                       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
PUBLICATION OF THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND

                            CONTENTS

                                                      MARCH, 1992

CONCERNING INTEGRITY, MONOPOLY, AND TELESENSORY
by Kenneth Jernigan and Barbara Pierce

THE INFORMATION ACCESS PROJECT FOR BLIND INDIVIDUALS

GRANT MACK FINALLY FORCED TO COME TO COURT
by Kenneth Jernigan

NAC KNOCKED OUT IN OHIO
by Barbara Pierce

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND 1992 LEGISLATIVE MEMORANDUM AND
FACT SHEETS

MORE ABOUT CHARLOTTE AND THE NFB CONVENTION

DOES THE BUS COMPANY HAVE A BLIND SPOT?
by Steve Jacobson

A CHIP ON SOMEBODY'S SHOULDER
by Christine Faltz

EXPECTATION AND REALITY: THE NFB AND AER TALK PAST EACH OTHER IN
WISCONSIN
by Bonnie Peterson

THE HUNT IN WHITE OCTOBER
by Peggy Chong

REPORT FROM LOS ALAMOS

DOG AND CANE

CREATING A MINDSET OR REFLECTING MYTHOLOGY: JOURNALISTS TALK
ABOUT BLINDNESS

FROM THE MAIL BASKET: MORE ABOUT HUMOR

AN EMPLOYEE SHARES HIS SPECIAL VIEW
by Kenneth Silberman

THE FEDERATION ABROAD
by C. Edwin Vaughan

RECIPES

MONITOR MINIATURES


     Copyright National Federation of the Blind, Inc., 1992[4 LEAD PHOTOS. CAPTION: During the past twenty years or so members of the
National Federation of the Blind have become a familiar sight on Capitol Hill.
Each February hundreds of Federationists visit their Senators and
Representatives to discuss issues of importance to blind Americans, and from
time to time specific matters bring them pouring into Washington for special
activities. In early July, 1981, almost 2,000 members of the National
Federation of the Blind gathered on the steps of the Capitol to hear then Vice
President George Bush and Dr. Jernigan (top left) address the new
administration's commitment to assisting disabled Americans. During our annual
Washington Seminars state delegations of Federationists hurry from appointment
to appointment for three solid days. Pictured top right, the Ohio delegation
races from the House side to the Senate office buildings for a meeting with
Senator Metzenbaum in 1987. In February, 1989, Federationists filled a hearing
room (bottom left) to watch Congressman Gerry Sikorski's House subcommittee
ask Department of State officials tough questions about its unwillingness to
hire blind people as Foreign Service Officers. In June of 1990 concerned blind
citizens waited in the lobby outside the Senate Chamber (bottom right) before
filling the Senate gallery to watch the cloture vote on the Air Travel Rights
for Blind Individuals Act. Looking back, it is clear that the National
Federation of the Blind is playing a major role in shaping the destiny of
blind Americans.]



[PHOTO: Portrait. CAPTION: James Bliss, President of TeleSensory.]

         CONCERNING INTEGRITY, MONOPOLY, AND TELESENSORY
             by Kenneth Jernigan and Barbara Pierce

     "In Pittsburgh," as more than one person told us, "it
doesn't matter how good your technology is or how low your
prices. It doesn't matter about the quality of your service or
the support you give your technology. If you aren't selling
products made by TeleSensory, you can't do business with the
state rehabilitation agency"--which is known as BVS, or the
Bureau of Blindness and Visual Services. This is what we were
told by a frustrated vendor of high-tech equipment for the blind
and what we heard echoed by many others. What this vendor of
technology did not say (but everybody knows) is that the
TeleSensory sales representative in Pittsburgh, Mary Ann Sember,
is married to Tom Sember, a counselor in the state agency's
Pittsburgh office.
     In New Jersey the TeleSensory sales representative has a
daughter who works for the state agency. The family relationship
is different, but the pattern is the same. State business goes to
TeleSensory regardless of cost, performance, or quality of
service.
     The arrangement is cozy for those who are part of the inner
circle, but if the same situation occurred in military
procurement, it would be front-page scandal with everybody crying
foul. Here, however, only blind clients are being hurt--along
with small business operations (mostly owned by blind people).
Since those who are being denied the right to compete are not
big-time operators with major bucks and political clout, such
complaints as have surfaced have largely been ignored.
     At least on the surface, the situation in New York is a
little different. Family ties don't appear to be involved, but
TeleSensory still seems to manage. Vendors report that in many 
parts of New York TeleSensory has the state agency technology
market pretty much locked up. These vendors say that they are
rarely successful in getting orders despite better prices and
superior service.
     How has all this come about? At a time when rehabilitation
money is in short supply everywhere in the country for the
purchase of technology that blind people need to become or remain
competitive, why do so many state agency counselors insist on
buying equipment from a company with a nationwide reputation for
slow and unresponsive support service and prices higher than
those of the competition? Why is this done even when blind
clients request alternative technology that they think will serve
their needs better? Some say that the answer lies in a
combination of history, sloth, and inertia--the fact that
TeleSensory (formerly TSI) has been in the field longer than most
of its competitors and is bigger than the rest of them. Others
(whether correctly or not) cut through the niceties and call it
collusion and skulduggery.
     When high-tech for the blind first began to make a real
impact (some twenty years ago), the world of technology for the
blind was tidily divided among the various producers. (See the
January, 1992, issue of the Braille Monitor.) TeleSensory
Systems, Inc., (known then, and still generally referred to today
after its merger with VTEK, as TSI) brought out the Optacon,
which gave a tactile image of the letters on a printed page, and
also the first of the talking calculators. In addition, TSI
produced the VersaBraille, which was a portable device that
permitted word processing and used movable pins to display
computer-stored text in what was called refreshable Braille.
     When state and private agencies or the federal government
wanted this type of technology, they generally turned to TSI. It
wasn't necessarily that TSI gave better service or better prices
than others but that very often nobody else was in that
particular corner of the market at the time.
     The talking calculator is a good example. It was priced at
almost $500, but it worked--and it was all there was. A few years
later when the Sharp calculator hit the market with a smaller
size, more versatility, and a tenth the price, the TSI calculator
was history. This is not to criticize the TSI calculator or even
its price but only to say that even while some of the blind were
buying and using it, TSI was the recipient of a good deal of
resentment and ill-will because of what was perceived to be the
exorbitant charge--especially since it was generally felt that a
great deal of TSI's research and development costs for a number
of its products had been paid for by government and other grants.
In short, a number of the products were good (if expensive), and
by and large the support staff had a reasonably satisfactory
reputation for providing service and doing something about
problems when they occurred--but TSI was heartily disliked, not
only by many other vendors but (more important) by a steadily
growing number of the blind.
     One more factor which must be added to the equation is Jim
Bliss, TSI's controversial chief executive and driving force.
From the beginning Bliss has proved himself to be a man of
ability and unflagging energy, but he has also proved himself to
be a veritable genius at bad public relations. Wherever he has
gone, he has created hostility and made enemies. Whether
justified or not, stories persistently circulated (and, for that
matter, still do) of sleazy conduct, questionable practices,
cutthroat tactics, and the determination to squeeze every penny
from a deal. 
     There is something more:  Even with Bliss's reputation for
cutting corners and squeezing pennies, sources tell us that
TeleSensory is in financial trouble.  The report from
TeleSensory's auditors dated May 11, 1990, contains interesting
material and says in part:

Note B - Acquisition
     On January 27, 1989, the Company acquired all the stock of
Visualtek, Inc. (VTEK) in exchange for 480,528 shares of its
common stock.  VTEK is engaged in the development, manufacture
and sale of electronic equipment for visually impaired
individuals throughout the world.  The results of operations of
VTEK since January 28, 1989 are included in the accompanying
consolidated financial statements.
     In connection with the acquisition, the Company entered into
noncompete and consulting agreements with VTEK's founder and
majority stockholder in the amount of $4,250,000.  These
agreements were prepaid by the Company, are each for five years
and are amortized ratably over this period.  The Company has also
agreed to pay $30,000 of annual nonaccountable expenses in each
of the five years relating to the consulting services.

     Note E of the report of the auditors says in part:

     In January 1989, the Company entered into a working capital
line of credit with a bank which enables the Company to borrow up
to $2,500,000 at an interest rate of prime (10.5% at December 31,
1989) plus 1.5%.  The Company paid a commitment fee to the bank
equal to 3% of the maximum borrowings.  The line of credit
expires in May 1990; however, the Company is currently
negotiating an extension of the line.
     In December 1989, the Company executed a promissory note
with the same bank due June 1990.  The note bears interest at the
bank's prime rate plus 1.5%.
     These bank borrowings are guaranteed by the Company and its
subsidiaries and are subject to certain restrictive covenants,
including the maintenance of minimum working capital ratios and
tangible net worth, profitable operations, and a maximum debt to
net worth ratio.  The Company was in violation of the
profitability covenant at December, 1989; however, the Company
has obtained a waiver from the bank.
     In December 1989, the Company borrowed $1,000,000
subordinated to bank borrowings and collateralized by the
Company's assets, from a material supplier at an interest rate of
12%.  Principal repayments of $200,000 at March 31 and April 30,
1990 have been made.  The $600,000 balance is due May 31, 1990.

     This is what the auditors say for calendar year 1989, and
reports are widespread that 1990 was a very bad year for
TeleSensory.  Some even say that the company's very existence is
in danger.
     However, when we discussed the matter with Jim Bliss, he
said that while 1990 had admittedly been bad, 1991 had been good. 
He said that the report of the auditors to the stockholders would
not be ready for several weeks and that he was, therefore, not at
liberty to give specific data.  But he emphasized that the
company was in good condition and that prospects looked good for
1992.  Without more specific data we are not in a position to
evaluate Bliss' statements or the rumors that contradict them. 
We are only in a position to say that TeleSensory continues its
stormy and controversial course.
     As technology evolved in the blindness field through the
1980s, competing products began to emerge--and in the effort to
reduce prices, technical support began to suffer. Even brief
conversation with anyone who uses technology for the blind will
turn up ghastly stories of malfunctioning systems and confused
experts. TSI is by no means the only object of these anecdotes,
but blind users certainly do complain steadily on computer
bulletin boards of TSI unresponsiveness and equipment down-time. 
     Yet, the large-volume purchasers (like state rehabilitation
agencies and the federal government) have continued to buy TSI
products. Some say that it is simply momentum and habit, an
apparent feeling on the part of the agencies that they know what
they are getting and with whom they are dealing. Moreover,
TeleSensory has always billed itself as producing a complete line
of products designed to work together, and TSI sales
representatives have used this argument as a selling point.
     As we have said, the 1980s saw changes in the technology
world. Suddenly TSI had competition, and these competitors were
developing exciting new products at lower prices. While TSI
continued its traditional pattern of hiring sales representatives
throughout the country who were primarily concerned with selling
TSI products, a number of the newer producers began to establish
professional relationships with regional vendors--many of whom,
as blind people, were themselves using the technology they sold.
These sales people were prepared to hustle for business and
provide their own equipment expertise as a start-up service in
order to make sales and create happy customers. They were often
willing to give assistance with related technology which was not
part of their line of merchandise. In addition, they recognized
that they would have to undersell TeleSensory if they were to
establish their own niches in the market. Talking to these
vendors, one is reminded of the old Avis rent-a-car "We try
harder" commercials. These new vendors are working very hard
indeed, and while they are getting business from the private
sector and from institutions outside the state rehabilitation
agency structure, some very strange things seem to be going on in 
a number of state agencies.
     The usual practice in state government is to seek bids from
vendors when substantial amounts of money are to be spent. From
what we can gather, this practice is not followed by the New
Jersey Commission for the Blind, and until fairly recently most
of the district offices of the Pennsylvania state agency did not
bother with bids either even though Pennsylvania law requires
state purchasing agents to seek them. Sometime early in 1991,
however, a memo was apparently circulated to the Pennsylvania BVS
offices stipulating that in future three bids must be sought
before placing any sizable equipment order. We are told that the
Philadelphia office had been following this practice as far back
as anyone can remember but that most other regional offices had
not.
     One might be pardoned for assuming that enforcing this bid
policy would resolve the acknowledged problem of staff purchases
of overpriced or inappropriate equipment for clients, but
apparently such has not been the case. For example, one
Pittsburgh vendor currently sells the Arkenstone reading system
for $3,500. The OsCaR, TeleSensory's almost identical system,
sells for $3,895. A ten-percent difference in price would seem to
make the Arkenstone attractive to conscientious professionals in
Pittsburgh trying to make their funds stretch as far as possible.
But if one is determined to give the business to the less
competitive company, all one has to do is write the bid
specifications in such a way that (regardless of the facts) only
the more expensive product fills the stipulated requirements. 
     This is precisely what we are told most BVS counselors in
Pittsburgh seem to be doing. Bob Jakub, the local Arkenstone
dealer, says that he has to date been awarded two contracts for
the Arkenstone reading system even though during the last several
years he has sought to provide a number of others to BVS clients.
Jakub says that in September of 1991 a client requested an
Arkenstone as soon as permission was given for purchasing a
reading system for him, but the counselor insisted on providing
the OsCaR. According to Jakub the client (an attorney, who was
not in the habit of lying down meekly and letting people walk
over him) continued to demand the Arkenstone, which he eventually
got. In recent weeks Jakub says he has bid on and received
another contract for an Arkenstone. But for the most part we are
told the Pittsburgh counselors buy TeleSensory equipment. And the
only TeleSensory representative in the area is Mary Ann Sember,
the wife of one of the office counselors.
     No one has suggested that money is changing hands, but old
habits are hard to break--and pressures to conform to established
practice do not have to be overt in order to be effective.
Sources close to the Pittsburgh office report that one counselor
was named as acting District Manager some time ago. He decided to
put an end to the practice of giving all the office's technology
business to TSI, and as a result, this source suggests, the
acting manager is once more a counselor. 
     Meanwhile the list of unhappy clients who have been given
TeleSensory products grows. We are told that one woman was given
the Vista computer screen enlargement system, the TeleSensory
product. We are further told that she experienced great
difficulty getting it to work for her and that in the midst of
this prolonged struggle she moved to another state. Her new
counselor professed himself astonished to find that she had been
given Vista. He volunteered that in his agency no one had ordered
that product for years. In fact, our interviews indicate that
many TSI product users become dissatisfied in the months and
years following the initial purchase. In the beginning
TeleSensory sales representatives seem to work hard to sell and
install TSI systems. When the equipment develops problems or the
client needs additional help to get started, or the system does
not perform as promised, we are told that the TSI personnel are
suddenly hard or impossible to find and pin down. As one
disgruntled customer said, "As long as they need you, they are
right there to help, but as soon as you need them, you might as
well forget it."
     In Pittsburgh there is a disturbing history of clients'
getting TSI equipment regardless of their own preferences or
professional recommendation. We are told that one BVS client was
evaluated by the Pittsburgh Guild for the Blind, that the Optelek
closed circuit television system was recommended, and that
training on the system was provided. We are further told that
despite the fact that the state agency paid for the evaluation
and recommendation, the state counselor ordered TeleSensory's
Vantage System. Only after strong objections were raised by the
Optelek vendor was the excuse offered that a mistake had been
made and the Optelek system purchased instead. Another vendor
confided to one of our reporters that he had lost three orders in
which his equipment had been recommended but TeleSensory
technology substituted. 
     In the weeks preceding the 1991 convention of the National
Federation of the Blind of Pennsylvania, the rumblings concerning
the improprieties in the Pittsburgh office of the Bureau of
Blindness and Visual Services grew so loud that the organization
passed a resolution on the matter. Subsequent to the convention
Ted Young, President of the National Federation of the Blind of
Pennsylvania, wrote a letter to the state's Auditor General
outlining the problems and enclosing the resolution. Here are
both the letter and the resolution: 

                                       Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
                                                November 18, 1991

Ms. Barbara Hafer
Auditor General
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

Dear Ms. Hafer:
     The National Federation of the Blind of Pennsylvania is a
state affiliate of the National Federation of the Blind, which
has over fifty thousand members and an affiliate in every state
of the nation. As  blind people organized to promote the social
and economic well-being of all the blind, we are naturally
interested in and concerned about improprieties in any district
of the Pennsylvania Bureau of Blindness and Visual Services
(BVS).
     Although we understand that some of the following concerns
may have been brought to the attention of others in state
government prior to this time, we believe that you--given your
promises of cleaning up state government made in your recent
campaign--will take all necessary actions to resolve these
issues.
     It has come to our attention that the Pittsburgh district
office and some other district offices of BVS have not followed
the required state practice of sending out bids before purchasing
electronic adaptive equipment for clients. This is particularly
troublesome in the case of Pittsburgh, given the following facts
and allegations which, if true, suggest illegal practices.
     1. Tom Sember, a counselor at the Pittsburgh district office
of BVS, is married to Mary Ann Sember, a sales representative for
TeleSensory, which is a major distributor of adaptive electronic
technology for blind persons, including speech hardware and
software, Braille printers, scanners with adaptive software, and
equipment allowing computer screen output to be enlarged for
persons with low vision.
     2. There are a number of other producers of similar
equipment. Much of this other equipment is less expensive and
performs the same functions with the same quality as that
produced by TeleSensory.
     3. Despite higher prices TeleSensory has been the main
source of equipment purchased by the Pittsburgh district office.
     4. Other equipment vendors have cited cases in which a given
brand of less expensive equipment was recommended and TeleSensory
equipment was delivered. This was true even when the client had
been evaluated on the recommended equipment.
     5. It is alleged that, when clients request other brands of
equipment, they are dissuaded with the intimation that, if they
do not accept TeleSensory equipment, they may not get any at all.
     6. It is alleged that, when adaptive electronic equipment is
recommended for Tom Sember's clients, the case is transferred to
another counselor and that TeleSensory equipment is automatically
provided.
     7. It is alleged that, even when a rehabilitation supervisor
of the Pittsburgh district office was advised that he could get
the same equipment at a lower price, he ignored this source.
     8. One vendor has alleged that, when he complained about
some of the above practices, the Pittsburgh district office
stopped buying other products he sells which do not compete with
TeleSensory.
     Having learned of these factors shortly before our state
convention, we passed the attached resolution. As you can see, it
requests that you investigate this matter. It is our
understanding that portions of this matter may have been raised a
year ago and that at the time it was referred to the Pittsburgh
district office, where it was promptly rationalized. Given the
possible illegal nature of the above practices, the cost to the
taxpayers, and the failure of rehabilitation to consider the best
way of meeting the client's needs and preferences, we hope that
your office will investigate directly.
     Even as we write this letter, we are in the process of
gathering more facts. We will be happy to meet with you at your
earliest convenience to provide names of persons who would be
willing to give you further information concerning this
situation. Thank you.

                                                       Sincerely,
                                             Ted Young, President
                 National Federation of the Blind of Pennsylvania

                        Resolution 91-03

     WHEREAS, it has come to our attention from some blind
persons and some equipment vendors in the Pittsburgh area that
there is a definite bias on the part of the Pittsburgh district
office of the Pennsylvania Bureau of Blindness and Visual Service
toward the purchase of equipment produced and sold by
TeleSensory; and
     WHEREAS, we understand that this bias may extend to changing
authorizations for other equipment to similar products made by
TeleSensory; and
     WHEREAS, we know that the wife of one of the rehabilitation
counselors works as a sales representative for TeleSensory; and
     WHEREAS, the Vocational Rehabilitation program is the
largest purchaser of technical equipment for blind persons, and
this relationship to TeleSensory may constitute a conflict of
interest; Now, Therefore,
     BE IT RESOLVED by the National Federation of the Blind of
Pennsylvania in convention assembled this tenth day of November,
1991, that the National Federation of the Blind of Pennsylvania
request the Auditor General to investigate this situation and
rule on whether this relationship constitutes a conflict of
interest and whether it violates any other laws.
                      ____________________
     There you have the letter to the Auditor General and the
resolution, and clearly these documents were received at the
Auditor General's office with great interest. Here is the letter
written to Ted Young by one of Attorney General Hafer's
assistants: 

                                                December 15, 1991

Ted Young, President
National Federation of the Blind of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Dear Mr. Young:
     Auditor General Barbara Hafer has asked me to respond to
your letter of November 18, 1991, with respect to alleged
irregularities at the Pittsburgh District Office of the
Pennsylvania Bureau of Blindness and Visual Services. We have
reviewed the information provided by you and have determined that
some follow-up is appropriate.
     In connection with your complaint, the information provided
by you will be forwarded to the appropriate audit bureau for the
purposes of review during the next scheduled audit of the entity
in question. Additionally, we will begin to make a preliminary
inquiry into the allegations as soon as possible, given existing
personnel and workloads.
     We will be in touch with you with respect to our progress
and findings.
     I want to thank you, on behalf of Auditor General Hafer, for
coming forward with the information that you have provided. It is
only by reviewing the conduct of the affairs of state government
that those affairs can be conducted as efficiently and properly
as possible.

                                                Very truly yours,
                                           Charles P. Mackin, Jr.
                                           Deputy Auditor General
cc:  Bureau of Departmental Audits
     Office of Special Investigations
                      ____________________
     That was the letter Ted Young received just before Christmas
of 1991. Members of the National Federation of the Blind of
Pennsylvania are working with legislators to encourage the
Auditor General to press forward with her investigation as
expeditiously as possible. 
     The situation in other states is not as clearly defined as
it is in Pennsylvania. Vendors consistently report that the New
Jersey Commission for the Blind does not place orders for any
equipment that competes directly with TeleSensory technology. Al
Blumenthal has been the TeleSensory dealer in New Jersey for
years. His daughter Donna is an employee of the state commission
for the blind, and we are told that the Commission purchases an
overwhelming proportion of TeleSensory equipment. Is there any
connection? It would be nearly impossible to prove, but the very
fact of the family tie makes it difficult to believe that there
is no favoritism. One would think that the Commission might see
the wisdom of doing business with other vendors if for no other
reason than to avoid the appearance of impropriety. The fact that
it would save money in the process would suggest to the citizen
in the street another advantage in doing so. But the New Jersey
Commission continues to dance with virtually one partner only,
TeleSensory.
     Blind consumers in New York say flatly that TeleSensory has
the market sewed up tight. This does not appear to be an accurate
perception, at least in some parts of the state. C-Tech (a
company that sells a number of technology products for the blind
and visually impaired), for example, reports that in the area
around its headquarters outside of New York City it gets state
agency business. This seems reasonable since, according to
company officials, its prices are five percent below TSI's across
the board. The company picks up and delivers equipment and also
provides loaner products when they are available. It does not
have entire computer systems to lend while equipment is being
repaired, but it says it tries to supply components when problems
develop with equipment that it has sold. 
     The company has recently expanded into the western part of
the state. Company officials report that they are getting
business in the new area from every sector but the state agency.
It is clear that agency personnel are hesitant to leave the
familiar, even when the price is right. 
     And what about TeleSensory? It is the largest company in
this corner of the technology market. Through merger, take-over,
and its own product development, it manufactures and sells the
widest array of technology for blind and low-vision consumers in
the country. By size and market penetration TeleSensory has a
dominant position in the blindness field, and this disturbs many,
not all of whom are TSI competitors.
     For the record James Bliss denies that TeleSensory has
locked up any segment of the market. When asked whether he knew
about Mary Ann Sember's relationship to the Pennsylvania state
agency's Pittsburgh office and Al Blumenthal's connection to the
New Jersey Commission for the Blind, he at first said that he did
not know about the family ties. When the relationships were
explained, he then admitted that he was familiar with the
situation but explained that "They both have some clearance from
those agencies, that there is not a conflict of interest." He
went on to say, "It is my understanding that it is well known,
and everyone understands the situation. At least," he continued,
"that is what I was told."
     It seems evident that everyone does understand the
situation, but perhaps not in the way that Jim Bliss and the
state officials in question do. One can only hope that the
Pennsylvania Auditor General will consider carefully the problems
that have been brought to her attention and force open the
bidding process in Pittsburgh. That would be a start and might
serve as a warning in the other state agency offices in which
competition for technology business seems to have been an
unpopular concept. 
     Though all this would help, it leaves unaddressed an area of
TeleSensory behavior which elicits almost universal comment in
discussions of vendor conduct in the field of technology for the
blind. The feeling is widespread and deeply held that TeleSensory
officials do not respect blind people and that this disrespect
permeates all aspects of TeleSensory's dealings. Blind officials
in several organizations report that TeleSensory representatives
in discussions and negotiations prefer to deal with sighted
conferees even when the blind individual with the power to make
decisions is in the room. There is no objective way to measure
this perception, but the general and strongly held conviction
remains that TeleSensory officials do not respect blind people. 
     Another more easily demonstrated criticism is that outside
of its technical support and marketing departments TeleSensory
hires almost no blind employees. More particularly, there are
very few blind sales representatives. Jim Bliss named two and
said that there were others but that he could not come up with
names without a list in front of him. Since TeleSensory is a
major company in this field, one might have hoped for a larger
commitment to employing technology consumers than the record
demonstrates. Virtually every other company in the field has a
better hiring record. Indeed, one of the two sales
representatives cited works (by choice) only part-time and limits
her activity to selling Braille-connected technology.
     When asked directly about allegations that blind applicants
for sales jobs have been told they need not apply, Bliss stated
that it is TeleSensory policy to comply with the spirit as well
as the letter of the law surrounding employment. Bliss said that
TSI has just undergone a Department of Labor affirmative action
audit, and, as he put it, "came out in good shape." He also said
that TeleSensory just won the Employer of the Year Award from the
California Governor's Committee for Employment of the
Handicapped--all of which may mean much or little or nothing. Be
that as it may, the rumors persist; the perception continues; and
the TeleSensory sales force is dominated by sighted
representatives. 
     And what is the consumer left to think? TeleSensory designs,
produces, and markets workable and expensive software and
hardware that are made to perform best with other TeleSensory
products. Its sales force, we have been repeatedly told, is hard-
driving and, if a sale is in the balance, not above promising
things that no current technology can yet deliver. Moreover, as
one agency director told us, "This sales force would sell you a
Mercedes for $65,000 if you were in the market for a car that
would get you to work. A Mercedes will get you to work, of
course, but it is intended to do a lot more." TeleSensory
representatives seem to be good at convincing would-be consumers
that the TSI product is what they need and that they shouldn't
let anyone make them settle for anything less. This causes
problems for state agency counselors who are conscientiously
trying to save money while getting quality products. It leads to
wholesale waste when the counselors themselves, for whatever
reason, are committed to buying TeleSensory no matter what. 
     As we move into the final decade of the twentieth century,
one thing is clear in the field of technology for the blind.
Major changes are underway. TeleSensory is not the only game in
town, and the blind users of technology will no longer settle for
having their informed views ignored. When unsavory business
practices exist, we will do our best to put an end to them. 
     It is not appropriate to funnel state business to one
producer, whose prices are high and whose service is slow to
nonexistent. When that producer's sales representatives have
direct family ties to the agencies of government that make the
purchases, then the consumers, the competing vendors, and the
general public will inevitably draw their own conclusions about
what is happening.
     We who are blind face enough discrimination, narrow-
mindedness, and inertia among the general public without having
to put up with it closer to home. We intend to end second-class
treatment in the larger community, and we are likely to tolerate
it even less in our own field of work with the blind--including
the production and distribution of technology. It is no longer
sufficient for governmental and private agencies (or, for that
matter, vendors of technology) to rely on old solutions just
because they are familiar. Increasingly the blind of this country
know what they are entitled to and what they want and are
prepared to fight to get it. Empowerment is the current
watchword, and we who are blind have not only been at it for a
long time but fully understand what it means and how it works.

[PHOTO: International Braille and Technology Center for the Blind. CAPTION:
The International Braille and Technology Center for the Blind. This facility
is an invaluable resource for the Information Access Project for Blind
Individuals.]

      THE INFORMATION ACCESS PROJECT FOR BLIND INDIVIDUALS
   A Cooperative Effort by the U.S. Department of Justice and
              the National Federation of the Blind

     The National Federation of the Blind has been awarded a U.S.
Department of Justice Technical Assistance Grant to conduct the
Information Access Project for Blind Individuals (IAP for short).
This grant supports our efforts to assist the Justice Department
to educate the various entities (state and local government
bodies as well as private businesses) covered by the Americans
with Disabilities Act (thus referred to in the Act and its
regulations as "covered entities") in meeting the requirements of
the ADA which relate to blind persons. Likewise, we will work
with blind individuals to assist them in using the ADA to expand
employment, educational, and avocational opportunities.
Specifically, the IAP will serve as a national resource for
understanding and interpreting the provisions of the Act which
call for making print and other visually accessible materials
(charts, posters, signs, video presentations, etc.) available to
the blind.

                       Overview of the ADA

     The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was signed into
law by President George Bush on July 26, 1990. The ADA was passed
to provide a comprehensive national mandate for the elimination
of discrimination against individuals with disabilities. In
addition, the law is designed to establish national standards to
prevent discrimination against persons with disabilities as well
as to define the federal government's role in enforcing these
standards.
     The ADA is divided into five sections or titles. Title I
deals with employment, Title II is concerned with services
provided by public entities, while Title III deals with services
and accommodations provided by private entities. Title IV is
concerned with telecommunication and captioning services for the
deaf and speech impaired, and Title V covers a variety of
miscellaneous subjects including regulations by the Architectural
and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, attorney's fees,
Federal Wilderness Areas, coverage of Congress and the whole
legislative branch and more. The Title I regulations will become
law on July 26, 1992, for companies with twenty-five or more
employees and on July 26, 1994, for companies with fifteen or
more employees. Titles II and III went into effect on January 26,
1992. Title IV of the ADA must be implemented by July 26, 1993,
and there is no overall implementation date for Title V. 
     Accessibility is a major goal of the ADA. Accessibility
applies to information and communications as much as it does to
the physical characteristics of buildings and facilities. It is
this aspect of accessibility which is of most interest to blind
persons and, therefore, the reason the National Federation of the
Blind is working with the Justice Department on this project. 
Requirements for equal access to information flow mainly from the
ADA'S auxiliary aids and services and reasonable accommodation
provisions in Titles II and III. However, the provision of
information in appropriately accessible forms for blind persons
cannot happen merely by means of a legislated mandate. Without
the involvement of organized blind consumers, what in practice
becomes the definition of and standards for "appropriately
accessible forms" may not truly be in the best interests of the
blind; thus, the value of the National Federation of the Blind's
serving as a liaison between blind individuals and covered
entities (through the IAP) during the early months of the ADA's
implementation. 

                     Purpose and Objectives

   The overall goals of the Information Access Project are to
encourage collaborative efforts between blind individuals and
covered entities for the provision of nonvisually accessible
information and to assist blind individuals and covered entities
in efforts to prepare and distribute printed material in
nonvisually accessible media. What is meant by "nonvisually
accessible media?" Any one of the following alternative forms or
methods would meet the definition: Braille, sound recordings,
enlarged print, digital text in computer formats, raised line
drawings, and a live reader. However, both blind individuals and
covered entities will need to recognize that the provision of
materials in nonvisually accessible media will be rendered on a
case-by-case basis; and that both the requirements and/or
preferences of the blind individual or individuals and the
resources of the covered entity should be considered in
determining how accessibility is rendered. The IAP will play a
key role in helping blind individuals and covered entities
determine when compliance with ADA accessibility requirements has
been met. 
     Many covered entities will face considerable technical
difficulties as they begin to face up to their new
responsibilities under the ADA. For example, most covered
entities are not currently equipped with in-house production
capabilities or with ready access to outside production sources
to meet their needs for Braille, recorded, or large print
material. Most covered entities simply have never addressed the
challenge of providing their informational materials in any form
other than the standard print media accessible to the sighted
users of their products or services. 
     The IAP has been designed to accomplish the following
specific objectives:
     (1) to provide blind individuals with greater access to
printed information produced and distributed by covered entities; 
     (2) to support cooperative efforts between blind individuals
and covered entities to increase capabilities for covered
entities to provide nonvisually accessible information on a
regular basis; and 
     (3) to improve the capability of covered entities to provide
nonvisually accessible material through coordinated information
access services provided from a national source--the Information
Access Project. 

                        Major Activities

     To carry out the activities of the project, we have
established the National Information Access Center at the
National Center for the Blind. This Center, which utilizes the
resources of the International Braille and Technology Center for
the Blind, will disseminate information to blind individuals and
to covered entities. It will also answer technical questions
regarding production methods and/or equipment. Further, the
Center will embark on some exemplary projects with covered
entities that can serve as models for ongoing information access
efforts. Finally, the Center will perform Brailling and other
services for covered entities on a selected basis. Also, we have
established a nationwide corps of Information Access Coordinators
(a minimum of one per state--similar to the Job Opportunities for
the Blind Volunteer Network). These coordinators will contact
covered entities--both state and local government bodies, and
private businesses and organizations--to make them aware of their
responsibilities as they relate to the blind. Additionally, the
coordinators will serve as local and state contacts for blind
individuals who have questions about specific applications of the
ADA regulations related to information access. 
     Mr. David Andrews, Director of the International Braille and
Technology Center, is serving as Program Manager for the
Information Access Project. Mr. Andrews will handle the day-to-
day operations of the project. Write, call, or communicate with
him via NFB NET (our electronic bulletin board service) as
follows:

        Information Access Project for Blind Individuals
                National Federation of the Blind
                       1800 Johnson Street
                       Baltimore, MD 21230
                    Telephone: (410) 659-9314
                       Fax: (410) 685-5653
                       BBS: (410) 752-5011

     One of the first efforts of the project was the production
of a brochure which explains in some detail the ADA requirements
for the provision of nonvisually accessible information to blind
individuals. If you would like a copy of this brochure, "Toward
Equal Access: Providing Information Access Services to Blind and
Visually Impaired Persons Under the Americans With Disabilities
Act (ADA)," contact the IAP per one of the above methods.
Consistent with provisions of the ADA, the brochure is available
in large print, cassette, Braille, computer disk, and via NFB
NET. 
     The Information Access Project is funded by a $99,930 grant
from the U.S. Department of Justice. Currently, the project is
scheduled to operate through September 30, 1992.


[PHOTO/CAPTION: Guided by a police officer and leading his guide dog, Grant
Mack leaves the Bismarck Hotel on route to the police station December 8,
1990.]

           GRANT MACK FINALLY FORCED TO COME TO COURT
                       by Kenneth Jernigan

     On January 17, 1992, Grant Mack--longtime militant proponent
of the National Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving the
Blind and Visually Handicapped (NAC)--stood in a Chicago
courtroom to face criminal charges.  The charges resulted from
Mack's actions at a meeting at the Bismarck Hotel in Chicago,
December 8, 1990.  (See Braille Monitor, January, 1991.)  Mack
and a handful of others had gathered at the hotel to try to
pressure Illinois agencies for the blind to seek NAC
accreditation, and representatives of the blind community had
come to voice dissatisfaction with NAC and to urge the Illinois
agencies to resist.
     One of those present was Steve Hastalis, a blind Chicago
resident who was there as a reporter for the Braille Monitor. 
He, along with other blind persons, was in the room where the NAC
dinner was to occur--and he had with him the usual equipment
carried by a reporter for the voice and print media, a tape
recorder and a microphone.  There were heated words as Mack, who
was to chair the meeting, tried to force the blind and the press
to leave.  Mack's language was intemperate and abusive; and
ultimately he resorted to physical violence, seizing Hastalis's
microphone, throwing it to the floor, and breaking it.  Although
there is a certain amount of disagreement as to the details of
what occurred, the essential facts are not in dispute.
     In a paper which he circulated shortly after the December 8
meeting, Mack said (and these are his own words):  "I reached
out, grabbed the microphone, tore it up, and threw it down." 
That seems quite clear and direct and certainly explains why
charges were brought.  Shortly after the altercation, Hastalis
[see Braille Monitor, May, 1991] went to the police and swore out
a complaint, and a court date was set for January 3, 1991.
     When the date arrived, Hastalis appeared in court, but Mack
did not.  After trying to get the judge to dismiss the case on
the grounds that his client was an elderly blind man who lived
all the way out in Utah, Mack's lawyer became insolent to the
judge and said that neither he nor Mack would come back to the
court.  The judge, even though obviously displeased by this
conduct, showed remarkable patience and restraint.  He did not
(as Mack's lawyer later claimed) dismiss the case but set a new
date for the trial (February 11, 1991) and ordered Mack to be
present.  When the date came and neither Mack nor his lawyer
appeared, the judge issued a warrant for Mack's arrest.  
     Even so, Mack and his supporters spent much of the rest of
1991 denying that the whole thing existed.   In a letter which
was widely circulated last Spring, Mack's lawyer, writing to
Mack, said in part:  "As I have previously advised you I appeared
in court on your behalf on January 3 and filed our motion to
quash the summons that had not been personally served upon you. 
The court granted my motion to quash the summons and further gave
the state until February 11, 1991 to personally serve you with
the summons.  The Court further ordered that if personal service
was not so obtained, that the action would be dismissed without
the necessity of our appearing in Court."
     As evidenced by the issuance of the warrant for Mack's
arrest and Mack's later appearance in court, this statement by
the lawyer (repeatedly trotted out and quoted by Mack and his
supporters) simply did not accord with the truth.  On January 17,
1992, Mack; his lawyer (not the one who had represented him
earlier); Milt Samuelson, Executive Director of the Chicago
Lighthouse for the Blind; and a few others tacitly admitted the
falsity of their earlier statements by finally coming to court to
answer the charges.  Peggy Pinder, an attorney and Second Vice
President of the National Federation of the Blind; Valerie
Williams, a sighted person who was present at the December 8,
1990, meeting at the Bismarck; Catherine Randall, a blind person
who was present at the Bismarck meeting; and Steve Hastalis, the
complaining witness, were also present in the courtroom.
     There are many things which could be said about Mack's trial
and the events leading up to it, but one thing cannot be
disputed.  At the end of the proceedings, the judge did not rule
that Mack was guilty as charged.  However, this does not tell the
whole story, nor does it end the matter--for both NAC and Grant
Mack come out of the affair as tarnished as if the verdict had
gone the other way.
     For openers, the intemperate behavior and abusive conduct
(what might be called the hooliganism) of Grant Mack and his NAC
supporters remain unchallenged and clearly on the record.  By
Mack's own admission he "reached out, grabbed the microphone,
tore it up, and threw it down."  His statement to the court that
he (a blind man) grabbed the microphone but did so without
touching Hastalis may have been accepted by the court, but it is
hardly likely to be taken seriously by anybody else.  Moreover,
it is irrelevant.  Black's Law Dictionary (Fourth Edition) says
of battery that it is the "slightest touching of another, or of
his clothes or anything else attached to his person, if done in a
rude, insolent, or angry manner."  By this definition Mack's
conduct was certainly a battery and, therefore, illegal and a
criminal offense.  
     Also, contrary to Mack's repeated boasts, he was compelled
to come to court and defend himself.  Taken in conjunction with
what he, his lawyer, and his supporters had been saying, what
does this do for credibility?
     Finally, there is the behavior which Mack and the other NAC
supporters demonstrated at the December 8, 1990, meeting at the
Bismarck.  Many of Mack's comments were recorded on cassette, and
others were reported by reliable witnesses.  NAC and its friends
have always claimed that NAC is a professional organization,
behaving decently and upholding standards.  Yet, the actions of
Mack and other NACsters at the Bismarck meeting were much more
reminiscent of a barroom brawl than a professional dinner and
business meeting.
     Here, as quoted in the January, 1991, Braille Monitor is
some of what occurred at the Bismarck on December 8, 1990:

     Mr. Gashel:  I have a ticket right here in my pocket.
     Mr. Mack:  To what?
     Mr. Gashel:  This event.
     Mr. Mack (Becoming agitated):  We didn't sell tickets to
this event....  Well, I don't know where you got your tickets or
who paid for it, but it was not authorized, and you got a lot of
damn balls to come in here and break in on it....
     Mr. Gashel:  We don't plan to [disrupt your meeting]. 
That's not the purpose for being here.
     Mr. Mack:  Well, the hell it isn't....

     Besides this conversation with James Gashel, there was
Mack's exchange with Dr. John Halverson, who is a person of good
reputation who holds a responsible position.  Here is part of
what Dr. Halverson reported:

     At about this time Mack became more belligerent.  While
speaking with me, he kept moving in closer, causing his dog guide
to brush against my leg.  At one time he said, "The Braille
Monitor is a yellow journal."  He said, "You are all liars," and
he added that I was a liar.
     I asked, "How do you know that I am a liar?  You don't know
me."
     Mack repeated, "You are all liars.  I know about you; I know
you have a reputation for being a liar."

     This is hardly the language of a professional who is
promoting professionalism.  It is the bullying language of ward
politics and back room behavior.  Whatever it is, it is not
calculated to promote harmony or bring constructive results.
     Then, there is the statement on the witness stand of
Catherine Randall.  She was standing immediately next to Steve
Hastalis during the altercation at the Bismarck, and she
testified to Grant Mack's belligerent conduct and boorish attack
upon Hastalis.  Despite the fact that she is a community leader
and until recently held elective office as an alderman in her
home town of Jacksonville, Illinois, her testimony was
disregarded, presumably on the grounds that a blind person is not
competent to know what is going on around her.  Whatever the
sighted public may believe, the blind and the members of the
blindness field will not be impressed by such logic.  
     As to Hastalis, he certainly knows whether he was physically
attacked by Grant Mack.  His testimony received the same
treatment as Randall's--and, one supposes, for the same reason.
     And what of Valerie Williams?  She was a sighted witness to
what occurred at the Bismarck, but she was not allowed to
testify.  She says that Milt Samuelson's statement that he was
standing with Mack when Mack confronted Hastalis and "reached
out, grabbed the microphone, tore it up, and threw it down," is
not in accord with the facts as she observed them.  She says that
Samuelson was not with Mack during this time at all.
     So where does all of this leave us?  Grant Mack is
technically acquitted, but in the circumstances it makes little
difference.  The court proceedings were not and are not the
central focus of this controversy.  There was never any
possibility (and, for that matter, never any desire) that Mack
receive more than a token fine and conviction.  His actions are
not changed or the record of his behavior erased by the court's
decision.  The events speak for themselves, and NAC's current
plight is the strongest possible testimonial to the way matters
stand.
     To all intents and purposes NAC is dead.  It only remains
for the official seal to be placed on the coffin.  In the real
world, where debts must be paid and scales must balance, the
chickens come home to roost--and NAC's flock is nearing the nest.



                     NAC KNOCKED OUT IN OHIO
                        by Barbara Pierce

     On February 18, 1992, one of the final nails was driven into
the coffin of NAC (the National Accreditation Council for
Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually Handicapped). On that day
Ohio's Rehabilitation Services Commission voted to drop NAC as a
recognized accrediting body, thus not only making a statement to
all who cared to listen but also leaving the four Ohio NAC-
accredited agencies to scramble for cover.
     Ohio had always been one of a handful of states which NAC
had contended required its accreditation of those private
agencies with which the state contracted for client services. The
contention was not correct, but NAC had clung to the fiction with
all of the tenacity of the desperate.                             
     The Rehabilitation Services Commission (RSC), the state
agency in Ohio, has actually maintained a list of four
accrediting bodies with which its contracting agencies were free
to affiliate. The four were the Commission on Accreditation of
Rehabilitation Facilities (CARF); the National Accreditation
Council for Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually Handicapped
(NAC); the American Speech, Hearing, and Language Association
(ASHLA); and the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health-Care
Organizations (JCAHO). 
     Private agencies working to rehabilitate blind Ohioans could
quite reasonably choose either NAC or CARF as an accrediting
body. The Cleveland Society for the Blind, for example, was an
early NAC supporter; and in the bad old days, when Cleveland
Society officials believed it appropriate to instruct blind
vendors when to change their underwear and how often to wash
their hair, the agency proudly displayed its NAC seal of good
practice. In the mid-eighties, however, the Cleveland Society
underwent a change of attitude. The quality of service began to
improve; and, not surprisingly, the decision was made to drop NAC
accreditation in favor of CARF. 
     As the years have rolled by and NAC's fortunes and viability
have plummeted, it has become more and more difficult to justify
NAC's continued inclusion on Ohio's RSC list. Last year it became
obvious for several reasons that the time had come to make
adjustments in the administrative rule setting forth Ohio's
accreditation policy affecting rehabilitation service providers
doing business with the state. 
     The Rehabilitation Services Commission is controlled by a
board of seven commissioners, appointed by the Governor. They
meet monthly with the RSC Administrator and other agency
officials as necessary. On February 18, 1992, the Commissioners
took up the question of the Commission's accreditation policy
and, as it turned out, dealt with NAC for the last time. The
Rehabilitation Services Commission Administrator, Robert Rabe,
and the agency's General Counsel, John Connelly, strongly
recommended to the Commissioners that NAC be removed from the
Ohio list of approved accrediting bodies. The four NAC-accredited
agencies, which had by virtue of that affiliation been eligible
to contract with the state to serve blind people, had been warned
in writing beforehand that this matter would be on the agenda and
were invited to comment. The letter the four executive directors
received from Administrator Rabe cited as reasons for dumping NAC
the organization's "loss of major funding sources, its own board
of directors resolution to dissolve the organization, and its
inability to provide meaningful accreditation surveys on a
national scale." The executive directors of the Vision Center of
Central Ohio and the Clovernook Center Opportunities for the
Blind (known as the Clovernook Home and School for the Blind in
the days when it achieved some notoriety due to a staff practice
of confiscating the Social Security checks of its residents)
elected to write letters arguing against removal. These were duly
circulated among the Commissioners and considered. 
     The entire NAC discussion occupied perhaps a quarter of an
hour on the Commission agenda. One Commissioner asked what would
happen to the NAC-accredited agencies doing business with the
state when their current accreditation period expired and they
were left unaccredited. The Administrator pointed out that each
one would be welcome to seek accreditation of part or all of its
facility by CARF at any time. He also commented that NAC was no
longer viable and that these agencies would soon have to face
this question regardless of the Commission's action. 
     In the end, the commission vote to remove NAC from its list
of accrediting bodies was unanimous--and with that, one more blow
was struck for integrity and quality service in the field of work
with the blind. The National Accreditation Council does not
represent excellence, and it has been embarrassing and
frustrating for Ohio's informed blind citizens to know that
mediocre or poor agencies could hide behind the NAC seal and
qualify to receive state contracts. But no more! Not even NAC can
now claim that Ohio requires an agency to obtain its
accreditation before it can contract for state business. Another
loophole has been closed; another important step has been taken
in ending the travesty called NAC. One day soon the last light
will be turned off in the NAC headquarters, but by that time it
will hardly matter to anyone. 
     One is reminded of the closing words of T. S. Eliot's poem,
"The Hollow Men":

                 This is the way the world ends
                 This is the way the world ends
                 This is the way the world ends
                 Not with a bang but a whimper.
[PHOTO: James Gashel seated at table microphone. CAPTION: James Gashel,
Director of Governmental Affairs of the National Federation of the Blind.]

                NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND
           1992 LEGISLATIVE MEMORANDUM AND FACT SHEETS

     From the Associate Editor: Early each February members of
the National Federation of the Blind gather in Washington, D.C.,
for our Washington Seminar. A complete report of this event will
appear in a later issue of the Braille Monitor. As part of the
seminar's activities, members of the Federation fan out across
Capitol Hill to speak with members of Congress about matters of
concern to the nation's blind. This year there were three issues
of pressing importance: the right of choice for those seeking
rehabilitation, gathering support for the effort to persuade the
Secretary of Education to remove the National Accreditation
Council for Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually Handicapped
(NAC) from the Department of Education's list of approved
accrediting bodies, and including people with severe disabilities
among those covered by Section 8A of the Small Business Act. Here
are the legislative memorandum and the fact sheets Federationists
discussed with their Senators and Representatives February 3, 4,
and 5:

                                For further information contact: 
                                                    James Gashel 
                                 Director of Governmental Affairs
                                National Federation of the Blind 
                                                  (410) 659-9314 

                     LEGISLATIVE AGENDA 1992

From:     Members of the National Federation of the Blind
To:       Members of the 102nd Congress 
Re:       The Blind: Legislative Priorities for the 102nd
               Congress, Second Session 
 
     Public policies and laws affecting blind people have a
profound impact throughout our society. Most people know someone
who is blind. It may be a friend, a family member, or a co-worker
on the job. The blind population in the U.S. is estimated to
exceed 750,000. Fifty thousand Americans become blind each year.
By themselves these numbers may not seem large, but the social
and economic consequences of blindness directly touch the lives
of millions. Less directly, blindness affects us all. 
     Blind people as a group share a unique struggle. More than
being a matter of physical disability, the real problems of
blindness are lack of good training, lack of opportunities, and
lack of correct information about blindness among employers and
members of the public at large. If a blind person has proper
training and opportunity, the physical loss of eyesight itself
can be reduced to the level of a mere nuisance. 
     Public policies and laws that result from misconceptions
about blindness or lack of information are often more limiting to
the blind than loss of eyesight itself. This is why we have
formed the National Federation of the Blind. The Federation is a
private-sector resource of knowledge, encouragement, and support
for the blind and for anyone (blind or not) who wants to join in
the effort we are making to win understanding and opportunity. 
     Blind people are well organized at the community and
grassroots levels throughout the United States. Our policy
positions are developed and determined by vote of the blind
themselves. This is why the Federation is known by lawmakers and
the public as the "voice of the nation's blind." Our priorities
for the second session of the 102nd Congress express our
assessment of current issues requiring action by Congress on
behalf of blind persons of all ages. 
     (1) Congress should amend the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to
establish the client's right of choice as a policy to be followed
in selecting agencies to provide rehabilitation services. Blind
persons eligible for rehabilitation have the right to receive
services, but counselors assigned by designated state agencies
are empowered to make most of the planning decisions and
arrangements for service. The client's views must be considered,
but counselors make all of the final decisions. Funds to support
rehabilitation can be and are withheld if the client does not
cooperate. Cooperation means accepting the rehabilitation
counselor's prescribed plan for service, whether or not the
client concurs with the counselor's prescribed plan. This system
often fails, of course, because of client resistance to mandated
services. 
     The proposed legislation will achieve better matching of
clients with compatible programs by empowering them to take
charge of selecting sources for all services. As persons with
disabilities begin to experience and exercise newly won legal
rights, there will be a growing demand and need for services
chosen by clients, not by agencies. Students who receive Federal
aid to attend post-secondary institutions choose their own
schools and select their courses of study. Elderly and disabled
recipients of health services paid for by Medicare choose the
doctors they will see, and the bills are paid by Medicare. Not so
in rehabilitation. Congress should change this policy. For more
details and a description of the need for this legislation, see
the fact sheet entitled "EMPOWERMENT IN REHABILITATION: EXPANDING
CHOICES FOR BLIND ADULTS." 
     (2) All members of Congress should advise the Secretary of
Education to remove NAC from his list of recognized accrediting
agencies. NAC is the National Accreditation Council for Agencies
Serving the Blind and Visually Handicapped. "Accreditation" is
supposed to mean that approved programs are of a high quality,
but the record of NAC's performance in the blindness field shows
that in the case of NAC precisely the opposite is true. This is
why so many blind people and agencies serving the blind oppose a
petition filed by NAC to continue its recognition by the U.S.
Secretary of Education. 
     NAC's goal is to gain control over the distribution of
Federal funds through (1) being recognized by the Secretary of
Education as the national accrediting agency in the blindness
field, and (2) convincing Congress to enact legislation to
require accreditation for all programs that receive Federal
financial assistance under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Both
of these actions are strongly opposed by blind people and by
agencies serving them. For more details and a list of reasons why
NAC should not be recognized by the Secretary of Education, see
the fact sheet entitled "POINTS IN OPPOSITION TO RECOGNITION OF
NAC BY THE U.S. SECRETARY OF EDUCATION."
     (3) Congress should amend Section 8(a) of the Small Business
Act to include individuals with severe disabilities as a defined
minority group for purposes of eligibility in the Minority Small
Business and Capital Ownership Development Program. The Section
8(a) program is designed to foster business ownership by
individuals who are both socially and economically disadvantaged,
and to promote the competitive viability of businesses owned and
operated by them. To achieve these goals, Section 8(a) authorizes
the Small Business Administration (SBA) to enter into all types
of contracts with government departments and agencies for supply,
service, construction, and research and development. Small
Business concerns owned and controlled by socially and
economically disadvantaged persons can be eligible to receive
subcontracts to fulfill SBA's procurement obligations. Technical
assistance is also made available to minority small business
concerns. 
     This proposal is simply the recognition of disability as a
condition of defined minority status for participation in SBA's
targeted efforts to provide economic and technical assistance to
members of minority groups. The social and economic disadvantages
which accompany disabilities are well known and should be beyond
dispute. Blind persons have traditionally had few opportunities
to become employed and even fewer opportunities to establish and
maintain their own businesses. Yet SBA has not recognized the
blind (or individuals with disabilities in general) as socially
and economically disadvantaged. The problem for SBA has been to
define disability and the extent of the class of individuals
included. Another problem has been SBA's lack of legal authority
to incorporate such a definition in the absence of a clear
legislative mandate. The Americans with Disabilities Act (Pub. L.
101-336) now provides the basis for a legislative mandate,
although a definition for "severe disability" must be used to
meet the more limited purposes of the SBA program. For more
details and an explanation of the need for this legislation, see
the fact sheet entitled "MINORITY STATUS AND RIGHTS: A PROPOSAL
FOR BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES AND JOBS." 
     Blind people are asking for your help in securing positive
action by Congress in the areas outlined here. Legislative
proposals will be offered to achieve each of our specific
objectives. Many priorities confront this session of Congress,
but the needs of the nation's blind must not be overlooked. 
     We of the National Federation of the Blind stand ready to
assist our Representatives and Senators to understand our needs
and to take meaningful action to address them. In partnership
with the National Federation of the Blind, each member of
Congress can help build better lives for the blind both today and
in the years ahead. 

                           FACT SHEET
                 Empowerment in Rehabilitation:
               Expanding Choices for Blind Adults 

     BACKGROUND: Federal support for rehabilitation of the
disabled began in 1920, but programs for the blind did not
receive Federal assistance until 1943. At that time job training
and employment assistance were the goals sought through
rehabilitation, and even today these goals remain the central
focus of the program. Federal spending for rehabilitation has
increased substantially in recent years, but the unemployment
rate among working-age blind people remains unacceptably high.
Laws against discrimination may help; but relevant,
individualized services, designed to prepare blind persons for
work, must also be provided. 
     EXISTING LAW: The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Pub. L.
93-112), as amended, authorizes most of the current Federally
supported rehabilitation programs. In excess of $1.7 billion in
Federal financial assistance is distributed to the states under
Title I of the Rehabilitation Act. Titles II and XVI of the
Social Security Act also authorize the use of additional funds to
pay for the costs of rehabilitation services for disabled and
blind people who receive Social Security Disability Insurance
(SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. 
     A state cannot receive Federal funds or Social Security
payments for rehabilitation unless there is a specific state
agency designated to conduct the rehabilitation program. States
have the option of designating one agency specifically to serve
the blind and another to serve persons with other disabilities.
All rehabilitation services must be obtained through the
designated state agency. The policies and procedures of the
agency govern the provision of services. 
     Regardless of individual preferences, blind persons seeking
rehabilitation (referred to as "clients") must use the agency
designated for them. A counselor is assigned to represent the
agency and to oversee the provision of services. The basis for
each client's rehabilitation program is supposed to be an
individualized plan jointly developed by the counselor and the
client, but options for the clients to select among sources for
training are not offered by most state agencies. Many state
agencies have distinct policies against accepting client choices
in the selection of any program to provide any service. This lack
of a free choice is a major deterrent to effective and responsive
training and employment services, leaving almost eighty percent
of employable blind people largely outside of our nation's work
force. 
     PROPOSED LEGISLATION: Congress should amend the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to establish the client's right of
choice in selecting agencies to provide rehabilitation services.
Blind persons eligible for rehabilitation have the right to
receive services, but personnel of the designated state agencies
are empowered to make most of the planning decisions and
arrangements for service. Joint planning by rehabilitation
clients and counselors is required in section 102 of the
Rehabilitation Act, but all final decisions about anyone's
rehabilitation plan rest with personnel of the designated state
agencies. 
     The "client's right of choice" provision would maintain the
principle of individualized planning with joint participation by
clients and counselors. The difference would be that services
provided under an individualized plan could only be obtained from
sources of the client's choice. Few decisions more fundamentally
affect the outcome of rehabilitation. The client's compatibility
with the philosophy, policies, and personnel of any training
program is highly individualized. Current practices in
rehabilitation largely ignore this fact. The proposed legislation
will achieve better matching of clients with compatible programs
by empowering rehabilitation clients to take charge of selecting
sources for all services they receive. 
     NEED FOR LEGISLATION: Opportunities for persons with
disabilities (including the blind) are expected to expand
dramatically during the decade of the 1990s and beyond. The
recently enacted Americans with Disabilities Act will provide a
major impetus for growth and change, but existing programs (such
as rehabilitation) will face new challenges brought on by newly
emerging demands. Experience shows that the growing opportunities
which become available for the blind will lead to rising
expectations by the blind to enter fields of endeavor previously
closed to them. Effective rehabilitation programs will provide
the kind of support and training necessary for the blind to take
full advantage of expanding opportunities only if they are
flexible enough to respond to individual needs. 
     Policies of most state agencies now mandate that services
can only be obtained from agency-specified programs. Client
preference is of little consequence. Decisions are most often
made to suit bureaucratic convenience or arbitrary state rules.
But as persons with disabilities begin to experience and exercise
their new rights, there will be a growing demand and need for
services chosen by clients, not by agencies. Students who receive
Federal aid to attend post-secondary institutions choose their
own schools and select their courses of study. Elderly and
disabled recipients of health services paid for by Medicare
choose the doctors they will see, and the bills are paid by
Medicare. Yet in rehabilitation client choices are subordinated
to counselor decisions and agency policies. 
     Restrictive approaches in rehabilitation are inconsistent
with the modern policies of rights and empowerment for persons
with disabilities. Empowerment implies choice. This is the next
logical step in the evolution of rehabilitation to support
empowerment and independence. The right of choice is a
cost-effective approach which Congress should now enact. 

                           FACT SHEET
           Points in Opposition to Recognition of NAC
               by the U.S. Secretary of Education 

     BACKGROUND: NAC is the National Accreditation Council for
Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually Handicapped.
Accreditation is supposed to mean that approved programs are of a
high quality, but the record of NAC's performance in the
blindness field shows that in the case of NAC precisely the
opposite is true. This is why so many blind people and agencies
serving them oppose a petition filed by NAC to continue its
recognition by the U.S. Secretary of Education.
     Accrediting agencies may be recognized only for the
accreditation of postsecondary institutions or programs when
eligibility for Federal assistance requires accreditation. NAC's
goal is to gain control over the distribution of Federal funds
for all programs serving the blind. However, first the Secretary
of Education would have to continue to list NAC as a recognized
accrediting agency, and second Congress would have to enact
legislation to require accreditation for all programs that
receive Federal financial assistance under the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973. Both of these actions are strongly opposed by blind
people and by agencies serving them.
     NAC IS NOT ACCEPTED IN THE BLINDNESS FIELD AND SHOULD NOT
HAVE CONTROL OVER FEDERAL FUNDS: Although NAC offers to accredit
all agencies and schools serving the blind, most programs have
chosen not to become involved. In twenty-five years of trying to
become accepted, NAC has accumulated only ninety-six accredited
member agencies, with a nearly twenty-five percent dropout rate.
NAC's membership includes less than twenty percent of the
programs eligible to apply for accreditation. Federal funds, used
to establish and support NAC in its early years, were withdrawn
in 1975 in the face of low agency acceptance of the NAC standards
and consumer concerns raised about the NAC accreditation process. 
     These conditions still exist. As a result NAC's membership
is now declining, and financial support has fallen sharply. Seven
agencies ended their affiliation with NAC during 1991. At the
same time both of NAC's major funding sources--the American
Foundation for the Blind (AFB) and National Industries for the
Blind (NIB)--withdrew their financial support, effective in July,
1991. As a result NAC's income has plummeted by almost sixty
percent, and the organization is in virtual bankruptcy.
     REASONS WHY NAC SHOULD NOT BE LISTED AS A RECOGNIZED
ACCREDITING AGENCY: The Secretary of Education has published
criteria for the recognition of accrediting agencies. Any agency
submitting a petition for recognition must meet all of the
criteria. As specified below, NAC fails the test in several
important respects. 
     (1) Membership in NAC is unrelated to eligibility for
Federal funds--Some Federal programs require accreditation by a
recognized agency as a condition of eligibility for financial
aid. However, in the case of programs serving the blind, program
performance and accountability for the use of funds are audited
directly by both state and Federal agencies. Since direct
monitoring is used in lieu of accreditation, there is no need for
NAC to be recognized by the Secretary. Accreditation programs
that are unrelated to the distribution of Federal funds do not
meet the Secretary's criteria for recognition.
     (2) NAC has not earned national respect and recognition
among agencies and professionals in the blindness field--In its
twenty-five years of existence, NAC's performance record has been
marked by discord and disunity. It is generally agreed that
programs for the blind have not been improved by affiliation with
NAC, and many have been found in violation of state or Federal
laws while being fully accredited. NAC's current members
represent fewer than one-sixth of the agencies that could
potentially seek affiliation. The vast majority of these agencies
have consciously decided that membership in NAC is not in their
best interest. Accrediting agencies that are not accepted by
programs in their field do not meet the Secretary's criteria for
recognition.
     (3) NAC lacks the resources necessary to maintain a credible
accreditation program--NAC's annual spending rate for each of the
last two fiscal years has exceeded $460,000. Income for the same
period has trailed spending by almost $60,000. NAC's budget
adopted for fiscal year 1992 has been reduced to $216,065 due to
the withdrawal of support from AFB and NIB. At the same time,
even when funded at above $400,000, NAC has been unable to
evaluate its member agencies at the required periodic intervals. 
     Accreditation of most agencies is extended without complete
evaluation and in many instances with no evaluation at all.
During 1990 NAC reviewed eight agencies and extended eighteen.
During 1991 twenty agencies were extended. Most of them are
supposed to be reviewed during 1992. Twelve of them were carried
over in a backlog built up from previous years. In addition to
these extended agencies, there are another twenty coming due for
review this year. Some of them were also extended from previous
years. It is clear that the backlog is now out of hand and NAC
does not have the resources to fulfill its commitments. Scheduled
updating of accreditation standards has also been put off due to
the lack of resources. Agencies such as NAC that do not have the
resources to maintain a credible accreditation program do not
meet the Secretary's criteria for recognition.
     HOW MEMBERS OF CONGRESS CAN HELP: Write to Lamar Alexander,
Secretary of Education, to request that NAC not be listed as a
recognized accrediting agency. Advise the Secretary that NAC does
not meet the criteria for recognition and therefore should not be
retained on the list. 

                           FACT SHEET
                   Minority Status and Rights:
         A Proposal for Business Opportunities and Jobs

     BACKGROUND: Blind persons and persons with disabilities in
general have traditionally had few opportunities to become
employed and even fewer opportunities to establish and maintain
their own businesses. This does not reflect a general lack of
ability among this population. It does reflect a lack of
opportunity and financial support necessary to achieve success in
the competitive business world. Prejudices and fears of employers
have left nearly eighty percent of the employable blind
population either unemployed or substantially underemployed. 
     Congress has recently sought to address this situation by
enacting the Americans with Disabilities Act. When the employment
provisions of this Act become effective in 1992, employers having
twenty-five or more employees will be prohibited from
discrimination on the basis of disability. Employers having
fifteen or more employees will eventually be covered. Regardless
of enforcement activities, this Act is expected to improve work
force opportunities for persons with disabilities. But complete
equality will require more than employment rights. This fact has
been recognized in our government's efforts to underwrite and
support economic development programs among members of other
traditionally disadvantaged minorities. 
     EXISTING LAW: Sections 8(a) and 7(j) of the Small Business
Act establish a Minority Small Business and Capital Ownership
Development Program to be conducted by the Small Business
Administration (SBA). This program is intended in part to foster
business ownership by individuals who are both socially and
economically disadvantaged; and to promote the competitive
viability of businesses owned and operated by them. To achieve
these goals, Section 8(a) authorizes SBA to enter into all types
of contracts with government departments and agencies for supply,
service, construction, and research and development. Small
business concerns owned and controlled by socially and
economically disadvantaged persons can be eligible to receive
subcontracts to fulfill SBA's procurement obligations. Section
7(j) of the Small Business Act authorizes SBA to provide
technical or management assistance to individuals or minority
small business concerns. 
     Participation in the Minority Small Business and Capital
Ownership Development Program is open to anyone who can qualify
as both socially and economically disadvantaged. Participants
eligible by definition include members of racial and ethnic
minorities. Other individuals not included by definition may be
found eligible upon application to SBA. Criteria for determining
social and economic disadvantage are not clearly specified in law
or regulations. As a result, program participants are almost
exclusively members of the defined minority groups. 
     PROPOSED LEGISLATION: Congress should amend Section 8(a) of
the Small Business Act to include individuals with severe
disabilities as a defined minority group for purposes of
eligibility in the Minority Small Business and Capital Ownership
Development Program. "Disability" would need to be defined in
terms of severity, since this term, as used in the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990, would be inappropriately broad for this
purpose. The term "severe disability" must be defined clearly and
should include only individuals with one or more of the
conditions defined as "severe handicaps" as listed in section
7(15) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The conditions listed
include blindness and other severe limitations that are not
cosmetic or merely perceived disabilities. 
     This proposal is simply the recognition of disability as a
condition of minority status for participation in SBA's targeted
efforts to provide economic and technical assistance to members
of minority groups. The social and economic disadvantages which
accompany disabilities are well known and beyond dispute. The
problem for SBA has been to define disability and the extent of
the class of individuals included. Another problem has been SBA's
lack of legal authority to incorporate such a definition in the
absence of a clear legislative mandate. The Americans with
Disabilities Act now provides the basis for a legislative
mandate, although the definition of disability would need to be
more limited.
     NEED FOR LEGISLATION: Defined minority status is a distinct
advantage in obtaining section 8(a) eligibility. Proof of both
social and economic disadvantage can be both time-consuming and
expensive. SBA appears to have great discretion in determining
eligibility based on social and economic disadvantage, especially
for applicants who are members of non-defined minority groups. It
is difficult to challenge the decisions made by SBA in this area
because the eligibility criteria are so vague.
     Firms needing SBA's assistance cannot afford the time and
expense of application delays and appeals. In the absence of
defined minority status, business failures and bankruptcies can
result. This has been the experience of a blind owner of a
Tennessee sand and gravel business who is still waiting after
seven years for approval of his minority business enterprise
application. After finally agreeing that he was both socially and
economically disadvantaged, SBA then disapproved his application
on the grounds that the business had not been in operation for
the past two years. This is only one example of what happens to
applicants who are truly disadvantaged but must first prove their
minority status before they will even be considered. Congress
should resolve this injustice by amending the Small Business Act
to include individuals with severe disabilities as a defined
minority group.






[PHOTO/CAPTION: The Charlotte, North Carolina, skyline as seen from the West.
Come to the Queen City, and see it for yourself.]

           MORE ABOUT CHARLOTTE AND THE NFB CONVENTION

     From the Editor: If you have not made your reservations for
this summer's National Federation of the Blind convention in
Charlotte, this is the time to do it. Remember that single rooms
are only $30 per night; doubles and twins, $35; triples, $38; and
quads, $40. These prices are in addition to tax. Write to:
Convention '92, National Federation of the Blind, 1800 Johnson
Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21230; or call Anthony Cobb at (410)
659-9314. Room deposits of $40 are required and may be paid by
check, money order, or credit card. For further details refer to
the December, 1991, Braille Monitor. This should be our biggest
and best convention ever, so don't delay. Meanwhile here is what
Hazel Staley tells us about the history of Charlotte:

     The first settlers to arrive in the lower valleys of the
Piedmont were Scotch-Irish, no-nonsense people who were hardy,
industrious, and independent. They found lush meadows, streams
and hills, crowned trees suitable for cabin building. The native
Catawba Indians were friendly to the few white families who moved
in among them. The new families stayed busy cutting down trees
and setting up cabins, burning acreage for crops, and organizing
the two most important social functions of any settlement, the
meeting house and the local still.
     In 1768 the 360-acre community moved to incorporate a
regular town government and an eventual county seat. The city was
named for Queen Charlotte, wife of England's King George III, and
Mecklenburg County for her German home state.
     Alarmed by rumors of action by the British Parliament which
would suppress the colonies, Colonel James Polk on May 1, 1775,
called for a meeting of the Mecklenburg County militia delegates
for May 19 to determine a course of action. Twenty-seven
delegates were meeting in the Mecklenburg County Courthouse on
that date when a courier rode into Charlotte with news of the
battle of Lexington. His electrifying news so united the assembly
that at 2:00 a.m. on the morning of May 20, 1775, a unanimous
vote approved the Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence, which
was then signed by all the delegates as representatives of the
people. At noon the Mecklenburg Declaration was read before
several thousand people from the steps of the courthouse. Cap'n
Patrick Jack immediately set out on horse back for Philadelphia,
where the Continental Congress was meeting, carrying with him a
copy of the Declaration. Many say the Mecklenburg Declaration of
Independence was the basis for Thomas Jefferson's final version.
General Cornwallis called Charlotte a "hornet's nest of
rebellion" because patriotic activities continued to plague his
occupation of the city during the Revolutionary War. James Jack,
father of Patrick, was jailed and lost all of his considerable
property because of his involvement in the rebellion.
     There are agnostics who doubt the authenticity of the
Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence because the original
document was lost, but for the people of Charlotte/Mecklenburg it
remains the cornerstone of our fierce pride, independence, and
patriotism. Still having this spirit in our blood probably
explains why Federationism took root and is still flourishing
here.


[PHOTO: Portrait. CAPTION: Steve Jacobson.]

             DOES THE BUS COMPANY HAVE A BLIND SPOT?
                        by Steve Jacobson

     From the Associate Editor: Like other things of value, a
good--even an adequate--mass transit system must not be taken for
granted. Those of us who have access to bus service must use it
and establish contact with its officials to insure that our needs
are met and our point of view considered. Even so, problems will
arise, and the sooner they are tackled, the more likely are we to
be satisfied with the conclusion. The Metro Chapter of the
National Federation of the Blind of Minnesota is energetic and
active. Its members take their responsibilities seriously, and
they are prepared to work for what they want and need. Steve
Jacobson is one of the leaders of the National Federation of the
Blind of Minnesota and an active member of the Metro Chapter.
Here is his account of the group's most recent tangle with the
local transit system:

     "How can you ride a bus if you don't know when to catch it?"
is a question being asked by many members of the National
Federation of the Blind of Minnesota's Metro Chapter. As is the
case with most chapters of the NFB, we have more than a passing
interest in matters concerning our bus service. In particular,
several actions of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Transit
Commission (MTC) have caused the dialogue between them and our
chapter leaders to become, shall we say, warm. However, strong
leadership and dedicated chapter members appear to be bringing
about some very positive results.
     Several years ago an information service called CityLine was
created to allow access to various types of information, using a
touchtone telephone. News, weather, sports, stock market quotes,
and even job openings can be played back through the telephone by
pressing a few buttons. The MTC decided to make available bus
schedule information through this service, freeing their
operators to answer more complex questions. In general the system
worked well, and we had more immediate access to schedule
information than ever before. Although there was no cost to the
public, the Metropolitan Transit Commission paid a fee for each
request for bus information. It was not long before it seemed
advisable for the MTC to develop its own automated bus
information system, and that is what has now been done.
     Early in June, 1991, we began hearing about a new bus
information system, and we were a little taken aback. At an
earlier chapter meeting representatives of MTC and its governing
body, the Regional Transit Board, had promised that our input
would be sought if major changes to the existing system were
being contemplated. With this in mind, we arranged to have a
representative from the Metropolitan Transit Commission speak at
our July chapter meeting about the changes in their information
service and how we would be involved in the development of that
system. However, things changed rapidly. 
     In late June several of our members were informed that the
new service, called BusLine, had already been developed and
tested, and it would replace the previous system on July 1, 1991.
Unlike the CityLine system, which permitted questions about
schedules for any day and time, the new system could only be used
to get bus schedules for the current day after the current time.
Information for the following day could only be received by
calling the human operators at the Transit Information Center,
and only after spending several minutes waiting on hold. At the
same time a reduction of Transit Information Center hours
resulted in the elimination of Saturday evening hours altogether,
making it impossible to plan one's Sunday travel without paper
schedules. The original CityLine system would have permitted such
planning. Yet we were told that the changes being made would
result in no reduction of service. 
     Peggy Chong, President of the Metro Chapter, wrote a letter
to Dee Molean, the director of the Transit Information Center,
changing the focus of our July meeting. Instead of discussing the
way in which we would be involved in the development of the new
system, we now wanted to know why we were not involved. Instead
of listening to an explanation of how the new system would be an
improvement, we intended to ask why it was a step back. 
     An MTC representative came to that chapter meeting, and the
new BusLine service was thoroughly discussed. Although we had
heard earlier that the system had been streamlined for budgetary
reasons, we were now told that the so-called other day schedule
information was dropped to make the system easier to use. An MTC
survey revealed that "only twenty percent of inquiries" were for
this type of information. Our members were shocked that the MTC
considered twenty percent to be an insignificant number. To no
one's surprise, our July meeting with the MTC representative was
polite but fruitless.
     In response to President Chong's letter and questions raised
at our chapter meeting, Ms. Molean subsequently wrote a memo to
the Chief Administrator of the MTC. Even though the subject of
her July 25 memo was "Response to Complaints about BusLine--
Letter from Peggy Chong dated July 9," we were not included on
the copy list. In fact, the NFB of Minnesota Metro Chapter
learned of its existence indirectly. This prompted the following
letter from Peggy Chong to Mr. Christenson. Besides summarizing
what to us were troubling events, it brought to light other facts
that were difficult to understand. Here is President Chong's
letter:

                                           Minneapolis, Minnesota
                                                   August 2, 1991

Mr. Mike Christenson
Chief Administrator, Metropolitan Transit Commission
Minneapolis, Minnesota 

Dear Mr. Christenson:
     I have obtained a copy of the July 25 memorandum to you from
Dee Molean, Transit Information Center (TIC) Manager, responding
to issues raised by the National Federation of the Blind about
the inadequacies of your new BusLine system. It is noteworthy
that Ms. Molean has chosen not to address her remarks directly to
the National Federation of the Blind, nor has she seen fit to
list the Federation as an organization to which a copy of the
memorandum should be sent. Alas, such sanctimonious and
discourteous behavior typifies the way MTC has been dealing with
the blind community of late.
     Perhaps a little background information would be in order.
About eighteen months ago representatives from the Metropolitan
Transit Commission came to our monthly meeting. One of the issues
discussed at that time was an effort by the MTC to transfer bus
schedule information from CityLine to an in-house system. We
expressed a strong desire to work with the MTC to help make this
new system useful to the blind. We were told that the system was
still in the formative stage but that we would certainly be
consulted when a specific design was to be developed.
     Incidentally, we did commend MTC for using CityLine to
provide an automated bus scheduling information system. We said
that, although CityLine could stand some improvement, it was
certainly better than calling the Transit Information Center and
waiting thirty minutes to speak with a live operator. We took it
for granted that the goal of the designers was to put together a
system that would represent an improvement over CityLine.
     Time passed. Last fall we joined with others to express
concern over an MTC proposal to eliminate some suburban bus
routes. In the spring of this year we testified at an MTC public
hearing in support of proposed fare increases. With respect to
the latter, we emphasized the importance of adequate and timely
bus service to the blind, pointing out, however, that fare
increases could only be justified if bus service was not cut.
     Between the time of our meeting with MTC representatives
more than a year and a half ago and the first public unveiling of
BusLine, no one from the MTC approached the Federation to solicit
our suggestions about how the system should work. Suddenly, in
early June, BusLine appeared on the scene; and we discovered that
the MTC was terminating its contract with CityLine, effective
July 15. Naturally, we were more than a little concerned. What,
we wondered, had become of MTC's promises to consult with the
blind community?
     When a number of our members actually experimented with the
BusLine system, they discovered that it was far less useful to
the blind than CityLine had ever been. I therefore undertook to
arrange for a representative from MTC to attend our July meeting.
To clarify our concerns with respect to BusLine and to prepare
the MTC representative who would attend our meeting, I wrote a
letter to Dee Molean, TIC Manager, explaining that for the blind
BusLine represented a significant reduction in service compared
to CityLine. I said that our primary concern was that we could
only use BusLine to obtain bus schedule information for the
current day and only from the time of the call forward. By
comparison, CityLine permitted us to examine three different
schedules: Monday through Friday, Saturday, and Sundays and
Holidays.
     Our July meeting took place on Saturday, July 20, and an MTC
representative did come: Steve Gran, TIC Supervisor. It was
quickly apparent, both to him and to the members present, that he
was not in a position to address our concerns in any substantive
way. However, we treated Mr. Gran with courtesy and respect,
asking only that he communicate our frustration with MTC and its
new BusLine system to his superiors in the strongest possible
terms. In other words, we told him to tell his superiors that the
members of the National Federation of the Blind were outraged by
MTC's failure to consult with blind people about BusLine and by
its blatant attempt to foist off a clearly inferior system on the
public.
     Turning to Dee Molean's memorandum to you, there are a
number of comments that one could make, not the least of which is
an objection to her disrespectful allusions to the National
Federation of the Blind and our legitimate concerns about a clear
cutback in service.
     Ms. Molean states that  an important goal of the BusLine
project is to make the system more user-friendly. She says that
the chief complaint MTC received about CityLine was that it was
too confusing. I submit that BusLine is neither less confusing
nor more user-friendly than CityLine. 
     If CityLine was actually too confusing for a substantial
number of people, why is it that in January, according to Ms.
Molean's own figures, CityLine received more than 120,000 calls?
Arguably, these 120,000 callers were able to profit from the
service. Certainly blind people did not find CityLine to be
confusing. And what about the goal of making the system more
user-friendly? As far as the blind are concerned, BusLine is less
user-friendly than CityLine. We can't use the system to plan our
bus travel for the next day, and many of the messages are far too
verbose. For experienced bus travelers, BusLine actually takes
longer to extract information from than did CityLine.
     Ms. Molean says that the work group responsible for the
design of BusLine decided to eliminate the questions giving
customers the choice of obtaining bus schedule information about
other days and times based upon a survey conducted over CityLine.
According to her, survey results indicated that twenty percent of
the respondents said they were using the system to plan later bus
travel. Based on Ms. Molean's figure of 120,000 calls during the
month of January, I calculate that during that time 24,000
individuals used the automated bus schedule information system to
plan travel for another day. Now that BusLine has replaced
CityLine, these 24,000 calls will be made to the Transit
Information Center's live operators. 
     At our July meeting Steve Gran gave us the following cost
figures:

Cost Per Call using BusLine:            $ .11
Cost Per Call Using CityLine:           $ .19
Cost Per Call Using Live Operators:     $1.85

Assuming Ms. Molean's figures to be correct, we can project that
24,000 individuals per month will now have to call the live
operators in the TIC as opposed to using BusLine. So, instead of
incurring a cost of $2,640 ($.11 times 24,000) to provide these
callers with the information they require, MTC will now incur a
cost of $44,400 ($1.85 times 24,000). In other words, by
switching to BusLine, MTC is now losing $41,760 per month, which
works out to $501,120 per year, more than a half million dollars.
     When you consider the magnitude of this loss, one has to ask
the question: How much did MTC actually save by switching from
CityLine to BusLine? Assuming a per-call cost reduction of $.08
and an annual call volume to BusLine of 1,152,000, the total
savings comes to $92,160. So, in order to save $92,160 per year,
the MTC is apparently willing to incur a loss of over a half a
million dollars. In my book this makes no economic sense. 
     Aside from the dollar costs themselves, how much is MTC
prepared to lose in the way of good will and public support,
simply to have a system that it can manage in-house? You have
already lost a great deal of good will and public support from
the blind community over this issue. Are you prepared to ignore
the problem and let matters stand as they are, or will you take
steps to regain the support and trust that have been lost?
     I am not advocating that MTC scrap BusLine in favor of
CityLine. Given the time and money that have gone into the
project, I doubt that anyone would seriously consider such a
proposition. However, I strongly urge MTC to take some positive
action to repair the damage that has already been done by its
failure to consult with the National Federation of the Blind. At
the very least, representatives of the Federation should be
appointed to your Transportation Advisory Committee. In addition,
MTC should immediately begin to address the problem of BusLine's
not providing bus schedule information for other days and times.
For the blind, this is a serious shortcoming in the system, and
it has already eroded our ability to travel independently. 
I look forward to your positive response to what we perceive as a
major cutback in our ability to use public mass transit. 

                                                       Sincerely,
                                                      Peggy Chong
                                         President, Metro Chapter
                    National Federation of the Blind of Minnesota

     There you have Mrs. Chong's letter, and it and letters like
it together with headlines in the press such as "MTC HAS BLIND
SPOT" led to several subsequent meetings between MTC officials
and members of the National Federation of the Blind of Minnesota.
On the evening of October 7, 1991, more than twenty members of
our chapter met with Mr. Christenson, Ms. Molean, and several
other MTC representatives at our state office. It was clear at
the outset that they did not understand the way in which we had
used the bus information service provided by CityLine. Various
members described innovative techniques for planning their routes
that had been rendered useless by the limitations of the new
service. As the meeting progressed, their understanding of our
position broadened. Near the end of the meeting, Mr. Christenson
asked us to provide the name of an individual to serve on the
Transit Advisory Committee, a committee to address all transit
issues, not just those involving the disabled. One of our
members, Tim Aune, will be representing us on that committee, and
we have a renewed pledge from the MTC to work more closely with
us. 
     It is still too early to tell whether the needed
improvements to BusLine will be made. However, several positive
steps have been taken, and this would not have happened without
the National Federation of the Blind.


[PHOTO: Christine Faltz seated at table during a meeting. CAPTION: Christine
Faltz.]

                  A CHIP ON SOMEBODY'S SHOULDER
                       by Christine Faltz

     Previous articles by Christine Faltz have appeared in the
Monitor. The account of her experience in dealing with the
infirmary at her law school is worth relating. Here it is:

     The purpose of this article is not to tell the age-old tale
of discrimination against blind persons; we know it happens every
day. I write this article because we have to be aware that there
are people who are content with the status quo and espouse the
philosophy that when the disabled rebel against mistreatment we
are upstarts, militants, and troublemakers. It is not a problem
with society, we are told, but a problem with us. They say we
have huge chips on our shoulders and our concerns are therefore
invalid.
     On October 7, 1991, I went to Hofstra University's Health
center to make an appointment for an annual examination. (I am a
first-year law student and had never previously been to the
infirmary.) I approached the desk and inquired about making an
appointment. A card was filled out, my medical file was located,
and a nurse asked me to come inside to go over my medical
history. I exited the reception area through a door and followed
her down the hall. The nurse stopped abruptly and asked, "What
are we going to do on Thursday about your dog."
     "Oh, don't worry about Julip," I said. "She needs very
little space and will not get in the doctor's way."
     "But we can't have a dog in the examining room," she
replied.
     One of the women at the desk said, "You can leave the dog
out here." "Can someone come with you on Thursday and help you
onto the examining table and assist you in getting around without
your dog?" the nurse asked.
     "There won't be any need for that," I said. "My previous
doctors and dentists, as well as the Princeton University
infirmary, never questioned the presence of the dog."
     "But the examining rooms are very small," the nurse
persisted.
     "She really needs very little room; she will fit under a
chair," I replied.
     Nothing more was said on the subject, and we went to a room
to go over my medical history. I noticed upon sitting that there
was a scale to my left. When she told me I would have to be
weighed, I stood, intending to step onto the scale. She grabbed
my right forearm in a tight grasp and said abruptly, "Now wait a
minute! Be careful. The scale is right in front of you." As I
stepped onto the scale, I did not trip or otherwise show signs of
being about to stumble or lose my footing. "Careful, careful;
it's right there," she said, grabbing my arm again.
     "Yes, I know. Thank you," I said. My arm was seized again as
I stepped down. Immediately after this, I attempted to get onto
the examining table so that she could take my blood pressure. The
behavior of warnings to take care and tight grasps continued. I
ignored all of this. I kept hearing the voices of sighted friends
and family members: "She means well; she doesn't know any
better."
     I left the infirmary and investigated the law concerning dog
guides and medical facilities. I learned that if my dog was not
permitted in an examining room, there was a legal obligation to
examine me in a room where my dog could be present. I informed a
dean of my problem at the infirmary and of the law. I also
mentioned that the nurses had been overwhelmingly patronizing.
The dean assured me that she would speak with Dr. Marie Hanache,
Director of Health Services. She informed me that I was not the
first disabled student to complain about such treatment.
     Three days later I went to my appointment, not entirely
certain what would be said about my dog guide. Julip was not a
problem, however. Instead, after dragging me about the tiny
examining room, pointing out virtually every imaginable obstacle,
the nurse turned to leave, said the doctor would be with me
shortly, and asked, "Do you need help undressing?" I had turned
twenty-two years old the day before and have been dressing and
undressing myself successfully for a substantial portion of that
time. Taking a breath to quell my rising anger, I said quietly,
"No, I do not." The nurse left.
     I brought these incidents to the attention of the dean with
whom I had already spoken, asking that she, Dr. Hanache, and I
have a meeting to discuss the evident lack of sensitivity on the
part of the nursing staff. I felt that I should feel comfortable
visiting a health facility; that since other disabled students
had complained, I was not being supersensitive; and that if a
meeting between the nurses and disabled students took place,
attitudes might very well start to improve. The dean agreed that
the treatment I had undergone was inappropriate and readily
agreed to the meeting.
     The meeting began with my tale of "No dogs in the examining
room" and I was almost immediately interrupted with an insistence
that the nurses are worried about sanitary conditions. I assured
Dr. Hanache that I realized this, but that there was a legal
obligation to accommodate me without requiring me to rely on a
sighted guide. She interrupted again and I said, "Please, the dog
is not the only issue. I am not finished." I described the
incident of the nurse asking if I needed help in getting
undressed. I explained that if a person with a specific
disability needed such assistance, the infirmary was dealing with
grown men and women who could voice their needs. She interrupted
yet again and informed me that each and every nurse was concerned
with the welfare of all students, regardless of whether they are
disabled, and that the nurse's question was nothing more than an
indication that she wished to accommodate me as best she could.
Naturally, I asked if able-bodied students were offered this
help. Without a pause, Dr. Hanache replied, "I'm sure it has
happened." Yet, in an informal survey of several dozen
able-bodied fellow students, none related such an offer.
     "You," Dr. Hanache then proceeded to inform me, "have a chip
on your shoulder, and you are making this into a personal issue,
and are trying to start trouble." She went on, insisting that the
nursing staff was concerned with everyone's welfare. As an
example: "The infirmary is very cluttered right now. There are
boxes all over the place. I even tripped and went flying
yesterday."
     I asked, "Are you suggesting that since `even' you tripped,
there is necessarily a greater risk for me and others with
disabilities?"
     "No, I did not say that," she snapped.
     "She didn't say that," the dean chimed in.
     "Then what was the purpose of your statement?" I inquired.
There was no answer.
     I informed Dr. Hanache that since she was clearly unwilling
to do anything, I was seriously considering taking the issue to
the undergraduate and/or law school newspapers. At this point she
slammed something down on her desk, stood, and said, "This
meeting is over."
     After Dr. Hanache left, I told the dean that Dr. Hanache was
the one who had made the issue "personal," and that I resented
the implication that I was nothing more than a militant when
other disabled students had voiced concerns about the infirmary.
I asked why she had not pointed this out when I was accused of
attempting to start trouble. She skirted the issue by saying that
both Dr. Hanache and I had strayed from the topic.
     At one point during our interview Dr. Hanache declared: "Oh,
I see, you want to be treated like everybody else, but you also
want to be treated like a minority, whatever suits you." How
could this woman so grossly misunderstand a central fact of being
a minority: that one would like to be treated like everybody
else, but bigotry, presupposition, and prejudice interfere. It
ignores the reality that perceptions of single characteristics
(skin color, gender, sexual orientation, physical impairment,
mental impairment, religion, ideology) supersede estimates of
intelligence, competence, ability, morality, and character.
     Another facet of minority experience is being labelled as a
complainer who appropriates minority status as an excuse to
whine, rather than take responsibility for their lives. This
snide attitude ("whatever suits you") allows administrators to
ignore whatever the labelled person says and deceive themselves
that we are already treated equally. The irony is, of course,
that in reality we are not treated like everyone else, unless you
define "equal treatment" very strangely.
     "Being treated like everybody else" does not mean "a seventy
percent un/underemployment rate for disabled people is perfectly
reasonable, because disabled people just aren't as skilled as we
are," or "It's perfectly fine to ban dog guides from the
infirmary, because blind people shouldn't expect to be able to
move about unassisted anyway", or "It's okay to be oversolicitous
with disabled people because unless you're careful, they're a
danger to themselves and others." Most of all, being treated
equally does not consist of the implicit question "Why do they
continue to delude themselves into thinking that they are like
everybody else?"
     In short, the purpose of these evasions and rationalizations
is to allow the speaker to avoid personal and institutional
responsibility by the time-honored strategy of "blame the
victim." However, when minorities refuse to be so labelled and
blamed, an important step is taken towards a society which no
longer tolerates such pretense.
     [Note: At the time of this writing (late October, 1991) the
newly established association of disabled law students at Hofstra
is intending to meet with the university's vice president of
operations to discuss further this matter.]








[PHOTO: Bonnie Peterson standing at microhpone during NFB 1990 convention.
CAPTION: Bonnie Peterson.]

                    EXPECTATION AND REALITY:
        THE NFB AND AER TALK PAST EACH OTHER IN WISCONSIN
                       by Bonnie Peterson

     From the Associate Editor: Every state president knows the
stress and anxiety that begin building in the weeks prior to an
annual state convention. The agenda is the biggest worry: what
items to include, whom to invite, how to prepare for each
presentation. 
     Last October Bonnie Peterson, President of the National
Federation of the Blind of Wisconsin, faced more stress than
usual. The Wisconsin chapter of the Association for Education and
Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually Impaired (WAER) was
conducting its 1991 meeting in the same hotel as the NFB of
Wisconsin immediately before the Federation convention. Mrs.
Peterson and Pam Brown, President and Program Chair for WAER,
decided to invite one another to address their respective
gatherings in an effort to broaden understanding and increase
communication between the two groups. 
     For Mrs. Peterson the agreement meant leaving for the
convention a day earlier than she would otherwise have had to,
and as it turned out, flying to the convention site through a
thunderstorm in a small commuter plane--an experience that took
its toll on her nerves. But she addressed the professional
organization and answered their questions. She then remained in
the session, participating and learning. When she left, she felt
that the experience had been useful.
     The following day Pam Brown addressed the NFB convention and
answered questions and listened to the concerns of blind
consumers of services in the state. As soon as she could,
however, she left the room and the convention. Afterwards Bonnie
Peterson received two letters from Mrs. Brown. One was a standard
thank-you note, written in print and expressing the usual
sentiments upon such an occasion. The second was written in
Braille and was filled with anger at having been subjected to
consumer concerns--complaints about Braille instruction and
frustration over services for the blind.
     Bonnie Peterson was dismayed at the difference in tone
between the two notes: one for the record and one expressing
personal sentiments profoundly different from those in the first.
But even more distressing, as she pointed out in a letter to
President Maurer, she was forcibly reminded how great the gap is
between consumers and many professionals, those professionals who
want to talk and not listen, who say they want communication but
resent true exploration of views and differences. But most of all
she was appalled by the hypocrisy of expressing one set of ideas
in print, where they would be on the record and could be
duplicated and circulated, and the opposite ones in Braille,
which does not lend itself to copying. Here is the
correspondence:

                                             Milwaukee, Wisconsin
                                                November 10, 1991

Mr. Marc Maurer, President
National Federation of the Blind
Baltimore, Maryland

Dear Mr. Maurer:
     Earlier this year I was contacted by Pam Brown, President of
the Wisconsin Association for Education and Rehabilitation of the
Blind and Visually Impaired. Since our conventions were at the
same hotel and back to back, we decided to take a chance and work
together by having a representative from the NFB speak at the
WAER conference, and I would place Pam Brown on our agenda.
     I thought there were real possibilities for our two
organizations to make some headway. I spoke at the WAER
conference at 8:30 Friday morning, October 25. I took part in
sessions following my presentation and spoke to many members. On
Saturday morning Mrs. Brown spoke to the NFB of Wisconsin
convention and left. She made no comments of displeasure to me or
to other members. I was certainly not prepared for the letters
which I am sending you now.
     These letters are a prime example of why I feel some
organizations find themselves at odds with us. WAER said they
wanted to work with us but, at the same time, were offended and
put out that they had to listen to what we had to say. The very
comments and questions of the blind people they serve are
dismissed as inappropriate. They say one thing and mean another;
they offer deception instead of honesty. If this is an example of
"working together," I don't want any part of it.

                                                 Sincerely yours,
                                       Bonnie Peterson, President
                    National Federation of the Blind of Wisconsin
                      ____________________
     That was Bonnie Peterson's cover letter to President Maurer,
and here are the letters that accompanied it. The first is the
print letter from Mrs. Brown, which, no doubt, went into AER
files and may have been circulated to other people in the
Wisconsin chapter of AER. Though perhaps a little too fulsome to
be quite credible, it is certainly appreciative and constructive.
Here it is: 

                                              Hartford, Wisconsin
                                                 November 3, 1991

Ms. Bonnie Peterson
Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Dear Bonnie:
     I wish to thank you on behalf of WAER for the presentation
on NFB at our annual conference in Wausau on October 25. In my
role as Program Chair, I was not able to attend many of the
presentations. However, I was pleased with the time that I spent
in your session. The content was what I had planned on. I have
received some positive feedback regarding your presentation from
those in attendance at the conference. They felt the information
was helpful.
     I enjoyed meeting you. The comments you made were on TV on
Friday night and were very appropriate to both of our groups.
     I thank you for the opportunity to address NFB of Wisconsin
also. It was a learning experience.
     Thank you again, for taking the time to share your knowledge
with us at our conference. It was a pleasure to be able to work
with you.

                                                       Sincerely,
                                                        Pam Brown
                                              Program Chair, WAER
                      ____________________
     That was the print letter, and no one could fault its
gracious and positive tone. Here now is the text of the Braille
letter that accompanied it: 

Dear Bonnie:
     On a more personal note, I was very angry at the many
inappropriate statements or supposed questions that were asked of
me.
     In order for teachers to be certified in this state, they
must know Braille. If they don't, report them to DPI [Department
of Public Instruction]. I was disappointed that a personal
comment by me to you was used in front of the group. If that was
a problem, then I believe you should have the courtesy to speak
with me in private about it. I do realize that many blind people
have had bad experiences, but the middle of an address was not a
time to air these differences.
     As you can tell I am still quite upset by what happened and
will assume that this note will be kept as a personal note by you
and to you alone. The typewritten note is my official AER
response to NFB.

                                                       Sincerely,
                                                        Pam Brown
                      ____________________
     There you have it--clear and to the point. Mrs. Brown
certainly does not mince words when she is upset. Bonnie Peterson
does not mince words either once she is aroused. Here is her
response to Pam Brown: 

                                             Milwaukee, Wisconsin
                                                 November 8, 1991

Mrs. Pam Brown, President
Wisconsin Assoc. for Education and Rehabilitation
 of the Blind and Visually Impaired

Dear Mrs. Brown:
     I have received your letters of November 3, 1991, and I
thank you for them. I was pleased to speak to the members of the
Wisconsin Association for Education and Rehabilitation of the
Blind and Visually Impaired (WAER) on October 25, 1991, and for
your reciprocal address at the NFB convention. I do thank you
again for the invitation and time allowed me to present the views
of and answer questions about the National Federation of the
Blind of Wisconsin (NFB). I entered into this arrangement
believing there would be no question from your group too small,
too challenging, or too private for me to answer. I prepared
myself for anything and answered all questions put to me with
candor and respect.
     I took an active part in WAER sessions after my presentation
and enjoyed meeting and conversing with many of your members
during breaks and lunch. Since I took my responsibilities quite
seriously, I was happy when you wrote about my presentation that
"I have received some positive feedback from those in attendance
at the conference...They felt the information was helpful."
     You say in your Braille letter, "On a more personal note I
was very angry at the many inappropriate statements or supposed
questions that were asked of me." Questions and comments posed to
you were based on the topic of Braille, use of the white cane,
and higher standards in the education of the blind, all of which
are well within your realm of expertise as an itinerant teacher
of blind children and as the President of WAER. How can the
questions, comments, and very life experiences of the blind men
and women AER members have centered their careers upon ever be
considered "inappropriate"? You asked for audience participation,
and you received it. You also received a warm reception and were
treated with dignity and respect.
     You also say, "In order for teachers to be certified in this
state they must know Braille. If they don't, report them to DPI."
Since "knowledge of Braille" has not as yet been defined by law,
what exactly would the Department of Public Instruction be
supposed to do? There is a big difference between a teacher's
knowing a few of the rules of Braille and being able to read and
write Braille. What does it mean to "know Braille"? This
situation will be solved by the passage of the very Braille Bill
that the National Federation of the Blind of Wisconsin has been
working on for two years. It was my understanding that WAER now
supports this Braille Bill, or is your organization going back on
its word?
     In your note to me you say, "I was disappointed that a
personal comment by me to you was used in front of the group. If
that was a problem then I believe you should have the courtesy to
speak with me in private about it." I assume you are referring to
a phone conversation we had prior to our respective conventions.
You said there was a shortage of teachers for blind children. I
suggested that you utilize the National Federation of the Blind's
Job Opportunities for the Blind (JOB) program to find qualified
blind instructors. You said a blind person couldn't be an
itinerant teacher because blind people don't have the necessary
independent travel skills. I disagreed with you, citing my own
career as an instructor at the University of Wisconsin Parkside
in Kenosha and a communication/management consultant, traveling
throughout the country. You said that I was different and that
most blind people did not have my abilities. I responded by
saying that I knew thousands of blind people who travel quite
independently, and the secret was that I had very good training
in the use of the white cane from blind people in the National
Federation of the Blind. We left it at that and moved to a
different topic.
     Your comments were not a "problem" to me, as you put it. I
merely disagreed with them. That doesn't mean that I dislike you
or want to do you harm. It simply means that my personal
experiences differ from yours. You tell me we should have
discussed this in private. Unless our phones were tapped, we did
discuss it in private. At no time during our phone conversation
did you request that your comments be held in some sort of deep
confidence.
     You also say, "I do realize that many blind people have had
bad experiences." Comments and questions were directed to you
during the Question and Discussion section of the agenda. You are
telling me that the views of the members of the National
Federation of the Blind were expressed at the wrong time at our
very own convention. Precisely when would have been the right
time? How can we ever eliminate those "bad experiences" or work
out our differences if they are never discussed? Correct me if
I'm wrong, but I thought the reason we agreed to speak at each
other's conventions in the first place was to talk about our
differences. If you did not want to entertain questions and
return with feedback from the NFB, why did you come?
     Finally you say, "As you can tell I am still quite upset by
what happened and will assume that this note will be kept as a
personal note by you and to you alone. The typewritten note is my
official AER response to NFB." I am under no obligation to you to
hold what you have written in confidence. I have the right to
pass whatever information comes my way to anyone I choose. You
have the equal right to disseminate the correspondence you
receive with the same free choice.
     To work with NFB, AER must take seriously the hopes, dreams,
aspirations, experiences, and views of the organized blind. They
are appropriate, and they are timely. Teachers need to know what
is really happening to partially blind children who are
discouraged from learning Braille. Teachers need to hear about
endless eye strain, lost opportunities because of illiteracy,
frustration at being denied the skill of Braille, and the
eventual need to learn Braille at a later time though it would
have been much more convenient to do so earlier. Rehabilitation
counselors and program administrators need to understand that
with the proper training blindness really can be reduced to
nothing more than a physical nuisance. The lack of a competitive
education, and destruction of the will to succeed due to lowered
expectations and negative attitudes about blindness are the real
things holding blind people back, not the lack of eyesight.
     During your presentation you said you would see what you
could do to encourage members of WAER to attend NFB national and
state conventions. We also discussed the importance of reading
the Braille Monitor and Future Reflections. I will be looking
forward to working with you in the future, which means openly and
honestly discussing our differences as well as points of
agreement. We really did enjoy having you at our convention. I
wish you much success, health, and happiness.

                                            Very sincerely yours,
                                       Bonnie Peterson, President
                                                 NFB of Wisconsin


[PHOTO: Portrait. CAPTION: Peggy Chong, President of the Metro Chapter of the
National Federation of the Blind of Minnesota.]

                    THE HUNT IN WHITE OCTOBER
                         by Peggy Chong

     From the Associate Editor: This article and the following
one discuss local chapter celebrations of White Cane Safety Day,
October 15. Since the early fifties, when the National Federation
of the Blind persuaded Congress to declare such a day each year,
we recognize the right of blind people to participate on terms of
equality with our sighted neighbors. The white cane is the symbol
of that equality, thus the name chosen. 
     In addition to the day in October, there is also White Cane
Recognition Week, May 15 to 22 each spring. In the early days
this was a time dedicated to fund-raising for the National
Federation of the Blind. Now that our programs and
responsibilities are so extensive, we engage in fundraising all
year round, but White Cane Recognition Week is still an excellent
time to spend educating the public about the abilities of blind
people and our capacity to compete on terms of equality in
employment. The activities described here or ones like them would
be excellent projects in May as well as October. Here is what the
Metro Chapter of the National Federation of the Blind of
Minnesota did for the first time on October 15, 1991:

     It started out as a desire to do more for White Cane Safety
Day this year than just passing out literature at the mall. So
the Metro Chapter formed a White Cane Committee, chaired by Ron
Poire, and they began to kick around some ideas. That was how the
White Cane Scavenger Hunt was born.
     On October 15 Federationists gathered at BLIND Inc. in
Minneapolis at noon to form teams of four or five people. Our
object was to go into downtown businesses and collect souvenirs
from each place. Each team received a Braille list of clues
telling us where we were to go and what we were to bring back.
Each team was also given an envelope containing the answers to
our clues, which were numbered and individually sealed. If we
couldn't figure out a clue, such as "Bring back a placemat from
the Scottish Mr. Trump's on the Mall," we could open the
appropriately numbered answer and learn that it was McDonald's.
However, the team lost five points for each unsealed answer. Each
clue had been assigned points depending on the obscurity of the
clue or the difficulty of finding the object. At the end the team
with the most points shared a $15 gift certificate from
Candyland.
     After finding a private place in which to decipher our
clues, each team mapped out its own strategy for getting to the
most places in one hour. For each minute the team was late in
returning, a point was deducted from the total score. Teams had
different ways of approaching the task: some took the bus to the
furthest location and worked their way back while others made a
circle. Some decided to skip the clues they could not unscramble.
     Upon returning, each team turned in its souvenirs and
envelope of clues so that the points could be totalled. Then it
was off to the conference room to enjoy wonderful treats prepared
by some of the Center's students and other Federationists. While
waiting for the final scores, we read an article from the Skyway
News promoting The White Cane Safety Day Scavenger Hunt and White
Cane Safety Day. Governor Arne Carlson had signed a proclamation
declaring October 15 White Cane Safety Day, and we heard that
also.
     The enthusiasm for this scavenger hunt is still running
high. Plans are already being made to make this an annual event,
bigger and better as the years go by. 

Here is the story that appeared in the Skyway News on October 15,
1991:

        Federation of the Blind Goes on a Scavenger Hunt
                       by Jane Fitzpatrick

     It will be a true case of the blind leading the blind around
downtown Minneapolis October 15. 
     In celebration of National White Cane Safety Day, the
National Federation of the Blind is hosting a scavenger hunt
sending blind participants out into the business community to
collect items ranging from business cards to paper clips.
     What these twenty-five to thirty blind people are scavenging
for is not as important as why they are hunting, said Judy
Sanders, a member of and spokeswoman for the National Federation
of the Blind of Minnesota (NFB).
     The hunt allows members of the NFB to establish a rapport
with the downtown business community. Sanders said the biggest
motivation is to educate people about the abilities of the blind.
     "Being blind doesn't have to be as limiting as people would
think," she said. "Our purpose is to help sighted people
understand that it isn't amazing that a blind person can cross
the street or take a bus."

     That was the news story. Here is the proclamation that the
Governor of Minnesota signed: 

                       State of Minnesota
                          Proclamation

     WHEREAS the white cane, which every blind citizen of our
state has the right to carry, demonstrates and symbolizes the
ability of the blind to achieve full and independent lives and
the capacity of the blind to be productively employed; and
     WHEREAS the white cane allows every blind person to move
freely from place to place, making it possible for him or her to
participate fully in and contribute to our society; and
     WHEREAS the freedom to travel, one of the fundamental rights
accorded to all citizens, is as important to the blind as it is
for the sighted; and
     WHEREAS Minnesota law requires that all blind persons be
given equal access to all places of public accommodation,
lodging, and transportation, subject only to the provisions and
restrictions applicable alike to all persons; and
     WHEREAS Minnesota law encourages employers, both public and
private, to utilize fully the unlimited skill and potential of
our blind citizens; and
     WHEREAS the National Federation of the Blind, with more than
fifty-thousand members nationwide, has demonstrated a refreshing
commitment to promoting the respectability of blindness through,
among other things, its highly competitive scholarship program
for blind students; its ceaseless efforts to promote Braille as a
viable tool of literacy for the blind; its ongoing efforts to
acquire gainful employment for blind persons through its Job
Opportunities for the Blind program; its provision of technical
assistance to teachers, parents of blind children, law
enforcement officials, employers, and state government; and its
production of printed, Brailled and recorded literature about
blindness; and
     WHEREAS these positive programs are supported and enhanced
at the state level by the National Federation of the Blind of
Minnesota as witnessed by its energetic programs to promote more
and better instruction in the reading and writing of Braille for
blind children attending Minnesota's public schools and its
efforts to secure new and positive training alternatives for
Minnesota's newly-blind adult population;
     NOW THEREFORE, I, ARNE H. CARLSON, Governor of the State of
Minnesota, do hereby proclaim Tuesday, October 15, 1991, to be
                      WHITE CANE SAFETY DAY
in Minnesota.
     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused
the Great Seal of the State of Minnesota to be affixed at the
State Capitol this fifteenth day of October in the year of our
Lord one thousand nine hundred and ninety-one, and of the State
the one hundred thirty-third.


[PHOTO: Portrait. CAPTION: This photo of John Rowley is reprinted by courtesy
of the Los Alamos National Laboratory.]

                     REPORT FROM LOS ALAMOS

     From the Associate Editor: Karen Edwards, President of the
La Luz Chapter of the National Federation of the Blind of New
Mexico, recently sent the following letter and clipping to the
Braille Monitor. They are one more illustration of the variety of
ways in which White Cane Safety Day can be celebrated. Here is
Mrs. Edwards's letter:

                                           Los Alamos, New Mexico
                                                 January 13, 1992

Dear Barbara:
     We thought Monitor readers would be interested to hear about
how the La Luz Chapter of the NFB of New Mexico celebrates White
Cane Safety Day. The event is sponsored jointly by the chapter
and the largest employer in northern New Mexico, the Los Alamos
National Laboratory. At our 1991 luncheon, there was standing
room only, and we managed to educate many senior-level managers
about the capabilities of the blind.
     Enclosed is an article from the November 22, 1991, edition
of the Newsbulletin, the publication of the Los Alamos National
Laboratory. As you can see from the content of the article, our
message, as delivered by Dr. John Rowley, really made an impact
on the crowd.  

                                                       Sincerely,
                                         Karen Edwards, President
                                La Luz Chapter, NFB of New Mexico

               Rowley Not Interested in Problems;
                 His Sights are Set on Solutions
                         by Jocelyn Lieu

     John Rowley isn't interested in problems.
     "They're not worth worrying over," said Rowley, who joined
the Lab as a staff member in 1957. "My philosophy is always to
work on solutions."
     During the past several years Rowley has had the chance to
apply his philosophy to a personal problem: the blindness that
overtook him in 1985.
     In that year the severe myopia that had, to his great
disappointment, kept him out of World War II, grew worse. Fender
benders prompted him to surrender his driver's license. At fifty-
eight, Rowley was legally blind.
     Worse for Rowley was the drop in productivity he began to
experience in his staff job with the Earth and Space Sciences
Division (EES).
     "After four to five hours of reading and writing, I remember
thinking, I just can't force myself to do this anymore," he said.
     "A lot of people go into rejection and insist `I'm not going
blind,'" Rowley said. "I was well aware I was going blind. The
question was, how do I get from where I am to where I want to
be?"
     At the time he became blind, Rowley was in the midst of a
notable Laboratory career that began in the old N Division,
developing the nuclear-rocket propulsion system known as Project
Rover. 
     "There really was an amazing team effort going," Rowley
recalled. "All of the people who worked on that project will tell
you it was the high point of their careers."
     But Rowley went on to achieve further high points. He was
part of the team that conceived the Nuclear Subterrene, a
reactor-heated earth drill. He also was instrumental in
developing the Hot Dry Rock Geothermal Project.
     During his 33-year full-time tenure with the Laboratory,
Rowley worked as a staff member, group leader, and associate
division leader. Science was a career Rowley loved--"My avocation
is my vocation"--and he wasn't about to give it up because of
blindness.
     With the same curiosity and zeal he applied to his
scientific work, Rowley researched solutions to his predicament.
     Brushing aside "hints" that he should consider early
retirement, Rowley instead contacted the New Mexico Commission
for the Blind and obtained his first white cane. He also
discovered the National Federation of the Blind and Job
Opportunities for the Blind. The latter organization steered him
toward the Louisiana Center for the Blind, a private
rehabilitation program in Ruston, Louisiana.
     The intensive nine-month program--which Rowley, who enrolled
in January 1988, completed in six months--included instruction by
blind or blindfolded teachers in such subjects as Braille,
physical education, home economics, and typing.
     "It was exhilarating for me," Rowley said. "I could just see
my progress."
     Not your typical student, Rowley, while in the program,
became an adjunct professor in the department of geosciences,
petroleum, and chemical engineering at nearby Louisiana Tech
University. During his time at the center he also helped present
a conference of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers in
New Orleans.
     On returning to the Laboratory in July 1988, Rowley learned
of an opening with the Yucca Mountain Project in Las Vegas,
Nevada. The job was right up his alley since Rowley had, in 1982,
helped develop the project's Exploratory Shaft Test Plan.
     Nevada proved to be Rowley's graduate school in
rehabilitation training. His wife Mary didn't accompany him.
Alone, Rowley used his newly acquired skills to find an
apartment, keep house, and within two years--working with the aid
of a reader and a voice-adapted computer--recompile the 1,500-
page test-plan document on the nuclear-waste management site.
     Rowley retired from the Laboratory in 1990. In addition to
working as a Laboratory Associate in EES Division, he runs a
consulting service, Pajarito Enterprises; is a member of the
American Association for the Advancement of Science, among other
organizations; and sits on the board of directors on the
Geothermal Resources Council out of Davis, California.
     A self-professed optimist, Rowley was hard-pressed to recall
major disappointments in his life and career. "I don't remember
anything really disappointing, not anything that stands out. 
     "I think the thing I have enjoyed most--and maybe that's an
achievement--I think the thing that's most fascinating about the
Laboratory and science is that the people you meet are
unbelievably diverse.
     "They vary by sixteen  orders of magnitude," said Rowley.
"It's absolutely fascinating."



[PHOTO/CAPTION: Ed and Toni Eames, pictured here with their cats and guide
dogs in their living room.]

                          DOG AND CANE

     From the Editor: Our movement has fostered the functional
and symbolic nature of the white cane as a means of independent
mobility for the blind. However, many members of the Federation
prefer the guide dog as the method of achieving this objective.
As an organization, we have championed the rights of blind people
accompanied by guide dogs to have access to all public places.
The use of a white cane or guide dog is a matter of choice and
individual preference. The goal is the same: independence. By
incorporating the guide dog in our proclamations, we recognize
this equivalency and the freedom of choice it implies. Ed and
Toni Eames, who co-chair the NFB of California Guide Dog
Committee, have developed the following proclamation, which has
been used in Fresno and which they suggest might serve as a model
elsewhere, giving equal weight to the two bases of our
independent mobility. The specifics of the proclamation would, of
course, need to be tailored to fit the circumstances of the
particular state or community, but here is how it was done in
Fresno:

          White Cane/Guide Dog Safety Day Proclamation

     Whereas, the white cane or guide dog, which every blind
citizen of our city has the right to use, demonstrates and
symbolizes his or her ability to achieve a full and independent
life and her or his capacity to work productively in competitive
employment; and
     Whereas, the white cane or guide dog, by allowing every
blind person to move freely and safely from place to place, makes
it possible for him or her fully to participate in and contribute
to our society; and
     Whereas, every citizen should be aware that the law requires
that motorists exercise appropriate caution when approaching a
blind person carrying a white cane or using a guide dog; and
     Whereas, California law also calls upon employers, both
public and private, to be aware of and utilize the employment
skills of our blind citizens by recognizing their worth as
individuals and their productive capacities; and
     Whereas, the State of California, through its public
agencies and with the cooperative assistance of the National
Federation of the Blind of California, can look forward to
continued expansion of employment opportunities for and greater
acceptance of blind persons in the competitive labor market.
     Now, Therefore, I, Karen Humphrey, Mayor of the City of
Fresno, hereby proclaim October 15, 1990, as White Cane/Guide Dog
Safety Day in the City of Fresno and call upon our schools to
offer full opportunities for training to blind persons and for
employers and the public to utilize the available skills of
competent blind persons and to open new opportunities for the
blind in our rapidly changing society, and all citizens to
recognize the white cane and the guide dog as instruments of
safety and self-help for blind pedestrians on our streets and
highways.

















                 ******************************
     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: Kenneth Jernigan and Joseph Shapiro stand together at podium
microphone at NFB 1991 national convention. CAPTION: Joseph Shapiro, Associate
Editor for Social Policy, US NEWS AND WORLD REPORT (right); and Kenneth
Jernigan, Editor of the BRAILLE MONITOR.]

           CREATING A MINDSET OR REFLECTING MYTHOLOGY:
                JOURNALISTS TALK ABOUT BLINDNESS

     From the Associate Editor: During the Wednesday afternoon,
July 3, 1991, session of the annual convention of the National
Federation of the Blind, Dr. Jernigan in his capacity as Editor
of the Braille Monitor Magazine and Joseph Shapiro, Associate
Editor for Social Policy Issues of the weekly news magazine, US
News and World Report, addressed the question whether journalists
help to shape the public mind or merely reflect long-standing
prejudices about blindness. Here are their remarks:

     Dr. Jernigan: I would say that very often the press, while
reporting as accurately as it can, does what other people in
society do in the name of reporting facts. It reports those facts
in the context of what it knows--or, more accurately stated,
believes it knows--about blindness. Often that's wrong. It leads
to all kinds of misinformation being reinforced by the press to
the public.  As an example, very often when we come to our annual
conventions and contact the newspapers (the same would be true of
TV or radio) wanting to talk about civil rights issues affecting
the blind, editors refer us to their medical reporters, which is
a commentary, not on what we are trying to do, but on the
absolute mythology with which they are operating. The problems of
blindness are not medical. Most of us are blind, and we are going
to stay that way, and there isn't anything medical to be done
about it.
     We have problems, but those problems are caused by society's
attitudes about us, or even by our own, because we are part of
society and have accepted those attitudes without even knowing
that we've done so. All you have to do is to read the stories in
the newspapers or listen to the public speakers around the
country or even sometimes those who come to our own conventions.
Listen to the sermons in the churches, listen to what the
teachers say in the classrooms, listen to the public comments;
and you will find the new ideas about blindness, which reflect
the truth of what we are, rubbing shoulders with some of the most
ancient and outworn myths that you could imagine, going back to
pre-historic times. We are, of course, talking about journalism
today. How do we go to a city for a convention and really get
accurate reporting, and--more to the point--how often do the news
people, not just misreport, but fail to understand that there is
even a story to report? We have a long way to go, and contrary to
popular belief, the real story is not one simply reported on
objectively by the news people. Very often our problem is the
news people, not because of anger toward us, not because of
intentional hostility. Sometimes one wonders if it wouldn't be
better if it were. You can make an individual ashamed of his or
her prejudice and hostility. Often the problem begins with the
journalists' perception that they are being compassionate. 
     In this much-discussed airline issue, how often have you
seen a self-righteous journalist saying: "Well, we all have
compassion for the blind, but in this case it's a misplaced
notion that blind persons should be allowed to sit in exit rows
or whatever, because after all, compassion can be carried only so
far."  As you know, our answer is this--compassion has nothing to
do with it. Either blind people are a greater hazard in exit
rows, in which case they ought not to be there; or they're not,
in which case denying exit row seating or telling us where we
have to sit on planes is discrimination. Again, compassion has
nothing to do with it. It's a matter of fact, not of compassion. 
     As we have so often said, not only in this convention but in
past ones, the airline issue is not our primary priority. The
airline issue in and of itself, although annoying and at times
very difficult for individuals, would be in a different position
altogether in our thinking if it were not symbolic of the larger
problem we face with the public and very often with the press. If
we could really get the press in this country to come to
understand what our problems are, we could very shortly go a long
way towards remedying those problems. Once people really
understand--and one way for that to happen is through the news--
they wouldn't tolerate what is happening to blind people, often
in the name of compassion. 
     One of the prime jobs I face in my journalistic capacity in
this organization is to try to dispel the myths. The Monitor has
as its job education--education of blind people and education of
the public--trying to change public attitudes about blindness to
conform to the truth. That is part of the journalistic task that
I face as editor of the Monitor and that Barbara Pierce faces as
Associate Editor.
     Mr. Shapiro, of course, writes for a broader audience than
we do, although our audiences overlap and ours is becoming
larger. But Mr. Shapiro can bring to bear his experience as a
writer for US News & World Report. I want to put him on now to
talk on this topic: "Creating a Mindset or Reflecting a
Mythology: Journalists Talk About Blindness." Mr. Shapiro, it's a
pleasure to have you with us, and I now put you on for your
remarks.

     Mr. Shapiro: The title of this session is "Do Journalists
Create a Mindset or Reflect Mythology When They Write About
Blindness?" I assume that it is a rhetorical question since I
think most people in this room would agree on the answer that Dr.
Jernigan just gave. 
     Indeed, too often when it comes to writing about people with
visual handicaps, journalists reflect mythology, stereotypes, and
fears. And it's true; as journalists we've been too slow to
understand how blind Americans have been asserting independence.
Too often journalists still tend to think of a story about
blindness as a human interest story. We still think it is a story
about someone overcoming his or her blindness or about something
sad related to that condition, but I think things really are
starting to change. Change is coming more slowly than it should,
but I sense something significant is taking place, and it
reflects the growing social power of people with blindness. 
     In my own watching of the media I date that change as taking
place roughly between the time I saw two news stories. The first
was in the Boston Herald, and the second one was in the New York
Times. I forgot to bring the story that I clipped from the Boston
Herald in 1988. But on the left side of the page there was a
large photograph of a man. His forehead is furrowed, and his
mouth curled in a frown. He looks forlorn and unhappy. With one
hand he's holding a white cane, and with the other hand he is
leaning against the piano. When you read the story, you find out
that this man with a cane is a piano tuner. Thieves have gone
through his house. They stole his piano tuning tools and the toys
he had bought for his children for Christmas. The headline on the
story says, "Theft Strikes Sour Note For Blind Man." Now that, of
course, is a prime example of the mythology school of reporting.
It's the type of reporting that you know very well and rightly
are very tired of. It is the type of story that depicts blind
people as brave but sad, as victims, as helpless objects
deserving of pity. Certainly it's a shame that the piano tuner
lost his tools and the Christmas presents for his kids, but if he
were not blind, the Boston Herald would not have been nearly so
interested in him. In fact, he would not have been newsworthy at
all. I think that, if he isn't news-worthy as a sighted person,
then he shouldn't be a news story just because he's blind. 
     You may have seen the other story I used to measure this
change. It appeared on May 12 in the New York Times, and this is
the story that Marc Maurer was referring to earlier in his
address. The headline was, "How Best To Teach The Blind: A
Growing Battle Over Braille." It was a story on Braille literacy
at the top of the front page of the Sunday edition, the most
prominent spot of the most prominent edition of the most
prominent newspaper in America. The reporter for the New York
Times took a serious look at Braille literacy. Her story talked
about the Braille literacy bills being promoted by the National
Federation of the Blind. The story said the issue of Braille
literacy came down to the question of--and I'll read from the
story "whether more people with visual handicaps will become
independent, productive members of society, or whether they will
remain largely on the fringe. Seventy percent," the story
continues, "of the visually impaired who are of employment age
are either unemployed or underemployed." Here was journalism, not
about blind people solely as human interest side shows; here,
instead, was a story that spoke about policies that end up
causing discrimination against people with blindness. 
     So there is a huge distance between the story on the piano
tuner that I saw in 1988 and the one three years later about
Braille literacy, and I think that distance reflects the fact
that in the last couple of years reporters are finally starting
to understand. Sure we still see plenty of stories about blind
piano tuners down on their luck, and we still do not see enough
stories that point out that blindness of itself is not disabling,
but that problems do result when there is prejudice or
discrimination in the work place or at school or anywhere else.
But again I think things really are changing. 
     So what's happened in the last couple of years? Why are
journalists starting to understand? Well for one thing, after
fifty years of preaching, the message of the National Federation
of the Blind is getting through. The fights over things like
Braille literacy are making people stop and think. So too are
stories about airline seating or the stories that we saw about
Rami Rabby needing to fight for years to get into the Foreign
Service despite his stellar qualifications. 
     These things have helped journalists, along with everyone
else, understand that people who are blind and people with
disabilities no longer see their issues as ones of health, as
Kenneth Jernigan just said. They see them as ones of
discrimination and public prejudice. The year of the Boston
Herald story, 1988, was the same year as the Gallaudet student
protest demanding a deaf president. That made Americans think
about deafness and rights, and it was a very vivid way of making
people think about that. 
     Then the following year in 1989 and then 1990, we saw the
fight for the Americans with Disabilities Act. The ADA was a
profound rethinking of how this country views disabled people.
For the first time America was saying that the biggest problem
facing disabled people is not their own visual handicap,
deafness, or other disabling conditions. The ADA said the biggest
problem is discrimination. Now I know the National Federation of
the Blind raised important questions about the custodial
implications of the accommodation provisions of ADA, but that
bill did help Americans finally understand what the National
Federation of the Blind has been saying all along about prejudice
and negative images. Of course, journalists have to understand
that the issues facing people with blindness are not
automatically the same as those for people with spinal cord
injuries, hearing impairments, or other disabilities. 
     But often there are issues that people hold in common. In
this week's issue of US News and World Report I wrote a very
short item about a new technology that could prove to be a
convenience for people who are blind. A Japanese company has
invented something called Colormate. It is the size of a
flashlight, and if you hold it up against the surface, it
measures the reflection off the surface and figures out the
color. I'm not very technical, so I don't really understand how
these things work, but I could hold this device up against my
tie, and it would say brown. Or I could hold it up against my
suit, and it would say black. It's something that has many
applications. The device just went on sale, in fact, in Japan. It
costs about four hundred dollars, but it is unavailable in this
country because the Japanese government has refused, so far, to
give the manufacturer an export license. According to the
Japanese sales agent for Colormate, a Japanese trade ministry has
raised questions about whether the technology would have military
applications--I can't figure it out--and therefore whether it
must be kept away from Eastern bloc nations. But as Kenneth
Jernigan told me last week, it is foolishness for a device to be
freely available to the blind in one country but be denied to the
blind in another. 
     There is no doubt that assistive technology can mean
independence, employment, and freedom. By the way, journalists
love to write about amazing technology for people with
disabilities, but we rarely write about the limits of technology
and about the problems of getting it to people. The world of
high-tech help for people with disabilities, in fact, seems
completely upside down. What would logically be the hard part,
inventing these new devices, has been the easy part. We invent
the Colormate or Kurzweil Personnel Reader, but what we're not
very good at is what should be the easy thing: we can't figure
out how to make technology available to people who need it. That
is an issue that faces not only blind people, but anyone who can
benefit from the amazing assistive technology that is being
invented. 
     Again, the National Federation of the Blind has taken on
this issue with its new National Braille and Technology Center.
Now you may not, or maybe you do, associate Vice President Dan
Quayle with disability, but let me tell you something about the
Vice President. He has somebody on his staff with a visual
handicap, and this staff person has made Dan Quayle understand
how Quayle's own persistent image problems are very similar to
the continued frustration that many people with disabilities feel
from being belittled by negative images all the time. So recently
I wrote about how Quayle filmed a public service announcement for
the U.S. Disabled Sports Team in May. This is how it started. Dan
Quayle comes on the screen, and he says, "This is Vice President
Dan Quayle. I know the effect that negative images and
stereotypes can have on a person. Too often a misconception can
become a myth, but it can be overcome." Now there is more than
empathy at play here, of course. Most of all Quayle, who may have
his eyes on a bid for the Presidency in 1996, knows that people
with disabilities make up a potentially powerful constituency and
one that will get more important in the 1990s. We saw proof of
the new power of this movement that you're part of. We saw this
proved today in this hall, in fact, right where I'm standing,
when we heard the speech of Clayton Yeutter, the Chairman of the
Republican National Committee. I can tell you this: the Chairman
of the Republican National Committee doesn't fly all the way from
Washington to New Orleans just for the jazz. 
     The demand for dignity and opportunity--a demand by blind
Americans that is shared with people with other disabilities--is
propelling a powerful civil rights movement for the 1990s.
Reporters have been much slower than politicians to understand
the importance of the issues of people with disabilities, and I
think one reason is that journalists, unlike politicians, do not
see disabled people as a constituency. So we have been slower to
understand. I cover social policy issues for US News and World
Report, and since I started writing about disability issues, I
have found them to be a very rich source of material--wonderful
stories, things that I write for my magazine and now for a book
I'm writing on the disability rights movement that will be
published a little over a year from now. I find that disability
is an area where every social issue I write about comes together.
There is a disability angle to stories about civil rights,
insurance, labor, and education. The New York Times and other
important publications are beginning to recognize the compelling
power of your movement too. And when The New York Times takes an
issue like Braille literacy seriously enough to write about it
and put it at the top of the front page, then that's a sign that
they're starting to get the message too. 
     I got interested in these issues because I was intrigued by
the idea of this broad social movement. I was captivated by the
idea of blind people and people with disabilities redefining
themselves in their own terms for the first time. A story about
rights, discrimination, and independence is a compelling one for
any journalist. As more journalists begin to see that you are
leading a widespread social movement based on a demand for rights
and respect, then I think we will see more stories about issues
instead of ones about human interest. There will be more stories
written about Braille literacy, about employment, about
discrimination: more stories that we've missed. We will create a
new mindset that reflects the way blind people have redefined
themselves. Thank you.


             FROM THE MAIL BASKET: MORE ABOUT HUMOR

     From the Associate Editor: The healthy role of humor in
dealing with blindness continues to be a topic of interest to
members of the National Federation of the Blind and readers of
the Braille Monitor. Chris Kuczynski's article "The Child's
Laughter and the Adult's Response" and Jim Burns's thoughtful
reply (see the April, 1990, and the October/November, 1990,
issues of the Braille Monitor) continue to evoke discussion.
ABC's ill-considered sortie into blind humor last fall in the
program "Good and Evil" demonstrates just how far astray it is
possible to go when using what purports to be humor to comment on
a disability. 
     It is easy to draw the wrong conclusion from all this talk
about the danger of encouraging people to laugh at blindness,
blind people, and the amazing things that can happen to a blind
person. Humor is a powerful tool, and like other such
instruments, it can do much damage if misused. But in skillful
hands it can be truly healing and provide powerful insights. The
solution is not to avoid humor about blindness at all costs but
to master it as a tool and make it work for us as we fight to win
equality and independence.
     Recently I received a letter from a Federationist that
raised this topic again and caused me to think further about the
issue. Here are the letter and my response:  

                                         Golden Valley, Minnesota
                                                  January 1, 1992

Dear Barbara:

     About eighteen months ago I joined the National Federation
of the Blind and have found the experience to be most positive.
Though personal commitments have kept me from being very active
in the local chapter, I have consistently read the Monitor and am
continually impressed with its wealth of information and positive
outlook. I am proud to be part of a group which has the guts to
tackle a television network and see to it that characters like
George [the blind character on "Good and Evil"] are taken off the
air. While bumbling, inept portrayals of blind people like George
are more stupid than funny, I firmly believe that there is a
place for humor in relation to our efforts to educate the public.
It would be a grave loss if, after the "Good and Evil" battle,
persons were led to believe that laughter does not have a place
in the efforts of people who are blind to continue their fight to
become first-class citizens. 
     I was a bit concerned to read in the December issue of the
Monitor that, though it would be "healthy" for the public to be
"ready and able to laugh at the funny things which happen to
blind people," they will not be ready for this in the
"foreseeable future."  I am a free-lance speaker and writer and
have found that humor used in conjunction with accurate
information can be a most useful teaching tool. In the fifteen
years I have been speaking to groups about issues related to
blindness and physical disability, humor has been effective in
the following ways:
     It breaks the ice. We all know that one of the greatest
obstacles facing blind people is the discomfort which the public
has concerning us. I've often found that relating a humorous
experience (such as the fact that putting horseradish and peanut
butter in a sandwich by mistake--I have no sense of smell--is a
great way to get rid of colds) has elicited stories from sighted
people about funny things they have done while cooking. This
gives us common ground and makes them realize they are more like
me than different.
     It knocks down the belief that blindness is depressing.
Since most people think we sit in a dark world, where we are
engulfed by sadness, humor quickly destroys this belief. Being
able to show people that I can laugh at myself and the occasional
goofy things I do demonstrates that I feel self-confident in my
abilities and like myself well enough to laugh at my mistakes. 
     It shows people abilities, not disabilities. People don't
think that a blind individual who uses a leg brace and is often
in a wheelchair can be independent. When I am showing them how a
white cane works and giving demonstrations, they are surprised
when I casually mention that the reason the cane I use for the
demonstration is slightly bent is that it inadvertently slid from
my bicycle basket and got caught in my bike spokes while I was
riding. Members of the general public don't think blind people
can bike by themselves.
     It promotes independence. The general public does not expect
that a person in my situation would be out and about. In
explaining to them that, because of my physical disabilities, I
can use a cane but find it safer to use my guide dog, I gradually
teach them that many of the humorous things which happen to me
because of the dog occur because I travel without assistance and
am not sitting at home twiddling my thumbs as they would expect. 
     Humor, when used appropriately by blind people who know
firsthand the reality of their situation, can be most effective
in getting the word across.

                                                       Sincerely,
                                               Maureen Pranghofer
                      ____________________
     That was the letter I received, and here is my response: 

                                                    Oberlin, Ohio
                                                February 11, 1992
  
Dear Ms. Pranghofer:
     Your thoughtful letter of January 1, 1992, has finally
caught up with me, and I thank you for it. I am very glad that
you enjoy reading the Braille Monitor, and I hope that you
continue to find its pages encouraging and thought-provoking. 
     I think that you and I are not as far apart on the question
of humor about blindness as you may think. I, too, do a good bit
of public speaking and find humor about my adventures as a blind
person to be a valuable tool for teaching members of the general
public about the inherent normality of blind people and the
silliness of many of the preconceptions that they themselves have
always held. The final sentence of your letter expresses my view
exactly:  "Humor, when used appropriately by blind people who
know firsthand the reality of their situation, can be most
effective in getting the word across."  
     The reason that society is not ready for a situation comedy
about blindness is that it is unlikely that well-adjusted blind
people who understand blindness and are prepared to use humor
appropriately will for the foreseeable future be television
sitcom writers and actors. Even assuming that George's
shenanigans on the unlamented program, "Good and Evil," were in
and of themselves funny, the fact that they were dreamed up by
sighted writers and executed by a sighted actor casts them into
the realm of mockery. If blind people had, by some stroke of bad
taste and worse judgement, written and acted that nonsense, they
would have been engaging in self-mockery. 
     Humor, then, for our purposes here is a constructive force
when it is used and recognized as a way of bringing people to an
understanding of their similarities. I am very careful in
choosing the blindness anecdotes I use in speeches because many
amusing stories will backfire when one's listeners presume that
blind people are incompetent and innately inferior. I have heard
a very funny story about a man whom I admire very much who walked
into a women's rest room in a building with which he was not yet
familiar. He was forced to take refuge in a stall, waiting for
the women who entered after him to leave. Equivalently
embarrassing things have happened to sighted people, maybe even
having to do with walking into the wrong rest room through
inattention. But an unsophisticated audience will always assume
that the helpless blind man should not have been allowed to
wander around loose, even if they do laugh at the story. 
     Your example of putting horseradish on a peanut butter
sandwich seems to me to be chancy. Its actual success probably
depends on how you recount the adventure. If you mention that
your sense of smell is not reliable and that this error would not
ordinarily happen to a blind person any more than it would happen
to a sighted one, it makes your point without doing any damage.
After all, most people don't think that the blind can make a
sandwich at all, with or without horseradish. 
     I usually employ humor to help my audience laugh at the
silly misconceptions of sighted people when confronted by a
perfectly ordinary woman who happens to be blind and who is out
and about in the community, doing all the things that they
themselves do. Even if individually they would be inclined to act
in the same way as the sighted people in my stories, by my
inviting them to laugh at the silliness of the misconceptions,
they find it easy and natural to abandon them and begin to see
the world in the way I do. 
     This, by the way, is one more reason for us to insist that
it be blind people who take the lead in using humor in this way.
When you or I stand in front of a group and tell funny stories
about blind passengers' helping taxi drivers change tires or
hotel personnel cutting up the meat for an entire room full of
blind people because they assumed that no one could use a knife
safely, our words have the ring of truth that may elude a sighted
person.
     People are inclined to give the storyteller the benefit of
the doubt. If we say a thing about blindness is funny, they are
likely to accept that statement at face value. The trouble is
that many blind people are wandering around, rubbing shoulders
with the sighted public and trying to curry favor by making fun
of themselves and the tools of blindness. I am thinking of the
wisecracks we have all heard that suggest that an individual's
guide dog is the smarter partner in the pair or that the reason
that the speaker is not chicly dressed is that he or she chose
the outfit and got dressed independently. These comments pass for
humor and confuse people who do not know enough about blindness
to write them off as ridiculous or needlessly self-deprecating. 
     The appropriate use of humor about blindness is a subject
that we in the Federation have been tossing around for years, and
no end to the discussion is in view. Humor is a powerful and
valuable tool, and we must learn to wield it expertly. Keep up
the good work in public education. It is clear that you have the
capacity to teach people about blindness while making them smile.

                                                       Cordially,
                                                   Barbara Pierce


[PHOTO: Portrait. CAPTION: Kenneth Silberman.]

               AN EMPLOYEE SHARES HIS SPECIAL VIEW
                      by Kenneth Silberman

     From the Editor: Ken Silberman is an active Federationist
and a rising employee with NASA's National Space Science Data
Center. We recently received the following letter from him:

                                              Greenbelt, Maryland
                                                 October 15, 1991

Dear Dr. Jernigan:
     Shortly after I started working at the National Space
Science Data Center (NSSDC) my supervisor asked me to write an
article about myself for the NSSDC News, the newsletter of the
Data Center. Since the News is distributed to Data Center staff,
NSSDC users, and other interested parties around the world, he
thought that this was a good way to introduce me to the staff and
the patrons of our electronic library. On the other hand, I saw
this as not only an opportunity to introduce myself but as a good
way to promote our philosophy and our Federation.
     My article is entitled "An Employee Shares His Special View"
(I did not choose this title) and appears on page thirteen of the
Spring, 1991, issue of the News. In the article I describe the
JOB seminar that was held in conjunction with our 1990 state
convention in Annapolis; my work at that time; how my training
and experience, including my Federation experience, helped and
continues to help me on the job; and about blindness and the
Federation. Bear in mind, this article was written late last
year, and my duties have changed since that time.
     I am sending my article to you because it carries our
message to the worldwide scientific community in such countries
as the USSR, Germany, France, Italy, and Switzerland. It is a
small audience but a sophisticated and influential one.
                      ____________________
     This is what Ken Silberman said to me, and it demonstrates
once again why our movement continues to increase in vitality and
momentum. Federationists take every opportunity they can to tell
others about our philosophy and spread the word. I thought
Monitor readers might like to see Ken's article, so here it is:

     On Friday, November 9, 1990, the National Federation of the
Blind held a Job Opportunities for the Blind (JOB) seminar in
conjunction with the twenty-fourth annual convention of the
National Federation of the Blind of Maryland in Annapolis. This
seminar was directed toward both blind applicants and prospective
employers. Speakers talked about conducting job searches, working
for a blind supervisor, reasonable accommodation, and the blind
and technology.
     Many blind people described their professions, which ranged
from secretarial work to engineering to molecular biology. I
talked about my role with the National Space Science Data Center
and described its mission (to archive and disseminate publicly
all data obtained from NASA space flights, as well as some other
spacecraft, and to develop computer systems that facilitate this
job).
     At the data center my two primary tasks consist of providing
customer support for the International Ultraviolet Explorer (IUE)
and developing and managing a data base for the Infrared
Astronomical Satellite (IRAS). These jobs require expertise in
four areas: computer science, astronomy, writing, and management.
     To fulfill NSSDC's requirements, my work experience, a
master's degree in aerospace engineering, a bachelor's degree in
astronomy, and my Federation experience serve me well. My
Federation work has taught me about leadership, organization, and
financial management. My service as a programmer with the Navy
enabled me to sharpen my skills in computer science to a razor's
edge. While a graduate at Cornell University, I enjoyed a wide
variety of experiences and studied everything from physics to
folklore. An examination of my combined education, real-world
experience, and service as a programmer with the Navy makes it
apparent why NSSDC found me to be the right person for the job.
     Employers, being part of the general public, must come to
understand that blindness is simply a characteristic and that it
can be reduced to the level of a mere physical nuisance, limiting
us only to that extent--no more and no less. Once people
understand this simple truth, blind people will have finally
freed themselves from the bonds of discrimination and prejudice.
The array of talented blind people speaking last fall on the
seminar's panels clearly demonstrates the reality of this
philosophy. The blind in America are changing what it means to be
blind through a vehicle for collective action. For the past half
century that vehicle has been, and continues to be, the National
Federation of the Blind.







[PHOTO: Portrait. CAPTION: C. Edwin Vaughan.]

                      THE FEDERATION ABROAD
                       by C. Edwin Vaughan

     From the Associate Editor: Ed Vaughan is a member of the
faculty at the University of Missouri at Columbia. Last year he
spent a number of months teaching and traveling in China. Here is
the brief report of his activities and observations that appeared
in the Winter, 1992, edition of The Blind Missourian, the
publication of the National Federation of the Blind of Missouri:

     For the last few years I have read in the Monitor reports
about the increasing involvement of the Federation in the
activities of the World Blind Union. I noticed Dr. Jernigan's
increasingly active leadership role in the World Blind Union, but
I seldom gave much thought to the potential of international
organizations.
     However, my views about such matters dramatically changed
during the eight months I recently spent in the People's Republic
of China. While in China, I was able to visit half of its
provinces and autonomous cities. At every opportunity I visited
schools for blind students and clinics in which blind massage was
offered; and I interviewed blind beggars, fortune tellers,
singers, and any other blind people I encountered. I also visited
with public officials concerned with welfare and rehabilitation
programs.
     I was deeply moved by the plight of many blind people in
China. Although China has a new (first) five-year plan for
rehabilitation programs for disabled persons, the effort is
largely symbolic for most ordinary blind people in China. One
reason is that China is a relatively poor country, and
rehabilitation is not an economic priority. Another reason is
that attitudes towards blindness and expectations for blind
people are even worse than those in the U.S.A.
     The history and cultures of the U.S. and China are too
different for any simple comparisons. However, the highest levels
of government, as evidenced by the first five-year rehabilitation
plan and new laws passed in 1989 concerned with disabled persons,
seem to be moving in the right direction. The five year plan
encourages schools and other agencies in China to learn from
other countries and to adopt new technologies and ideas suitable
for use in China. Independent democratic organizations such as
the NFB are not possible under the present pervasive system of
social control. However, the ideas, philosophy, and hope can
enter China from organizations such as ours. Even items as simple
as the NFB's long white cane would be a great improvement over
anything I found in China. 
     The Federation and the World Blind Union can encourage the
United Nations and other government-funded sources to encourage
economically the increased development of prevention, education,
and rehabilitation programs in underdeveloped countries. A little
money and some culturally appropriate ideas can go a long way in
many parts of the world. I can think of no better organization
than the Federation to provide ideas and philosophies which might
inform international activists. Helping improve the World Blind
Union is one way the Federation can help. I applaud Dr. Jernigan
and other Federation leaders, who see this potential and are
giving international concerns greater attention.


                             RECIPES

     This month's recipes come from Arizona. Ruth Swenson,
president of the affiliate, requested recipes from each chapter.
These were the most interesting contributions she passed on to
the Monitor: 


                           TAGLIANARI
                         by Ruth Swenson

Ingredients:
3 pounds ground beef (turkey may be substituted)
4 small cans tomato sauce
4 medium onions, chopped
6 cups egg noodles, cooked according to package directions
2 teaspoons garlic, minced 
1 teaspoon oregano
salt and pepper to taste
2 cans mushrooms, drained
3 cans corn Niblets
1 can ripe olives, chopped
2 pounds cheese, Velveeta or cheddar
3 green peppers, chopped

     Method: Brown meat, onion, green pepper, and garlic. Cook
until meat is almost done. Add tomato sauce. When heated, add
remaining ingredients and bake in large casserole dish (2 may be
needed). Bake at 350 degrees one hour, or until mixture is set.


                          CHICKEN SALAD
                          by Tony Sohl

     Tony is Secretary of the East Valley Chapter of the NFB of
Arizona and is the son of Ruth Swenson and Jim Sohl. 

Ingredients:
4 flour tortillas (8-inch size)
1 pound skinned, boned chicken breast
1/4 cup mayonnaise or salad dressing
1/2 cup thinly sliced celery
3 green onions, sliced
1/4 cup chopped cashews
1/4 teaspoon salt (optional)
1/8 teaspoon garlic powder
1 can Mandarin oranges, drained
1 small tomato (optional)

     Method: Gently press each tortilla into a 10-inch glass
custard cup or soup bowl, allowing edges to extend above dish.
Microwave on high, uncovered, 4 minutes. Reshape any areas of
tortilla that have slipped into dish. Microwave on high an
additional 3 to 4 minutes or until edges are dry and slightly
brown. Carefully lift each shell out of its dish. Set aside to
cool. Place chicken in 1-quart microwave-safe casserole and cover
with casserole lid. Microwave medium-high, 8 to 9 minutes or
until done, rotating dish once. Cool chicken and cut into pieces.
Combine remaining ingredients except for Mandarin oranges with
chicken and chill before serving. Fold oranges into chicken
mixture and spoon into shells. Serves about 4, with 500 calories
each. Note: if desired, you can place 1/2 cup sprouts or lettuce
in shells before adding chicken salad mixture.

                        ARIZONA HOT CHILI
                           by Lee Kerr

     Lee Kerr is a member of the  Tucson Chapter of the NFB of
Arizona. If you haven't tried real western chili, you should
certainly make yourself a pot, grab a quart or so of something
very cold, and sit down to a memorable experience.

Ingredients:
3 pounds chuck roast
3 pounds ground beef
5 large red tomatoes
1 bag Shilling chili powder
2 small cans Ortega chilies
1 tablespoon garlic powder
1 tablespoon cilantro
mesquite chips
10 pounds charcoal

     Method: Put charcoal in smoker or Weber grill. Light in the
usual way and allow to burn. While smoker is getting ready, cut
the roast into small pieces the size of stewing meat and place on
a rack to put in the smoker. Add moistened mesquite chips to
charcoal and smoke meat for two hours, turning every 1/2 hour.
Add moist chips as necessary. Note, meat may be smoked whole;
however cooking time will increase. If it is done this way, cut
meat up after cooking. Cut the tomatoes in small pieces. Place
the tomatoes, green chilies, cilantro, and garlic in food
processor, add water to cover, and run until well-blended. Place
mixture in a large kettle or pot and add water until the pot is
1/2 full. Simmer the ingredients. Brown ground beef, drain, and
add it and sliced meat to pot. Add water to cover and simmer for
six hours. Serve with chili crackers and cold beer. Recipe can be
modified to feed smaller groups; just use identical amounts of
roast and ground beef. Chili powder and chilies can be added or
subtracted according to your personal taste. "Try it, you'll like
it."

                     OVEN ICED OATMEAL CAKE
                        by Harlene Stone

     Harlene Stone is a member of the Phoenix Chapter. This cake
is moist and delicious.

Ingredients:
1 1/3 cups hot water
1 cup quick-cooking oatmeal
1/2 cup shortening
1 cup white sugar
1 cup brown sugar
2 eggs
1 1/3 cups flour, sifted
1 teaspoon baking powder
1/2 teaspoon nutmeg
1 teaspoon baking soda
1 teaspoon cinnamon
1 teaspoon vanilla

     Method: Mix hot water and oatmeal and let stand until
mixture is smooth and of an even consistency. Cream together
shortening and white sugar. Add brown sugar, vanilla, and eggs.
Sift together and then beat in flour, baking powder, nutmeg,
baking soda, and cinnamon. 
     Blend in oats and water mixture. When smooth, pour into
lightly oiled oblong 9 by 13-inch pan. Bake 30 to 40 minutes at
350 degrees. Remove from oven and top with frosting made of 6
tablespoons soft margarine, 3/4 cups brown sugar, 4 tablespoons
milk, 1 cup coconut, and 1 1/2 cups nutmeats. Spread on cake and
place under broiler until brown and bubbly.

                        TEXAS SHEET CAKE
                       by Joanne Tuholski

     Joanne Tuholski is a member of the Yuma Chapter of the NFB
of Arizona.

Ingredients:
2 cups sugar
2 cups flour
4 tablespoons cocoa
1/2 pound margarine
1 cup water
2 eggs
1 teaspoon baking soda
1/2 cup buttermilk
1 teaspoon vanilla

     Method: Mix sugar, flour, and cocoa in a pan. Melt margarine
in water. When mixture comes to a boil, pour it over dry
ingredients and beat well. Add eggs and continue beating.
Dissolve soda in buttermilk and add to batter, beat well, add
vanilla. Pour batter into 13 by 9-inch pan. Bake 30 minutes at
350 degrees.
     While cake bakes, place 1/4 pound margarine, 6 tablespoons
milk, 1 cup marshmallows, and 2 tablespoons cocoa in a heavy pan.
Stir over low heat until marshmallows melt. Add 1 teaspoon
vanilla. Blend in 1 lb. box powdered sugar. Beat until frosting
is smooth and of spreading consistency. Add nuts if desired. If
mixture is too stiff, add a little more milk. If it is too thin,
add more sugar. Spread warm frosting on hot cake. This cake is
very moist and very good.


                   * * MONITOR MINIATURES * *

**Correction:
     In the February, 1992, issue we printed an article entitled
"Update on Medical Transcription as a Career," by Susan M.
Turley. Mrs. Turley's telephone number was incorrectly read in
the recorded editions. Her correct telephone number is: (410)
744-4070. We apologize for the error.

**Hopes to Buy:
     Sue Perry of Oak Park, Michigan, writes to say that she
would like to buy a GE cassette recorder (Number 1-07110), which
has been modified for use by the blind. She can be contacted at:
14125 Oak Park Boulevard, Oak Park, Michigan 48237; telephone
(313) 548-1322. She asks that you write to her in Braille.

**Dialysis:
     Ed Bryant, Editor of the Voice of the Diabetic, recently
wrote as follows:
     During this year's National Convention in Charlotte, North
Carolina, dialysis will be available. Individuals requiring
dialysis must have a transient-patient packet and a physician's
statement filled out prior to treatment. Patients should have
their dialysis units contact the desired location in Charlotte
for instruction on what must be done. Please schedule dialysis
treatments around the first of May, since Charlotte is loaded
with tourists during the fourth of July week.
     There is a mandatory prepayment of twenty percent
(approximately $25) which must be paid before each dialysis
treatment. This is the amount not covered by Medicare.
     Following are three dialysis locations which are close to
the Convention Center:
     1. Mecklenburg Dialysis, 2321 West Moorehead Street, Suite
102, Charlotte, North Carolina 28208; phone (704) 333-5535.
Contact: Ann Sherrill, Director of Nursing. If patient has
secondary insurance, the unit will file. This unit is open Monday
through Saturday.
     2. Metrolina Kidney Center, 928 Baxter Street, Charlotte,
North Carolina 28204; phone (704) 348-2950. Contact: Willa
Humphrey. This unit is open Monday through Saturday.
     3. Dialysis Care of Charlotte, 910 Pecan Avenue, Charlotte,
North Carolina 28205; phone (704) 372-7979. Contact: Kecia
Robertson, Social Worker. If patients are on the drug called
Peogen, they must bring their own medicine or a prescription.
(Patient must pay for this drug.) This unit is open Monday,
Wednesday, and Friday.
     If your dialysis unit cannot confirm a space for you,
contact Ed Bryant for assistance at: 811 Cherry Street, Suite
309, Columbia, Missouri 65201; phone (314) 875-8911.

**Report from Chatham County, Georgia:
     We recently received the following letter:

Savannah, Georgia
December 30, 1991

Dear Dr. Jernigan:
     As Braille Monitor readers know, the National Federation of
the Blind of Chatham County holds its annual gospel musical
extravaganza every year at this time. This year's program was
held on Sunday, November 17, 1991, at the Bethlehem Baptist
Church here in Savannah. And in a word, we really had a
"hallelujah good time" in the name of the Lord.
     Our master of ceremonies was Mr. E. Larry McDuffie, who is
the host of "Joy In The Morning," which is heard on WSOK radio,
and is also the director of numerous gospel musical choirs in the
Savannah area.
     And also during our gospel musical extravaganza program we
crowned the winners of our 1991-92 Mr. and Miss National
Federation of the Blind of Chatham County Pageant. The winners of
this year's contest were Miss Denise Howard and Mr. Tyrone
Palmer.
     Also, we would like to mention that on Tuesday, December 10,
1991, the members of the National Federation of the Blind of
Chatham County met in order to elect officers to serve for the
next two years on our board of directors. They are as follows:
President, Ernest L. Robbins; First Vice President, Isaac
Heyward; Second Vice President, Ellen Parker; Secretary, Tyrone
Palmer; Treasurer, Charlotte Chaplan; and Board Member, Clarence
Green.

Respectfully,
Ernest L. Robbins & Tyrone Palmer

[PHOTO/CAPTION: South Dakota Governor Geore S. Mickelson recognized the
Governor's Volunteer of the Year Award winners for 1991 on January 28, 1992,
in Pierre. Pictured left to right are: Ray Spellman of Norwest Bank, sponsor
of the award ceremony; Karen Mayry of Rapid City; LLinda and Governor George
Mickelson.]

**Well-Deserved Award:
     Karen Mayry, President of the National Federation of the
Blind of South Dakota, recently received the following letter
from the governor of the state:

                                             Pierre, South Dakota
                                                December 16, 1991

Dear Karen:
     Congratulations! It is my honor to inform you that you have
been selected as a recipient of a 1991 Governor's Volunteer of
the Year Award.
     I will be honoring you and the other four recipients of this
prestigious award on Tuesday, January 28, 1992, at 12:00 noon, at
the Ramkota Inn in Pierre....

                                                Very truly yours,
                                              George S. Mickelson
                                                         GOVERNOR

**Audio View:
     We have been asked to carry the following announcement:
     A 60-minute audio cassette, which is being produced monthly,
is subtitled "Echoes of the American Republic." The objective is
to present various issues from different perspectives. The theme
is free enterprise and rights of individuals embodied in the
Constitution. This is a conservative publication with a current
annual subscription rate of $30 per year. If interested, contact:
An Audio View, Box 6, Springfield, Virginia 22150; phone (703)
569-3200.

**Celebrates 100th Birthday:
     In early January we received the following release from the
Prairie State Chapter of the National Federation of the Blind of
Illinois. Both the January and February Monitors were already
completed, so this is the first time we have had the opportunity
to run the notice and add our congratulations. We salute Mr.
Eskildsen and wish him 100 more. Both individually and
collectively Federationists hang in tough. So here is to Mr.
Eskildsen--and here also is the release from the Prairie State
Chapter:

           Ehms Eskildsen to Celebrate 100th Birthday

     Mr. Ehms Eskildsen of Dwight, Illinois, will observe his
100th birthday on Friday, January 17, 1992. He is a long-time,
active, generous member of the Prairie State Chapter of the NFB
of Illinois. A retired farm implement dealer, he still lives
alone in his home demonstrating the independent spirit of many
elderly blind Federationists across our nation.
     You are cordially invited to celebrate Ehms Eskildsen's
birthday on Sunday, January 19, from 2:00 to 5:00 at St. Peter's
Lutheran Church, 326 West Chippewa, in Dwight. Cards and
greetings may be sent to: Mr. Ehms Eskildsen, 410 West Chippewa,
Dwight, Illinois 60420.
     Thanks for remembering Ehms Eskildsen at this very special
time. Your thoughtfulness will truly be appreciated.

**Experiencing America:
     We have been asked to carry the following announcement:
     There is a new audio cassette series--"Experiencing
America." The series features an informative and descriptive
narrated "tour" through each of the fifty states and the District
of Columbia. Written by university historians in cooperation with
each state's travel council, "Experiencing America" is a unique
"traveling companion" for anyone interested in learning more
about a particular state's history, unique culture, natural
wonders, and recreational opportunities.
     The full fifty-two tape series, featuring all fifty states
and the District of Columbia in a four-album set, is being made
available to the blind or visually impaired at a special price of
$195.00, which includes postage and handling. Individual tapes on
specific states can be ordered for the post-paid price of $9.95
per tape. Braille labeling on tapes and albums will be provided
at no additional cost upon request.
     Inquiries and orders should be directed to Experiencing
America, P.O. Box 250, Department N, Cedar City, Utah 84721, or
call (801) 586-2600.

**Invited to Services
     Mike Smith of West Virginia has asked that we carry the
following announcement:
     "I wish to announce the availability of transportation to
and from Sunday morning services at Westview Christian Church in
Charlotte during National Convention week, Sunday, June 28,
before and Sunday, July 5, after the convention. Sunday School
begins at 9:30 a.m., and Church ends at approximately 11:45 a.m.
I do need to get a count of how many would be interested in going
so appropriate plans may be made for transportation. Contact:
Mike or Barbara Smith, International Christian Braille Mission,
Boulevard Church of Christ, 600 Kanawha Boulevard West,
Charleston, W.V. 25302-1999; or phone (304) 343-6157, office, or
(304) 344-5032, home. You may write in print or Braille."

**EZReader:
     We have been asked to carry the following announcement:
     "EZReader is a software program that allows the computer
user to read the WordPerfect 5.1 Reference Manual on computer
disk. The EZReader software package contains an installation
program that unzips and copies the WordPerfect 5.1 Reference
manual files and allows the reader to locate information about
any WordPerfect 5.1 feature by entering a specific page number
that corresponds with its location in the print copy of the
manual. In this way, the computerized version of the WordPerfect
5.1 Reference Manual can be read in much the same way as is the
print copy of the book. 
     "EZReader was designed to assist the computer user who is
blind to read the computerized version of the reference manual
while using WordPerfect with a speech synthesizer. It can,
however, be used by anyone who has an IBM-compatible PC that has
a hard drive with five megs of space, that uses DOS 3.3 (or more
recent), and that has WordPerfect 5.1.
     "A User's Guide is provided in the EZReader file, labeled
'Readme.cvd.' This ASCII file may be read on screen, or it may be
copied in Print or in Braille. It contains the program
requirements, the installation procedures, the directions for
setting and changing default settings, and an explanation of how
to use the EZReader commands. Additional information is provided
in the appendices that are included in this file.
     "EZReader may be ordered by contacting: CVD Company, 2414
Hogantown Drive, Omaha, NE 68123; phone: (402) 339-2229. EZReader
is $35 plus postage and handling. Checks or money orders should
be made out to CVD Company. Please indicate the disk size and
format you prefer at the time the order is placed. Ten percent of
each sale made as a result of this article in the Braille Monitor
will be donated to the NFB ($1.50 to the Omaha Chapter and $2.00
to the National Office)."

**Summer Camping Available:
     We have been asked to print the following:
     For visually impaired adults, eighteen years and older, a
week-long camp in the woodland setting of Oral Hull Park near
Sandy, Oregon. Activities abound--from fishing, hiking, swimming,
to handicrafts, woodworking, field trips, and live entertainment.
Three well-balanced, delicious meals served daily, comfortable
accommodations, and transportation from Portland, Oregon--all for
$150 per week. Space is limited, so write Oral Hull Foundation
for the Blind, P.O. Box 157, Sandy, Oregon 97055; or call (503)
668-6195. Camp dates are July 18 to 25, and August 15 to 22,
1992.

**No Longer Accepting Material:
     Janell Peterson has asked us to print the following: I am no
longer able to accept Braille and other reading materials for
sending overseas. Please discontinue sending me any of these
items. Thanks for past donations. Janell Peterson, 303 Harvard
Avenue, East, #302, Seattle, Washington 98102.

**For Sale:
     I have an IBM brand PC AT 80286, 8 MHz, 1.5 MB RAM; 40 MB
fixed disk; 5 1/4-inch, 1.2 MB floppy; 5 1/4-inch, 360 KB floppy;
IBM brand S-101 keyboard; 80287 math coprocessor; 2 serial ports;
2 parallel ports; IBM brand EGA color display with display
adapter card; IBM brand auxiliary monochrome adapter card;
Votalker speech synthesizer with Symphonics phonetics driver; TSI
Soft-Vert Screen access software; TSI Vista EGA display magnifier
system; Hayes Smartmodem 2400 baud; Okidata Microline 392 wide
carriage dot matrix printer; Mountain 60 MB streaming tape drive
with interface card and software. Assorted software (1988
versions) including the following: MS DOS 3.2; dBase3+; Turbo
Pascal; Lotus 1-2-3; Persoft SmartTerm, SmartComm and Procomm
communications software; C-86 compiler and source level C
language debugger; and MicroSoft Macro assembler.
     All items in original boxes with complete manuals and serial
numbers. All items are in excellent condition. I am available to
talk you through setup and use of the system. Asking $2,200 for
the package. Also available is TSI Vista/2 for $1,900.
     If interested, contact Larry Silvermintz, 1530 South 6th
Street, Chase-507, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55454; or call (612)
339-2088.

**Used Equipment Clearinghouse:
     We have been asked to print the following:
     Used Equipment Clearinghouse is a free service to non-profit
organizations or blind people, their families and friends.
Anything from slates to Kurzweil Personal Readers has been
registered to sell or buy. To list your item(s) for 3 months or
for more information write in Braille or print or on tape or 3.5
or 5.25-inch IBM ASCII disk to Barbara Mattson's new address, 8
Andrews Place, 519 E. Main St., Spartanburg, South Carolina
29302. You may also call (803) 585-7323.

**Sign Language:
     Steve Benson, President of the National Federation of the
Blind of Illinois and member of the NFB Board of Directors, found
this gem in a January 5, 1992, article in the Chicago Tribune
entitled "Inc." O'Malley and Collin are the journalists who write
this column and who noticed the absurdity of the sign they
quoted. Here is the item as it appeared:
     Sign on a United Airlines plane: "If you are sitting in an
exit row and you can't read this card or cannot see well enough
to follow these instructions, please tell a crew member."

[3 PHOTOS: Portraits of Orna Weinroth, Eileen Rivera, and Judy Nichols.]

**Three--But Not Triplets:
     In recent weeks the Federation family has been expanding
rapidly. On December 13, 1991, Jay Greenberg, son of Orna
Weinroth and Robert Greenberg was born. He weighed seven pounds,
ten ounces. Robert Greenberg was a 1987 NFB scholarship winner
and has recently completed his Ph.D. He is teaching at Yale this
year and looking for a permanent teaching position. 
     Early on New Year's morning Eileen Rivera and Dr. Jeff
Foreman became the parents of Maria Rivera Foreman, who weighed
seven pounds, seven ounces, and was 20-1/2 inches long. Eileen
Rivera was a 1986 NFB scholarship winner and currently serves as
President of the Baltimore Chapter of the NFB of Maryland and the
affiliate's First Vice President.
     On January 11, 1992, Judy Nichols, who serves as secretary
to the NFB Public Relations Committee, gave birth to a daughter,
Taylor Jae, who weighed 8 pounds, 11 ounces and measured 20-1/2
inches long. All parents and children are doing well. Maria
Foreman even attended the Sunday evening briefing of the
Washington Seminar in early February.

**For Sale and to Give:
     We have been asked to carry the following announcement: "I
have a Braille abacus book called The Abacus Way, and I have a
plastic abacus. I will sell both for $10 or $5 each separately. I
will donate a Braille book entitled Life: How Did it Get Here? By
Evolution or by Creation?. The book is in four volumes. Contact
me in Braille only: Gayle Sabonaitis, 11 Maxwell Street,
Worcester, Massachusetts 01607."

**OLD IS BEAUTIFUL:
     Colleen Roth, one of the leaders of the National Federation
of the Blind of Ohio, found the following in her church bulletin:
Let us take note that:

It is the old apple trees that are decked with the loveliest
     blossoms.
It is the ancient redwoods that rise to majestic heights.
It is the old violins that produce the richest tones.
It is the aged wine that tastes the sweetest.
It is ancient coins, stamps, and furniture that people seek.
It is the old friends that are loved the best.
Thank God for the blessings of age and the wisdom, patience and
     maturity that go with it.
Old is wonderful!

                                       --Sister Mary Gemma Brunke
