Then she took me with her--here I am, totally blind, and she
says, "I'll take you to get your luggage." And she was totally
blind. I thought to myself, "This lady's lost it too!" But I hung
on to her because I was frightened. We got the luggage and went
to her home, and then I went to the apartments for students at
the Colorado Center for the Blind. Diane McGeorge and Homer Page
had managed to enroll me as a student at the Center.
     From that moment on I began building my confidence. I
learned how to travel. I had had a cane, but I couldn't even find
my feet! The staff helped me with cane travel, Braille, and self-
confidence. They also introduced me to the organization that is
really my support and backbone today--the National Federation of
the Blind.
     I spent about ten months in Colorado, and toward the end I
made some phone calls looking for a job. Even on the day I
graduated from the CCB, I made a couple of phone calls and got
turned down. But eventually I got lucky with Marty's Body Works,
which is in St. Louis, Missouri. I do auto repair, paint cars,
and put fenders and doors on. I even do welding. 
     Now I want to tell you a little story. When I came back from
the Colorado Center for the Blind, my confidence level was taller
than the highest building that was ever built, so my first job
with the public's eye on me was a hard one. I went to work for
Marty's Body Works two weeks after I got back from Denver,
Colorado.
     There's a man named Charlie Collins who owns a big diesel
shop in St. Louis. He wrecked his brand new pick-up truck in a
front end collision. He had it towed to Marty's. He looked at
Marty and he looked at me. Then he said, "I do not, do not want
that blind man to work on my truck!" Marty looked at me and kind
of smiled, and Charlie went on home. 
     Then Marty said, "Daryel, you're going to do that job." So I
brought the truck in and did the job. I put it all together and
painted it. I mean, I did a superb job. There was nothing wrong
with that truck when I got done. 
     When Charlie came back to pick it up, Marty told him,
"Charlie, I don't want you to pay for that job right now. I know
how you are; I've done work for you before. You take the truck
back to your shop. I want you to check it over just as close as
you can for fender and hood gaps." (These gaps are the distance
between the pieces of the car you build or rebuild.) He said, "I
want you to bring it back tomorrow and tell me if you find
anything wrong."
     So Charlie took it to his shop, and he brought it back the
next day. He said, "Marty, that's the most fantastic job I've
ever seen!" 
     Marty looked at him, and he looked at me. Then he told
Charlie right there, "That is what a blind man can do." 
     Charlie owns two eighteen-wheelers over the road. About two
weeks later he wrecked one of his eighteen-wheelers. He brought
it back to Marty's, and do you know what his first words were?
"Let that blind man work on my truck."  
     I want everyone to know one thing: I thank you for the
support of the NFB, of all you people who are listening to me and
holding this organization together. People like Dr. Jernigan,
President Maurer, Diane McGeorge, and Homer Page are the ones
that really have made me the person I am today. I think we all
can do it, don't you? Thank you.


[PHOTO: Portrait. CAPTION: Dennis Groshel.]

               VICTORY IN THE DENNIS GROSHEL CASE
                         by Marc Maurer

     The National Federation of the Blind has always stood as the
only truly effective protector of the rights of blind vendors. We
have advised and advocated, served on arbitration panels, and
fought for legislative reform; and when necessary, we have gone
to court to battle for the justice that vendors deserve. The
organized blind of America recognize that what is good for blind
vendors will benefit all blind people, and the National
Federation of the Blind has always been dedicated to improving
the lives of all blind people. 
     In October of 1992 a landmark decision in Federal District
Court came down that has sweeping implications for blind vendors.
It was an unqualified victory in the Dennis Groshel case, and it
is important for all of us to understand what was accomplished. 
     In July, 1987, the Groshel case made its first appearance in
Federal Court. It was not an ideal time for such a case because
the judicial climate was particularly unfavorable. In 1985, the
American Council of the Blind--through its vendors' group The
Randolph-Sheppard Vendors of America--joined by the National
Council of State Agencies for the Blind, charged precipitately
into Federal Court. The action, ineffectively and untimely
brought, was against the Defense Department which had sought to
contract with fast-food chains for service at military
installations. The point of the litigation, to assert the
priority for blind vendors, was in order, but use of the federal
courts as the first avenue of appeal proved both dangerous and
ineffective. The Defense Department contended that the priority
provisions of the Randolph-Sheppard Act did not prohibit
competition by fast-food chains, and the district court, where
the case was originally brought, agreed. The potential blow to
blind vendors was severe, and the Federation mounted an appeal.
     Fortunately for the entire blind vendor program, we were
successful. In June of 1986 the United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia reversed the district court decision
and declared that the issue concerning fast-food chains at
military bases should have been considered first by a three-
member arbitration panel as the law requires. This is precisely
the position which the National Federation of the Blind had taken
before the court in filing an effective amicus curiae. With the
briefs in hand the court concluded as we did that the suit
against the Department of Defense should never have been brought
in the first place and that the arbitration procedures contained
in the Randolph-Sheppard Act were to be used before recourse to
the courts. In reaching this conclusion the court found that the
previous decision was in error, and the effect of this ruling
saved the blind vendor priority on federal property. Competition
from fast-food chains or any other commercial enterprise would be
subject to the arbitration procedures and could be challenged by
any state agency.

     Then in 1986 the Department of Veterans Affairs made a new
attack upon the blind vendor priority. At that time there were
one hundred and seventy-two hospitals and homes operated by the
Veterans Administration (now the Department of Veterans Affairs).
Food service at each of these sites has been provided by the
Veterans' Canteen Service. The Veterans Canteen Service had
allowed a blind vendor to conduct business at only one of these
sites--the Medical Center for Veterans in St. Cloud, Minnesota. 
     In 1986 Dennis Groshel was the vendor at that location. He
was licensed by the Minnesota Department of Jobs and Training.
The Department of Jobs and Training is the state licensing agency
for blind vendors in Minnesota operating under the federal
Randolph-Sheppard Act. The Department was rightfully concerned
that Dennis Groshel had been required to pay the Veterans'
Canteen Service a commission of approximately seventeen percent
of his gross sales, cutting his net profit (the amount which
Dennis Groshel actually received from the business) approximately
in half. 
     With the urging of the National Federation of the Blind,
Minnesota state officials vowed to remedy this situation. Their
first step was to request a commission-free "permit" to maintain
a vending facility at the St. Cloud Medical Center. The facility
had been operated under a "contract" between the Veterans'
Canteen Service and the state. The contract required commission
payments. Also, the contract expired periodically and was
scheduled to expire in 1987. A permit, issued by a federal agency
for vending facility service to be provided under the Randolph-
Sheppard Act is permanent. So, the battle between the State of
Minnesota and the Department of Veterans Affairs was joined when
the state applied for a permit, free from a sales commission, and
the Department of Veterans Affairs insisted upon having a
contract and receiving a substantial share of the proceeds. 
     This is another instance where knowledge of the law and
clear judgment in how to enforce it were essential. The wrong
action could mean a decision which would threaten the priority
for all blind vendors. In this respect the Minnesota case was
evolving as another test of both will and competence in advancing
the rights of blind vendors. But in this instance, as compared to
the Department of Defense case, there was one important
difference: The National Federation of the Blind. 
     The Minnesota state agency turned to us for advice. However,
state officials were mindful of that fact that the Federation
represented Dennis Groshel, the licensed blind vendor. His
interests in the dispute with the Department of Veterans Affairs
were arguably different from the state's interest, but we could
still be allies in attempting to preserve the vending facility.
Acting on our advice in early 1987, the state requested the
convening of an arbitration panel--the very step which the
American Council and its allies should have taken in the Defense
Department case. Then, to protect Dennis Groshel during the
unknown duration of the arbitration proceeding the Minnesota
attorney general, with our urging, sought and obtained an
injunction from the Federal Court that would prevent the
Veterans' Canteen Service from removing Mr. Groshel from his
location. 
     Meanwhile, the State of Minnesota also named James Gashel,
Director of Governmental Affairs for the National Federation of
the Blind, as its representative on the arbitration panel. Mr.
Gashel is a nationally-recognized expert on Randolph-Sheppard
matters. After due consideration the arbitration panel ruled in
1988 that no commission should be charged and that the interested
parties should negotiate the remaining issues. But after
prolonged efforts to resolve their differences, the two sides
were forced to admit that they were unable to settle the
remaining issues, and the case went back to the arbitration
panel. 
     Again the panel convened, heard testimony, and considered
the issues. It all took time (by now it was late 1991), and
during the almost four years that had elapsed Dennis Groshel had
continued to manage his vending facility while paying no
commission. He didn't have much job security, but because of the
court order and the earlier arbitration panel decision that no
commission on sales could be charged, his income was effectively
doubled, as long as his facility remained open. 
     In August, 1991, the arbitration panel reached its final
decision. The panel confirmed that the Randolph-Sheppard Act
priority applies to the hospitals and homes of the Department of
Veterans Affairs just as much as it does to any other federal
property. Following that premise the panel directed that the
state (and, by implication, Dennis Groshel) had a continuing
right to a vending facility at the St. Cloud Medical Center. 
Also, by implication, the same would be true for any other
similar facility of the Department of Veterans Affairs. That was
the good news, but surprisingly two members of the panel agreed
with the position of the Department of Veterans Affairs, finding
that a sales commission of seventeen percent to be charged
against the gross proceeds of a blind vendor was acceptable. Mr.
Gashel filed a strong dissent to this portion of the decision
which was published as part of the arbitration panel's opinion.
Nonetheless, he was in the minority. 
     Fortunately because of the same panel's earlier rulings
Dennis Groshel had been able to operate his vending facility
without paying commissions since September, 1988. This status was
now threatened, and the potential danger was real. However,
unlike the case with the Defense Department, the legal groundwork
had been carefully laid with compelling testimony from a blind
vendor who stood to lose a substantial part of his livelihood.
The arguments had been carefully thought through and articulated
before the Federal Court was ever asked to hear the case. There
had been a full arbitration of the dispute, and the panel had
made the most important decision of all, finding that the
Randolph-Sheppard Act applies. Its acceptance of a commission was
a glaring inconsistency with this finding. It would now be up to
the courts to uphold the Act and overturn the inconsistency. 
     This was the situation in the fall of 1991 shortly after the
arbitration panel's ruling became effective. Here is what I said
about the case in my report to the convention on Wednesday, July
1, 1992:

     We continue to be active to protect the interests of blind
vendors in the Randolph-Sheppard program. As Federationists know,
Dennis Groshel is a blind vendor in Minnesota who operates a
facility at the Department of Veterans Affairs Hospital in St.
Cloud. The income from this facility is about $30,000 a year. The
Department of Veterans Affairs first argued that Dennis should
not be permitted to have a vending facility at the VA Hospital at
all, but the arbitration panel convened to hear the case ruled
against them. However, the VA asked that it be paid a commission
amounting to seventeen percent of the gross receipts from the
vending facility (about $15,000, or half of the profit). The
arbitration panel erroneously granted this request, so we are
helping with an appeal.
     The Dennis Groshel arbitration is, to say the least, quite
unusual. The vending facility in question is operated by Dennis
Groshel; the money being taken is the income of Dennis Groshel;
and the person who reports to work is Dennis Groshel. It seemed
only reasonable that one of the parties in the case should be
Dennis Groshel. However, the lawyer for the Department of
Veterans Affairs has tried to keep him out. But this is simply
not fair. We are helping Dennis intervene in his own case. He
will be involved, and we intend to help him keep the money that
is rightfully his under the law. Incidentally, all other vendors
should take note, for this case has implications for every one of
them throughout the nation.

     That is what I reported at the 1992 convention of the
National Federation of the Blind, and we were as good as our
word. The National Federation of the Blind filed an amicus brief
which supported the position taken by the state of Minnesota, and
we represented Dennis Groshel, enabling him to enter the case as
the plaintiff-intervenor. The case went to the United States
District Court in September and was heard by Judge Harry H.
MacLaughlin, who rendered his decision on October 13, 1992. 
     The judge's opinion completely vindicated Dennis Groshel's
position: a veterans hospital was found to be an appropriate
location for a Randolph-Sheppard facility. This means that all
veterans hospitals and homes across the country can have
Randolph-Sheppard vending facilities. Moreover, the permit
application and approval procedure normally employed to establish
Randolph-Sheppard facilities other than cafeterias was found to
be the appropriate instrument for use in establishing a Randolph-
Sheppard food service facility in a veterans medical center. The
Veterans' Canteen Service's demand for a seventeen percent
commission on sales--or, for that matter, any commission at all--
was found to be inappropriate. The Groshel decision is of
critical importance to blind vendors across the country and to
all who work to protect their right to earn a reasonable living
in food-service facilities under the Randolph-Sheppard Program.
The decision is so significant and potentially far-reaching that
we are reprinting it in its entirety so that those who need to
understand Judge MacLaughlin's well-reasoned opinion will have it
at their finger tips. Here it is: 

     This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's and
plaintiff-intervenor's motions for summary judgment, defendants'
motion for summary judgment against plaintiff, and defendants'
motion to dismiss the complaint of plaintiff-intervenor.

FACTS
     In this action the State of Minnesota, on behalf of the
Department of Jobs and Training, State Services for the Blind and
Visually Handicapped (DJT) appeals from a decision of an
arbitration panel convened under the Randolph-Sheppard Act, 20
U.S.C.  107 et seq. The action arises out of the relationship
between the DJT and the Veterans' Canteen Service (VCS), which is
a department within the United States Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA). In April 1977, following a competitive bidding
process, the DJT entered into a contract with the VCS under which
the DJT would provide vending services at the VA Medical Center
in St. Cloud, Minnesota. The contract, which was renewed for four
consecutive one-year terms, provided that the DJT would pay the
VCS commissions on sales from the vending facility. In April
1982, again following a competitive bidding process, the DJT and
the VCS entered into another contract for the provision of
vending services at the medical center. That agreement was also
renewed for four consecutive one-year terms and provided that the
DJT would pay the VCS a commission of approximately 17 1/2
percent on vending sales.I 1
     The DJT in turn subcontracted with blind vendors to operate
the vending facility.2 Since 1985 the subcontractor has been
Dennis Groshel, the plaintiff-intervenor in this action.3 The DJT
operates other vending facilities on federal property in addition
to the one at the medical center. The other facilities, however,
are not operated under contract, but under permits acquired by
the DJT under the Randolph-Sheppard Act, which authorizes blind
persons who are licensed by an appropriate state agency to
operate vending facilities on federal property. Where the DJT
operates vending facilities under Randolph-Sheppard permits, it
does not pay commissions to the federal agency on whose property
the facility is located.
     In 1979 the DJT raised the issue of whether the vending
facility at the medical center fell within the provisions of the
Randolph-Sheppard Act; despite its questions, however, the DJT
continued to operate the facility under contract with the VCS.
When it came time to renegotiate the contract in June 1986, the
DJT took the position that the medical center's vending facility
was governed by the act. Rather than renegotiate the contract,
the DJT applied for a permit to operate the facility in
accordance with the procedure set forth in the regulations
governing the Randolph-Sheppard Act.4 The VCS denied the permit
application on the grounds that the VCS was exempt from the
Randolph-Sheppard Act.5
     Pursuant to 20 U.S.C.  107d-1(b), the DJT filed a complaint
with the Secretary of the Department of Education (DOE), alleging
that in denying the permit application, the VCS had failed to
comply with the provisions of the Randolph-Sheppard Act.II 6 The
Secretary convened a three-member arbitration panel to resolve
the dispute, in accordance with 20 U.S.C.  107d-2. In September
1988 the panel held that the VCS was not exempt from the
Randolph-Sheppard Act and ordered the parties to negotiate an
arrangement under which the DJT could continue to operate the
vending facility at the medical center. Because the parties were
unable to negotiate such an arrangement, the arbitration panel
was reconvened. In August 1991 the panel held, with one dissent,
that the normal permit application and approval process did not
apply to the relationship between the DJT and the VCS, that the
DJT should pay the VCS a commission of seventeen percent on the
gross sales of the vending facility, and that the arrangement
should be for a five-year term subject to renegotiation.III 
     Plaintiff filed this action, seeking review of the panel's
decision under 20 U.S.C.  107d-2(a). Plaintiff and defendants
have made cross-motions for summary judgment. In addition,
defendants move to dismiss the plaintiff-intervenor's complaint
for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, and
plaintiff-intervenor moves for summary judgment on his claims.

DISCUSSION
     A movant is not entitled to summary judgment unless the
movant can show that no genuine issue exists as to any material
fact.7 In considering a summary judgment motion, a court must
determine whether "there are any genuine factual issues that
properly can be resolved only by a finder of fact because they
may reasonably be resolved in favor of either party."8 The role
of a court is not to weigh the evidence but instead to determine
whether, as a matter of law, a genuine factual conflict exists.9
"In making this determination, the court is required to view the
evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and
to give that party the benefit of all reasonable inferences to be
drawn from the facts."10 When a motion for summary judgment is
properly made and supported with affidavits or other evidence as
provided in Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c), then the nonmoving party may not
merely rest upon the allegations or denials of the party's
pleading, but must set forth specific facts, by affidavits or
otherwise, showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.11
Moreover, summary judgment must be entered against a party who
fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of
an element essential to that party's case, and on which that
party will bear the burden of proof at trial.12

I. Standard of Review
     Decisions of an arbitration panel convened under the
Randolph-Sheppard Act are reviewable as final agency actions
under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.  500, et seq.
20 U.S.C.  107d-2(a). The standard of review applicable to
agency actions depends upon whether the challenged action rests
upon factual findings or legal conclusions. Where, as here, a
case is reviewed on the record of an agency hearing provided by
statute, an agency's findings of fact must be upheld if they are
supported by substantial evidence.13 Agency interpretations of
statutes present questions of law that are normally subject to de
novo review; however, where an agency has been given authority to
interpret and administer the statutes in question, the reviewing
court must defer to the agency's interpretation, so long as the
interpretation is a reasonable one.14
     Plaintiff argues that in the instant case no deference is
owed the legal conclusions of the arbitration panel. The
Randolph-Sheppard Act mandates that, where a panel is convened to
hear complaints raised by a state licensing agency, the panel
must consist of one individual designated by the state agency,
one individual designated by the federal agency controlling the
property over which the dispute arose, and one individual jointly
designated by the parties.15 Although the DOE is the agency
authorized to interpret and administer the Randolph-Sheppard Act,
it is not represented on the panel, has no input into the panel's
decision, and does not review the panel's decision. Thus,
plaintiff argues, the panel's legal conclusions are not entitled
to deference.
     In similar circumstances the United States Court of Appeals
for the Eighth Circuit has held that an administrative decision
maker's resolution of legal questions is owed no special
deference.16 In Brock, the Occupational Safety and Health Review
Commission vacated a citation against an employer for failure to
provide a guardrail around an open-sided floor. The Secretary of
Labor appealed the commission's action. In discussing the
appropriate standard of review, the court noted that because the
Secretary, not the commission, exercised policy-making and
prosecutorial authority under the Occupational Health and Safety
Act, the commission's legal conclusions were not entitled to
deference. Moreover, the Third Circuit has held that review of a
panel's decisions under 20 U.S.C.  107d-2(a) is plenary and that
the arbitrators are owed no deference on questions of law.17
Because the arbitration panel is not the entity charged with
interpreting and administering the Randolph-Sheppard Act, the
Court will review the questions of law presented in this appeal
de novo.

II. The Statutory and Administrative Background
     The arguments in this case are based on two federal acts,
the Randolph-Sheppard Act and the Veterans' Canteen Service Act,
38 U.S.C.  7801 et seq.

     A. The Veterans' Canteen Service Act
     The Veterans' Canteen Service Act created the VCS "for the
primary purpose of making available to veterans of the Armed
Forces who are hospitalized or domiciled in hospitals and homes
of the [VA], at reasonable prices, articles of merchandise and
services essential to their comfort and well-being."18 The
Veterans' Canteen Service Act authorizes the Secretary of the VA
to establish, maintain, and operate canteens in VA
establishments; make and carry out all necessary contracts to
purchase or sell merchandise, supplies and services; fix the
prices of merchandise and services in canteens to carry out the
purposes of the statute; and make the rules and regulations
deemed necessary to effectuate the statute.19 The Act also
provides that the VCS "shall function as an independent unit in
the [VA] and shall have exclusive control over all its activities
including sales; procurement and supply; finance, including
disbursements; and personnel management...."20
     The legislative history of the Veterans' Canteen Service Act
indicates that Congress generally intended the VCS to be
financially self-sustaining.21 Nonetheless, the act authorizes
appropriations to the VCS.22 In addition, the act requires the
VCS to submit a budget that includes an estimate of the amount
required to make up any deficits in the operating fund.23
     While the VCS is as a whole financially self-sustaining,
many individual canteens operate at a loss; in fiscal year 1987,
for example, sixty-six of one hundred seventy-two canteens
suffered a net loss.24 The VCS uses revenues from competitively
bid vending contracts to offset operating losses. Factors
considered in awarding contracts are quality of product, quality
of service, and commissions paid to the VCS.25 To assure quality
products, the VCS uses a centralized product-screening system,
which restricts the sale of products deemed to pose health and
safety risks and limits the selection of brands available for
sale.26 Some of the VCS health and safety requirements are more
strict than those set by state law; for example, certain
perishable foods, such as mayonnaise, cannot be sold in VCS
vending facilities.27 The VCS also controls the price of the
merchandise sold, taking into account the fact that VA patients
are often indigent and the fact that VA patients and staff
sometimes lack access to alternative sources of merchandise.28

     B. The Randolph-Sheppard Act
     The other federal act at issue in this case is the Randolph-
Sheppard Act. As noted above, the Randolph-Sheppard Act
authorizes blind persons licensed by state agencies to operate
vending facilities on federal property. The Randolph-Sheppard Act
was enacted "for the purposes of providing blind persons with
remunerative employment, enlarging the economic opportunities of
the blind, and stimulating the blind to greater efforts in
striving to make themselves self-supporting."29 As originally
enacted in 1936, the act provided that blind persons would be
allowed to operate vending facilities at the discretion of the
head of the department or agency in charge of maintaining a
particular federal building.30 In 1954 Congress amended the act
to require each agency to issue regulations designed to assure
preference to licensed blind people in establishing vending
facilities.31
     Despite the 1954 amendments some agencies failed to carry
out the purposes of the act. In some cases federal authorities
resisted the initial establishment of blind vending facilities on
federal property; in other cases federal authorities imposed
harmful and arbitrary limitations on blind vendor operations
regarding the types of merchandise sold, the location of the
vending facilities, and the amount of income permitted to accrue
to the blind vendor.32 To address these problems, Congress
enacted several amendments to the Randolph-Sheppard Act in 1974.
     First, Congress made the preference for blind vendors
mandatory, providing that "[i]n authorizing the operation of
vending facilities on Federal property, priority shall be given
to blind persons licensed by a State agency as provided in this
chapter...."33 (emphasis added). Second, the amendments
established that income from vending machines on federal
property, including those that are in direct competition with a
blind vending facility, must accrue to the blind vendor operating
the facility or to the state licensing agency in whose state the
property is located.34 Congress specifically provided, however,
that the income-sharing provisions of the Randolph-Sheppard Act
would not apply to income from vending machines operated by the
VCS.35
     Finally, Congress removed the implementation of the
Randolph-Sheppard Act from the control of each individual agency
and placed regulatory control within the authority of the DOE.
The act now requires the Secretary of the DOE, after consultation
with those in control of the maintenance and operation of federal
property, to promulgate regulations designed to insure that
priority is given to licensed blind persons and that "wherever
feasible, one or more vending facilities are established on all
Federal property to the extent that any such facility or
facilities would not adversely affect the interests of the United
States."36 Any limitation on the placement or operation of
vending facilities must be based on a finding that the placement
or operation would adversely affect the interest of the United
States and must be justified to and approved by the Secretary of
the DOE.37
     In implementing the provisions of the Randolph-Sheppard Act,
the DOE defined "vending facility" broadly to include not only
automated vending machines, but also "cafeterias, snack bars,
cart service, shelters, counters, and such other appropriate
auxiliary equipment which may be operated by blind licensees and
which is necessary for the sale of...articles or services
dispensed automatically or manually."38 The DOE then established
two procedures by which blind vendors could obtain authorization
to operate vending facilities on federal property.
     Blind vendors may be afforded priority in the operation of
cafeterias "when the Secretary determines, on an individual
basis, and after consultation with the appropriate property
managing department...that such operation can be provided at a
reasonable cost, with food of a high quality comparable to that
currently provided employees, whether by contract or
otherwise."39 The regulations provide that, in order to establish
the ability of blind vendors to operate the cafeteria, the state
licensing agency may be invited to submit a bid which will be
judged under criteria set forth in the regulations.40
Alternatively the federal agency in control of the property at
issue may afford priority in cafeteria operations by negotiating
directly with the state licensing agency.41
     Authority to operate a vending facility other than a
cafeteria is not conferred through a process of competitive
bidding or contract negotiation, but is conferred through a
permit application and approval process.42 Under that process a
state licensing agency submits a permit application to the
federal agency on whose property it proposes to operate a
facility. The permit application must set forth the location and
type of facility proposed, certain terms prescribed by the
regulations, and the other terms and conditions that the state
agency desires.43 If the federal agency disapproves the permit
application, the head of the agency must give the state licensing
agency written notice of the decision and the reasons underlying
it.44 The state licensing agency may challenge the disapproval of
a permit by filing a complaint with the Secretary of the DOE, as
the DJT did in this case.45 Upon the filing of a complaint, the
Secretary of the DOE convenes a panel of arbitrators to resolve
the dispute, in accordance with 20 U.S.C.  107d-2.

III. The Application of the Randolph-Sheppard Act to the VCS
     As noted above, the arbitration panel in this case concluded
that the Randolph-Sheppard Act's mandatory priority for blind
vendors applied to the VCS. That holding is not challenged on
appeal. Plaintiff and plaintiff-intervenor argue, however, that
the panel did not follow its conclusion to its logical end by
applying all requirements of the act and its accompanying
regulations to the vending facility at the medical center.
Specifically plaintiff and plaintiff-intervenor challenge the
panel's conclusions regarding the permit application and approval
process, the duration of the permit, and the payment of
commissions.

     A. The Permit Application and Approval Process
     The arbitration panel found that, while the Randolph-
Sheppard Act priority requirement was normally met through the
permit application and approval process, a negotiated arrangement
could be substituted for that process in this case.46 Plaintiff
and plaintiff-intervenor argue that the arbitration panel's
finding that the VCS is not exempt from the Randolph-Sheppard Act
compels the conclusion that the VCS is subject to all the
provisions of the act, including the regulations governing the
permit process. Thus, they argue, the panel's determination that
the parties should negotiate an agreement rather than follow the
permit process applicable to vending facilities other than
cafeterias is erroneous.
     Defendants argue that negotiation between the DJT and the
VCS is critical if the VCS is to fulfill its statutory mandate to
provide high quality goods at reasonable prices to veterans
hospitalized or domiciled in VA facilities. Defendants
characterize plaintiff's position as requiring the VCS to give
blanket approval to any permit the DJT drafts, even if it
contains terms and conditions that undermine the VCS's statutory
mission. Defendants argue that allowing a negotiated arrangement
would not violate the terms of the Randolph-Sheppard Act, because
the regulations define "permit" broadly as "the official approval
given...by a department, agency, or instrumentality in control of
the maintenance, operation, and protection of Federal
property."47 That definition does not, in defendants' view,
preclude a process of negotiation in the award of a permit.
      Moreover, defendants point out that nothing in the language
of the Randolph-Sheppard Act gives state licensing agencies the
authority to dictate the terms of a permit, grants blind vendors
an unqualified right to operate vending facilities, or strips the
VCS of its authority to control vending facilities at VA
hospitals. In short, defendants argue that the best way to
harmonize the purposes of the Veterans' Canteen Service Act with
those of the Randolph-Sheppard Act is to allow the parties to
reach a negotiated agreement.
     The Court agrees with plaintiff and plaintiff-intervenor
that the conclusion that the VCS is not exempt from the Randolph-
Sheppard Act compels the conclusion that all provisions of the
regulatory scheme apply to the parties' relationship. As noted
above, section 107d-3(d) of the Randolph-Sheppard Act
specifically exempts the VCS from the income-sharing provisions
of the act; this limited exemption indicates that Congress
considered the effects of the Randolph-Sheppard Act on the VCS
and determined to exempt the VCS from only the income-sharing
provisions. Once it is determined that the Randolph-Sheppard Act
governs the relationship between the parties, it cannot be argued
that only some of its requirements apply.
     The regulations specifically set forth the process by which
authority to operate vending facilities shall be conferred:
authority to operate cafeterias is conferred through a
competitive bidding process or through direct contract
negotiations, while authority to operate facilities other than
cafeterias is conferred through a permit process. Because the
facility at issue in this case is not a cafeteria, authorization
to operate it must be conferred through the permit process.
     The Court rejects defendants' contention that applying the
permit application and approval process to the parties'
relationship will undermine the statutory mission of the VCS or
strip the VCS of its authority over VA vending facilities.
Nothing in the regulations requires the VCS to approve the DJT's
permit; in fact, the regulations specifically give the VCS
authority to disapprove a permit application.48 Nor do the
regulations prohibit the parties from negotiating the terms of
the permit, so long as the permit also includes the terms
mandated by the regulations. Indeed the record shows that the
parties have negotiated regarding the terms of the permit and
that the DJT has been willing to modify the terms to meet the
VCS's concerns regarding what products are appropriate for its
patient population.49
     The DJT's proposed permit does not give the DJT blanket
authority to sell products without regard to the VCS's concerns.
The proposed permit provides only for the sale of products that
are already being offered for sale at the St. Cloud medical
center and for other articles that "are determined by the State
licensing agency, in consultation with the on-site official
responsible for the Federal property...to be suitable for a
particular location."50 In addition, the VCS's health and safety
concerns are addressed in both the DJT's proposed permit and the
regulations, which provide that the vending facilities must
comply with all applicable health, sanitation, and building
regulations.51
     Finally, as the DJT points out, the Randolph-Sheppard Act
provides a procedure by which a federal agency may limit a
permit. The Randolph-Sheppard Act requires agencies to permit
blind-operated vending facilities only insofar as the facility
would not adversely affect the interests of the United States.52
The placement or operation of a vending facility may be limited
if the Secretary of the DOE determines that the limitation is
justified.53 Thus, if the DJT were to insist upon a permit term
that is allowed under the Randolph-Sheppard Act but that the VCS
finds inconsistent with its statutory purpose, the VCS could seek
a determination from the Secretary of the DOE that a limitation
of the permit is justified.
     In conclusion, the Court finds that the determination that
the VCS is subject to the Randolph-Sheppard Act compels the
conclusion that it is subject to all provisions of the act and
that the arbitration panel erred in concluding otherwise. Under
the Randolph-Sheppard Act and its regulations, the authority to
operate the medical center's vending facility must be conferred
pursuant to the permit process. Such a holding does not strip the
VCS of its authority to regulate the sale of goods at VA
facilities, because the Randolph-Sheppard Act provides the VCS
with a means to limit the permit. Therefore, the Court will grant
the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on this issue.

     B. The Duration of the Permit
     Plaintiff and plaintiff-intervenor also challenge the
panel's conclusion that the agreement to operate the vending
facility should be for a term of five years, subject to
renegotiation. Plaintiff and plaintiff-intervenor argue that the
panel's conclusion directly conflicts with the regulations, which
provide that permits to operate vending facilities "shall be
issued for an indefinite period of time, subject to suspension or
termination on the basis of compliance with agreed upon terms."54
Defendants argue that the five-year term is necessary to allow
the VCS to conduct a periodic review of the agreement terms and
to renegotiate those terms if necessary.
     The Court has already concluded that the relationship
between the DJT and the VCS is governed by permit and that the
VCS is bound by all provisions of the Randolph-Sheppard Act,
except those from which it has been exempted by Congress. Neither
the Randolph-Sheppard Act nor its regulations exempt the VCS from
the requirement that permits be of an indefinite duration. If,
however, the VCS sees a need for renegotiation, it has two
alternatives under the Randolph-Sheppard Act. It may either reach
an agreement with the DJT to include in the permit a provision
for periodic renegotiation of certain terms or, barring that,
apply to the Secretary of the DOE to limit the permit under the
procedure set forth in 20 U.S.C.  107(b). Because the
regulations specifically provide that permits shall be for an
indefinite term, the Court holds that the panel's determination
that the agreement could be for a limited term is contrary to
law.

     C. The Payment of Commissions
     The dispute about commissions is at the heart of this
action. The arbitration panel determined that the DJT should pay
the VCS commissions on vending sales and that a commission of
seventeen percent was reasonable. Plaintiff and plaintiff-
intervenor assert that the Randolph-Sheppard Act precludes the
payment of commissions and that in any event a seventeen percent
commission is unreasonable. Defendants assert that the Randolph-
Sheppard Act does not preclude the payment of commissions, that
the payment of commissions is necessary to carry out the purposes
of the Veterans' Canteen Service Act, and that the panel
correctly concluded that a commission of seventeen percent was
reasonable.
     1. Commission Payments under the Randolph-Sheppard Act
     In arguing that the Randolph-Sheppard Act precludes the
payment of commissions, plaintiff and plaintiff-intervenor point
out that the primary purpose of the 1974 amendments to the
Randolph-Sheppard Act was to ensure that blind vendors could
operate free from impediments imposed by federal agencies. One of
the abuses identified in the legislative history of the
amendments was the practice of diverting income from blind vendor
facilities into employee recreation and welfare programs.55 The
Senate report accompanying the amendments noted that
          Commanders of military installations are
     singularly insensitive to the need to develop the
     [blind vendor] program.... The parent Defense
     Department association at a major Federal space
     installation demanded that blind vendors give a portion
     of their income to the association--precisely the
     reverse of what should be taking place on Federal
     property.56

     Plaintiff and plaintiff-intervenor argue that Congress
addressed the problem of diversion of funds through three
statutory provisions. The first of these provisions is section
107(b), which provides that any limitation on the placement or
operation of a vending facility must be based on a finding by the
Secretary of the DOE that placement or operation of the facility
would adversely affect the interests of the United States.57 The
second provision is section 107d-3(a), which provides that "[n]o
limitation shall be imposed on income from vending machines,
combined to create a vending facility, which are maintained,
serviced, or operated by a blind licensee."58 The third provision
addressing income diversion is section 107b(3), which allows a
state licensing agency to set aside funds from the net proceeds
of a Randolph-Sheppard facility for five purposes: 1) maintenance
and replacement of equipment, 2) purchase of new equipment, 3)
management services, 4) assuring a fair minimum return to vending
facility operators; and 5) funds for vendor benefits such as
retirement, insurance, sick leave, and vacation time.59
     Plaintiff and plaintiff-intervenor argue that these
provisions, together with the legislative history of the
Randolph-Sheppard Act, establish that diversions of vendor income
are prohibited unless they are for the narrow purposes set forth
in section 107b(3). Any other diversion of income is in their
view a limitation on the operation of a vending facility that
must be justified to the Secretary of the DOE as necessary to
prevent adverse effects on federal interests.
     Defendants argue that the Randolph-Sheppard Act permits the
payment of commissions. They first argue that the payment of
commissions is not a limitation on the operation of a vending
facility within the meaning of section 107(b). They rely on the
legislative history of the 1974 amendments to argue that Congress
was concerned with ad hoc limitations placed on blind vendors by
employee recreational associations that operated without
statutory authority, not with limitations imposed by another
agency pursuant to that agency's own statutory authority.60
     Defendants next argue that plaintiff and plaintiff-
intervenor have read section 107d-3(a) out of context. Section
107d-3(a) sets up a system by which income from vending machines
not operated by blind vendors is paid to the blind vendor or the
appropriate state licensing agency. The section provides that,
where the income is shared with a blind vendor rather than with
the state agency, regulations may be prescribed to impose a
ceiling on the income that an individual vendor may obtain from
machines not operated by blind vendors. The section then provides
that no limitation may be imposed on income from vending machines
operated by a blind licensee.61 Thus, defendants argue that read
in context, section 107d-3(a) merely prohibits the DOE from
placing a ceiling on income earned by blind vendors from the
operation of their own machines. They argue that in the instant
case neither the VCS nor the DOE is placing a ceiling on the
plaintiff-intervenor's income; the payment of commissions may
reduce Groshel's income, but it does not place a limit on it.
     Finally, defendants argue that section 107b(3) and 34 C.F.R.
 395.9, which strictly limit the purposes for which a state
licensing agency may set aside funds from a vending facility, are
simply inapplicable to the case at hand. Defendants point out
that the regulations define "set-aside funds" as "funds which
accrue to a State licensing agency from an assessment against the
net proceeds of each vending facility in the State's vending
facility program...."62 Defendants argue that, because the
commissions at issue here would accrue to the VCS and not to the
state licensing agency, they are not "set-aside funds" and are
not governed by 20 U.S.C.  107b(3) and 34 C.F.R.  395.9.
     The question of whether the Randolph-Sheppard Act precludes
the payment of commissions is a difficult one because, as
defendants point out, nothing in the act or its accompanying
regulations deals expressly with commission payments.
Nonetheless, the Court concludes that requiring commission
payments is a limitation on the operation of a vending facility
which may not be imposed without authorization from the Secretary
of the DOE.IV
     The Randolph-Sheppard Act grants a mandatory priority to
licensed blind vendors who wish to operate on federal property.
While the right to operate a Randolph-Sheppard facility other
than a cafeteria may be qualified by permit terms that are
mandated by the regulations or negotiated by the parties, other
limitations on the right are governed by section 107(b)'s
requirement that limitations on the placement and operation of
vending facilities be approved by the Secretary of the DOE. The 
Court is not persuaded by defendants' argument that Congress
intended section 107(b) to apply only to the limitations placed
on vending operations by employee associations operating without
statutory authority. The legislative history does indicate that
Congress was concerned with the diversion of funds from blind
vendors to employee associations. But the legislative history
also reveals Congressional concern with other practices that
impeded the purposes of the act by impairing the financial
viability of blind vendor operations, such as unfair limitations
on the goods sold, the location of facilities, or the hours of
operation.
     The conclusion that Congress's concern was not limited to
the diversion of income to employee associations is bolstered by
the provisions of the act itself. The Randolph-Sheppard Act
applies explicitly to all federal agencies (not merely to their
employee associations) and subjects "[a]ny limitation on the
placement and operation of a vending facility" to the oversight
of the Secretary of the DOE.63 It is difficult to square this
broad language with defendants' argument that "limitation" refers
only to diversion of funds to employee associations.
     In addition, the fact that the act limits the extent to
which state licensing agencies may divert the proceeds of vending
facilities is evidence that Congress was concerned with a broad
variety of factors that could impair the effectiveness of the
Randolph-Sheppard Act in providing a source of income to the
blind. In section 107b(3) Congress provided a very specific list
of purposes for which a state licensing agency could set aside
funds from the proceeds of vending operations. Allowing the state
to set aside funds from vending operations is an important part
of the regulatory scheme, because under the Randolph-Sheppard Act
the state licensing agencies obtain authorization to operate the
vending facilities and then delegate that authorization to
licensed blind vendors. Section 107b(3) allows the state agency
to collect from the licensed vendor the funds needed to fulfill
the state agency's obligations under its permit, as well as to
ensure that the Randolph-Sheppard program achieves its statutory
objectives. Under this scheme the state agency acts as a conduit,
collecting money from the vendors and then redistributing it for
the statutorily authorized purposes. Congress' failure to
authorize state licensing agencies to set aside funds for
commissions suggests strongly that Congress did not intend those
commissions to be assessed. If the VCS were to assess the DJT a
commission, section 107b(3) would preclude the DJT from
collecting the fee from the blind vendor; in that case the DJT
would not act as a conduit for funds or a facilitator of the
Randolph-Sheppard program, but as the source of funds for that
program. Nothing in the Randolph-Sheppard Act, however,
contemplates that sort of role for the state.
     Moreover, the Court is not persuaded by defendants' argument
that because the commission payments ultimately accrue to the
VCS's benefit, they differ fundamentally from the set-aside funds
authorized in section 107b(3). Funds retained and expended for a
statutorily authorized purpose such as replacing vending machines
could be seen as ultimately accruing to the seller of the
machines. Nonetheless, the regulations view funds set aside to
replace vending machines as accruing to the benefit of the state
licensing agency, because the funds allow the agency to provide
the vending facilities that its permits require it to provide. In
the Court's view funds set aside for commission payments would
accrue to the benefit of the state agency in the same way that
funds set aside for other authorized purposes do: they would
allow the agency to meet the obligations imposed on it by its
permits and the Randolph-Sheppard Act.
     In summary, the provisions and legislative history of the
Randolph-Sheppard Act indicate that the payment of commissions is
a limitation on the operation of a vending facility that may not
be imposed without authorization from the Secretary of the DOE.
Thus, the Court holds that the arbitration panel erred in
concluding that the VCS could charge the DJT commissions without
such authorization.
     2. Commission Payments under the Veterans' Canteen Service
Act
     Defendants argue that reading the Randolph-Sheppard Act to
preclude the VCS from charging commissions is inconsistent with
the provisions of the Veterans' Canteen Service Act. They base
this argument on provisions in the Veterans' Canteen Service Act
that authorize the VCS to "make all necessary contracts or
agreements to purchase or sell merchandise, fixtures, equipment,
supplies, and services...."64 The VCS has chosen to exercise its
authority by providing vending services through contract.
Consistent with Congress's intent that the VCS be self-
sustaining, the VCS has used its vending service contracts to
raise revenue by charging commissions. Reading the Randolph-
Sheppard Act to preclude the VCS from collecting commissions from
Randolph-Sheppard vending facilities would in defendants' view be
tantamount to finding in the Randolph-Sheppard Act a silent
repeal of the VCS's statutory authority. In addition, defendants
argue that allowing state licensing agencies to operate vending
facilities without paying commissions would deprive the VCS of
needed revenue. That in turn would require the VCS to cut
services, raise prices, or seek appropriations from Congress, any
of which would undercut the VCS's statutory mission. Finally,
defendants point out that the Veterans' Canteen Service Act
provides that the Secretary of the VA "shall...fix the prices of
merchandise and services in canteens so as to carry out the
purposes of this chapter."65 They argue that the VCS's need to
control prices is equally compelling regardless of whether a
vending facility is operated by a Randolph-Sheppard vendor or a
non-Randolph-Sheppard vendor.
     Plaintiff and plaintiff-intervenor respond that, while the
VCS has authority to charge commissions on vending contracts, it
is not required to do so. Nor does the Veterans' Canteen Service
Act require the VCS to be self-sustaining. Even if it did,
plaintiff and plaintiff-intervenor argue that the Veterans'
Canteen Service Act neither requires nor authorizes the VCS to
meet that objective by diverting income from blind vendors. Thus,
they argue, there is no conflict between the Randolph-Sheppard
Act and the Veterans' Canteen Service Act; the VCS may adhere to
the provisions of the Randolph-Sheppard Act without violating
those of the Veterans' Canteen Service Act. To the extent that
there is a conflict between the Veterans' Canteen Service Act and
the Randolph-Sheppard Act, plaintiff and plaintiff-intervenor
contend that the Randolph-Sheppard Act should prevail because, in
amending the Randolph-Sheppard Act, Congress balanced the
interests of the VCS and the blind vendors and determined that
the interests of both were best met by exempting the VCS only
from the income-sharing provisions of the Randolph-Sheppard Act.
Finally, plaintiff points out that, if compliance with the
Randolph-Sheppard Act causes the VCS a significant loss, the VCS
may either seek appropriations from Congress under 38 U.S.C. 
7804 or apply to the Secretary of the DOE to place limitations on
Randolph-Sheppard permits under 20 U.S.C.  107(b).V
     The Court agrees that the VCS can comply with the Randolph-
Sheppard Act without violating the Veterans' Canteen Service Act.
The stated purpose of the Veterans' Canteen Service Act is to
provide merchandise and services at VA facilities at reasonable
prices.66 Applying the Randolph-Sheppard Act's requirements to
the VCS does not interfere with this purpose; indeed, as
plaintiff and plaintiff-intervenor point out, charging
commissions on vending sales could result in higher prices on the
goods sold. The application of the Randolph-Sheppard Act could
make it more difficult for the VCS to be self-sustaining;
however, the Veterans' Canteen Service Act does not require the
VCS to be self-sustaining, and it does not require the VCS to
charge commissions on vending contracts. The Veterans' Canteen
Service Act merely grants the VCS broad and generalized authority
to provide services. That general grant of authority cannot be
read to override the explicit provisions of the Randolph-Sheppard
Act. In fact, it seems clear that in determining that the VCS
should be exempt from the income-sharing provisions of the
Randolph-Sheppard Act, Congress considered the VCS's need for
vending machine revenues, balanced that need with the purposes of
the blind vending program, and struck a compromise. The fact that
Congress specifically addressed the VCS's needs in amending the
Randolph-Sheppard Act indicates a Congressional intent to subject
the VCS to the Randolph-Sheppard Act; thus, to the extent that
its provisions conflict with those of the Veterans' Canteen
Service Act, the provisions of the Randolph-Sheppard Act must
prevail. 
     In this action the VCS in effect argues that Congress'
compromise gave Randolph-Sheppard vendors too much and left the
VCS too little. That, however, is another way of arguing that
compliance with the Randolph-Sheppard Act would adversely affect
the interests of the United States. The Randolph-Sheppard Act has
an escape clause for such cases: the VCS may apply to the
Secretary of the DOE for permission to limit the operation of
Randolph-Sheppard facilities on VCS premises.VI

IV. The Claims of the Plaintiff-Intervenor
     In addition to joining in the DJT's complaint, the
plaintiff-intervenor raises a due process claim, asserting that
the VCS has violated his Fifth Amendment right to due process by
charging him commissions without legal authority and by refusing
requests for price increases and additional vending machines at
the St. Cloud medical center during the pendency of this action.
In making this claim, plaintiff-intervenor relies on the
testimony of the Deputy Director of the VCS, who stated that

     [B]asically as long as this dispute lasts the guy who
     is going to suffer over it is going to be Dennis
     [Groshel] because prices are going to continue to go
     up, and we are going to continue to hold until this is
     resolved. The longer it goes on the less money he is
     going to make.67    

     Plaintiff-intervenor also relies on settlement proposals in
which the VCS proposed to increase prices in exchange for
commissions.68 Although he originally asked for a retroactive
refund of the commissions paid prior to the arbitration,
plaintiff-intervenor now concedes that, because this action names
defendants in their official capacity, he cannot pursue a damages
claim against them.69 He asserts, however, that he is entitled to
a declaration that defendants violated his right to due process
by misusing their power to pressure him and the DJT to drop this
action. He also asserts that he is entitled to an injunction
requiring the VCS to approve price increases.
     Under the Randolph-Sheppard Act, a vendor may not bring a
grievance directly against a federal agency; instead the vendor
must bring his complaint to the state licensing agency. If the
vendor is dissatisfied with the decision of the state licensing
agency, he may file a complaint with the Secretary of the DOE,
who will convene a panel to arbitrate the dispute.70 Defendants
argue that, because plaintiff-intervenor has no right of direct
action against the VCS and because plaintiff-intervenor has
failed to exhaust his remedies by bringing a complaint before the
DJT, this Court lacks jurisdiction over his claims. Plaintiff-
intervenor has not addressed defendants' jurisdictional
arguments.
     It appears, however, that plaintiff-intervenor is not
raising a claim under the Randolph-Sheppard Act, but is instead
raising a direct claim against the VCS under the United States
Constitution. In support of his claim, plaintiff-intervenor cites
cases in which courts have held that 42 U.S.C.  1983 prohibits
state actors from taking retaliatory actions against individuals
in order to punish them for exercising their constitutional right
to seek judicial relief.71 Section 1983, however, applies to
actions taken by state officials under color of state law.72 It
does not apply to this action, in which plaintiff-intervenor
challenges actions by federal officials.
     More importantly, plaintiff-intervenor's constitutional
claim is simply beyond the scope of this action. The DJT brought
suit under the Randolph-Sheppard Act, seeking review of the
arbitration panel's decision regarding the relationship between
the DJT and the VCS. Groshel was allowed to intervene in order to
protect his interests in that action. His claim that the VCS
infringed upon his constitutional right of access to judicial
review is outside the scope of the Randolph-Sheppard Act and
outside the scope of the DJT's appeal. Therefore, the Court will
dismiss plaintiff's constitutional claim without prejudice.
     Accordingly, based on the foregoing and upon all the files,
records, and proceedings herein, it is ordered that: 1)
defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied; 2) plaintiff's
motion for summary judgment is granted; 3) the plaintiff-
intervenor's constitutional claim is dismissed without prejudice;
and 4) the United States Department of Veterans Affairs and
defendant James B. Donohue, in his capacity as Administrator of
Veterans' Canteen Services, shall follow the permit application
and approval procedures of the Randolph-Sheppard Act and its
accompanying regulations, as they are construed in this
memorandum and order, with regard to the vending facility at the
Veterans Affairs Medical Center in St. Cloud, Minnesota.
     Let judgment be entered accordingly.

                                       Judge Harry H. MacLaughlin
                                     United States District Court
                                                 October 13, 1992
                            Footnotes

I. The record in this case consists of the transcript of a
hearing held by the arbitration panel in Minneapolis, Minnesota
(Minn. Tr.), the transcript of a hearing held by the arbitration
panel in Washington, D.C. (D.C. Tr.), the administrative record
compiled in the arbitration (Admin. R.), exhibits submitted by
plaintiff (DJT Ex.), and exhibits submitted by defendants (VCS
Ex.).

II. In addition to filing an administrative action, plaintiff
filed a separate action seeking to restrain the VCS from awarding
a contract for the medical center vending facility pending the
outcome of the administrative action. This Court granted
plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order in July,
1987. The restraining order remains in effect, and Groshel
continues to operate the vending facility at the medical center.

III. The panel also unanimously held that no commissions were due
to the VCS from September 2, 1988 to the date of the panel's
final order, that the DJT was not liable for the storage and
utility costs of the vending facility, that the VCS did not have
the right to install or operate its own machines at the medical
center, and that all future disputes between the parties should
be resolved in accordance with the procedures of the Randolph-
Sheppard Act. Plaintiff does not challenge these holdings on
appeal.

IV. This conclusion must be distinguished from a conclusion that
the Randolph-Sheppard Act precludes the charging of commissions
in all instances. The Court expresses no opinion on whether the
payment of commissions would be an acceptable limitation on a
Randolph-Sheppard permit.

V. Plaintiff also notes that the VCS's assertion that complying
with the Randolph-Sheppard Act will cause it significant loss is
purely hypothetical; of the VCS's 150 vending contracts, the
contract for the St. Cloud medical center is the only one
involving a blind vendor. Minn. Tr. at 277.

VI. Because the Court has determined that the arbitration panel
erred in holding that the VCS could charge the DJT commissions
absent authority from the Secretary of the DOE, it does not reach
the issue of whether the panel correctly determined that a
seventeen percent commission was reasonable under the facts of
this case.

                         Legal Citations

1. D.C. Tr. at 27; DJT Ex. 1
2. D.C.Tr. at 61
3. Minn. Tr. at 240
4. Admin. R. 5-25
5. Admin. R. at 26
6. Admin. R. at 2
7. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)
8. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986)
9. AgriStor Leasing v. Farrow, 826 F.2d 732, 734 (8th Cir. 1987)
10. AgriStor Leasing, 826 F.2d at 734
11. Lomar Wholesale Grocery, Inc. v. Dieter's Gourmet Foods,
Inc., 824 F.2d 582, 585 (8th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 108 S.Ct.
707 (1988)
12. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986)
13. City of St. Louis v. Dept. of Transportation, 936 F.2d 1528,
1533 (8th Cir. 1991); 5 U.S.C.  706(1)(E)
14. City of St. Louis, 936 F.2d at 1533
15. 20 U.S.C.  107d-2(b) (2)
16. Brock v. Dun-Par Engineered Form Co., 843 F.2d 1135, 1137
(8th Cir. 1987)
17. Delaware Dept. of Health v. U.S. Dept. of Educ., 772 F.2d
1123, 1139 (3d Cir. 1985)
18. 38 U.S.C.  7801
19. 38 U.S.C.  7802
20. 38 U.S.C.  7808
21. S. Rep. No. 1701, 79th Cong., 2d Sess. 4 (1946)
22. 38 U.S.C.  7804
23, 57, 63. 38 U.S.C.  7806
24. D.C. Tr. at 614-15, 629-30
25. D.C. Tr. at 527-28, 625, 654-59, 958-60
26. D.C. Tr. at 521-23
27. D.C. Tr. at 621-22
28. D.C. Tr. at 530-705
29. 20 U.S.C.  107(a)
30. Pub. L. No. 74-732,  1, 49 Stat. 1559 (1936)
31. Pub. L. No. 83-565,  4, 68 Stat. 652, 663 (1954)
32. S. Rep. No. 937, 93rd Cong., 2d Sess. 14-16 (1974); Hearings
on S. 2581 before the Subcomm. on the Handicapped of the Senate
Comm. on Labor and Public Welfare, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. 71
(1973)
33. 20 U.S.C.  107(b)
34. 20 U.S.C.  107d-3(a), (b)
35. 20 U.S.C.  107d-3(d)
36. 20 U.S.C.  107(b)(2)
37. Id.
38. 34 C.F.R.  395.1(x)
39. 34 C.F.R.  395.33(a)
40. 34 C.F.R.  395.33(b)
41. 34 C.F.R.  395.33(d)
42. 34 C.F.R.  395.35(f)
43. 34 C.F.R.  395.16, 395.34, 395.35
44, 48. 34 C.F.R.  395.16
45. 34 C.F.R.  395.37
46. Admin. R. at 481-82
47. 34 C.F.R.  395.1(o)
49. D.C. Tr. at 67, 87-89
50. Admin. R. at 25
51. 34 C.F.R.  395.35(d); Admin. R. at 25
52. 20 U.S.C.  107(b)(2); 34 C.F.R.  395.30(a)
53. 20 U.S.C.  107(b)(2); 34 C.F.R.  395.30(b)
54. 34 C.F.R.  395.35(b)
55. Hearings on S. 2581 before the Subcomm. on the Handicapped of
the Senate Comm. on Labor and Public Welfare, 93d Cong., 1st
Sess. 24 (1973)
56. S. Rep. No. 937, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 10 (1974)
58, 61. 20 U.S.C.  107d-3(a)
59. 20 U.S.C.  107b(3); see also 34 C.F.R.  395.9
60. See, e.g., Hearings on S. 2581 before the Subcommittee on the
Handicapped of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,
93rd Congress, 1st Sess. 24, 46-47 (1973)
62. 34 C.F.R.  395.1(s)
64. 38 U.S.C.  7802(6)
65. 38 U.S.C.  7802(7)
66. 78 U.S.C.  7801
67. Minn. Tr. at 250
68. VA Ex. 109, 110
69. Pl-Int.'s Response at 13
70. 20 U.S.C.  107d-1(a); Georgia Department of Human Resources
v. Nash, 915 F.2d 1482, 1484 (11th Cir. 1990)
71. Harrison v. Springdale Water & Sewer Commission, 780 F.2d
1422, 1428 (8th Cir. 1986); Graham v. National Collegiate
Athletic Association, 804 F.2d 953, 958-59 (6th Cir. 1986)
72. 42 U.S.C.  1983







                 ******************************
     If you or a friend would like to remember the National Federation of the
Blind in your will, you can do so by employing the following language:
     "I give, devise, and bequeath unto National Federation of the Blind,
1800 Johnson Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21230, a District of Columbia
nonprofit corporation, the sum of $_____ (or "_____ percent of my net estate"
or "The following stocks and bonds: _____") to be used for its worthy purposes
on behalf of blind persons."
                 ******************************

[PHOTO: Young girl seated at table with Braille writers. CAPTION:
Students at Kiva Elementary School enjoy the challenge of
learning Braille.]

[PHOTO: Two young girls using Braille writers in classroom.
CAPTION: Cooperative learning and competition help sighted
students learn the basics of Braille.]

                   HOW TO MAKE A BRAILLE WAVE
                        by Bonnie Simons

     From the Associate Editor: In the Fall, 1992, issue of
Future Reflections, the publication of the National Federation of
the Blind's Parents of Blind Children Division, an article
appeared that demonstrates convincingly our contention that
Braille does not have to create a barrier between children who
use it and those who use print. It takes a gifted and dedicated
teacher, an open learning environment, curious youngsters, and
supportive staff and parents to bring sighted and blind students
together in such a way that they all learn with zest and
enthusiasm, but though these prerequisites are difficult to
assemble in one school, doing so is not impossible. Here is the
story of one success as Barbara Cheadle, Editor of Future
Reflections, introduced it: 

     Sighted children are fascinated with Braille. Whenever my
blind colleagues in the Federation or I demonstrate Braille to
groups of children--such as school classes, Cub Scouts, Brownie
Scouts, and so forth--we can always guarantee that it will be a
big hit. Many of us have wondered if this natural curiosity and
enthusiasm for Braille could be put to a constructive use. Of
course, even one demonstration promotes a better understanding of
blindness and a respect for blind persons, but couldn't more be
done? Some high schools and colleges, for example, offer sign
language courses to their students. Not only does this increase
the number of hearing persons who can communicate with the deaf,
but some of these students are undoubtedly inspired to go on to
become professional interpreters. 
     What would happen if groups of sighted children and youth
had the same opportunity to learn Braille? Would some of them be
inspired to become professional or volunteer Braille
transcribers? Would some of them become teachers of blind and
visually impaired children? And even if they never used their
Braille skills in a professional capacity, wouldn't there be
other kinds of positive results? Until recently I could only
speculate on what the benefits might be. I knew individual
sighted children who had learned Braille--my own sighted daughter
Anna began to read and write grade I Braille when she was five--
she is now ten--but I had never heard of a group of sighted
children learning Braille. That changed last Spring when the
following article appeared on my desk. I no longer had to
speculate. Here was a woman teaching Braille to sighted children
in an after-school Braille club, and the results, as she reports
them, were every bit as good as, or better than, anything I had
dreamed possible. I hope that Mrs. Simons's experience will
inspire others as much as it did me. Here is what she says: 

     This is a story about a good friend made because of Braille
and how I came to be a better teacher through this friendship. I
first met Abigail Granger, who was a member of Joan Kennedy's
second-grade classroom at Kiva Elementary School in Scottsdale,
Arizona. Abbe was a sweet, occasionally shy eight-year-old, with
a sharp intellect and keen interest in language. Abbe loved
learning. Her good humor, winning smile, and outgoing manner all
combined to make her a persuasive force. Abbe was a natural
leader, one who would lead me into an experience I will never
forget. In the space of one year this young girl would have me
committed body, soul, and pocketbook to teaching Braille to
sighted students in first through sixth grades at our school. You
will learn more about other people responsible for promoting and
supporting this project as this story unfolds. I believe that
running this class and letting it run me have provided some of
the most enjoyable experiences of my career.
     Abbe's second-grade teacher had created a remarkable
learning environment for the extraordinary group of children
assigned to her that year. I was there to help integrate a blind
student with whom I had been working into classroom activities,
but it soon became evident that I would be working with other
students as well. They were bright, sensitive, self-assured, and
endlessly curious. The children watched in fascination as I
worked with my student, using a variety of Braille and tactile
materials. They were spellbound by the Braille writer and begged
me to teach them how to write their names. Luckily their teacher
encouraged curiosity, allowing them to explore the tactile world
they thought they had left behind in preschool when they
exchanged clay, finger painting, button-and-snap books, and
blocks for textbooks. When I brought in my play-dough maps and
Braille storybooks with tactile illustrations of felt, buttons,
and beads, I must have struck a homey chord in their second-grade
hearts.
     My clearest memory of the beginning of my interest in
teaching Braille to sighted students was of a warm April
afternoon, my Braille writer sitting on a picnic table outside
the school cafeteria. Although I had planned to attend a
teachers' meeting, Abbe persuaded me my presence there wasn't
required. She showed me the Braille writer set up with paper in a
sunny, comfortable place, and I was convinced. A gentle Arizona
breeze easily lifted the heavy manila paper that was rolled
halfway out of the Braille writer. On the paper were the names of
Abbe's family, which she had Brailled with my help. Next Abbe
wanted to learn how to Braille numbers and capital letters. I
loved teaching Braille to blind children and remember thinking
this would be a pleasurable way to end the day--tutoring students
like Abbe in Braille. She had quickly learned the basics of using
a Braille writer and was also very interested in creating tactile
designs using Braille dots. The Braille wave was one of our
favorites, originally tapped out by her four-year-old sister when
she came to visit my resource room. It can be made by Brailling
dots three, two, one, four, five, and six (one dot to a cell)
across the page, creating a tactile wave.
     Abbe persevered in her goal to learn everything about
Braille that she knew about print. We designed an independent
study in Braille with the encouragement of her classroom teacher.
At the close of the school year Abbe asked if she could continue
studying Braille in third grade. I agreed, on the condition that
the plan was approved by her new teacher. That August Abbe met me
in the hall on the first day of school and introduced two friends
who were interested in learning Braille. We decided it would be
fun to have an after-school class for the three of them. That was
the start of it all.
     This weekly class of three students quickly grew into two
classes of twelve students, thanks to Abbe's public relations.
The Kiva teachers and staff were extremely patient as our class
struggled to get organized. Teachers invited me to their classes
to speak about Braille. I developed cartoon storyboards that
helped tell the story of Louis Braille, explaining the various
systems blind people used to read before and since the
development of Braille. Students were fascinated by the knotted
string and wooden letter alphabets, as well as by the talking
electronic Braille keyboard my sixth-grade student uses to take
notes in class. They began stopping me in hallways to ask when
they could take Braille.
     Classes soon turned into everyday, standing-room-only
events. I begged and borrowed Braille writers for our newly named
Braille Club. Soon we had twelve in my resource room. Students
came in after school and during lunch recess to learn Braille.
Approximately 125 students have attended Braille classes over the
past two years. I've bought a gross of notebooks for students to
keep their papers in and have watched in amazement as they have
decorated them with fabric paints, creating delightful tactile
pictures and designs.
     We used cooperative learning techniques to teach Braille. My
blind Braille students became student teachers in the Braille
club. They, of course, were getting their own classroom Braille
reading instruction and therefore came to Braille club with
advanced skills. Even the younger blind student teachers (my
youngest was Julie, age eight) could teach basic Braille reading
and demonstrate the mechanics of using a Braille writer. (Believe
it or not, putting paper into a Braille writer was one of the
most difficult skills for the sighted club members to learn.)
Older student teachers, such as sixth-grader Chris, taught club
members advanced Braille math and science notations as he learned
them in his Braille class with me. 
     After students learned the basics, they were asked to come
up with ideas for Braille projects. They have developed some
extraordinary ones. They wore blindfolds and tested each other to
see how many Braille letters they could read with their fingers.
They designed Braille alphabet cards for teachers to give
students when reading about or discussing blindness. They wrote
Twin Vision type storybooks--wonderfully imaginative stories in
print and Braille, made by using ink stamp sets--for the teachers
of primary-age children to keep in their reading centers. They
have copied tactile concept books designed for preschool blind
children by a parent group in California and donated them to our
local preschool for blind children. A group of older students who
are good artists designed a dictionary of tactile pictures for
Braille storybooks. They also Brailled the children's menu for a
local fast-food restaurant. Lunch recess has become a time for
students who have learned the basics to work on projects or bring
their friends along in order to teach them Braille.
     Braille students love competitions, so we frequently put
children in teams to compete against each other in Braille
language games, and we designed a translator's contest to help
students learn Braille contractions. This lively competition runs
in four-week cycles. Students are given sentences containing
unknown contractions and use the context of known letters and
words in the sentence to guess them. Awards are presented to the
winners in their classrooms so they can receive recognition in
front of their classmates. The school principal has also given
certificates of achievement in Braille at honors assemblies so
outstanding successes can be acknowledged.
     The first year of our Braille Club, before our school's
winter holiday, it became evident that we needed financial
support in order for the class to continue. I could no longer
afford to buy supplies, so students were asked to come up with
ideas on how to raise money. Many said their parents would be
willing to pay a fee so they could take the class. We are
fortunate to be part of a school community in which parents are
interested in doing everything they can to help blind students
feel that they belong. Children reflect their parents' beliefs
when coming to Braille Club, learning to see beyond external
differences when making and working with new friends.
     Students had good ideas for money-raising projects and a
strong determination to follow through on them, so we decided to
try the projects first. To raise money, the children decided to
create Braille notions to sell at the school's holiday boutique
in December. They worked long hours after school and during lunch
to produce Braille Christmas and Hanukkah cards decorated with
tactile pictures of bears, bells, candles, and Menorahs. They
made decorative magnets with names in Braille and Braille
bookmarks. Then they set up a booth, advertising customized items
that students would Braille and decorate as a buyer wished. Our
first day netted a surprising $78, enough money to continue
Braille Club for the remainder of the school year. That spring
the Braille Club was featured in an article on mainstreaming in
our local newspaper, and the school's parent group decided to
fund us for the following year, alleviating what could have
become a serious financial drain on my bank account or, more
likely, the end of Braille Club.
     At this point there were as many as twenty-five students
coming in during lunch recess, working on projects needing
supervision. Students were working in teams to make the campus
more accessible to blind people; one team put Braille number
labels on campus doors, while another created a large tactile map
of the campus. Abbe and her friends decided to put together a
videotape to introduce new students to the Braille Club so that I
wouldn't have to spend time orienting them. The blind students,
Abbe, and two other advanced sighted students became my student
teachers, helping teach Braille basics.
     I'm not able to relate all the activities and outcomes of
our club here. What I have shared are some of the moments that
have given me the most pleasure in my Braille Club experience. In
particular the uniquely positive effect Braille Club has had on
the integration of blind students at Kiva was unexpected and
welcome. One day a student left a sign on my door: "Braille is
cool." I realized then how the school's attitude toward Braille
and therefore toward the blind students who use it had altered
over the months. People on campus were no longer ignorant or shy
of Braille but knowledgeable and interested. Students and
teachers asked me questions about Braille and blindness with an
ease that amazed me. People were talking more to the blind
students, giving friendly greetings in the halls, stopping to
talk. Blind students who had resisted Braille were now excited
about learning it. Their Braille skills gave them status among
their sighted peers. I began to notice a tremendous increase in
confidence, assertiveness, and self-esteem in my blind Braille
students.
     In Braille Club the blind students were involved in
everything. Because we were in a relaxed, cooperative learning
situation, several interesting social interactions between blind
and sighted students took place. Misunderstandings based on
ignorance of either the sighted or blind student's perspective
were now frequently resolved because of the new understanding of
how the other was thinking or feeling. These explanations were
accepted as help, not criticism, as they might have been in a
different learning environment. We all began to understand one
another better, and students developed satisfying friendships.
     These positive effects became more evident to me when the
mother of my youngest blind student mentioned that her child's
new friend had described her only by name to her mother. It
wasn't until she was invited to this friend's party that the
mother learned her child's friend was blind. She was amazed that
her daughter hadn't mentioned this important fact. It didn't
surprise me, because I had seen this difference between the
children become unimportant as they got to know each other. In
Braille Club friendships are formed on the basis of common
interests, not physical differences.
     Over the past year I have developed Braille learning modules
that continue to be used, modified and supplemented as Braille
Club continues. Each day students come to me, interested in
joining our club, and each day I say "yes" to their ideas.
Students who come to Braille Club are as diverse as students in
any classroom. They're interested in learning, achieving,
laughing, and belonging. Each is welcomed with an open mind and
heart. These students have given meaning to my work that didn't
exist before, opening my eyes to the endless opportunities we
have to learn from one another. Our endeavor couldn't have
flourished as it has in another environment or under different
conditions. So I thank the teachers, the office and custodial
staff, and the principal for the help and unconditional support
they have given us. I thank our school parent group for their
generosity in funding the club. Other groups, I know, would not
have seen the benefits of this for their children. I also owe
thanks to my supervisor, who gave me an itinerant caseload that
didn't require me to work many extra hours after school. This has
enabled me to sponsor Braille Club, which I believe is the most
successful mainstreaming technique I have yet used in eighteen
years of teaching. 
     I owe a heartfelt thanks to my friend Abbe, who, whether she
becomes a Braille teacher or not, will always remain my friend.
She was the original Braille wave in my life--a welcome, dynamic,
tidal wave.
     I hope this may encourage others interested in teaching
Braille to sighted students to try such an endeavor. I recommend
it highly as one of the most pleasurable and exhausting
experiences of my life. I would be happy to share materials and
resources with other teachers. You can contact me at Kiva
Elementary School, 6911 East McDonald Drive, Scottsdale, Arizona
85253. Just send it to the attention of "The Braille Teacher"; it
will reach me.


[PHOTO: Sharon Gold standing at microphone. CAPTION: Sharon
Gold.]

                  PERSONAL ASSISTANCE SERVICES:
                       ANOTHER KIND OF PAS

     From the Associate Editor: When many of us hear the acronym
"PASS," we automatically think of the Supplemental Security
Income Program to Achieve Self-Support (PASS), which Social
Security Administration Commissioner Gwendolyn King discussed at
the 1992 convention of the National Federation of the Blind and
which James Gashel described in some detail in an article which
appeared in the May, 1992, issue of the Braille Monitor.
     But increasingly one hears discussion of the idea of a
federally funded program called Personal Assistance Services
(PAS), which would include provision of readers and perhaps
drivers for blind people. Such benefits also include interpreter
services for the deaf and hearing-impaired and other personal
assistance such as dressing, bathing, feeding, toileting, etc.
Developing a consistent, adequate program to provide such help
has been under discussion for some time. 
     Recently the National Federation of the Blind was asked to
take part in a panel discussion in which consumers were invited
to explore the issues they thought most important in Personal
Assistance Services. The result was a monograph entitled
"Personal Perspectives on Personal Assistance Services."
President Maurer asked Sharon Gold, President of the National
Federation of the Blind of California, to represent the organized
blind movement at this meeting. It is of particular importance
that consumers of such services be heard in this debate, and we
can only hope that the position articulated by Sharon Gold and
the issues she raised will be incorporated in future plans. 
     The monograph is now available from the World Institute on
Disability, 510 Sixteenth St., Suite 100, Oakland, California
94612-1502 at a cost of $10 a copy. It is already being used as a
college textbook in an undergraduate course at George Mason
University. It is encouraging to know that consumer views are
being considered in some university programs. Let us hope that
this trend will continue. Here is the introductory letter which
begins the monograph, followed by Sharon Gold's testimony: 

                                                  September, 1992

Dear Reader:
     All of us at the Research and Training Center on Public
Policy in Independent Living (RTC/PPIL) are extremely pleased to
present this document to you. The World Institute on Disability
(WID) has been studying Personal Assistance Services (PAS) for
the past decade. Outcomes of this pursuit have included the
pioneering document Attending to America; case studies of various
state programs, detailed in several publications available from
WID; and model legislation, including the Personal Assistance for
Independent Living Act (PAIL) of 1989.
     With the inception of the RTC/PPIL in 1990, these PAS
efforts have intensified. In the fall of 1991 WID sponsored the
symposium "Empowerment Strategies for the Development of a
National Personal Assistance Services System." Representatives
from over forty states and ten countries assembled at this
Symposium, the first of its kind held in the U.S., to discuss PAS
issues and refine strategies for addressing them. As a precursor
to the Symposium, participants were asked to describe what PAS
meant to them on a personal level. Their responses were the basis
of this document.
     WID has defined PAS as one person assisting another with
tasks the individual would normally do for themselves if he or
she did not have a disability. These tasks may include personal
maintenance and hygiene, such as dressing, bathing, and catheter
care; mobility assistance, such as transferring to and from bed
or wheelchair; household maintenance, including cooking,
cleaning, and child care; cognitive assistance, such as money-
handling and budget-planning; and communication access, including
interpreting and reading.
     The essays that comprise this manuscript represent a wide
range of experience with PAS as it relates to many different
kinds of disabilities and life situations. But the document is
not meant to be definitive; it is not representative of every PAS
need for every group or individual. There is even some
disagreement on the definition of PAS (most clearly seen in the
discussion on PAS for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, where
technological aids and devices are included in the definition of
PAS). But on one issue everyone agrees: Personal Assistance
Services are essential for independent living.
     PAS is a highly-charged personal issue, as well as a crucial
political concern. Due to the personal nature of the essays, we
tried to maintain the writers' distinctive voices as much as
possible, without sacrificing clarity. The purpose of Personal
Perspectives on Personal Assistance Services is to present a
sampling of personal perspectives in light of the national
movement for implementation of a Personal Assistance Services
system.
     We would very much like to have your response to this
effort. Would you please use the evaluation form provided at the
back of this monograph to let us know what you think?

                                                       Sincerely,
                                           Steven E. Brown, Ph.D.
                                      Training Director, RTC/PPIL

     That was Dr. Brown's introductory letter, and it is followed
by a number of statements provided by individuals invited to
present their perspectives. Here are the remarks presented by
Sharon Gold, who was representing the National Federation of the
Blind: 
               PAS Issues for the Blind Community
                         by Sharon Gold

     Testimony before the National Council on Disability: Las
Vegas, Nevada, February 25, 1992

     Good morning, Madame Chairman. My name is Sharon Gold. I
serve as president of the National Federation of the Blind of
California. My address is 5982 South Land Park Drive, Sacramento,
California 95822; telephone (916) 424-2226. Thank you for
inviting me to participate in this hearing.
     As I understand it, this proceeding is being held to examine
various policy issues and considerations relating to the
establishment of a national program of personal assistance
services for persons with disabilities. I assume that some of the
questions before you are whether, in fact, there should be such a
program at all, and, if there is such a program, how, and to what
extent, the federal government should participate in making it
possible. As one individual I certainly do not presume to have
all of the answers, but I will do my best to highlight some of
the major concerns which policy makers, and perhaps ultimately
the Congress, will need to address.
     The first principle flows from the word "personal." If a
program of personal assistance is desirable, it will only be so
to the extent that each person served is treated as an
individual. It follows from this that individuals with different
disabilities must receive services that are appropriate to the
limitations imposed by the particular disability in question. I
am aware that some people oppose categorical approaches or
programs because they think of disability as a generic condition.
My experience in California, where we have a large general
rehabilitation bureaucracy, is that generic programs tend to
misclassify people with very particular disabilities. Of course,
I am most familiar with services to the blind and with the poor
results obtained for blind persons served by our general agency.
     The single specious advantage of generic disability programs
is that they seem to fit neatly on an organizational chart. It is
claimed that generic programs may save money, but I do not
believe that they actually do. I think that they waste it. Day
after day I encounter blind people who are unable to secure
responsive services from our state. Many of the problems these
people face would be eliminated if the agency and its counselors
were more specialized. For example, when counselors do not
understand blindness, there is a great deal of lost motion and
extra expense just to get a client's needs evaluated. This
happens more often than you might think.
     I am not saying that categorical programs are perfect, but
client services from specialized programs have been found to be
notably superior to those from general agencies. In the case of
personal assistance services, I can see many disadvantages to
service delivery through generic programs. The experience of
California's blind students trying to obtain satisfactory reader
service through disabled students' offices would be enough to
make my point. Such programs are rarely managed by blind people
since they serve a much larger population. The reader services
available from these offices are, in most instances, operated
somewhere on a scale between wretched and punitive.
     The rules governing service delivery are usually aimed at a
much larger audience, with most of its members having
substantially different needs. The persons who make the rules are
usually sighted, even if they are disabled. They have no idea
what elements should be present in a quality reader service
arrangement for the blind. Corrections in the way the program
should be run cannot really be made by advisory committees. I
have served on my share of such committees, and generally they
have very little effect. I am convinced that the best way to have
a reader service program of high quality is to have a program
which is specialized in providing reader service and to have
blind people be in charge of the program.
     My second principle is that a personal assistance program
must not do for blind people what blind people can do for
themselves. While blindness is appropriately classified as a
severe disability, the significance of blindness can (with proper
training and opportunity) be reduced to the level of a physical
nuisance. One concern that I would have with a personal
assistance program is that it might do too much. It may be a
temptation for program officials to try to custodialize blind
people into useless inactivity. In some colleges and universities
some blind people are actually provided with notetakers. I have
observed this as one of the unfortunate results of the generic
disability offices on campuses throughout our state.
     It may be true that some people with disabilities have
conditions which prevent them from taking notes effectively.
Persons who know very little about blindness may think that it is
such a condition. I can tell you categorically that it is not. In
fact, providing a notetaker for a blind person can do a great
disservice. There are too many blind people who have received
assistance in getting things done when they should have received
training in doing things for themselves. Matriculation at college
is intended to teach students how to manage their time and
resources in such a way that the tasks of learning get done. One
of those tasks is learning to take and use notes. I imagine that
there would be general agreement on this principle. I think it is
particularly critical for blind people. Many of us have been
robbed of our ability to function because a family member or
other person assuming a caretaker role thought that he or she
could do things better than we who are blind. The program to
provide personal services should encourage blind people to work
rather than encouraging laziness.
     Our freedom depends upon doing things for ourselves. In the
case of the notetaker example, there is absolutely no
justification on the grounds of blindness for a blind person to
have someone else take and keep his or her notes. I am not saying
that every blind person has learned effective notetaking skills,
but I am saying that notetaking services will discourage the
mastery of these skills.
     My third principle is a corollary to the second. If a
program of personal assistance is established, the scope of
services for blind people should be limited to tasks for which
few, if any, alternative techniques are fully satisfactory.
Reader service is the only such form of assistance that comes to
mind. It is my experience, based on my own life and my
observation of thousands of other blind people, that we have
managed to find suitable alternative methods of doing almost
everything that we need and want to do. However, most information
still comes in the form of print, which blind people obviously
cannot read directly for themselves. Technology can help to some
extent, but it is not a total solution.
     In my experience there is really no adequate substitute for
personalized, high-quality reader service that is available more
or less on demand. It seems obvious to me that blind people, for
the most part, do not have such a service available to them
anywhere in the world today. However, many of us are able to come
rather close to this ideal standard. Blind people are not without
ingenuity. We all tend to develop our own systems for getting the
things done that we need to do. Some people use volunteer readers
extensively and quite successfully. Other people use paid readers
or a combination. Spouses, other family members, and friends are
used extensively to help with reading.
     Apart from these personally developed arrangements, reader
service programs designed to serve groups of blind people are
largely limited to students at the post-secondary level. As I
have already explained, employed blind adults are very much on
their own, individually solving their needs for reader service.
Employers may provide some help as a form of reasonable
accommodation, but that covers only the work-related needs.
Beyond this we usually fill in the gaps with friends, family
members, volunteers, or paid readers. I think this describes the
general pattern.
     This patchwork approach works well for many blind people
much of the time. However, there are times when reader
arrangements completely fall apart. Then, on rare occasions,
demotions or even job loss can result. In theory rehabilitation
agencies can step in to provide post-employment services, but
obtaining this assistance is not as easy as the law implies. A
new program of personal assistance could be helpful in this type
of situation. Alternatively the vocational rehabilitation program
could be required to provide reader service without delay
whenever justified on grounds of immediate employment-related
need.
     Individual responsibility is my fourth principle. If a
program of personal assistance services is developed in this
country, we will do a great disservice to blind people if we
remove responsibilities from the individual person who needs
assistance and place the burden on society as a whole. I am not
saying that there is no social responsibility to make personal
assistance services available. I am saying that, to the extent
that this is done, the responsibility of each blind person to
arrange his or her particular blindness-related services must be
preserved and respected.
     One advantage of the present system is that, if I fail to
make arrangements for having the readers I need when I need them,
I will not have them. I will suffer the consequences. Although
this is unfortunate, it is much more desirable than it would be
the other way around. If my reader service responsibilities are
determined by somebody else, many of the opportunities available
to me are determined by somebody else as well. There is a
practical reason for this attitude. I have found that a program
can never meet my needs as well as I can meet them for myself--
provided, that is, that I have the resources to do so. A program
of personal assistance should provide the resources necessary to
obtain the assistance. It should not diminish individual
responsibility for determining the nature and kind of assistance
required.
     To use a frequent example, I will return to the situation in
higher education. When a blind student does poorly in a course,
it is sometimes said that the disabled students office failed to
get the textbooks on time. I would call that line of thinking a
"dependent mentality." The responsibility for knowing the
material, attending classes, reading the textbooks, and taking
the tests belongs to the student, whether the student is blind or
sighted. Some of today's blind students, however, tend to think
that they can forget about certain responsibilities such as
getting taped or Brailled books because an entire office has been
set up to take care of these matters.
     This dependent mentality should concern all of us. It is not
a healthy trend. The philosophy of the Americans with
Disabilities Act espouses freedom and independence. I would not
want to see a new program enacted that diminishes our ability to
secure freedom and independence. There are many programs created
by well-intentioned people that have gradually grown so big that
they intrude on individual freedom. A personal assistance program
must not do this--it must enhance freedom.
     My fifth principle is that individuals should manage their
own personal assistance services. Programmed services, offered on
a take-it-or-leave-it basis, must be avoided. Again let me return
to the example of higher education. When I was an undergraduate
student, the management of the reader service that I received was
completely within my control. The Department of Rehabilitation
and I agreed on the amount of money I would need each semester,
and I was then authorized to have my readers submit bills for
direct payment. I hired each reader and determined the rate of
compensation. I determined the reading schedule and the specific
items to be read. I dismissed unsatisfactory readers and replaced
them with others. I approved payment vouchers and kept track of
the money remaining for use. I was fully accountable.
     Some would say that today's students have it easier. There
are programs that find, supervise, and pay their readers. All
they really have to do is show up at the appropriate time for the
reading sessions. Personal reader service tends to be viewed as a
function of the institution. As an institutional program it is
operated for the convenience of the university, not for the
benefit of the student. Both the quantity and type of material to
be read are determined by the program--not by the student. The
selection and supervision of readers are done by the program.
     By contrast the reader service that I received was far less
programmed and far more responsive to my needs. I managed that
reader service entirely. I had only myself to blame when things
did not go right. The assistance I received from the State of
California was definitely a resource and not a form of control. I
fear that blind students today are far more controlled and
regulated than they were in the past.
     One fear I have is that a new program of personal assistance
services would be administered in such a way as to gain control
over individual blind persons. Those who dispense services have
the power to grant or withhold those services. I think that blind
persons are already subjected to far too many controls because of
their need for services.
     Therefore, if a program of personal assistance services is
established, it should be designed to compensate the individual
for personally chosen and personally managed forms of assistance
without control. While I am not opposed to a certain amount of
regulation in appropriate circumstances, the personal use of a
reader for a blind individual must be managed by the blind
individual. Look at it this way: a blind person's reader actually
functions as an auxiliary pair of eyes. Directing their use must
be for the blind person's benefit and for no one else's.
     My sixth principle is that persons who are eligible for
personal assistance services should be able to receive those
services without regard to economic need or ability to pay. In
the case of blind people, eligibility should depend upon a
statement of needs relating to the blind person's inability to
obtain suitable and timely access to printed information. The
eligibility criteria should focus on need for reader service--not
on financial need.
     I think we make a great mistake when service programs for
persons with disabilities screen out individuals who seem to have
enough money to pay for assistance that is provided at taxpayer
expense to persons who are less well off. For one thing, the
administration of financial need standards is often filled with
abuse. I know of situations in which Social Security
beneficiaries are being required to pay for the costs of their
vocational rehabilitation. That is a disincentive, and it is
wrong.
     In my opinion the very nature of the means test leads to
this kind of abuse. Therefore the provision of services under
this program, if it is created, should be based on service needs-
-not on financial needs. It is a cruel joke when, for example, a
person is found otherwise eligible for vocational rehabilitation
but is told that the services for which he or she is eligible
will be provided only when the individual, not the agency, pays
the bill. I hasten to add that the means test is not a federal
requirement in vocational rehabilitation, but it is discretionary
with the states. I think it is time for policymakers to rethink
this entire issue and to eliminate the means test altogether.
     The means test also creates a two-class system. Those in one
economic category receive one kind of service, and those in the
other category receive a different service. Separate but equal is
unworkable in services as surely as it is in race relations.
Therefore there should be no means test.
     This is my list of six principles. It may not be exhaustive,
but certainly the major concerns are addressed. There is
undoubtedly a need for personal assistance services. The need is
probably more profound for persons with some types of
disabilities than for persons with other conditions.
     For example, a person who must have some form of attendant
care during the day certainly faces a different situation from
that of a blind person who needs to get something read. I think
that each type of situation must be looked at separately.
Programs to provide reader service to blind persons are
inadequate, and blind people often get left out. This is a
disadvantage, but a program that ignores the principles outlined
here would become a greater disadvantage.
     I cannot speak to the situation of persons with disabilities
other than blindness. Each type of situation and need for
personal assistance should stand or fall on its own merits. The
practice of the National Federation of the Blind is to adopt
positions on matters such as programs of personal assistance only
after broad discussion and debate. At this point we have not
taken a formal position on the desirability of having a personal
assistance services program. However, the principles that I have
mentioned will undoubtedly weigh heavily in our evaluation of
various proposals. They will be considered in the position that
we take.
     Madame Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to take
part in these proceedings. I appreciate the fact that this
Council's recommendations are an important first step which could
lead to an expanded effort to provide personal assistance
services on a national basis. Therefore I have tried to offer
comments which could be helpful to you in accomplishing this
task. Again I thank you. 


[PHOTO: Fred Schroeder standing at microphone. CAPTION: Fred
Schroeder.]

         THE BLIND STUDENT TEACHER IN PUBLIC EDUCATION 
                        by Fred Schroeder

     From the Associate Editor: Reading the following article
made me cast my mind back to my own student teaching experience
many years before I found the National Federation of the Blind.
At the time I had no idea how lucky I was. Oberlin College was
broad-minded and dedicated to giving all its students an equal
chance. I was scheduled to student teach high school English the
fall of my senior year of college. No one had tried to discourage
me from a teaching career during my preliminary course work, but
it was clear as discussions about my classroom placement began
that there was going to be some difficulty in finding a
supervising teacher willing to work with me. Having done a little
teaching in high school in conjunction with my history teacher, I
never seriously considered that there could be any question about
my ability to cope successfully with a mob of unruly teen-agers.
To give my education professor the credit he deserves, he did not
doubt my ability any more than I did. This was lucky for me,
because he had to work hard to sell me and my credentials. He had
to work his way through several school districts and a number of
English teachers to find Mrs. Adams. She was a crusty old English
teacher, close to retirement, and she had seen it all. I also
suspect that she no longer cared much about the lofty goals of
teaching or her moral responsibility to her students to impart
the wonders of Silas Marner and Julius Caesar. She told him that
she would take me on and warned me to come prepared to begin
teaching by the second day. I did so, and neither of us ever had
a problem. Grammar, poetry, drama, and novels--we tackled it all,
and the students came away saying that English was more fun than
they had ever thought it could be. They clearly believed they had
been lucky to get a student teacher, and it made no difference to
them that she happened to be blind. 
     I know that I was lucky to have had both the supervising
teacher and professor I had. Student teaching experiences like
mine do happen, but unfortunately they are rare. Most blind
student teachers have a much more difficult time than I had. But
complicated or simple, student teaching is always a watershed
experience. Some people are not cut out to be teachers, and all
of us have much to learn in the beginning about the art. Every
young teacher must discern whether he or she is suited to be a
teacher. This problem is usually compounded for blind teachers by
the prejudice and misconceptions of most professionals in the
education field, both classroom teachers and college professors
of education. Blind students who are contemplating careers in
teaching must understand the complexity of the situation they
find themselves in and must be prepared to work their way through
it. 
     Fred Schroeder is the Director of the New Mexico Commission
for the Blind and a member of the Board of Directors of the
National Federation of the Blind. He is also an experienced
teacher, and for a number of years he administered the program
that serves youngsters with low-incidence disabilities in the
Albuquerque, New Mexico, School District. He has supervised
student teachers and hired many teachers during his career. 
     He addressed the National Association of Blind Educators
(NABE) at its annual meeting during the 1991 convention of the
National Federation of the Blind. His remarks were reprinted in
the spring/summer, 1992, issue of the Blind Educator, the
publication of NABE. This article is taken from Mr. Schroeder's
remarks: 

     I have worked with a number of blind student teachers over
the years. Unfortunately, I frequently see recurring patterns of
discrimination. A very long time ago I was a student teacher
myself. Therefore, I understand the problems they encounter. The
negative experiences that blind student teachers face are similar
to the problems blind people have entering almost any other
profession.
     By virtue of being a minority, the blind are subject to
discrimination which comes primarily from public misunderstanding
about blindness. The general and undefined anxieties and
misconceptions lead to fears about how blind teachers will
function, and these result in discrimination. The way this
discrimination plays itself out for blind student teachers is
different in form, but not in substance, from that which blind
people face in all areas of employment. The problem is
recognizing precisely when it is taking place. If you are
reasonably qualified for a job and you interview for it, can you
say that you have been discriminated against if you are turned
down? I do not think so, unless you are told that you are not
being hired because of blindness. Mostly that does not happen.
     Usually you are thanked, you leave, and then you receive a
letter or call telling you the bad news. But when you apply for
five jobs, then ten, then fifty, then one hundred, but still
don't get a job, and people who are similarly situated are
getting jobs with many fewer interviews, then you can say without
doubt that discrimination exists. And you can because of the
pattern of treatment that you as a blind person have received.
     What happens to most blind student teachers is something
like this. You are likely to go into your student teaching
assignment among people who start with the assumption that you
cannot possibly function effectively as a teacher. Because they
are looking for trouble, they begin to find fault with the way
you are doing things and identify certain aspects of your work
(mostly those things that you do a little differently from their
methods) as problems. Is this discrimination? Probably.
     But the dilemma is, because you are at the beginning of your
student teaching, you are most assuredly not a perfect teacher.
You probably are making some mistakes; every student teacher
does. The caution I would give supervising personnel is to
consider what can be reasonably expected from any blind student
teacher. All student teachers, by virtue of their lack of
experience, are going to make mistakes. The question is not
whether but what kind of mistakes are being made and what is
their magnitude. Student teachers make mistakes. That is why they
are student teaching; it is the whole point of the exercise. 
     But when you factor in society's misunderstandings about
blindness, very often the problems, the mistakes, and the simple
things which go wrong for blind student teachers are blown out of
proportion. For example, there has never been a class in which
somewhere along the line a student or two didn't act up. Kids
misbehave, in school as well as at home. Yet very often even the
mildest behavior problem in a class is held up as evidence that
the blind student teacher lacks the ability to maintain order.
     One of the best examples I know of imagining a problem and
then attributing it to blindness occurred to a blind student
teacher who had developed her own system for giving spelling
tests. The teacher would dictate the spelling words to the class.
Then the students would exchange papers and mark them as the
teacher spelled the words correctly. The blind student teacher's
university supervisor heard about this procedure and pronounced
herself horrified. She said this was a terrible system. The
student teacher was mistreating her students emotionally and was
very likely scarring them for life. The children were being
subjected to emotional mistreatment because the blind student
teacher was unable to correct the spelling tests herself. Yet
this grading technique has been used by sighted teachers for as
long as there have been teachers, classes, and quizzes. 
     In my view this professor's behavior toward a blind student
teacher was discriminatory. It was because something ordinary was
twisted by the university supervisor, perhaps unconsciously,
until she convinced herself that poor teaching was taking place.
This discrimination arose from the professor's assumption that
blind persons are not capable of teaching with equal
effectiveness and, therefore, that their methods cannot be
equally good. That professor's misconception about blindness and
her resulting prejudice against blind teachers and our methods is
the kind of thing we must guard against. When this cycle begins,
the professor and those like her consider everything that the
blind do differently as necessarily inferior. 
     Blind people can get into a terrible spiral when we accept
this assessment of our alternative techniques as inferior. We are
not sighted, and therefore we do not always operate in the same
way that sighted teachers do. I cannot reiterate too many times
that blind people always get into trouble when we try to function
using techniques requiring sight. What we must do is realize that
the techniques we use, many of which are particular to blind
people, are legitimate and effective. We have a long tradition of
blind teachers performing at a superior level. We do things
differently, but so what? Sighted teachers use a wide range of
strategies and techniques in their work, yet presumably the
effectiveness of their teaching is measured by their students'
success rather than through dissection and scrutiny of each
teaching method. Our techniques as blind teachers allow us to
function just fine. 
     The bottom line is that blind people can be confident and
successful teachers. We cannot let other people's attitudes about
us trap us in a situation in which we are put on the defensive
and forced to have our performance as blind persons questioned.
If a sighted person is alive and pays tuition, most universities
will certify him or her to teach. Yet when a student is blind,
suddenly the institutions become agonizingly conscious of their
lofty responsibilities and suggest that it would somehow be
immoral to graduate a blind teacher who has failed to achieve
arbitrary and vision-centered standards of student-teaching
excellence. Such standards can usually be boiled down to
maintaining hand-written attendance records, seating charts, and
grade books; writing and drawing flawlessly on the chalk board;
and checking work assignments in class while the students are
doing assignments at their desks. 
     As I said in the beginning, it is not difficult to recognize
a pattern of discrimination, but it is often very difficult
indeed to identify specific instances of it. Blind student
teachers make errors, and so do sighted student teachers. The
question is not whether errors are made, but whether the blind
student teacher's entire performance and results are compared
fairly with those of his or her sighted peers. I am talking about
considering such questions as the following: Is learning taking
place in the classroom? Are the students happy and interested in
what is going on? Is the teacher in control of the classroom and
the paperwork? These represent reasonable standards. 
     A healthy and balanced perspective is necessary if an
inexperienced teacher is to succeed. In order to maintain this
perspective, blind student teachers must maintain ongoing,
regular contact with practicing blind teachers, who can serve as
a source of encouragement and information, as well as a bench-
mark for reasonable expectations. In short, every blind student
teacher should become an active member of the National Federation
of the Blind. The discrimination blind student teachers face is
one more manifestation of the discrimination associated with
blindness generally. It is only through collective action that
the members of a minority group can reshape the public's
understanding and eradicate its misconceptions, thereby promoting
true equality of opportunity. And for blind people effective
collective action comes through the National Federation of the
Blind. 


[PHOTO: Portrait. CAPTION: Ed Bryant.]

                     CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN 
              THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND 
              AND THE AMERICAN DIABETES ASSOCIATION

     From the Editor: Ed Bryant of Columbia, Missouri, is the
highly respected editor of the Voice of the Diabetic. He not only
gives tirelessly of his time and devotion but also knows how to
speak plainly and cut through verbal nonsense when the situation
warrants. The Voice of the Diabetic, which is the publication of
the Diabetics Division of the National Federation of the Blind,
has experienced phenomenal growth during the past few years. It
has a current circulation of almost 50,000, with every prospect
that this figure will double in the not-too-distant future. I
think Monitor readers will find the following correspondence
interesting. It has implications far beyond the situation of
those who have diabetes. It requires no explanation, so here it
is:

                              American Diabetes Association
                              Alexandria, Virginia 
                              October 30, 1992

Ed Bryant, Editor
Voice of the Diabetic
Columbia, Missouri

Dear Mr. Bryant:
     The President of our association, F. Xavier Pi-Sunyer, M.D.,
recently shared with me your letter seeking subscriptions for the
Voice of the Diabetic. We are extremely concerned about the
language used in the letter and the newsletter. The way in which
you describe diabetes leads us to believe that you have not had
access to up-to-date information about the disease and some of
the issues confronting people with diabetes.
     For example, people with diabetes prefer not to be labelled
"diabetic." They are people first, not the disease. As a friend
said, "People with hernias are not called `hernias'." Several
years ago, the American Diabetes Association adopted a position
that eliminates the use of the term "diabetic" as a noun from all
of our communications, both verbal and written.
     Other language used in your letter was even more disturbing.
For example, stating that "diabetes can be ... a mere nuisance
which if properly controlled, will not usually cause chronic
problems," indicates a lack of awareness of the actual
seriousness of the disease and the documented likelihood of
complications.
     The association realizes that you are attempting to offer a
needed service to people with diabetes who are blind. However, we
urge you to become more informed about the disease and other
services available to people with diabetes. One way to do this is
to become a member of the American Diabetes Association. For only
$24.00 a year you can receive our comprehensive monthly magazine
Diabetes Forecast. This consumer health magazine is for our lay
members and is full of helpful articles and medical information,
all based on the latest research and scientific and medical
facts. The scientific and medical accuracy of Diabetes Forecast
is ensured by an editorial board of diabetes experts who review
each article for compliance with the association's Clinical
Practice Recommendations (enclosed).
     I have also enclosed a resource list indicating how and
where to obtain American Diabetes Association materials in
formats for the blind and visually impaired, as well as our
general publications catalog.
     In addition, I have enclosed membership information for your
convenience. I sincerely hope that you will become a member and
take other steps to become more informed in order to ensure that
your readers are receiving accurate, up-to-date information.

                                                       Sincerely,
                                                    Myrl Weinberg
                                         Vice President, Programs
                      ____________________
                                              Baltimore, Maryland
                                                November 19, 1992

Dear Mr. Weinberg:
     I have received a copy of your letter of October 30, 1992,
which you sent to Mr. Ed Bryant, and I think that the patent
misunderstanding that it contains should be cleared away. The
National Federation of the Blind has from time to time invited
the American Diabetes Association to work cooperatively to
address the problems faced by blind diabetics. As far as I am
able to determine, the American Diabetes Association decided to
leave the solution of those problems to the National Federation
of the Blind and its Diabetics Division.
     In your letter you indicate that you think the language of
Mr. Bryant's letter demonstrates that he does not appreciate the
severity of the disease. Such a statement illustrates your lack
of knowledge and understanding. Ed Bryant is a man who has built
an organization to assist those who are facing the catastrophe of
kidney failure and the other devastating effects of diabetes. His
job (one he accomplishes with energy, skill, and a tremendous
depth of understanding) is to help those who feel discouragement
and despair find meaning and hope in their lives when too many
others are urging them to believe that there is nothing left but
deterioration and debilitation.
     Mr. Bryant is himself a blind diabetic. He has suffered from
severe kidney damage, and he has received a kidney transplant.
Not only does he work with diabetes every day, but he also knows
the disease firsthand.
     Your letter suggests that the magazine edited by Mr. Bryant
is not accurate, scientifically or medically. The Voice of the
Diabetic has some of the best medical talent available to it
currently practicing in the area of diabetes. I suspect that this
magazine is at least as accurate as the publication you produce.
     To speak plainly, Mr. Weinberg, one of the problems that we
have in the National Federation of the Blind is that some of the
advertising about diabetes is so tremendously negative. Blindness
can be reduced to the level of a physical nuisance, but to the
newly blinded it often appears to be a catastrophe. When the
individual who has become blind also faces diabetes, which is
frequently described as a catastrophe, the problem is compounded.
     Unless individuals possess at least some hope, progress
toward building a decent life is most unlikely. Ed Bryant has
been given the task of finding a way to encourage those who are
both blind and diabetic, and he does the job well.
     Incidentally, your argumentative salvo about "people first"
language is unimpressive. You say that "people are people and not
diabetics." However, on your resource list, you are perfectly
willing to denominate a class of people as "the blind."
Consequently, it is obvious that you do not use "people first"
language except in those instances when you feel like it.
     I think the flap about "people first" language is mostly a
bunch of nonsense. I am blind, and I don't mind being called
blind. After all, that's what I am. I don't remember ever meeting
a doctor who objected to being called a doctor. The analogies are
legion, and your argument amounts to quibbling. I have suggested
(humorously) to some people that we should not call the females
of the species "women." They are "people" who possess female
characteristics.
     Leaving all of this to one side, I would like to renew the
invitation of the National Federation of the Blind for the
American Diabetes Association to cooperate with us in addressing
the problems that blind diabetics have. I think the American
Diabetes Association does some very worthwhile work. I think that
your organization has some good advice that could help us. I
think the National Federation of the Blind also does worthwhile
work, and that we have some knowledge that can help your members.
     I want to get beyond the argumentation stage of
communication so that we may have substantive interaction. If it
will help, I will change my form of speaking about those who
suffer from diabetes. Perhaps there is more in the change in
language than originally meets the eye. Please let me know
whether there is a likelihood that we may discuss the possibility
of joint projects.

                                                Very truly yours,
                                          Marc Maurer, President 
                                 National Federation of the Blind
                      ____________________
                              Diabetics Division
                              National Federation of the Blind
                              Columbia, Missouri
                              November 30, 1992

Dear Mr. Weinberg:
     Your letter dated October 30, 1992 stated that the president
of your association, F. Xavier Pi-Sunyer, M.D., and you are
extremely concerned about the language I used in a letter seeking
subscriptions to the Voice of the Diabetic as well as that used
in the Voice itself. You wrote, "The way in which you describe
diabetes leads us to believe that you have not had access to up-
to-date information about the disease and some of the issues
confronting people with diabetes. For example, people with
diabetes prefer not to be labeled diabetic. They are people
first, not the disease ...."
     I have personally dealt with insulin dependent diabetes for
more than 34 years. I am blind due to diabetic retinopathy; I
have experienced renal failure and have undergone kidney
transplantation. I know first hand the issues confronting people
with diabetes. Furthermore, as editor of the Voice of the
Diabetic, I am in constant communication with other diabetics,
health care professionals such as physicians including
specialists in diabetes, registered nurses, registered
dietitians, and diabetes educators to name a few. I receive and
review the information from the Centers for Disease Control,
diabetes research organizations, and countless other documents as
well. I have attended numerous seminars across the nation
regarding the disease. Keeping myself well-informed is one of my
duties as Editor of the Voice, which is part of the support and
information network of the Diabetics Division of the National
Federation of the Blind. I do not take lightly your opinion that
I do not have access to up-to-date information and the issues
confronting people with diabetes. Not only is such information
available to me, I utilize the data to apprise Voice readers.
Such communication demonstrates that diabetics have options. I
ask you, sir, do you have diabetes and first hand knowledge of
its ramifications?
     Your statement about the use of the term diabetic is
apparently a problem (perhaps denial) with leaders of the
American Diabetes Association. Your problem is with
lexicographers and semanticists, not me. I will not take issue
with the use of words commonly found in dictionaries. Dorland's
Illustrated Medical Dictionary (27th Edition) defines the word
diabetic as "1. pertaining to or affected with diabetes. 2. a
person with diabetes." The Merck Manual uses the word diabetic
frequently to describe persons with diabetes. The word is used
routinely in articles from scientific journals. The vast majority
of newspaper clippings I receive concerning diabetes use the word
diabetic; many are articles written by health care professionals.
In conversations and written communications with health care
providers, the word diabetic is used frequently and without
hesitation. Participants in seminars on diabetes, including
members of your association, have used the term diabetic in their
presentations. Almost invariably individual PERSONS will say they
are diabetic. I have served on the staff of a diabetic children's
camp, and almost every young person present called
himself/herself diabetic without a second thought. Had camp
participants been "trained" not to use the word diabetic by
health care professionals and others, they would not have used
it. But, they did use the word because these adults had no
problem with using this term.
     I asked an insulin-dependent physician who specializes in
treating diabetes, an ADA member no less, to comment on the use
of the word diabetic. He said that grammatically there is nothing
wrong with using the term diabetic or with referring to people
who have diabetes as diabetics. In addition, he said, "Some have
psychological hang-ups about using the term diabetic. Most of us
who have diabetes could care less if we are called diabetics."
When I remarked that the ADA doesn't use the term diabetic, he
responded in disbelief stating, "It's just too much verbiage not
to use the term diabetic." I find it interesting that your letter
states, the ADA adopted a policy several years ago which
eliminated the term diabetic. Out of curiosity I extracted a
Diabetes Forecast from my literature library. This happened to be
the July 1992 issue and on page 6 in the "Mail Call" column the
word diabetic was used.
     I am interested in documentation regarding your statement
people with diabetes prefer not to be called diabetic. I am
astonished that the ADA has eliminated the use of a word that is
part of the accepted academic and common language. I resent your
implication that my use of the word diabetic doesn't recognize
that diabetics are people.
     The third paragraph of your letter states "Other language
used in your letter was even more disturbing." Using an example
of a partial quote from me ("diabetes can be ... a mere nuisance
which if properly controlled, will not usually cause chronic
problems"), you stated the PARTIAL quote "indicates a lack of
awareness of the actual seriousness of the disease and the
documented likelihood of complications." What you have quoted is
out of context. The whole sentence appearing in my letter states,
"We at the NFB Diabetics Division know that diabetes can be quite
devastating, or a mere nuisance which if properly controlled,
will not usually cause chronic problems." How interesting that
quoting the complete sentence changes the meaning entirely!
     You apparently take issue with that part of my statement
which refers to the FACT that diabetes can be a mere nuisance.
Although it is well-known that diabetes causes catastrophic
complications, I feel it is important for diabetics to know there
are literally thousands of persons who have diabetes who do not
experience severe problems, and for them it is a mere nuisance. A
new book titled Diabetes: Beating the Odds by Elliot J. Rayfield,
M.D. and Cheryl Solimini, illustrates my point. The news release
for the book states, "Diabetes--while potentially fatal--can also
be harmless and undisruptive if diagnosed quickly, treated
correctly by the doctor, and managed carefully by the patient. It
is even possible to prevent its onset altogether." Are you going
to write those authors that the statement above "indicates a lack
of awareness of the actual seriousness of the disease and
documented likelihood of complications" as you have written?
     Thank you for recognizing that I am "attempting to offer a
needed service to people with diabetes who are blind." For seven
years I have been attempting to educate not only blind diabetics
but diabetics in general about the disease, its ramifications,
and options. In seven years time the circulation of the Voice has
grown from 600 to more than 49,000, which indicates that our
publication is needed and used. I receive many compliments about
the Voice from diabetics as well as from professionals, including
members of your association.
     You state, "However, we urge you to become more informed
about the disease and other services available to people with
diabetes. One way to do this is to become a member of the
American Diabetes Association." Although I appreciate your
soliciting my subscription to Diabetes Forecast, you should be
aware that I already receive it and many other publications
regarding diabetes. I am sure that ADA publications are accurate
and are based on the latest scientific research. I periodically
make Voice of the Diabetic readers aware of some of your
publications and provide ordering instructions.
     For your information, I am a past member of the ADA and was
very active in my local chapter, giving considerable time and
business expertise to your group. Although I was losing vision at
the time, no one seemed to mind until the day I became blind.
From that point on, I was never again invited to attend another
American Diabetes Association function. I was never again asked
to help with fund raising, membership recruitment, and so on.
From the time I became noticeably blind, your association
excluded me. Once again, a few years later, I joined your group
because the local leaders seemed a bit more professional.
Unfortunately, I still was never asked to participate in any ADA
activities. The only thing asked of me was to make donations to
help your association.
     I, along with thousands of members of the National
Federation of the Blind, know that blindness is a physical
nuisance but does not preclude one from having a full life. It is
well-documented that thousands of blind men and women enjoy life
and are involved in the mainstream, raising families, working as
educators, lawyers, production workers etc. Our Federation
assists people with all aspects of blindness, providing support
and information.
     In 1986 Karen Mayry, president of our NFB Diabetics Division
at the time, received and responded to a letter from Frank
Vinicor, M.D., Chairman, Committee on Affiliate Associations of
the American Diabetes Association. Dr. Vinicor seemed concerned
about problematic areas which might make it difficult for
individuals to become involved in ADA activities. Mrs. Mayry
asked me to also respond in order to help document such problems.
(Dr. Vinicor did not contact either Mrs. Mayry or myself.)
Unfortunately, we find that exclusionary practices still exist in
your association. I continue to receive reports from blind men
and women who do not feel welcome at ADA meetings.
     In 1990 ADA chapter offices received a questionnaire
regarding a new product; one section was concerned with the use
of the new product by diabetics with vision loss. The completed
form was to be returned to Fred Meier, Affiliate Program
Services, American Diabetes Association, Alexandria, Virginia.
Because the document seemed to indicate an interest on the part
of your association to find ways to assist diabetics who happen
to be blind, I contacted Mr. Marc Maurer, President, National
Federation of the Blind, regarding the possibility of a meeting
between representatives of our Federation and Mr. Meier of your
association for an exchange of ideas so the mission of each group
could be discussed and to find ways we could work together. Mr.
Meier accepted Mr. Maurer's invitation to meet with him, Mrs.
Mayry, and myself. The meeting was to take place at our
headquarters, located at the National Center for the Blind,
Baltimore, Maryland. We had expectations that this conference
would be fruitful because your association has a good name. Mrs.
Mayry and I flew to Baltimore at the Federation's expense to
participate in the meeting, but at meeting time, Mr. Meier did
not show up. Moreover, he did not contact Mr. Maurer to let him
know he would not be able to attend. Not informing Mr. Maurer's
office demonstrated an extreme lack of courtesy and
unprofessionalism on the part of the hierarchy of the ADA.
     The aforementioned is lengthy. However, since you apparently
take issue with my editorship of the Voice, my knowledge
regarding diabetes and so on, an in-depth response was warranted.
I am cognizant, as hopefully you are, that all diabetics, blind
and sighted, will best be served by the American Diabetes
Association's and the National Federation of the Blind's working
together. Your association publishes comprehensive information
regarding diabetes, and it is this important communication which
helps to educate many more individuals who have the disease. Our
Federation also publishes comprehensive information regarding all
aspects of blindness which can be extremely helpful to many of
your members. I urge you to "look at the entire picture" and
contact us so we can productively work together. My door is
always open to establish dialogue regarding our common mission of
helping diabetics.

                                                  Most sincerely,
                                                        Ed Bryant
                                    Editor, Voice of the Diabetic


                      TUTORS EXTRAORDINAIRE

     From the Associate Editor: Illiteracy is not a problem
plaguing the blind community exclusively. Interested as we all
are in promoting Braille literacy, Federationists also find time
to work on eradicating the general problem of illiteracy. Buck
and Mary Ann Saunders of Point Pleasant, West Virginia, are two
of these. Recently, Networks, a statewide literacy newsletter,
carried a story about Mr. and Mrs. Saunders and their community
service. Here it is: 

     Willis G. "Buck" and Mary Saunders, who live in Point
Pleasant, are tutors and board members of the Mason County
Literacy Council Program.
     Buck has successfully tutored his student through Skillbook
III of the Laubach Way to Reading. Buck's student is an active
participant in the recently formed Student Support Group. Mary
Ann's first student entered the local GED program. She has just
matched with her second student.
     Buck and Mary Ann are actively involved in the National
Federation of the Blind of West Virginia, Huntington Chapter,
where she serves as president and chairman of the Scholarship
Committee and he as executive board member. Mary Ann proofreads
Braille material for the West Virginia Braille Project at
Huttonsville, West Virginia. Currently the Saunderses are
negotiating to obtain print/Braille copies of the Laubach Way to
Reading Teacher Manuals 1-4 and correlated readers from the West
Virginia Library Commission.
     Buck first learned to read Braille at the age of ten.
Reluctant to learn Braille because it would set him apart as
"different," he resisted all efforts to teach him. A wise
teacher, knowing Buck loved mysteries, introduced him to
mysteries in Braille by showing him a copy of The Yellow Room by
Mary Roberts Rinehart. The rest is history.
     Buck is a graduate of the West Virginia Schools for the Deaf
and the Blind in Romney and of Marshall University in Huntington
with studies in speech and psychology. He is employed by West
Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources at Lakin. Mary
Ann is a graduate of Western Pennsylvania School for the Blind
and Indiana State College (now Indiana University of
Pennsylvania) at Indiana, Pennsylvania.
     The Saunderses are members of the Point Pleasant
Presbyterian Church, where they first heard of the literacy
program. They are the proud parents of two daughters, Teri (who
is also a certified tutor) and Laura. Laura and her husband
presented the Saunderses with their first grandchild this summer,
Brandon Luke Bowen. Buck is an avid reader and a collector of old
radio classics, particularly dramas. Mary Ann's hobbies include
reading, especially health-related articles.
     Tutoring for Buck and Mary Ann is a way of saying thanks for
all the help the Federation and community have given in helping
them lead normal, productive lives. They say, "The Federation
instills the attitude `it can be done,' and the community
provides the resources to do it."



                  NOTICE CONCERNING RESOLUTIONS
                         by Marc Maurer


     The policies of the National Federation of the Blind are
determined by resolutions adopted at the annual convention. The
process goes like this: The Resolutions Committee (which is quite
large, usually consisting of thirty-five or more) meets on the
afternoon of registration day. This year it will be July 4, and
as Monitor readers know, the place will be the Dallas-Fort Worth
Hyatt in Texas. The meeting is open to all who want to come, and
there are always close to a thousand in the audience.
     There was a time when both the Resolutions Committee and our
conventions were quite small, but that time has long since
passed. A few years ago we initiated a new procedure, which
prevailed through the 1992 convention. Under that procedure a
resolution might come to the convention floor in one of two ways.
It could either be reported out by the Resolutions Committee or
it could come through the Board of Directors. Ordinarily the
Resolutions Committee was the forum for discussion and action.
     For a resolution to be considered by the Committee it had to
be presented in writing to the Chairman no later than 2:00 on the
afternoon of the Committee meeting. It would then be discussed
and either 1) recommended to the convention for passage, 2)
rejected by the Committee, with the right of the author to take
it to the floor anyway, or 3) referred (with the consent of the
author) to a subcommittee for redrafting. There would be another
meeting of the Resolutions Committee later in the week to
consider the redrafted resolutions.
     Our conventions are now becoming so big and we are receiving
so many resolutions that the procedure we have been using no
longer seems workable. Therefore, the matter was considered at
length by the National Board last fall, and it was decided that a
new procedure would be tried at the 1993 convention in Dallas.
Here is how it will work:
     All resolutions should be presented in writing and should be
in the hands of the President or the Chairman of the Resolutions
Committee not later than two weeks before the day of the first
meeting of the Resolutions Committee. Since the Committee will be
meeting this year on July 4, the deadline date will be Sunday,
June 20. If a resolution has not been received by the President
or the Chairman of the Committee by June 20, it may still be
considered if it is presented to the Chairman of the Committee by
noon on the day of the Committee meeting (Sunday, July 4) and if
it is signed by at least three members of the Resolutions
Committee. Undoubtedly members of the Committee who are asked to
sign resolutions that have not been presented on time will be
reluctant to provide such signatures unless they are given a good
reason why the deadline was not met.
     When resolutions are considered by the Committee, they may
still be recommended for passage; rejected, with the right of the
author to take them to the floor (but only with the endorsement
of five states); or (with the consent of the author) referred to
a subcommittee for redrafting. However, the subcommittee for
redrafting will only concern itself with style. It will make
absolutely no change in substance, neither adding nor deleting.
If the Resolutions Committee finds part of the proposed
resolution so objectionable that it makes the resolution
unacceptable, their alternatives are to pass it with the
objectionable section included or to recommend against it.
     As in previous years, there will be a second meeting of the
Resolutions Committee in Dallas--but only to consider the
stylistic changes made by subcommittees. Neither new resolutions
nor changes in substance will be considered.
     Resolutions may still come through the Board of Directors,
but this method of presentation (as in the past) will be used
sparingly. Most resolutions will be considered by the convention
on the final day, but they may be considered at other appropriate
times during the convention.
     These changes in procedure should streamline the resolutions
process while preserving its integrity. I think they will give us
more time for substance and consideration of policy and eliminate
lost motion and inefficiency. As we continue to grow in size, we
must find ways to avoid getting bogged down in extraneous details
without weakening our democratic character as a movement.
     The Chairperson of the Committee is Ramona Walhof, 1301
South Capitol, Suite C, Boise, Idaho 83706. The other members of
the Committee are: Seville Allen, Virginia; Christine Boone, New
Mexico; Steven Booth, Massachusetts; Charles Brown, Virginia;
Jerry Carcione, New Jersey; Frank Coppel, South Carolina; Glenn
Crosby, Texas; Richard Edlund, Kansas; Bruce Gardner, Arizona;
Norman Gardner, Arizona; Janet Gawith, Idaho; Sharon Gold,
California; John Halverson, Missouri; Steve Handschu, Michigan;
Allen Harris, Michigan; Tami Dodd Jones, Michigan; Scott LaBarre,
Minnesota; Gary Mackenstadt, Washington; Sharon Maneki, Maryland;
Edmund Meskys, New Hampshire; Ed McDonald, West Virginia; James
Omvig, Arizona; Homer Page, Colorado; E. U. Parker, Mississippi;
Bonnie Peterson, Wisconsin; Barbara Pierce, Ohio; Peggy Pinder,
Iowa; Ben Brows, Washington; Eileen Rivera, Maryland; Fred
Schroeder, New Mexico; Tom Stevens, Missouri; Larry Streeter,
Nebraska; Ruth Swenson, Arizona; Andrew Virden, Minnesota;
Barbara Walker, Nebraska; Gary Wunder, Missouri; and Ted Young,
Pennsylvania.


      NFB NETWORK: A NEW CONCEPT FOR LONG-DISTANCE SERVICE
                         by Sharon Gold

     Years ago telephone use as we know it today was only a
dream. Local calls were commonplace, but long-distance calls were
a luxury and were saved for holidays and other special occasions
with family and friends. As the years have passed, the use of the
telephone has changed. No longer is a long-distance telephone
call to a loved one considered a luxury limited to special days.
Instead the telephone brings some families and friends separated
by many miles together every day. 
     The telephone has also changed the business world. Through
it individuals and businesses use the facsimile machine to
transmit correspondence, purchase items, and send business-
related documents to other individuals and businesses instantly.
Further, the telephone is used to transmit data between both
business and personal computers located in different corners of
the country. 
     Over the last year an important new opportunity has been
developed. Long-distance telephone service can now be used to
benefit nonprofit organizations. The National Federation of the
Blind has established NFB Network in cooperation with Convergent
Communications of Tulsa, Oklahoma. Individuals and businesses
selecting NFB Network as their long-distance carrier can donate
up to ten percent of their monthly long-distance charges to the
National Federation of the Blind and help to fund our efforts to
solve the ever-growing problems of blind persons. 
     Convergent Communications guarantees that its basic rates
are never higher than AT&T's Dial 1 rates and offers an
additional ten-percent discount. Subscribers can choose to give
this discount in full as a tax-deductible donation to the
National Federation of the Blind, or they can choose to split the
discount with the NFB, keeping five percent and donating five
percent. Each month the subscriber's statement includes an
accounting of the tax-deductible donation to the NFB. 
     Convergent Communications uses premium quality long-distance
lines and the AT&T calling card validation database for NFB
Network. If notified that a local telephone company charges a fee
to switch a phone line to the NFB Network long-distance service,
Convergent Communications will credit the subscriber's long-
distance account with the amount of the change-over charge.
Convergent Communications will also pay to return the subscriber
to the old long-distance carrier if he or she is not satisfied
with the NFB Network service. 
     Blindness is on the increase, and therefore the need to fund
the National Federation of the Blind and its growing services to
the blind has never been greater. The NFB Network is an
outstanding way for Federationists, their families, and friends
to make regular tax-deductible donations to the National
Federation of the Blind while making personal phone calls and
carrying on routine business.
     An NFB Network recruiting program has been established. When
completing their personal enrollment and when recruiting family
members, friends, and business associates to the NFB Network
long-distance service, Federationists are encouraged to complete
the NFB Recruiter box located in the lower right-hand corner of
the enrollment form. More and more Federationists are
participating in this program. Subscribers find the telephone
lines satisfactory and the new method of donating to the National
Federation of the Blind effortless and effective. 
     To sign up on NFB Network, complete the self-addressed,
postage-paid donor enrollment form (published in the inkprint
edition) and mail it to Convergent Communications. If you wish to
use the telephone to sign up for NFB Network, you may dial
Convergent Communications at 800-848-2661. Convergent will do the
rest. 



[PHOTO: Portrait. CAPTION: Nani Fife.]

                             RECIPES

     This month's recipes come from the tropical islands of
Hawaii, where Nani Fife is the President of the NFB affiliate.
The following are some of her favorite dishes: 

                           SALMON BAKE
                                
Ingredients:
2 cups canned salmon (1 1-pound can) with liquid
1/2 green pepper, diced
3 stalks celery, sliced
1/2 medium onion, chopped
3/4 cup uncooked rice
1 can cream of mushroom soup
1 soup can water
1 tablespoon soy sauce

     Method: Combine all ingredients. Turn into a greased
casserole dish and bake at 350 degrees for 1 hour.

                        DAD'S FISH FILLET

Ingredients:
1/2 cup instant potato flakes (crush slightly with rolling pin)
1 teaspoon grated Parmesan cheese
1/4 teaspoon garlic salt (optional)
1 packet garlic-cheese or other flavor dry salad dressing mix 
2 tablespoons milk
1 egg
1 pound fish fillets
Butter or oil for frying

     Method: Mix potato flakes, Parmesan cheese, garlic salt, and
dry salad dressing mix; set aside. Beat milk and egg together.
Dip fish fillets in egg mixture, then coat with potato flake
mixture. Pan fry in butter or oil 5 minutes on each side or until
filets are browned and flake easily.

                        SEAFOOD CASSEROLE

Ingredients:
1 can cream of shrimp soup
1/3 cup milk
1/2 cup shredded cheddar cheese
1/2 cup mayonnaise
2 cups fine noodles, crushed slightly
1 (6 1/2-ounce) can crab meat
1 (4 1/2-ounce) can shrimps, drained
1 5-ounce can sliced water chestnuts, drained 
1 can French-fried onion rings, crushed

     Method: Combine soup, milk, cheese, and mayonnaise. Fold in
uncooked noodles, crab meat, shrimps, and water chestnuts. Pour
into greased two-quart casserole, cover, and bake at 350 degrees
for 20 minutes. Uncover and bake 10 minutes longer. Sprinkle with
onion rings and bake 10 minutes more or until noodles are tender.

                  PAPAYA AND CRAB MEAT SUPREME

Ingredients:
1 (6 1/2-ounce) can crab meat
2/3 cup thinly sliced celery
2 ripe papayas
Juice of half a fresh lime
1/2 cup toasted slivered almonds
Parsley sprigs and lime wedges for garnish
Papaya seed dressing (recipe follows)

     Method: Flake crab meat. Add celery and chill. Cut papayas
in half and remove seeds. (Reserve seeds for dressing.) Place
papaya halves on individual serving shells or salad plates.
Squeeze lime juice over crab. Mix in almonds, then pile mixture
in papaya halves. Serve well chilled. Garnish with sprigs of
parsley, lime wedges, and papaya seed dressing.

                      PAPAYA SEED DRESSING

Ingredients:
1 cup sugar
1 teaspoon salt
1 teaspoon dry mustard
1 cup tarragon vinegar or wine
2 cups salad oil
1 small onion, chopped
3 tablespoons fresh papaya seeds

     Method: In blender container combine sugar, salt, dry
mustard, and wine or vinegar. Blend together, then gradually add
salad oil and onion. When thoroughly blended, add papaya seeds
and blend until seeds are the size of coarsely ground pepper.
Makes three cups. This dressing is also delicious as a marinade
for spareribs.

                           MANGO BREAD

Ingredients:
1/2 cup shortening
3/4 cup sugar
2 large or 3 medium eggs, beaten
3 cups flour
1 teaspoon soda
1/4 teaspoon salt
1 cup diced ripe mangoes
1 tablespoon lemon juice
1/2 cup chopped walnuts, pecans, or macadamias

     Method: Cream shortening and sugar; add eggs. Sift flour
with soda and salt: add alternately with mangoes and lemon juice
to creamed mixture. Fold in nuts. Pour into a well-greased loaf
pan and bake at 375 degrees for 1 hour.

                          AVOCADO BREAD

Ingredients:
2 eggs, slightly beaten
3/4 cup sugar
1/4 cup salad oil
1 cup avocado puree
1 teaspoon vanilla
1/4 teaspoon baking soda
1/4 cup pineapple juice
2 1/2 cups biscuit mix
1/4 cup chopped nuts

     Method: Combine eggs with sugar, salad oil, avocado puree,
vanilla, baking soda, and pineapple juice. Beat about 3 minutes.
Then fold in biscuit mix and nuts. Pour into one large or two
small loaf pans which have been lightly greased. Bake at 350
degrees for 55 to 60 minutes or until a toothpick inserted in
center comes out clean.



                     **MONITOR MINIATURES**

[PHOTO: Family portrait. CAPTION: Mary Ellen and Paul Gabias are
pictured here with Joanne as a baby.]

**New Baby:
     Paul and Mary Ellen (Reihing) Gabias, now living in British
Columbia, joyously report the birth of Jeffrey Paul at 7:33 a.m.
on Christmas Eve. He weighed six pounds nine ounces and measured
twenty inches. Everyone, including big sister Joanne, is doing
well. Monitor readers will remember that before her marriage Mary
Ellen Reihing worked for a number of years as Assistant Director
of the Job Opportunities for the Blind Program at the National
Center for the Blind. Paul currently serves as President of the
National Association of Guide Dog Users. Congratulations to the
entire Gabias family. 

**For Sale:
     We have been asked to carry the following announcement:
     I am interested in selling a Eureka computer with upgrade
speech synthesizer in good condition. Asking $2,000 or best
offer. Please contact John E. Neville at (604) 352-2424, British
Columbia, Canada.

**Recorded Course on the Catholic Faith Available:
     We have been asked to carry the following announcement:
     Free--a ten-lesson taped home study course on the Catholic
Faith and our free catalog. Send for Lesson 1 on cassette tape
and our catalog by contacting Catholic Inquiry for the Blind, 228
N. Walnut St., Lansing, Michigan 48933; (517)343-2500.

**Elected:
     Sharon Gold writes to report the following: 
     On November 8, 1992, the National Federation of the Blind of
California elected officers and three members of the Board of
Directors to serve for the coming two years. Re-elected were
Sharon Gold, president; Jim Willows, first vice president; John
Bates, secretary; and Betty Hendricks, board member. Elected were
Sandy Ritter, second vice president; Nick Medina, treasurer; and
Donovan Cooper and Diane Starin, board members. The remaining
four members of the board of directors (Ollie Cantos, Jana
Littrell, Pat Munson, and Joy Smith) were elected in 1991.

**Abstracts Now Available:
     We have been asked to carry the following announcement: 
     The table of contents and abstracts of articles in the 1989
to 1991 volumes of the Journal of the American Statistical
Association (JASA) are now available free of charge to the blind
and to others with print-handicaps that prevent them from reading
normal printed material. Specific articles will be recorded in
full upon request by print-handicapped individuals.
     To use this service, contact Margaret L. Y. Krieg, Studio
Director of the Oak Ridge Unit of Recording for the Blind, The
Margaret Despres Weinberg Center, 205 Badger Road, Oak Ridge,
Tennessee 37830; (615) 482-3496.
     Recording for the Blind, Inc. is a non-profit organization
that makes free loans of recorded educational material solely for
the blind and others who cannot see well enough to read normal
printed material.

**For Sale:
     We have been asked to carry the following announcement:
     For sale: Kurzweil personal reader, Model 7315 with
automatic scanner, Version 2.1 software, asking $4,600. If
interested, please call Larry McCreary at (919) 766-1237 after
5:00 p.m. EST.

**New Chapter Organized:
     Monitor readers will remember the brief article that
appeared in last month's issue of the Braille Monitor which
welcomed seven new chapters into the California affiliate of the
National Federation of the Blind. The December 3, 1992, edition
of "The Clipboard," the weekly publication circulated to
affiliate leaders by the NFB of California office, carried the
following announcement: 
     "Neither rain nor sleet nor snow..." can keep Federationists
away from a meeting of the National Federation of the Blind. So
it was that those attending the December 2 organizational meeting
of the Southern Alameda County Chapter braved the first big
rainstorm of the year to gather at the Hayward Public Library to
discuss the need for an NFB chapter, adopt a constitution, and
elect officers. The President of our newest chapter is Barbara
Baack. (Federationists will remember meeting Barbara in New
Orleans, where she stepped to a microphone on the final day of
the Convention to express her gratitude for the NFB and to say
that the Convention had given her hope for a life as a blind
person. She concluded by playing "God Bless America" on her
harmonica while conventioneers broke into song.) Others elected
to lead the Southern Alameda County Chapter are Pat Taylor, Vice
President; Joann Howard, Secretary; Marilyn York, Treasurer; and
Jeanine Rouiller, Board Member. 

**For Sale:
     We have been asked to carry the following announcement:
     I have for sale a Mboss-1 Braille embosser with quietizer
cabinet and Centronics-type parallel interface cable. It prints
ten characters per second, produces high-quality Braille, and is
reliable. Asking $900 plus shipping costs. If interested, contact
Annette Nowakowski, 575 West Madison Street, Apt. 511, Chicago,
Illinois 60661; (312) 902-3529.

[PHOTO: David Hyde standing at microphone. CAPTION: David Hyde.]

**Elected:
     David Hyde, who is the first vice president of the National
Federation of the Blind of Oregon, is a consumer access
specialist for the Talking Book and Braille Services of the
Oregon State Library. Recently David was elected president of the
State Library's local of the Oregon Public Employees Union.
Congratulations to David and to his union local. The members have
made a wise choice. 

**For Sale:
     We have been asked to carry the following announcement:
     I have an Apollo Portareader CCTV with board for sale. It is
in excellent condition. I am asking $500 or best offer. I also
have a Smith-Corona cartridge electric large-type typewriter
Model 2200 with case for $75 and a Smith-Corona manual large-type
typewriter with case for $45 or best offer. If interested,
contact Olivia Ostergaard, 2740 W. Olive St., Sp. 104, Fresno,
California 93722; (209) 486-2126. 

**In Memoriam:
     Sharon Gold, president of the National Federation of the
Blind of California, writes to report as follows: 
     During the early morning hours of December 7, 1992, Charles
Galloway died at his daughter's home in Martinez, California,
following a long illness. Charlie and his late wife Melba were
members and leaders of the National Federation of the Blind for
many, many years. A student at the California School for the
Blind, Charlie was one of Dr. Perry's last students. Charlie
shared the distinction of being one of the "Perry Boys" with Dr.
tenBroek, and he worked with Dr. tenBroek for the advancement of
our movement.
     Following his graduation from CSB, Charlie went to the
University of California, where he graduated and enrolled in law
school. The responsibility of a family made employment a
necessity, so Charlie left law school to become a vendor in the
California Business Enterprises Program. Charlie and Melba lived
in Martinez, where they raised two daughters, who were Charlie's
pride and joy. A man of principle and character, Charlie stood
with the Federation when would-be destroyers tried their hardest
to curtail the work of the NFB and put an end to the organized
blind movement.
     For more than forty years Charlie and Melba kept the
Federation alive in Contra Costa County, and Charlie served on
the NFB of California Board of Directors from 1979 through 1985.
He declined to stand for re-election in 1985 because Melba was
seriously ill and needed his full-time attention.
     Following Melba's death Charlie traveled to Denver to attend
and take part in the 1989 NFB Convention. Shortly after he
returned home, he suffered a stroke and, although he made some
recovery, he was never again well. No matter how ill he was,
Charlie always kept attendance at chapter meetings and monetary
contributions to the movement high in his priorities. When our
Mount Diablo Chapter held its chapter meeting and barbecue last
August and invited members from surrounding chapters, everyone
was pleased to see and visit with Charlie.
     We shall miss our long-time friend and colleague Charlie
Galloway, but the blind of California and the country benefit and
will continue to benefit from his efforts and leadership.


**Winnie-the-Pooh Calendars Available:
     We have been asked to carry the following announcement: 
     Winnie-the-Pooh, Christopher Robin, and all their friends
are back, to take you through 1993 in this delightful
print/Braille children's calendar. Featuring poems, pictures, and
vignettes from the four classic Milne-Shepard books, this
perennial favorite has a fresh new look, sure to brighten the
walls--and the days--of Pooh fans young and old.
     The actual print calendar is reassembled with see-through
plastic sheets containing poems, quotes, and holidays on the top
half, above the spiral binding. The traditional print face of the
calendar has the Braille dates and days of the week embossed
directly over the print. And something special is included for
the first time--an easy-to-assemble mask of Piglet and one of
Pooh. The perfect way to spend the year with "the best bear in
all the world."
     To order this print/Braille children's calendar, send
prepayment of $7.95 (same price as print calendar) to National
Braille Press, 88 St. Stephen Street, Boston, MA 02115. 

**Proposed Rulemaking:
     We have been asked to carry the following announcement:
     The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance
Board (Access Board) recently published a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) for state and local government facilities
covered under Title II of the ADA in the Federal Register. The
NPRM proposes new accessibility guidelines for judicial,
legislative, and regulatory facilities, detention and
correctional facilities, residential housing, public rights of
way, public telephones, sales and service counters, and airports.
The Access Board seeks public comment on the proposed guidelines
and other areas such as entrances, exempt areas, structures and
facilities, assistive listening systems, assembly areas, and
signage.
     The Access Board will accept written public comment on the
proposed guidelines for ninety days following the publication
date. In addition, the Access Board plans to hold public hearings
in Denver, Colorado; San Francisco, California; Charlotte, North
Carolina; Washington, D.C.; and St. Louis, Missouri, in February
and March, 1993, to receive oral testimony on the proposed
guidelines.
     The final guidelines are expected to be published in the
summer of 1993. Copies of the proposed guidelines may be obtained
by contacting the Access Board: Access Board, 1331 F Street,
N.W., Suite 1000, Washington, D.C. 20008; phone 202-272-5434
(voice), 202-272-5449 (TDD), 800-USA-ABLE (Voice/TDD), 202-272-
5447 (fax).

**For Sale:
     We have been asked to carry the following announcement:
     For sale, 20,000-word dictionary, in very good condition.
Ask $100. Also for sale, Cooking for Two, in two volumes, $5.
Please write in Braille or on tape: Laurie Marsch, 211
Southbrooke Drive, Waterloo, Iowa 57702; or phone 319-232-9750
(not collect).

**Elected:
     Kenneth Silberman, president of the Southern Maryland
Chapter of the National Federation of the Blind of Maryland,
reports that on December 5, 1992, the following officers were
elected: Kenneth Silberman, president; Polly Johnson, vice
president; Gerelene Womack, secretary; Andre Robinson, treasurer;
and Alfred Wilson and Mary Skattie, board members. 

**You Can't Keep a Federationist Down:
     The Santa Barbara County Chapter of the National Federation
of the Blind of California reports the following:
     The October business meeting of the Santa Barbara County
Chapter of the NFB of California was delayed due to an injury
suffered by President Joy Smith. While Joy was taking her daily
two-and-a-half-mile walk, she was struck down by an automobile
illegally driving through a neighborhood crosswalk. The impact
threw Joy into the street and broke her leg just below the knee.
She suffered numerous bruises and scrapes in addition to the
broken leg. Fortunately the accident was witnessed by a family
friend, who called the paramedics. They responded quickly and
transported Joy to the hospital, which was close by. The irony is
that the accident occurred just one day after White Cane Safety
Day was proclaimed in Santa Barbara County. 
     Despite the accident, and only one week late, on October 27,
1992, the regular business meeting of the Santa Barbara County
Chapter of the National Federation of the Blind of California was
called to order by President Joy Smith, who presided over the
meeting in both good spirits and a sturdy wheelchair. The
injuries she had sustained harmed neither her vigor nor her
determination.
     The election results were as follows: Joy Smith, president;
Eilleen Wogan, vice president; Dinah Smith, treasurer; Marie
Wells, recording secretary; Jill Ballard, corresponding
secretary; and Edith Meyer and Gen Beer, members at Large.

[PHOTO: Group portrait. CAPTION: Up With People Volunteers are
pictured here with NFB of South Dakota officers and members.]

**Up With People Volunteers Make Themselves Useful:
     Karen Mayry, President of the National Federation of the
Blind of South Dakota, reports that the affiliate's office staff
was host to six members of the Up With People performing group
during September of 1992. She says, "After contacting us to ask
if we could use their services, the students joined us to help
with selling tickets and stuffing Diabetics Division mailing
envelopes. As part of their nationwide tour, Up With People
participants offer community service to organizations in each
locality where they perform. Students in our group came from
Belgium, Switzerland, Canada, Ireland, and the United States. It
was a great experience for all of us." 

**For Sale:
     We have been asked to carry the following announcement:
     Braille 'n Speak 640 with adapter, original cable, and
manuals (Braille and cassette). The latest update is June 26,
1992. I am including the carrying case for the original Braille
'n Speak, which also fits the 640. Asking $1,050. If interested,
contact Denise Avant after 7:00 p.m. during the week at (312)
878-9518; or write 5300 N. Sheridan Rd., Apt. 401, Chicago,
Illinois 60640.

**February:
     The following comment and poem appeared in the Winter, 1992,
issue of the Braille Spectator, the publication of the National
Federation of the Blind of Maryland. The author is Ron Metenyi.
When we found it, it semed appropriate to save it to end this
issue of the Braille Monitor. Here it is:

     I have a conceit that every month has a distinctive
personality, natural wonders, and human traditions peculiar to
it. I've written some longer love poems to April and October and
a fair amount about August. With the first two it's a straight
love affair. With August it's a complex love/hate relationship.
Anyway, I've thought about February and how we mistreat it,
giving it the dubious distinctions of Groundhog Day, Leap Year, a
deficit of days, and constant mispronunciations of its name
(people say Febuary, or Febooary, or Febary, but seldom
February). Here's what February might say if he could talk:

I am February, a month of much ill fame.
People call me bad things, then mispronounce my name.
Even adding Leap Year, I always come up short,
And I don't get the playoffs of any major sport.
Think how you would feel, if you were treated so;
Let that explain my freezing rain, cold wind, and driving snow.
