                       THE BRAILLE MONITOR

                          January, 1987

                    Kenneth Jernigan, 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

                  NFB NET BBS:  (612) 696-1975
               WorldWide Web:  http://www.nfb.org
CONTENTS

JANUARY 1987


SOCIAL SECURITY, SSI, AND MEDICARE  
FACTS FOR 1987  by James Gashel

WHOSE BLINDNESS IS IT?  by Lauren L. Eckery

A PARENT'S PERSPECTIVE ON THE 1986 NFB CONVENTION
  by Barbara Cheadle

IMPRESSIONS OF A NATIONAL CONVENTION RECREATION OR REHABILITATION
  by Matt King

SOMETHING WAS MISSING FROM THE CONVENTION THIS YEAR
  by Mary Main

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND RESPONDS TO DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION 
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS

SENATOR GRASSLEY WRITES A LETTER  ABOUT AIRLINE DISCRIMINATION

MIKE HINGSON AND PACIFIC SOUTHWEST AIRLINES REACH OUT-OF-COURT
SETTLEMENT

AMERICAN FOUNDATION FOR THE BLIND CRITICIZES NAC
  by Kenneth Jernigan

FAIR LABOR STANDARDS AMENDMENTS OPEN NEW DOORS FOR SHOP WORKERS
  by James Gashel

MORE ABOUT DOG GUIDES AND GUIDE DOGS

SHONEY'S APOLOGIZES 

MONEY TALKS: NFB WINS BIG FOR VENDORS IN MARYLAND
  by James Gashel

RECIPES

MONITOR MINIATURES 


Copyright, National Federation of the Blind, Inc., 1987
THE BRAILLE MONITOR

JANUARY 1987


SOCIAL SECURITY, SSI, AND MEDICARE FACTS FOR 1987

by James Gashel


  In January of each year there are several adjustments made in
Social Security-related rules, requirements, and programs.  These
include changes in tax rates, exempt earnings amounts, Social
Security and SSI benefit levels, and deductible and co-insurance
requirements under Medicare.  Here are the facts for 1987:
  FICA (Social Security) Tax Rate:
The tax rate for employees and their employers during 1987
(effective January
1) is 7.15%, just as it was in 1986.  Self-employed persons will
pay at the same rate that they did in 1986--12.3%.  During 1987,
however, the amount contributed from general revenues on behalf
of self-employed persons will decrease from 2.3% in 1986 to 2%
during 1987.
  Ceiling on Earnings Subject To
Tax:  Social Security contributions will be paid during 1987 on
the first $43,800.00 of earnings for employed and self-employed
wage earners.  This compares to the 1986 ceiling of $42,000.00.
  Quarters of Coverage:  Eligibility
for retirement, survivors, and disability insurance benefits is
based in large part on the number of quarters of coverage earned
by any individual during periods of work.  Anyone may earn up to
four quarters of coverage in a single year.  During 1986, a
Social Security quarter of coverage was credited for earnings of
$440.00 during any calendar quarter.  Anyone who earned $1,760.00
for the year (regardless of when the earnings occurred during the
year) was given four quarters of coverage.  During 1987 a Social
Security quarter of coverage will be credited for earnings of
$460.00 during a calendar quarter, and four quarters can be
earned with annual earnings of $1,840.00.
  Exempt Earnings:  The earnings exemption for blind people
receiving Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits is
the same as the exempt amount for individuals age 65 through 69
who receive Social Security retirement benefits.  The monthly
exempt amount during 1986 was $650.00.  During 1987 the exempt
amount will be $680.00.  Technically, this exemption is referred
to as an amount of earnings which does not show "Substantial
Gainful Activity." Earnings of $680.00 per month or more for a
blind beneficiary of disability insurance during 1987 will show
Substantial Gainful Activity if no further deductions permitted
by law can be made.
  Social Security Benefit Amounts
for 1987:  All Social Security benefits (including retirement,
survivors', disability and dependents' benefits) are increased by
1.3% beginning January, 1987.  The exact dollar increase for any
individual will depend upon the amount being paid.
  Here are some average Social Security benefit amounts payable
beginning January, 1987:  average Social Security retirement
check, $482.00; aged couple, both receiving benefits, $821.00;
widow or widower and two children, $1,020.00; average check for
disabled workers, $482.00; disabled spouse and children, $882.00;
maximum retirement check for worker reaching age 65 in 1987,
$789.00; average retirement check for worker reaching 65 in 1987,
$593.00; minimum retirement check for worker reaching age 65 in
1987, $391.
  SSI Resource Increase:  There is
an annual increase (effective January 1, 1987) in the amount of
resources permitted for SSI recipients.  In 1986 individuals
could have resources of $1,700.00, and couples could have
$2,550.00.  These amounts increase to $1,800.00 for individuals
and $2,700.00 for couples.  Resources include checking accounts,
savings accounts, cash value of insurance, stocks and bonds, and
similar assets.  Anyone who was previously denied SSI checks on
the basis of excess resources should reapply if current resources
are within the 1987 limits.
  Standard SSI Benefit Increase:  Beginning January, 1987, the
federal payment amounts for SSI individuals and couples are as
follows: individuals, $340.00 per month; couples, $510.00 per
month.  These amounts are increased from: individuals, $336.00
per month; and couples, $504.00 per month during 1986.
  Medicare Deductibles and Co- Insurance:  The basic co-insurance
amount for Medicare Part A (hospital insurance) was $492.00
during 1986.  During 1987 the basic Part A co- insurance amount
is $520.00.  This is the amount which an individual Medicare
beneficiary must pay before Medicare's hospital insurance
coverage takes effect during the first 60 days of a stay in the
hospital during 1987.  Also, the Part A co-insurance amount for a
hospital stay from the 61st day to the 90th day is increased from
$123.00 in 1986, to $130.00 in 1987.
  The Medicare Part B (medical insurance) deductible remains at
an annual $75.00 amount, just as it was during 1985 and 1986. 
The medical insurance premium which Medicare charges for Part B
coverage increases, however, from $15.50 per month to $17.90 per
month.  This is the amount withheld from Social Security checks
for Medicare Part B coverage.  With this increase in the Medicare
Part B premium, and the correspondingly small increase of 1.3% in
Social Security benefits, some individuals may actually receive a
lower Social Security benefit in 1987 than they did in 1986.


WHOSE BLINDNESS IS IT?

by Lauren L. Eckery


  (This article appeared in the Fall, 1986, News from Blind
Nebraskans, the newsletter of the National Federation of the
Blind of Nebraska.  As Federationists know, Lauren and Jerry
Eckery are part of the leadership of the NFB of Nebraska.)

  In an article I wrote when my daughter Lynden was two years
old, I praised the child care setting she was in.  I praised its
children for seeing blindness more as we blind adults do.  It was
evident, through their questions and their observations of me as
I spent weekly two-hour sessions at the school, that these young
children saw and believed the reality of my blindness.
  The director of the preschool, who had become a good friend of
mine, whose skill with children was obvious, was pleased to have
me at the preschool--not just to sing with the children but also
to give them an education about blindness.  I trusted that Lynden
was in good hands.  I trusted a friend who knew and understood
about blindness, from my example.
  Was I naive?  Did Lynden, her father, and I eventually
experience deprivation because of "our limitations" or those of
someone else?  Let me relate some examples of the "progress" of
our relationship.
  When Lynden was two, I did not take her to preschool on a
regular basis.  If she missed out on some of the activities at
school, it was purely due to her sporadic attendance--or was it? 
She was too young to know or care that the rest of the children,
on a certain day, were dressed in western outfits or that the
rest of the children had brought paper valentines to pass
out--everyone but Lynden.  I let it pass; she was too young.  I
suspected a problem but didn't want to be labeled a "paranoid,"
and I reasonably expected that Lynden would eventually tell me
about special occasions coming up at school.  No problem.
  Last fall, when Lynden was four and a half and "River City
Roundup" was happening all around Omaha, we bought her a western
outfit that could double as a Halloween costume.  It was pretty
enough to be worn anytime.  When I asked which day the children
would be dressing up for "River City Roundup," the director
informed me that she hadn't decided--that she would let me know.
  One day Lynden came home in tears.  "Mommy, the other kids
weared western clothes, and you didn't let me wear mine."  I told
her that no one had informed me that this was the day for such
clothing to be worn.  She was angry because she was convinced
that I "should have known."  Could she trust me as much after
that?
  When Valentine's Day rolled around,
once again I asked to be informed as to when the children would
be exchanging cards.  Lynden piped up, "I'll tell you, Mommy." 
The director assured me that she would tell me.  I bought cards,
typed them up, and had them ready in early February.  The night
before the day, Lynden announced that she would be taking the
cards tomorrow.  Only because I was beginning to understand that
the preschool director, my friend, "was a little scatter-brained"
was I able to stay on top of this situation.  Still, I was not
particularly angry.
  In March Lynden had a birthday--her fifth.  She wanted to have
Amanda, her best friend--the preschool director's soon-to-be
adopted child--over for the birthday celebration at Showbiz Pizza
Place.  We invited her.  Three days before the party when we had
not been given a definite answer, I made one of the most
frightening but also one of the most real phone calls of my life.

The director's reason for not answering the request was that she
didn't know if the girls would behave in such a noisy place.  She
stated in no uncertain terms that the only way that Amanda could
come was if they dropped her off at Showbiz and one of them
stayed.
  Suddenly it was apparent to me that I was expected to be as
obedient and as much under her control as the preschool children
she supervised each week.  I was at a turning point at which I
could either choose to back off and say, "That would be fine," or
to do as I did.
  I asked if they were worried about our blindness.  At first
there was total denial.  When it came down to the details,
though, she was afraid to have us walk the children home for fear
that Amanda, who was not "trained to obey us like Lynden is,"
would run off; that she might dart into the street while we
waited for the bus, and we wouldn't see it happening; that we
might lose the girls on the way from the bus to Showbiz and "How
could you keep track of them in that noisy place?"
  When I explained, she stated that I was being defensive, not
caring about the concerns of other people and risking the
children's safety just to make a point.  I said that I had a
right to "defend" our position, and that she could choose whether
that was really behaving defensively or not.
  She said that she had no idea that I was so "angry about being
blind;" that she had been so proud of me for the way "I handled
it with the kids."  She eventually stated that she thought Jerry
and I should learn our limitations, just as everyone else does,
for Lynden's sake if not for our own; that we were deluding
ourselves if we thought we could function as independently as
sighted people.  And I was horrified to hear her say, "And you
know that Lynden is going to know the difference.  She's going to
understand that she can't have friends over without parental
supervision like other children do because of your limitations. 
She won't be angry about it, because she will understand."
  I answered that Lynden would be puzzled and, indeed, angry when
other people (teachers, other children's parents, etc.) decide
for us that she and/or her blind parents "have to do things
differently," when she is going to know from living with us daily
for all the years of her childhood that such limitations are
unnecessary.  She may even begin to think that there is something
wrong with her because she's being consistently left out of
normal activities.
  At length I told her that I thought the whole situation boiled
down to a matter of trust, to which she immediately replied,
"Laurie, I trust you implicitly!"  She explained that she could
tell when children came from less than desirable parenting, and
that she would hold me up as an example of one of the best
parents in the neighborhood; that she was proud of the way that
Jerry and I were carefully teaching Lynden, taking her places,
keeping her dressed neatly, and so forth, and she knew that we
loved her.
  It was difficult for me to believe that I really could not
trust this "friend," and she could not believe that I thought she
did not trust me.  I said, "When someone says to me on the one
hand that they trust me implicitly but on the other hand will not
allow their child to be with us without sighted supervision,
something doesn't fit."  My stomach turned at the thought of how
I, with my unusual amount of assertiveness, had probably changed
the direction of our relationship forever.  I would probably lose
a good friend; I had "caused" a chasm between Lynden and her best
friend.  And would I be forced to put Lynden in another
preschool?  I realized quickly through my panic that the problem
wouldn't be solved in this way.  It was more likely that this
same kind of situation would occur again and again.  I could not
trust as implicitly as I had trusted previously, but Lynden's
education at this preschool had, up to now, been excellent.
  But if the director couldn't see blindness for what it really
is any more clearly even after observing it, what other "blind
spots" might there be in Lynden's education there?  (I now know
that they also sex role stereotype children--"boys wear doctors'
hats; girls wear nurses' hats"--and I am aware of other issues
which are upsetting to me.)
  However, much as I might have wished for it, there is no such
thing as "the perfect school setting" for Lynden or for any other
child.  I knew, therefore, that I had to negotiate.
  Our compromise, after talking with other Federationists (I
thank God for other Federationists), is that the next time Lynden
is asked to Amanda's, she will be allowed to go only if one or
both of us is along.  Will the director and her husband squirm? 
Will they be angry?  Time will tell.
  We thought things had blown over by the time Lynden enrolled in
dance class with several other children.  However, on one
occasion she was kept from going to dance class because she had a
rash.  Although we had paid for this class, we were not consulted
about this decision.  Later Lynden did not inform us of her
recital.  Neither did the preschool.
  The night before the recital, at 9:30 p.m. with no chance for
us to invite friends along, the director called us, realizing
that "we might not know about it."  The children were to have
brought a letter home from the dance class.  We did not get
Lynden's letter.  Thinking that Lynden had accidentally forgotten
it, I asked her about the letter.  I was informed that the
letters had all been taken away from them at preschool and given
to the parents later.
  We attended the recital, knew very little about Lynden's
dancing, and I really began to wonder if I was being deprived
because of my blindness.  At home I cried about what I had
missed.
  The next day when I asked Lynden why she didn't tell us more
about her dancing, she said, "You can't see." Suddenly I realized
that lately she had begun to play tricks on us and to get very
angry.  I realized that she was angry about our blindness.  She
was also feeling that we "missed out" on her dance.
  We learn from our mistakes.  When I mentioned this last
situation to one of the most competent Federationists I know, he
cleared up my own doubts about my blindness by asking, "Did you
have Lynden show you what she was learning?" We had alluded to
it, but we had not gotten down on the floor to have her show us.
  When I explained to Lynden that we missed out on her dance not
because we couldn't see but because we had not asked her to show
us what she was doing, she was immediately relieved.  She
gleefully showed us the entire dance routine, taking on the role
of the dance instructor.  It was hilarious, entertaining, and
enlightening.
  Suddenly it appeared that she understood that we could be
trusted, that we didn't necessarily not know what was going on
just because we can't see.  Her general behavior was back to
normal.
  I know that we will have to deal with situations similar to the
ones I have described in this article.  I know that I must
continue to improve on my own assertiveness.  I know that I must
be wiser than to trust even good friends when it comes to dealing
with issues of blindness, and I know that I must trust my own
knowledge and stand by it.  I know that Lynden will be confused
for some time, but I hope that someday she will read what I have
written and will be reminded of what she said to me when she was
not quite five years old:  "Mommy, I wish you could see."
  Oh, dear, I thought.  Not a pity party from my own kid! 
"Lynden, what would be different if I could see?" I inquired.
  "'Cause then, Mommy, people wouldn't talk to you like you were
a kid."
  EDITOR'S NOTE: In an addendum to this article, Laurie later
wrote:
  It is one thing to be able to verbalize our Federation
philosophy well; it is sometimes quite another thing to be able
to live by it.  In our childhood most of us were not properly
prepared to meet the blatant prejudices--not to mention the
subtle ones-- faced by blind people in our daily lives. 
Assertiveness skills and awareness of discrimination come slowly
to those of us who have spent most of our lives influenced by
non-Federationists.
  The poignancy of this article will, perhaps, be enhanced for
you by the fact that my sister, who is also blind, is (with the
cooperation of all the parents involved) very successfully
supervising several other children besides her own.


A PARENT'S PERSPECTIVE ON THE 1986 NFB CONVENTION

by Barbara Cheadle


  Note: I joined the National Federation of the Blind in 1975 and
that same year attended my first NFB convention.  This happened
one year before I married and nearly three years before I became
the mother of an adopted blind son.  Many people assume,
erroneously, that I became involved in the NFB because I have a
blind child.  In fact, I have a blind child because of the
National Federation of the Blind.  It was the knowledge and
understanding we (my husband and I) gained from the NFB which
gave us the confidence to adopt our blind son.
  So, though my first NFB convention was one of the most
memorable, most important events in my life--one I remember
vividly--the experience was not in the context of being the
parent of a blind child.
  At the 1986 convention I asked several parents who were
attending for the first time if they would write and give me
their impressions of the convention.  One of the parents I asked
was Debbie Hamm.
  Debbie is the mother of Jonathan (one and half years old), who
has been blind from birth.  Although Debbie is new to the NFB,
she has leaped right in and demonstrated lots of enthusiasm and
willingness to work.  She is the treasurer of the Northwest
Chapter (Oregon and Washington), NFB Parents Division, and was
elected secretary to the Parents Division's national board at the
annual meeting in Kansas City.
  Late in August I received Debbie's
letter describing her reaction to the National Federation of the
Blind convention.  The letter is one of the most moving I have
ever read and it is reprinted in full in this article.  In it,
Debbie doesn't talk about the agenda or what dignitary said what
when, or even discuss the pressing issues of the convention. 
Yet, her report is as accurate as any ever written about what the
National Federation of the Blind convention really means to every
blind man, woman, and yes, child, in this country.
  It is not uncommon for parents of blind children to try and
dismiss the National Federation of the Blind as only being for
blind adults.  As if the rights and welfare of blind adults are
somehow distinct and separate from the rights, needs, and welfare
of blind children.  However, more and more parents like Debbie
Hamm are rejecting that false notion and coming to understand
that the true nature of the problem of blindness is a bond that
ties all the blind together regardless of age or any other
characteristic.  And it is recognition of that bond that leads to
true freedom.  Nowhere is this more evident than at a national
convention of the National Federation of the Blind.
  But enough said.  Debbie's letter speaks for itself, so here it
is:

--------------------

                        Roseburg, Oregon August 12, 1986

Dear Barbara,

  I am writing as you requested regarding convention.  It is long
overdue, as I have agonized over what I wanted to say.  One,
because I am sure there are many versions to the same story and
two, because it was such a profound experience for me I find it
difficult to describe.
  I became interested in the NFB not because of literature that
was sent to me, but because a "real" person (Denise Mackenstadt)
called me and invited me to a parent seminar in Washington. 
There
I met blind adults, students, and parents of blind children. 
They were people who understood our needs and concerns regarding
our blind children's futures.
  As I became more involved, I observed these people wanting the
same education for children that I wanted for mine:  Braille and
cane travel at an early age to increase literacy and
independence.  The basics, yet a necessity that I didn't see some
blind children receiving in my community.  It wasn't just the
system's fault, it was lack of knowledge.  I wanted to know what
Jonathan needed based on the experience of other blind people, so
I could ask for it.
  And then I was invited to the national convention.  What an
experience!  At first a little overwhelming.  I had never known a
blind person (except those recently met).  I had to face and
accept that I had many misconceptions about blindness and the
abilities of blind people.  But I quickly threw those notions
out!
  Never in my life have I been with so many intelligent,
well-educated, capable, and articulate people.  I have joined
other organizations but none with the high quality of leadership,
motivation, and dedication of the membership that this one has.
  There were many notable speakers within and outside of the
organization.  It would be unfair to say any one was better than
another.  However, I listened carefully to each, and they all
moved me with what they had to say.
  With so much to absorb in one week, the thing that will be my
fondest memory is the love and acceptance I received from so many
new friends.  People willing to listen (no question too ignorant)
and to share their experiences.  Unafraid to give advice and
offer suggestions.  People that I laughed with and cried with and
who helped me move into new and healthier attitudes about
blindness.  And to accept that my son is O.K., my expectations
for his education are reasonable.  He can be anything he wants to
be.
  Yes, there will be frustrations dealing with ignorance.  But
there will always be the NFB and the wonderful people in it to
support and love him.  And who are out there today convincing the
world that blind people are worthy of all the dignity and respect
a sighted person receives.  For that I am relieved and grateful
in a way I can't put into words.  I can only hope I will be able
to give back to the NFB as much as I received in one short week.
  I look forward to bringing my husband and children to
convention next year.  And even more, to rekindling those
wonderful friendships I was fortunate enough to start in Kansas
City.

                      God Bless You All, Debbie Hamm, Treasurer
         Northwest (NFB) Parents Chapter


IMPRESSIONS OF A NATIONAL CONVENTION RECREATION OR REHABILITATION

by Matt King


  (Matt King is a resident of Centralia, Washington.  He attends
college at Notre Dame University, where he has a double major in
electrical engineering and music.  Matt was a 1985 NFB
scholarship winner and also attended the 1986 convention in
Kansas City.  In order to receive intensive training in both
philosophy and alternative techniques, Matt was a resident
student at the Louise Rude Center for Blind Adults in Anchorage,
Alaska, during the summer of 1986.  He wrote the following
article for the Louise Rude Center's newsletter.)

  We all know the value of teamwork.  It is often said that two
people can do as much work as one in one-third of the time.  Now,
after having attended just two national conventions of the
National Federation of the Blind (NFB) I know this concept can be
extended to a much larger scale: 2,000 people, in eight days, can
do what may take eight rehabilitation teachers eight months to
accomplish.  Eight months of rehabilitation in eight days?  Yes,
almost, if one considers the purposes--as opposed to purpose--of
a training program for the blind to be not only the acquisition
of skills of independent living but also the development of a
positive attitude toward blindness and the building of
self-confidence.  With their surprising influence, every year
during the week of the fourth of July, the NFB conventions
provide an amazing boost in the development of these latter
essential aspects of rehabilitation.  These conventions have
turned around the lives of many blind people, giving them
previously undreamed-of fortitude, vigor, and hope to help battle
the challenges of life.
  Before my first convention I was not blind--or, at least, I did
not think so.  I was partially sighted, visually impaired,
partially blind, or (when necessary) legally blind--anything but
blind.  Blind people, except for those exceptional few, were
those helpless, strange, out-of-touch types who awkwardly got
about by tip-tapping their white canes.
  As a legally blind person, I took advantage of the services
that I felt I needed, such as talking books and rehabilitation
funding for school.  But I would not have been caught dead with
one of those white canes--someone might think I was "blind"
(inferior).  I felt I was handling my "visual impairment" quite
nobly, always operating on the premise that I would not let it
keep me from reaching my goals.  There was much I did not
realize.
  To that point in my life the words "National Federation of the
Blind" were Greek to me.  I had only found them at the top of a
scholarship form application, which I had decided to fill out in
the spring of 1985.  That was one of the wisest decisions I ever
made.  I was awarded a scholarship, and as part of it the NFB
paid my way to the 1985 national convention in Louisville,
Kentucky.
  I arrived at the Louisville airport on the morning of Saturday,
June 29, and followed my usual procedure of asking for someone to
assist me in getting my luggage and a cab.  As I waited for my
assistant, I wondered if I would be this dependent on others for
the rest of my life--the image of a fifty-year-old businessman in
a three-piece suit being led around like a child did not appeal
to me.
  At the main entrance to the hotel I was greeted by Peggy
Pinder, NFB Scholarship Committee Chairman, who advised me to
check into my room and find the Parents Seminar which was in
progress.  I looked for the desk.  Immediately fear and
nervousness replaced my excitement and anticipation--the place
was too dark for me to get around well.  I eventually fumbled my
way to the seminar, all the time wondering if the whole week
would be this rough.  At the lunch break I was relieved when I
met some Federationists who eventually helped me through the rest
of the day.
  As a scholarship winner, I was assigned a mentor for each day
of the week--usually a member of the Scholarship Committee, who
was to get to know me, introduce me to others, and help me
understand the week's activities.  On Sunday I met Joyce and Tom
Scanlan of Minnesota, who were my mentors for that day.  We went
to the Resolutions Committee meeting, which always takes place on
the first Sunday afternoon of the convention.  There I began to
see what the NFB is all about as Federation policy was being
debated.  I never imagined there were so many political and
social problems facing the blind.  Shocked, I learned of
discrimination against the blind that went on in the job market,
in sheltered workshops, on the airlines, in public transportation
systems, and on and on.  That evening in the Student Division
meeting I learned of some of the issues facing blind students.  A
comprehension of the purposes and philosophy of the NFB began
seeping into my brain.
  Monday my mentor was Steve Benson, a totally blind Chicagoan,
who is a member of the Federation's national Board of Directors. 
We arranged to meet in the elevator lobby and go to breakfast. 
And meet we did.  I nearly ran him over, prompting him to ask me
where my cane was.  I nervously responded, "I do not have one. .
.yet."  He remarked that something should be done about that, and
we headed for the hotel restaurant.
  The waitress asked if we wanted Braille or print menus, and not
being able to read either, I declined both.  Steve asked if I
knew Braille.  After learning that I had Braille skills only
sufficient to make and read labels in Grade One Braille, he
offered to read the menu to me.  I made a selection in short
order.  I had no desire to prolong the agony of being read to by
a totally blind person.
  Over breakfast we discussed the order of the next two days. 
The Monday morning session would consist of an open meeting of
the national Board of Directors.  The Tuesday afternoon session
would mostly be devoted to the Presidential Report (analogous to
the U.S. President's State of the Union address).
  After breakfast it was a fairly long walk through the hotel to
the meeting room where all the convention sessions were to be
held.  Steve is an excellent cane traveler and moved quickly. 
Initially I was walking beside him, but I soon discovered it was
not safe for me to move that rapidly in such dim lighting.  So I
fell into step behind him.  At one point I knew we were
approaching some stairs, so I slowed down to make sure I would
not stumble, whereas he did not slow down at all.  Feeling
somewhat embarrassed, I asked him to slow up a bit; he did.  When
it struck me that I, a person who thought he could see, was
finding my way about by following a totally blind person, I was
squarely put in my place.
  After the morning session Steve introduced me to Sharon Duffy,
who is the cane travel teacher at the Chicago Guild for the
Blind, which Steve directs.  He announced that she would take me
over to the exhibit hall, where the NFB was selling canes and
help me select one.  By this time I was all for it.  I had heard
of these new NFB "telescoping" canes that I thought would be
ideal for me; it would give me the chance to pack up my cane and
hide it whenever I felt I did not need it.  Once in the exhibit
hall Sharon asked my height and handed me a 59-inch "straight"
cane.  Thinking of how conspicuous this big white thing would be
when I returned home, I asked to see one of the new telescoping
canes--without voicing my true reasons, of course.  She went
round and round with me for about fifteen minutes trying to
convince me that I should buy a straight cane.  It was not until
she persuaded me that a telescoping cane stood very little chance
of surviving the week, especially in the hands of a neophyte like
me, that I decided to purchase both.  (At least during the
convention I would not be conspicuous since there were probably
over a thousand others using them, and when I returned home I
could simply put this big white thing in my closet and carry the
telescoping one, I thought to myself.)  After a three-minute
explanation of the basic technique of using a cane I was off and
immediately feeling my new freedom.
  By Wednesday I had gained a fair amount of confidence and more
than regained all of my original excitement and enthusiasm.  I
was becoming more and more impressed with the Federation: its
size, its power to make change, its consistent philosophy, and
its spirit.  Equally impressive was the convention itself: over
2,000 people were registered; all fifty states and the District
of Columbia were represented; there were Congressmen and federal
officials there to speak and listen; it was extremely well
organized; and it ran very smoothly.  Every direction I turned
there were competent blind people to be had as role models.  Of
course, there were also many  untrained blind persons, many of
whom were feeling the same inspirations as I.
  The most inspiring blind person was Dr. Kenneth Jernigan, the
leader of the blind of America and then NFB President.  Seeing
him at work running the convention, hearing him rattle off
Brailled announcements as fast as I have ever heard anyone read
print, listening to his eloquent and forceful speech--it all made
one realize the truth and sincerity of the Federation's
philosophy.
  On Wednesday noon I was to meet my mentor, Dr. Norman Gardner
of Idaho, for lunch.  Like Steve Benson, he was also a member of
the national Board of Directors.  Also like Steve Benson, he was
blind.  Unlike Steve Benson, he had some usable vision--probably
more than I had.  Because of this, when he had learned that I had
been using a cane for only three days, he apparently knew what
many of my inner thoughts were, having had many of the same
feelings himself when he first learned to deal with his
blindness.  He asked me to tell him honestly what I thought I
would do with my cane when I returned home.  I told him what I
had been thinking--hide it whenever I could.  He asked what would
be wrong with continuing to use my straight cane when I was at
home.  I made up excuses to try to justify my desire to use the
telescoping cane.  He asked if the real reason I did not want to
carry my straight cane was because I could never hide it and
because I was afraid of being thought of as blind.  No answer! 
Would it be demeaning to be thought of as blind?  Did I think
partially blind people were more fortunate than totally blind
people?  Did I think sighted people were more fortunate than all
blind people?  Did I think I was better than a totally blind
person?  The agony and embarrassment that I had felt earlier in
the week flooded my thoughts.  He was right, and I knew it.  The
proof of it was all around me.  I had questions and doubts that
yet remained to be conquered.  However, that was the first day I
was ever able to say to myself with comfort and ease, "I am
blind.  There is nothing wrong with being blind.  It is
respectable."
  Besides being a time of meetings, business, policy making, and
philosophy, the convention is a time of friendship and sharing. 
It has a very warm atmosphere.  Throughout the week there is a
myriad of social activity teeming with opportunities to meet
people.  Through the Student Division I met several friends with
whom I have spent some very memorable moments.  Friday night
several of us left a party together and spent the night talking,
remembering, wondering, and laughing.  Six of us remained in the
cool morning air near the fountain.  As the water rose and fell,
we looked to the east for something else that also rose and
fell-- it was the sign of a new beginning, the dawn of a new
life, a sunrise which cannot be forgotten.
  Now at the Louise Rude Center for Blind Adults in Anchorage,
Alaska, I am learning the skills necessary for me to reduce my
blindness from a handicap to a mere physical nuisance so that I
may live as an equal with my sighted peers.  Of course, we spend
time not only learning skills but also discussing how one should
think about his or her blindness and how one should deal with the
only true handicapping force that every competent blind person
must face--poor social attitudes based on the very same
misconceptions I held myself before the 1985 NFB convention. 
And, thanks to the efforts of Jim Omvig, I had the opportunity to
reinforce my training with a trip to the 1986 NFB national
convention.  This time, however, I went with a year's experience
in cane travel, a year's experience in dealing with the public as
a blind person, and a fairly solid background in NFB philosophy. 
Consequently, the convention was even more helpful and inspiring.

I was better able to draw on the enormous wealth of information
and opportunity to learn.  There were both old friends to see
again and new ones to meet.  Most important of all, one leaves
the convention with new knowledge, new energy, new motivation,
and new hope--all of it unattainable elsewhere--ready to forge
through the new challenges of another year.  A successful
rehabilitation program in only eight days?  You bet!


SOMETHING WAS MISSING
FROM THE CONVENTION THIS YEAR

by Mary Main


  (This article appeared in the Fall, 1986, Federationist in
Connecticut.)

  Our national convention in Kansas City this year was one of the
best, but for those of us from Connecticut, and for many others,
something was missing.  Howard and Betty May were not there.  It
was the first national convention they had missed since the
Connecticut affiliate was inaugurated in 1971.  They were not
able to attend because Howard fell early in March and severely
injured his back.  He is almost well again, but it has been a
slow and painful progress.
  Howard E. May was born in Toledo,
Ohio.  He graduated with a law degree from the University of
Toledo.  It was at that time that he met Betty and, when he
changed his mind about the law, she agreed to become a minister's
wife.  They went on together to Rochester, New York, and Howard
graduated from the Colgate Divinity School in 1947.  His first
church was in Hubbard, Ohio, but in 1950 he was assigned to a
ministry in Cordova, Alaska.  In 1957 he and Betty came to West
Wilington, where they still live.
  Howard became blind in 1971--a by- product of diabetes--but
blindness did nothing to decrease his activities.  Not only did
he continue as minister of the Confederated Church of West
Wilington until 1977, but he became President of the Connecticut
affiliate of the National Federation of the Blind when it was
organized in 1971 and continued as its President for the next
twelve years.  He has been extremely active both in civic affairs
and in the National Federation of the Blind.  He was on our
National Board of Executors and was Chairman of our National
Scholarship Committee until recently.  He is still on the
committee of the Board of Education and Services for the Blind. 
He is on the board of the Connecticut Radio Information Service
and on the board of the Connecticut Library for the Blind and
Physically Handicapped.  He is a director of the Sweeny Center
for Senior Citizens in West Wilington and is on the West
Wilington Board of Education.  He is living proof that blindness
need not mean an end to an active and productive life.
  It is impossible to speak of Howard without thinking of Betty,
who has been his loyal and devoted partner for over forty years. 
There can hardly be one of us who has not taken advantage of her
unobtrusive helpfulness.  At NFB meetings she has quietly taken a
back seat ready to drive someone to the station, and only
occasionally slipping away to do some painting on her own. 
Howard and Betty have four grown children, three of whom are
adopted; one of these is an Aleut, another an Eskimo, and the
third of Oriental extraction.  They have two small grandchildren,
Robert and Lisa.  Betty, who had to postpone getting her degree
in Education until she came to Connecticut, taught kindergarten
in the West Wilington public school system until this year.
  We missed Howard and Betty at the convention.


NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND RESPONDS TO
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REQUEST FOR COMMENTS


  As the problems have multiplied and the tensions have mounted
during the past few years concerning discrimination against the
blind in air travel, it has become increasingly clear that a
solution must be found.  It has become equally clear that the
federal Department of Transportation must play a key part in that
solution.
  Under date of August 22, 1986, the Department of Transportation
placed a notice in the Federal Register (see Braille Monitor for
October, 1986) requesting comments on a number of issues
affecting air travel by the blind.  The closing date for the
submission of comments was November 20, 1986, and something over
500 written responses were received.  In addition, DOT officials
had a veritable avalanche of telephone calls.  Overwhelmingly the
letters and phone calls came from blind persons who had either
been the victims of discrimination by airline personnel or who
had knowledge of such discrimination.
  Since we are a law-abiding organization, the National
Federation of the Blind followed the rules which DOT had
prescribed for the submission of comments.  Our response was hand
carried to DOT's office on the afternoon of November 20, 1986. 
The Air Transport Association (the body which represents the
major airline carriers of the nation) sent one of its officials
to the DOT office at 5:00 on the same afternoon.  Since the Air
Transport Association official handed in a paper, we assumed that
it was the ATA response.  However, past airline shenanigans
should have warned us that there would be an attempt at trickery.
  Apparently the ATA representative was simply submitting a
letter saying that the airlines would be commenting at a later
date.  DOT records show that the ATA comments were received on
November 26, 1986--six days after the officially announced
deadline.  This gave the airlines time to study our documentation
to see whether they could refute it.  Their comments are the
usual ineffective, sanctimonious double-talk about "safety ," but
the ethics of the situation are not changed by their inability to
make a good showing.  Under date of December 4, 1986, the NFB
sent a letter to Secretary of Transportation Elizabeth Dole to
protest the conduct of the airlines, as well as the behavior of
the DOT officials who allowed it to happen:

--------------------

                     Baltimore, Maryland December 4, 1986

The Honorable Elizabeth H. Dole Secretary of Transportation
United States Department of Transportation
Washington, D.C.

Dear Secretary Dole:

  This concerns your Department's actions on the administrative
record pertaining to air transportation by blind persons.  (See
DOT Notice 86-7, Docket No. 56e.)  For the reasons set forth
below, we regard this as an extremely serious matter and intend
to take whatever actions may be necessary to obtain a proper
administrative or legal remedy.
  We have evidence to show that the administrative due process
rights of this organization, our members, and other commenters
were violated by responsible DOT personnel.  The evidence
specifically shows that one or more commenters were privately
granted extensions of time beyond the 90-day published comment
period.  The Air Transport Association of America (ATA) was one
of those who received a privately arranged extension.  ATA's
comment is now placed in the record, although the document was
not prepared or delivered to DOT until 6 days after the publicly
announced closing date.
  According to your notice 86-7, comments were due on or before
November 20, 1986.  The National Federation of the Blind and 500
or so other commenters (including a few airlines) complied with
this requirement.  In the case of the National Federation of the
Blind, our substantial comment, consisting of some 300 pages
(tabbed and indexed) was received by the DOT docket clerk at 2:40
P.M. on November 20.  Thus, we complied with the rules, and ATA
did not.
  The extra time given to ATA in filing its comment was only for
the purpose of favoring that group and its commercial airline
industry members.  Why else would an ATA staff member have been
sent to the docket room to obtain copies of our comment late on
the afternoon of November 20?  ATA should have been filing its
own comment at that time as we had done.  But instead, the
private request for an extension was honored.  We did not receive
any notice that an extension of the comment period had been
granted.  At the very least, this form of blatant favoritism
shown to the industry and against the consumers is intentionally
prejudicial and a gross transgression of fairness.
  The issues identified in notice 86-7 raise very serious matters
of civil rights and public policy pertaining to air travel by
blind persons.  Arrests of blind persons aboard commercial
airplanes are now commonplace and universally expected by blind
air travellers.  Yet, the blind who have been seized by the
authorities (and in some cases physically abused) have not
violated any law, federal or otherwise.  These facts are widely
known among the blind.  Just like any other group of
self-respecting citizens, blind people will not stand idly by
when airlines or law enforcement officers violate our civil
rights and act without proper legal authority in doing so.
  The responsible officials of your Department are fully aware of
the sensitive issues involved here.  In fact, airline personnel
often make the government (DOT and FAA) the scapegoat for making
unlawful demands upon blind passengers.  In view of this, your
Department's credibility is seriously jeopardized by the obvious
favoritism your officials have shown to the airline industry in
this instance.  Even those among us who have wanted to trust DOT
(at least to the point of fairness) have now lost faith.  It now
seems clear that DOT intends to side with the airlines and not
with the blind whenever differences exist and a decision must be
made.  In dealing with DOT, we now feel that we are punished and
placed at an unfair disadvantage for playing by the rules, while
the airlines are rewarded for disregarding them.
  Under these circumstances, our choice is either to ignore the
prejudice and unfairness shown to us by DOT officials or to
protest publicly with all the press and political intervention we
can muster.  That will not be necessary if you decide to exclude
from the administrative record all comments dated after November
20, 1986.  It is recognized that some comments may have been
prepared and mailed to DOT on or before November 20 but not
received until a few days after November 20.  There is no
unfairness to anyone in accepting such comments.  The unfairness
with respect to accepting ATA's comment arises from DOT's
knowledge that the comment of ATA would deliberately be prepared
and submitted after the November 20 closing date.  This unfairly
allowed ATA to review and respond to the comments of those who
filed on or before the closing date.
  Excluding any comments deliberately prepared and filed late
would actually be fair to everyone.  Different options for
resolving this unfairness might have been available if advanced
public notice of the extension had been given.  Since it was not,
anything prepared by the commenter and received by DOT after the
closing date should be excluded.
  Even with excluding its comments from the present record, there
is no doubt that ATA and other late filers will have ample future
opportunities to make their views known during a rule making
proceeding soon to be held under Public Law 99-435, the Air
Carrier Access Act.  Meanwhile, in advance of that proceeding,
DOT's prime concern should be to establish credibility.  That can
only be done with fairness to everyone by excluding comments
prepared and filed late.  If this is not done, blind people will
perceive DOT as hopelessly biased toward the industry and against
the blind.  We could not control such an outcome or avoid its
consequences.
  The airline practices that are presently under discussion raise
issues that are known to be volatile.  Any conduct which
aggravates the situation (such as a plain showing of government
bias) must be rectified.  Mistrust of government officials and
processes can easily encourage uncontrollable, hostile
confrontations between blind passengers and airline personnel. 
Therefore, we are asking you to remedy this condition as soon as
possible.  A response to indicate your intentions will be
appreciated.

                       Very truly yours, James Gashel
        Director of Governmental Affairs National Federation of
the Blind

--------------------

  We now await Secretary Dole's response to our letter to see
whether the Department of Transportation will behave in an
even-handed, objective manner or simply line up with the air
carriers, who have money and influence.  We hope that Secretary
Dole will be as incensed as we are at what has occurred.  It goes
without saying that we will bring this matter to the attention of
the members of Congress and the public.  In the meantime here are
the comments which we submitted to the Department of
Transportation on November 20, 1986:

--------------------

                     Baltimore, Maryland November 20, 1986

Docket Clerk, Docket 56e Department of Transportation, 400 7th
Street, S.W., Rm. 4107 Washington, D.C.  20590

Dear Docket Clerk:
  Please find enclosed for filing the comments of the National
Federation of the Blind, prepared and submitted in response to
notice 86-7 published in the Federal Register of August 22, 1986,
51 FR 30078-30080.
  We appreciate the opportunity to submit this response to DOT's
notice requesting information on a series of issues and questions
concerning air travel by blind persons.  We are mindful that the
matters of interest to DOT in the instant notice also fall within
the considerations that must be made during promulgation of new
regulations to implement Public Law 99-435, the Air Carrier
Access Act.  The attached comments, submitted to respond to the
questions posed in the notice, have also been prepared to assist
DOT in the now legally required development of a federal
nondiscrimination policy for travel by blind persons and others
with disabilities on airlines.  Accordingly, the Department is
urged to consider these comments during administrative
development of new nondiscrimination regulations.

                       Very truly yours, Marc Maurer, President
        National Federation of the Blind

--------------------


COMMENTS OF THE
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND
RESPONDING TO
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY NOTICE 86-7
REQUESTING INFORMATION CONCERNING
AIR TRANSPORTATION
BY BLIND PERSONS

Statement of Interest--Experience

  The National Federation of the Blind is the only major
nationwide organized consumer voice for blind persons in air
travel.  Organizationally the Federation has a national
membership of more than 50,000 persons, the vast majority of whom
are blind.  Local units, called chapters, of the Federation exist
in most sizable population areas in the United States.  There is
a state affiliate of the Federation in each of the fifty states
and the District of Columbia.  Policies of the Federation are
developed and adopted by vote of the blind.  Therefore, we serve
as the principal vehicle for self-expression by the nation's
blind.
  Air transportation issues have been dominant concerns among the
blind for several years.  Integration of blind persons into all
areas of social and economic life in this country has made
domestic and international travel the commonplace experience of
ever-growing numbers of blind people.  This trend will continue
as opportunities for personal independence increase for blind
persons who want nothing less than full integration.  This is the
modern day goal of the blind.  It is supported by national policy
declarations and by state and national statutes.  As a result,
air travel is now as much an essential service for the blind as
it is for the nonblind.
  Yet, problems in air travel for blind persons have reached
epidemic proportion.  It is not an exaggeration to say that a
crisis atmosphere surrounds the series of issues identified in
notice
86-7.  The National Federation of the Blind is at the center of
this matter to assure that policy-makers and airline personnel
understand both the needs and concerns of the blind.  The
information we will provide in this comment is based on our
analysis of the extensive, first- hand experiences of blind
persons in using the services of commercial airlines.  The
attached exhibits (some of which are referred to in the text of
this comment) underscore the widespread, serious nature of air
travel problems for the blind and the Federation's strong policy
commitment to pursue workable solutions.
  Previously, as we do now, we have represented the interests of
the blind in other relevant proceedings before the Department of
Transportation, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Civil
Aeronautics Board, and the federal courts.  Thus, our involvement
with and experience concerning these issues is firsthand and
substantial.

General Comments/Background

  Air transportation for blind persons should not be a matter of
controversy.  The issues identified in notice 86-7 have come to
light only in the last few years (since about 1977) as airlines
have instituted procedures for transporting persons believed to
be "handicapped."  The procedures result from the federal
government's first attempt to require airlines to transport
persons that some airlines had refused to carry because of their
particular disabilities.  The regulation authorizing the
procedures is 14 CFR Section 121.586.
  This regulation was intended to make air transportation more
available to persons who were facing denials of service and other
difficulties in the normal use of airlines.  However, no airline
was denying service to blind persons, and there was not a
discernible industry pattern of discriminatory conduct toward the
blind.  A federal mandate for special airline procedures to
assure air transportation for the blind was unwarranted.  Service
denials only occurred very infrequently and were corrected or
disavowed by written company policies in all but the rarest of
cases.
  Nonetheless, Section 121.586 and an accompanying Advisory
Circular (120-32) provide a strong federal stimulus for airlines
to have procedures that apply to passengers (such as the blind)
who have had few or no previous problems in using air
transportation.  In that respect Section 121.586 oversteps the
boundaries of a desirable or necessary federal regulation.  The
procedures of most airlines have actually made air transportation
more difficult for blind persons than it was prior to their
existence.
  Customer service (not the following of procedures) was once the
most apparent goal of the majority of the airlines in their
treatment of blind passengers.  Sensible and sensitive responses
to individually expressed passenger needs were left to the
discretion of flight crews and ground personnel.  But the advent
of the Section 121.586 procedures brought on an "image of the
handicapped" which became a controlling factor in the behavior of
the policy writers of the airlines.  If the particular passenger
is more able than the procedures envision, there will be tension.

In order to catch everyone in a kind of "melting pot" concept of
the "handicapped" the procedures are typically designed to force
everyone into a mold of being very dependent and very
incompetent.  But anyone who is not dependent or incompetent will
resist or be forced to endure the personal indignities of
demeaning treatment.  The fact that the demeaning procedures are
applied in public (with other passengers as witnesses) increases
the humiliation, the tension, and the very real possibility of
open confrontation.
  This is precisely the situation in air travel for blind persons
created by the Section 121.586 procedures of the airlines. 
Therefore, the problem which blind consumers and federal
regulators now face is how best to correct an increasingly
tension-charged and possibly explosive situation.  No matter the
posture of the federal government or the airlines, blind people
(by numbers that are large enough to constitute what most courts
would identify as a class) will not be forced or bullied into the
convenient mold of a "model handicapped person."  Applying such a
concept to the able-bodied blind who are not handicapped for
purposes of air transportation forces many people to use the
airlines under conditions and standards which (as a matter of
principle) they are unwilling to accept and which (as a matter of
plain fact) they do not need.

The Safety Issue

  Safety reasons are alleged by most airlines in imposing their
special rules on the blind.  The restrictions include the typical
practices identified in notice 86-7, such as required pre-
boarding, seating restrictions, special briefings, and
discriminatory evacuation instructions with a required "last out"
policy in some instances.
  Officers and staff of the National Federation of the Blind have
participated in high-level meetings with policy-makers and safety
experts from several large and some small airlines, the major
trade associations representing airlines, the Federal Aviation
Administration, and the Department of Transportation.  Meetings
such as these have been held over a period of time spanning
several years.  Yet, in none of these meetings or any of the less
formal contacts, has any evidence been produced by the industry
or the government that a safety risk exists in any respect in
transporting blind persons on airlines.  However, we have heard a
great deal of speculation and supposition that a safety risk may
exist.
  The posture of the federal government through its regulations
and enforcement procedures should be to assure that blind persons
are not the victims of a "safety hoax."  Indeed, the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA)--the government's authority on
airline safety--has determined that, for purposes of safety,
blind passengers need not be excluded from seat assignments in
over-wing emergency exit rows.  Thus, FAA will accept from an
airline the Section 121.586 procedures which do not include
emergency exit row restrictions for the blind.  If a safety
problem actually existed in this circumstance, it would be the
FAA's acknowledged statutory responsibility to establish an
industry-wide safety standard and require its enforcement.  The
failure of FAA to do so should be understood to be exactly what
it is--FAA's conscious decision that exit row restrictions for
the blind are not necessary for safe air travel.
  In fact, it is not necessary to speculate on this matter.  In
the 1970's the FAA considered and rejected a rule which would
have prohibited blind persons from sitting in exit rows.  This
action speaks eloquently.
  Despite the safety reasons that airlines give for their
restrictions, their policies are actually a matter of prejudice,
not safety.  Excluding any blind person from any exit row seat on
any flight has no known relationship to improving airline safety
in the slightest degree.  However, allowing the serving of
alcoholic beverages to exit row seat occupants (or failing to
screen them for alcohol or drug content prior to boarding) has a
known, provable negative effect on airline safety.  The problem
of such exclusions or testing in advance would be a severe public
relations one, so the airlines and the government duck the issue
while the safety of all passengers is knowingly compromised by
the action.
  Safe travel for everyone on airlines would not be compromised
in the slightest if all restrictions imposed on the blind by
every airline now having them were lifted.  But, again, the
airlines appear to feel that no public relations or corporate
image problem is posed by placing restrictions on the blind.  In
fact, they can make a public relations plus by such restrictions.

Airlines want to have their employees seen by others as "caring
for the blind who are traveling."  Also, there is the almost
instinctive but erroneous fear that the blind person unassisted
will do something wrong every time and be injured, or injure
others.  Unfounded (and usually unspoken) worries about corporate
liability if the blind are "neglected" or unsupervised in moving
and functioning unaided are also doubtless involved.  Feelings of
superiority and status on the part of airline officials and
employees are also involved.
  Attitudes of custodialism, such as these toward the blind as a
class, are commonly displayed in almost all forms of social
contact involving interaction between the blind and sighted
persons unfamiliar with the blind.  But the environment of
commercial aviation seems to call forth the apparently
irresistible urge to exhibit unwarranted custodialism toward
every blind person who flies, with "safety" as the stated reason.

Thus, to insure fair treatment of the blind in air travel,
federal regulation of the airline industry must be grounded in
common sense based on knowledge and must also take into account
the widespread prejudice about blindness which, in the case of
the airlines, parades itself in the guise of "safety" to give
acceptance and respectability.
  Unveiling the "safety hoax" and prohibiting its use would be a
proper and effective regulatory posture for the federal
government to adopt.  In addition, the safety interests of blind
persons must also be preserved and protected by the airlines and
the federal regulators.  Restrictions which predictably diminish
prospects for safe air travel by the blind must be removed. 
Seating limits and "last-off" policies are examples.  These and
some other policies actually pose safety risks for the blind,
while not removing any risk for other passengers or improving
airline safety generally.  In short, federal regulations should
assure that air travel for blind persons is not made less safe by
the "safety hoax."

Should the Department Take Regulatory Action?

  Public Law 99-435, approved October 3, 1986, has already
determined what the Department's response must be to this
question.  The statute requires implementing regulations.  So the
real question now becomes, how should the regulations address the
issues posed in notice 86-7?
  Federal regulation of airline practices pertaining to blind
persons has been notably harmful to the interests of blind
travelers and to the interests of commercial aviation.  Similar
results should be avoided in the present instance.  Based on past
experiences, blind people have become apprehensive about the
federal government's motives, capabilities, and desires in
dealing with the airline issues that confront us.  A case in
point is the present instance.  Many blind people, assuming that
the government and the airlines are in cahoots, have greeted
notice 86-7 not as something positive but as a threat.  One hopes
that such is not, in fact, the case.
  Resolving the issues identified in notice 86-7 will require
very specific regulatory action to be taken in the context of
implementing Public Law 99- 435.  In a previous instance
regulatory action was found necessary by the FAA to correct
airline procedures that did not permit flexible travel canes to
be stowed near their blind users.  That regulation (14 CFR
Section 121.589(e)) has proven generally to be effective.  But
even that regulation merely corrected a situation that arose from
misdirected and ill-planned federal involvement in the first
place.  Correcting discrimination against the blind on airlines
must in part be aimed at correcting other failures of past
federal involvement.

Advisory Circular 120-32 Should be Withdrawn

  Advisory Circular 120-32 was issued by the FAA in 1977 as an
alternative to a regulation more specific than Section 121.586, 
but the Advisory Circular is full of material which oversteps the
FAA's scope of knowledge and responsibility--to assure and
regulate safe air travel.  In general the Advisory Circular
amounts mostly to public relations information that FAA thought
airlines might want to have in relating sensitively to the
handicapped.  Properly understood, according to staff of the FAA,
the Advisory Circular does not make safety mandates.  Only the
Federal Aviation Regulations can do that.  Therefore, there is no
real usefulness that the Advisory Circular has for improving
airline safety.  It is not the FAA's responsibility (nor does it
have the expertise) to tell the airlines how to provide courteous
treatment to the blind, and the Advisory Circular reflects the
fact that the FAA is out of its depth in this area.
  Moreover, the Advisory Circular
creates confusion as to the actual direction of federal policy. 
For instance, the Federal Aviation Regulations do not contain
seating restrictions that apply to blind passengers.  However,
the Advisory Circular does recommend a particular type of limit. 
Airlines, not wanting to run afoul of what they take to be an FAA
preference on this matter, generally include the Advisory
Circular's recommended limitation in their procedures.
  But the FAA's regulatory position says there is no preference
for seating restrictions.  FAA's staff members say they accept
procedures without limits because they do not regard the seating
restrictions as necessary in the interest of safety.  So the
Advisory Circular and the federal regulations, working in tandem,
are inconsistent and confusing.  It appears that the government
wants everyone to be happy with its policies, but the opposite
effect is achieved.
  The federal policy position currently being pursued by DOT was
recently unveiled for us in a combined response to three
complaints filed under 14 CFR Part 382 (see exhibits 1, 2, and
3).  The letter describing the position of DOT (see exhibit 4)
says that exit row seating limits will be upheld, consistent with
Advisory Circular 120-32.  Yet, the same letter acknowledges that
FAA's safety regulations do not contain such limits.
  The government's policies and decisions to enforce or not to
enforce consumer rights should flow from federal regulations, not
from "advice."  Doing it the other way around only makes the
Advisory Circular a federal regulation, which it is not.  This
confusion is unfair, deceiving, and inconsistent with Public Law
99-435.  Therefore, Advisory Circular 120-32 should be withdrawn.

Sections 121.586
(Authority to Refuse Transportation)
And 121.571(a)(3)
(Special Briefings)
Should Be Repealed

  Public Law 99-435 is the single, operative statutory provision
governing specific issues of air travel by blind persons.  This
is the clearest and strongest statutory mandate that the
government has ever had to act against discriminatory airline
conduct of the type identified in notice 86-7.  Sections 121.586
(Authority to Refuse Transportation) and 121.571(a)(3) (Special
Briefings) now take a direction and emphasis that are
inconsistent with the statutory mandate that airlines must not
discriminate.  These Sections attempted to strike a balance
between demands of some handicapped passengers for air travel
(which was being denied to them) and the inability or
unwillingness of some airlines to accede to the service demands
of these people.
  Now, Congress has intervened, and the President has concurred. 
Air transportation cannot be denied on the basis of handicap. 
Furthermore, air transportation must be provided in a
nondiscriminatory manner.  Nondiscrimination was not the avowed
purpose of Sections 121.586 and 121.571(a)(3).  In fact, the
specific application of these sections has often resulted in
discriminatory acts by airlines, rather than preventing them.
  Therefore, in light of the statute now to be implemented, the
interests of everyone would best be served by the government's
adopting a single regulatory stance.  Preserving these now
outmoded Sections would only serve to continue confusion by
airlines and consumers about the government's nondiscrimination
policy.  The Congressional mandate for regulations was clearly
made with the expectation that existing confusion over the
federal policy about discrimination by the airlines based on
handicap must be resolved.

Recommendations For The
Federal Nondiscrimination Policy

  The nondiscrimination policy that should apply to blind persons
in air travel must begin with a series of basic principles:
Blindness poses no actual physical barrier to using air travel. 
Blind people are neither necessarily less able nor necessarily
more able than other passengers.  As with other passengers, the
presumption should be that a blind passenger is as able as anyone
else, unless there is compelling evidence to show the contrary. 
Angry and emotional demands made by airline personnel will not be
greeted with submissive acceptance by blind travelers, especially
when the demands falsely require a blind passenger to be more
dependent than the facts indicate.  Blind people are demeaned by
custodial approaches.  We will not meekly submit to practices
which presuppose our helplessness and dependence and require us
to behave and be treated accordingly.
  An accurate, acceptable nondiscrimination policy will have to
be built on recognition by sighted people that blind people know
the nature and extent of the limitations that blindness presents.

Conduct toward the blind based on inaccurate and overblown
negative assessments of the limitations of blindness is the most
common form and cause of discrimination against the blind.  Blind
people are capable of determining their own needs and
articulating them to airline personnel.  If the needs of any
particular blind person are interpreted and expressed for that
person by airline personnel, it is most likely that the actions
of airline personnel will be inappropriate.  More important, if
the blind are denied the right to make decisions about their
conduct which other members of society are allowed to make as a
matter of right, the blind are denied the freedom which other
citizens possess.  Such denials will be resisted by the blind
with increasing vigor and determination.
  Consistent with these principles, the nondiscrimination policy
should be that airlines cannot subject blind passengers to
required procedures or limits that are separate or different from
the procedures or limits that apply alike to the blind and
nonblind who travel by air.  If any separate or different form of
treatment or limit is to be allowed, the blind community must be
convinced of the relevance of and compelling necessity for such
treatment.  We know of no such relevance or compelling necessity.
  The nondiscrimination policy just expressed should be the
starting point and touchstone for all airline practices toward
the blind.  Special assistance to meet individual needs is
specifically not prohibited.  In this respect the airlines need
not overreact by having a stand-offish approach toward the blind.

Service to the customer, looked at as an individual, is the most
desirable goal.  Under this guideline it is not an act of
discrimination to offer to give assistance to a blind passenger
even though the offer may not normally be made to a nonblind
passenger; but it is an act of discrimination to insist that the
assistance be accepted.  Nondiscrimination should only enhance
customer service.  It should not prevent it or make more rigid
the interaction between airline personnel and blind travelers.
  This nondiscrimination policy should be translated into
regulatory language which preserves as much simplicity as
possible.  Avoiding discrimination based on blindness is not
complex.  There should not be mandatory limits that are placed on
the blind to any greater extent than there are mandatory limits
placed on the nonblind.  Just as the airlines do in dealing with
most sighted passengers, there should be a presumption that the
blind passenger is capable.  The general rule should be this: 
When in doubt about assistance, ask the blind passenger.

Accompanied Versus
Unaccompanied Blind Passengers

  The specific questions in notice 86-7 follow an implicit
assumption that the circumstances might be different if a blind
person is "accompanied" as opposed to "unaccompanied."  That
assumption is unwarranted.  An unaccompanied blind passenger
should not be a suspect individual to any greater extent than an
unaccompanied sighted passenger would be.  There is no automatic
aura of competence that surrounds an accompanied blind passenger,
nor should there be an automatic aura of suspicion surrounding an
unaccompanied blind person.  Furthermore, when a blind passenger
is traveling with a sighted companion or colleague, it does not
mean that the blind passenger is being cared for in the sense
that the term "accompanied" is being used.  Perhaps it is the
sighted passenger (not the blind passenger) who is "accompanied"
or being cared for--not an uncommon experience.  It is demeaning
and discriminatory to approach an adult blind passenger with the
question, "Is someone with you?"  If the passenger were adult and
sighted (and apparently of normal intelligence) the question
would not be asked.  And if asked, it would be an insult.  So it
is with the blind.
  From the standpoint of nondiscrimination, it should make no
difference at all if a blind passenger is accompanied or
unaccompanied.  The assumption that it does make a difference is
merely an unacknowledged impression that the blind are better off
if they are cared for by the sighted.  It also expresses the
belief that blind people traveling alone are likely to be at
greater risk than they would be if someone were watching over
them.  At the bottom line, the Department of Transportation must
accept the fact that the blind as a class are generally as
competent to travel as any other randomly selected class of
passengers.

Specific Issues

  The foregoing comments have already touched on most of the
specific issues and questions posed in notice 86-7.  Shorter
responses will therefore be given to each issue to provide
increased clarity on our position while avoiding repetition.
  (1)  Pre-Boarding.  The nondiscrimination policy on
pre-boarding of blind passengers should be "passenger
discretion."  Pre-boarding may be offered as an option, but not
required.  Information as to the boarding method-- jetway or
not--may be given.  The passenger can then choose to accept or
not to accept the pre-boarding invitation.  There is absolutely
no basis for any approach other than an invitation, stating that
pre-boarding is allowed if desired.
  (2)  Deplaning.  The non- discrimination policy on deplaning of
blind passengers should be the same as that for
pre-boarding--"passenger discretion."  In addition, the blind
passenger must have the choice of declining or receiving
assistance to connecting flights, baggage claim, or getting
ground transportation.  The very existence of holding rooms (such
as the one operated by United in Chicago) or special handicapped
lounges is segregating and discriminatory.  It is also an act of
discrimination for passenger service personnel to take custody of
a blind passenger's ticket for any reason other than normal
preflight check-in, processing a lost baggage claim, or other
uses ordinarily expected by any airline passenger.  Ticket taking
infringes upon passenger freedom and discretion to move
independently beyond the range of the watchful eye and control of
airline personnel.
  (3)  Emergency Evacuation.  The nondiscrimination policy for
blind persons in emergency evacuations should be "no limits." 
"Last off" instructions are plainly discriminatory.  Blind
passengers who feel they need special assistance can be expected
to ask seatmates or flight crew members.  Obtaining the
assistance of other persons to the extent it is needed is a
procedure that the blind understand for themselves.  Blind people
are experienced with blindness and any needs it may present to
them as individuals.  Therefore, the mandatory practice of
assigning other passengers as "buddies" for blind passengers
needlessly singles out the blind.  This practice is
discriminatory.
  (4)  Seating of blind persons
with dog guides.  The nondiscrimination policy for seating blind
passengers with dog guides should be "passenger discretion." 
Such discretion is now the policy of most airlines.  However,
carriers sometimes express a preference for seating blind
passengers with dog guides in bulkhead rows and in window seats
if possible.  The remaining seat or seats nearest the blind
passenger are then normally blocked off.  The dog guide occupies
the space in front of the other seat or seats where another
passenger's feet would have to go.  Bulkhead seating in this
manner is segregating.  Most dog users have no difficulty in
placing their dogs safely and acceptably in other seat locations.

Bulkhead seating requirements are, therefore, inconsistent with
the needs and experience of most dog guide users.  Also, safety
concerns are not posed when dogs are properly stowed at other
seat locations.  Therefore, the seating limitations for blind
persons with dog guides are discriminatory.
  (5)  Seats near emergency exits.
The nondiscrimination policy for seating of blind persons near
emergency exits should be, "If the choice of an exit row seat
randomly arises, the option to accept or decline this seating is
offered, and the blind passenger's decision will be honored." 
All passengers (blind or nonblind) assigned to seats near
emergency exits should be told of their responsibilities and
given the option of alternative seating.  It is prejudical for an
airline to assume that the characteristic of blindness
necessarily presents any risk other than the normal risk of
seating any passenger in an emergency exit row.  Airlines
admittedly have no knowledge of or ability to assess the risk of
other passengers who might be assigned to exit row seats.  The
assumption is that the risk (whatever it is) can be tolerated. 
Making any other assumption in the case of blind people is
unwarranted and discriminatory.
  In April, 1985, the National Federation of the Blind conducted
a planned, practice evacuation in cooperation with World Airways.

It involved evacuating a DC-10 aircraft parked at the BWI Airport
near Baltimore.  The passenger load consisted of thirty
individuals--ten were sighted, and twenty were blind.  Members of
a World Airways flight crew were also on board.
  Evacuees were selected from blind and sighted persons living in
the Baltimore- Washington area.  Several potential evacuees were
rejected, although they were sighted.  By appearance, these
individuals would pass for having normal health.  However, each
of them had known (but hidden) physical conditions that made
participation in such an evacuation impossible.  They certainly
would have been good candidates for exit row seat assignments,
not being blind and with no other apparent limitations.
  The evacuation showed that there was no difference in time
taken by blind persons and sighted persons.  It also showed that
flight crew members were excessively apprehensive and in some
instances blocked the passenger flow toward the exit slide.  None
of the observers (people unfamiliar with the passengers
evacuating) could tell who was blind and who was sighted.  We
know of no other such evacuation which has actually used blind
persons.  Moreover, a request we made to the National
Transportation Safety Board for any data on blind persons
involved in airline evacuations yielded the response that there
is no such data available.  We conclude, therefore, that there is
no factual basis for a greater risk presumption if existing
restrictions on blind people sitting in exit rows are lifted.
  Passengers who are not blind are also not subject to a risk
test before their assignment to emergency exit row seats.  As
stated above, airlines generally acknowledge that they have no
assurance of a passenger's ability to act appropriately if seated
near an emergency exit or responsibly to help in an evacuation. 
But the assumption is made that blind people will always be less
able than sighted people.  There is no more basis for that
conclusion than to hold that short people will always be faster
than tall people or that men will be more able than women and
more cool- headed when seated near emergency exits.  Should
women, age fifty to sixty, be seated in emergency exit rows when
there are men, age twenty to thirty, who could be moved to those
seats?  That is a fair question if the blind are to be singled
out and required to move when sighted people are available to
replace them.  There would be riots on the airplanes if
fifty-year-old women had to be moved for younger men--even,
incidentally, if safety data showed that such a policy was
indicated.
  There is very little question that it would be safer not to
serve anyone an alcoholic beverage during any flight.  But the
airlines would not want to suffer the severe economic
consequences of flying dry.  Short of that, it would certainly be
better not to serve drinks to persons (blind or sighted) in exit
rows.  Unlike the case of excluding the blind from these seats,
evidence can easily be assembled to prove a safety risk if liquor
is served to exit row occupants.  Yet, liquor is routinely sold
in unlimited quantity to such occupants, airline denials to the
contrary notwithstanding.  Therefore, singling out the blind for
an "increased risk test" when known risks exist by virtue of
other allowed practices is patently unfair and discriminatory.
  (6)  Pre-flight and in-flight briefings.  The nondiscrimination
policy for briefing blind passengers should be, "Information
beyond the normal briefings is offered, and the blind passenger's
wish for such additional help (or expressed lack of need for it)
is respected."  The content of the normal public briefing has
been judged sufficient by the FAA.  There is no reason to think
that it is not just as sufficient for blind passengers as sighted
passengers.  It is not necessarily discriminatory to offer
additional information, but it is discriminatory to ignore the
blind passenger's lack of need for this help while insisting on
"hands-on procedures," like it or not.  Discriminatory briefing
practices can best be avoided by asking the blind passenger if
more information than the normal briefing is desired.
  (7)  Emergency information.  The spoken word is normally the
best, most universal form of communication.  Spoken instructions
can also be modified instantly to relate to particular
circumstances.  Braille briefing booklets are certainly
appropriate but need not be required as a matter of
nondiscrimination policy.  If the booklets are available, they
should not contain discriminatory instructions, such as, "Wait
until others leave, and a flight crew member will help you." 
Natural, spoken communication is generally the best policy.
  (8)  Personnel Training.  The provision and extent of personnel
training should be a discretionary matter with the airlines. 
Compliance with the various elements of a nondiscrimination
policy will obviously require airlines to give information to
their employees.  How this is done may properly differ from one
airline to another.  However, the proper role for the federal
government is to state a reasonable and clear nondiscrimination
policy and then to enforce it.  Complying is the responsibility
of the airlines.
  (9)  Notification.  The nondiscrimination policy for prior
notice of intent to travel by blind persons should be, "No notice
is required."  Blindness is not a condition that necessitates
special handling procedures, equipment,  or personnel.  If
assistance is desired, arrangements for the help are (without
exception) immediately available.  The more common complaint of
blind persons is that too much assistance is immediately
available, even when no notice is given and the help is not
needed.  A blind passenger is not an "exceptional passenger" or a
"special passenger" any more than any other passenger is
"exceptional" or "special."  Therefore, a notice requirement
under any conditions is unwarranted in the case of the blind.
  (10)  No special procedures.  The nondiscrimination policy for
blind persons on airlines should be, "No separate or different
treatment is required unless approved in advance by the FAA." The
FAA's approval would have to be based on the determination of a
safety risk greater than that posed by other airline practices. 
Moreover, the FAA's determination would have to be a formal
finding, supported by substantial, factual evidence and expressed
in a Federal Aviation (safety) Regulation.  This policy would not
ban special procedures for blind persons requesting assistance,
as with any other passenger asking for help.  It is not our
position that special procedures must be prohibited, only that
their acceptance by the blind passenger must be voluntary.
  As for the safety and service implications of such a policy, in
all of the recorded history of air travel (prior to the special
procedures authorized by the FAA), blind people generally had
very little difficulty in dealing with the airlines.  Services
(even special ones) were provided voluntarily and cheerfully by
the airlines.  It did not take a government requirement to get
the airlines to serve the blind.  Our money spends to the same
extent as the fares paid by sighted customers.  A return to the
pre-procedure days (surrounded by a modern, enlightened
nondiscrimination policy) would, therefore, be the most desirable
outcome of the present consideration.


SENATOR GRASSLEY WRITES A LETTER

ABOUT AIRLINE DISCRIMINATION


  Senator Charles Grassley (Republican from Iowa) has been a
champion of the rights of the blind to have first-class treatment
and equal status in society.  He has been particularly active in
attempting to help solve the problems which the blind have had
with the airlines.  Under date of September 22, 1986, he wrote to
the Docket Clerk of the Department of Transportation as follows:

--------------------

Dear Docket Clerk:
  I appreciate the opportunity to comment on airline practices
and procedures affecting the travel of blind passengers.
  I am not in a position to make judgments on technical airline
safety issues; however, I would like to comment on the general
framework that DOT should use to determine which airline
procedures are appropriate.  The Senate and House of
Representatives have both approved legislation, S. 2703, which
prohibits discrimination against handicapped travellers.  During
the debate on this bill in the Senate I had a colloquy with
Senator Dole and Senator Metzenbaum in which we discussed this
issue in greater detail.
  One of the points that we emphasized in our discussion was that
DOT should carefully review every restriction that the airlines
place on blind passengers and if these restrictions cannot be
justified in the name of safety, they shouldn't be allowed.  It
is not enough for the airlines to demonstrate only that their
restrictions don't pose a threat to the safety of blind
passengers.  The burden of proof should be upon the airlines to
demonstrate that any policies that single out blind or
handicapped passengers for special treatment are necessary in the
interest of safety.
  The second point that we emphasized was that different
disabilities impose different limitations on air travellers.  It
is not our intention that DOT force the airlines to adopt
policies that are identical for all handicapped travellers, but
rather that the airlines take into account varying abilities to
use air transportation.  My constituents who are blind have
argued persuasively to me that they are able to use air
transportation in the same manner as all other travellers who are
not handicapped.  On the other hand, individuals with different
disabilities may need assistance.  The nondiscrimination policy
in S. 2703 is intended to ensure that every air traveller is
treated in a manner appropriate to his or her abilities.
  I would encourage DOT to take regulatory action to see that the
airlines abide by both the letter and the spirit of S. 2703.

                              Sincerely, Charles E. Grassley
                            U.S. Senator


MIKE HINGSON AND PACIFIC SOUTHWEST AIRLINES

REACH OUT-OF-COURT SETTLEMENT


  As Federationists know (see Braille
Monitor, September, 1981) Mike Hingson's lawsuit against Pacific
Southwest Airlines has been long and hard fought.  Early in
October of 1986 an out-of-court settlement was reached on
favorable terms to Hingson and the blind.  There was an
undisclosed cash payment to Hingson and an agreement that PSA
would enter into negotiations concerning their rules affecting
the blind.
  One would have thought this would have been the end of the
matter--but not so.  Almost before the newspapers had time to
report that a settlement had been reached, Pacific Southwest
Airlines went back to court to claim that Hingson was in contempt
for disclosing terms of the settlement in violation of the
agreement.  The judge dismissed their claim.  Again, one would
have thought that would have ended it--but back to court went
PSA, claiming that they had unearthed new evidence that Hingson
had said something to somebody and was, therefore, in contempt of
court.
  At the time of this writing (December of 1986) the court has
not ruled on the second contempt claim, but it seems likely that
the court will recognize PSA's action for what it is--petty spite
because they did not win in the original case and an attempt at
harassment.
  The airline battle drags on, but there are signs of progress. 
Here is the article which was widely carried throughout
California under date of October 4, 1986:

--------------------

PSA Settles Blind Man's $1 Million Suit

  A blind man who sued Pacific Southwest Airlines for $1 million
after he and his guide dog were forced off an airliner in a
seating dispute has settled out of court for an undisclosed sum,
officials said Friday.
  Michael Hingson, 36, and San Diego-
based PSA reached agreement before U.S.  District Judge Francis
Whelan on Thursday, settling a six-year legal battle over charges
of physical abuse and discrimination against the blind.
  "It is a victory for blind people and we certainly think this
is a landmark case," Sharon Gold, President of the nonprofit
National Federation of the Blind in California, said from
Sacramento.
  The suit charged that Hingson was denied his right to join
other passengers aboard a PSA jetliner in Los Angeles while he
was on a business trip.  Gold said PSA officials demanded that
Hingson sit in a bulkhead seat with his dog.  She said Hingson
tried to explain that it would be more comfortable and safer to
take a regular passenger seat with his dog settling in front of
him.  "He was bodily ejected from a PSA plane by PSA-summoned
police who injured his hand, tore off his Braille watch and took
his guide dog by force," Gold said.
  PSA spokesman Bill Hastings said, "There was a settlement and
there was a compensation item and agreement to meet at a later
date."
  Hingson, who now owns The System Connection computer firm in
Mission Viejo, said Friday he was pleased with the outcome: "We
(blind people) are all going to benefit.  The biggest thing is we
are going to get a meeting with PSA to work with them on policy
and come up with training procedures."


AMERICAN FOUNDATION FOR THE BLIND CRITICIZES NAC

by Kenneth Jernigan


  A miracle has been defined as an occurrence we cannot explain. 
In the 1960's the American Foundation for the Blind appointed
COMSTAC (the Commission on Standards and Accreditation for
Services Affecting the Blind).  The Foundation, which has
sometimes done good things and sometimes done bad things, by
creating COMSTAC probably earned the distinction of performing
the one single act which did more than anything else which has
occurred in the twentieth century to lower standards and reduce
the quality of services in work with the blind in the United
States.
  As everybody in the field knows, the COMSTAC board (with
Foundation money and Foundation staff) created NAC (the National
Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually
Handicapped).  This was 1966, and NAC proudly announced that
within a five- year period it would have accredited the majority
of the approximately 500 eligible agencies in the nation.  It was
a blatant attempt by the Foundation to grab power and control all
work with the blind in the country.  But something went wrong. 
From the very beginning there were both dissatisfaction and
resistance, and NAC has never been able to attract real
acceptance or meaningful financial support.
  During all of its existence it has been largely funded by the
American Foundation for the Blind.  In 1986 (twenty years after
its founding) NAC was still receiving more than half of its
budget from the Foundation.  This is the way it has been from the
beginning.  Repeatedly there have been attempts to find other
sources of funding.  Repeatedly those attempts have failed.
  Through the years the Monitor has reported on NAC's
controversial maneuvers to gain respectability and prestige,
maneuvers which have always gone wrong and come short.  With a
few notable exceptions the agencies that have agreed to accept
NAC accreditation have been in trouble with the public and poorly
regarded by the blind, but in recent years it has become
increasingly clear that NAC is approaching the end of its
tortured and controversial existence, that it is moving toward
the peace of oblivion.
  While the Foundation has continued to provide the money and the
political support, the agencies that once thought it expedient to
seek NAC accreditation have begun to fall away.  The list is long
and distinguishable.  To name only a few:  the Massachusetts
Association for the Blind, the North Carolina State School for
the Blind, Rhode Island State Services for the Blind, the
Michigan School for the Blind, and Kansas State Services for the
Blind.
  In July of 1986 at the convention of the Association for
Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually Impaired
(AER) in Chicago an urgent attempt was made to rally support for
NAC, but to little avail.  The urgency of the plea was
symptomatic of the disintegration which has been increasingly
apparent in recent years.  At its mid-November meeting in 1986 in
New York City NAC was obviously in disarray--and somewhat bitter.

One of the principal speakers at its banquet talked about a
nearby church and how its most important financial supporter was
a man named Kidd.  This man named Kidd was much respected, but he
turned bad and became a pirate--the notorious Captain Kidd.  The
speaker drew a moral from this story.  He said that NAC must be
careful in dealing with its respected benefactors, who
(presumably like the infamous and perfidious Captain Kidd) might
defect and betray.
  And what was he talking about?  For an answer we must go back
to that July day in 1986 at the AER convention in Chicago.  AER's
President (Dr. Richard Welsh, the Superintendent of the Maryland
School for the Blind) gave the reason in his report to the
members.  He said in part:

--------------------

  Before closing, I would not feel that I have exercised the
responsibility you have entrusted in me if I did not alert you to
a serious concern that may become a real crisis prior to the next
time we meet in 1988.  [AER meets biannually.] This problem
relates to the continuing viability of the very important
accreditation services provided by the National Accreditation
Council.  As a member of the American Foundation for the Blind
Board of Trustees, I know of a significant concern among the
members of that board's executive committee regarding NAC's
inability to come up with sufficient funding from other sources
to carry out its accreditation program without the same level of
AFB support which it has received for the past eighteen years. 
The dream, when NAC was originally established, was that it would
be financially independent eventually.  But after fifteen years,
that appears highly unlikely.
  Last June, the American Foundation for the Blind Executive
committee sent NAC a resolution which said that the grant for
1986 would be the last it would make to NAC as it is currently
structured.  Since that time, NAC has attempted to change its
structure and reduce its costs of accreditation in response to
the concerns of the AFB executive committee.
  As another part of its response to the concerns of AFB, NAC has
instituted a comprehensive study of its own operations.  I have
been asked to participate on the self-study committee which will
look at what are the essential elements of the standard-setting
and accreditation processes, what has worked successfully and
should not be changed, what can be changed and done in a less
costly manner, and how should we go about getting feedback on any
changes that seem possible as a result of this study.  It is my
feeling that any study such as this which deals with the serious
and sensitive issue of accreditation must necessarily seek broad
input from all parts of the network in order to be valid and to
have the confidence of those who will be asked to voluntarily
submit their programs to such a review.  My primary reason in
raising this topic is to seek your help with this study.  If the
findings and recommendations of such a study are put out for
general review and reaction, which I will strongly recommend, I
ask you, as AER members, to regard this request as extremely
serious and to please give it your attention and your time.
  It is my personal opinion, both as the head of a NAC-accredited
school and as the participant on a number of NAC on- site review
teams, that NAC's accreditation process has been responsible for
more positive changes in programs serving blind and visually
impaired people than any other force or factor that we can
identify in the history of such services.  I think it would be
disastrous for us to lose this essential and effective tool.  It
could very well be that NAC's process can be improved and its
structure could be streamlined.  Only broad-based feedback can
help us decide. . . .
  If we are serious about the expressed purpose in our bylaws
that this association should assist in the development of
professional standards for specialized programs serving blind and
visually impaired persons, then we will have to be ready to
become very active in making sure that our field's accreditation
process as provided by NAC continues to be available and
effective.
  On this point, perhaps the most serious and most important of
any that I have made, I will end my report to you.

--------------------

  So said Dr. Richard Welsh, who is generally recognized by the
blind of his state as running one of the most regressive programs
in the country and as being hostile to consumerism and the
aspirations of the blind to achieve first-class status in
society.  When one reads between the lines, it is not hard to
tell what he is saying:  NAC is on the ropes, and we must bail it
out--but there was no enthusiastic wave of response.  Not at the
AER convention and not at the meeting of the National Council of
State Agencies for the Blind in November.
  When American Foundation for the Blind officials were asked to
comment on their ultimatum to NAC, they seemed nervous and ill at
ease--but they admitted that they had sent the resolution.  When
pressed for the reasons for their criticism, they said that
perhaps the onsite reviews had been too expensive, that perhaps
fewer people could have done the work at less cost.  They said
that perhaps the NAC board was too large and could operate more
efficiently and economically if its size were reduced.  Of
course, the blind have been making these criticisms for years.
  Certain key members of the AFB board have been quoted as
feeling that the NAC onsite reviews are a waste of money and
time.  The blind of the nation would agree.  Surely it is clear
that the NAC experiment has been a costly and disastrous failure,
but who would have thought that the American Foundation for the
Blind would have finally asked for an accounting?  Whatever else
may be said, the fact of the Foundation ultimatum cannot be
denied or dismissed.  As I said at the beginning, a miracle has
been defined as an occurrence which cannot be explained--but
maybe in the present instance an explanation is possible. 
Regardless of how heavy the investment has been or how much
prestige may be riding on the outcome, there comes a time when
one decides to bite the bullet and cut the losses.  We commend
the Foundation for its apparent willingness to speak out in the
present instance even though it is bound to know that the price
will be high and the implications far-reaching.


FAIR LABOR STANDARDS AMENDMENTS OPEN NEW DOORS FOR SHOP WORKERS

by James Gashel


  Almost from the beginning of our movement, the National
Federation of the Blind has struggled to bring an end to the
practice of paying blind people less than the federal minimum
wage.  Sheltered shops use the subminimum wage to exploit the
blind.  In some respects the law itself has encouraged
exploitation as the government has looked the other way in the
face of known wage abuses.  So the blind who have fought this
system have had to confront not only their sheltered workshop
employers but the power of the federal government as well.
  Now, perhaps we have the opportunity to change all of that
under a new law which Congress passed in October of 1986.  Like a
lot of legislation, the new law has both bad and good elements. 
However, it appears that (at least, for the blind) the good will
almost certainly outweigh the bad.  President Reagan signed this
measure on October 16, 1986, as Public Law 99-486.  It is a
complete and dramatic revision of the Fair Labor Standards Act's
provisions relating to subminimum wages paid to blind and
handicapped workers.  For reasons which will be made clear later,
it is fair to say that the National Federation of the Blind
played a pivotal role in determining whether Congress would or
would not pass this bill.
  The Fair Labor Standards Act is the
basic federal law setting wage standards and related requirements
for minimum working conditions in most manufacturing and service
trades.  Section 6 is the well-known federal minimum wage
requirement, under which most employees must be paid at least
$3.35 per hour.
  However, since 1938 (when the law was first passed), there has
been an exemption (now Section 14(c) of the Act) allowing pay
rates for handicapped workers to be less than the minimum wage
required under Section 6.  We have said that blindness is not a
disability that prevents normal productivity.  Therefore, the
exemption from the minimum wage is wrongfully applied to the
blind.
  The United States Department of Labor (DOL) gives minimum wage
exemption certificates to sheltered workshops (and also to other
employers who meet certain conditions) whenever they fill out and
submit the proper forms.  Then DOL's Wage and Hour Division may
check later to see if the proper wage is actually being paid. 
Actually, however, the employer is on the honor system.  Now,
that will change under the new law as sheltered workshops and
other employers are required to "prove" that the subminimum wages
they are paying are justified.
  Here is how it works:  The bill gives any employee on a
subminimum wage the automatic, absolute right to challenge the
wage determination of the employer.  Nothing like this has ever
existed before.  Under the new law anyone who is being paid a
subminimum wage has the right to request a hearing, which will be
conducted by an impartial hearing officer appointed by the
Secretary of Labor.  The law says that at the hearing it is the
sheltered workshop or other employer who has the "burden to
prove" that the subminimum wage is justified.
  This hearing procedure is bound to become an important new
safeguard against the well-known subminimum wage abuse.  The
hearings will not be perfunctory.  Anyone requesting a hearing
may be represented by legal counsel.  All statements and evidence
presented by the employer will have to stand the test of
examination and cross-examination in a proceeding not unlike a
regular courtroom trial.  Given what we know about how the
subminimum wages have been determined in the past, it is hard to
imagine how they will be justified in the future under this new
form of legal scrutiny.
  Under the law, as it was before the President signed Public Law
99-486, there was no effective or fair way to appeal a subminimum
wage determination.  The best one could do was to file a
complaint with the Wage and Hour Division of the U.S Department
of Labor.  The complaint would then be investigated
administratively.  The person filing the complaint would never be
able to examine or cross-examine the employer.  There would not
actually be a hearing.  The Wage and Hour investigations simply
consisted of interviews separately with the complainant and the
employer.
  Prevailing in a challenge to a subminimum wage under those
conditions was often very uncertain.  Even so, Wage and Hour
investigators still found plenty of violations of the old law. 
For example, only a few years ago the General Accounting Office
(an investigative arm of Congress) found that sheltered workshops
had underpaid 11,482 handicapped workers $2.7 million during
fiscal years 1977 through 1979. Findings like that show only the
tip of the iceberg.  DOL investigators actually see less than ten
percent of the sheltered workshops annually.
  Now, with the new law, no one has to wait for a Wage and Hour
investigation.  The Secretary of Labor is required to appoint an
administrative law judge within ten days after receiving a
complaint, and the hearing is to be scheduled within thirty days
after the judge is appointed.  Whether the workshop managers like
it or not, they will have to participate in these hearings or
else be ordered to pay the federal minimum wage.  Of course, many
more workshops may "voluntarily" decide to pay the minimum wage
under the new conditions of the law rather than face their blind
employees in hearings before the Department of Labor.
  If one thinks about it, there is really no doubt that the
hearing procedures of the new law can truly bring about an entire
revolution in the subminimum wage practices of sheltered
workshops.  This is especially true in the case of the workshops
that employ blind people.  This is so (if for no other reason)
because we are organized better than anyone else to take
advantage of the provisions.  It is true that winning the right
to be heard by a DOL administrative law judge on the question of
whether the subminimum wage is justified is not quite the same as
winning the right to be paid the minimum wage, but it is a big
step in that direction.  For that reason, under date of September
23, 1986, we sent the following letter to Senator Howard
Metzenbaum, chief sponsor of the subminimum wage amendment, to
provide procedural safeguards:

--------------------

                     Baltimore, Maryland September 23, 1986

The Honorable Howard Metzenbaum United States Senate Washington,
D.C.

Dear Senator Metzenbaum:
  I am writing to advise you of the support of the National
Federation of the Blind for your amendment to S. 2148.  If
enacted as part of section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA), your amendment would provide much needed procedural due
process safeguards for individuals or groups subject to the
section 14(c) subminimum wage.  For blind persons whose
subminimum wages more often result from employer inefficiency and
exploitation than from lack of worker productivity, the appeal
rights provided by an amendment would be a distinct improvement
over current law.
  The position we are taking on your amendment does not alter our
opposition to subminimum wages for all blind workers.  Modern
production techniques, coupled with technological advancements,
allow blind people to work as productively as other industrial
employees covered by the FLSA.  The employer- controlled
wage-setting practices now used under current law are patently
unfair and encourage employers (especially sheltered workshops)
to exploit the blind by obtaining cheap labor.  Moreover, the
abuses permitted under the law are compounded by the lack of
effective monitoring by the Department of Labor (DOL) and the
automatic approval by DOL of workshop requests for minimum wage
exemptions.
  Nothing short of the termination of authority to pay blind
workers less than the minimum wage will remove the substantial
exploitation that now occurs.  Nevertheless, we believe that your
amendment can be a significant step toward combatting unfair and
illegal low wages.  For this reason we support and applaud your
effort.

                        Sincerely yours, James Gashel
        Director of Governmental Affairs National Federation of
the Blind

--------------------

     That letter set the legislative process into high gear.  The
compromise had been struck.  We would agree to provisions of the
bill aimed at relaxing paperwork requirements on workshops to
obtain subminimum wage certificates--but we got a great deal in
exchange.  Workshops will now have to "prove" that the wages they
are paying are justified under the law.  What a compromise!  With
this legislation our effort to obtain the minimum wage for all
blind people is strengthened.  Hearing by hearing we will move
ever closer to the goal.  That is what the new law offers.  So
the National Federation of the Blind agreed, and the measure was
cleared for action.  The sheltered workshops can no longer write
their own ticket.
  As matters now stand, most blind people who are paid a
subminimum wage actually earn no lower than fifty percent of the
minimum wage.  Many are paid seventy-five percent of the minimum
wage, or more.  These individuals who are already very close to
the minimum wage will no doubt find the hearing procedure to be a
very attractive mechanism.  Based on what we already know of the
frequency of violations committed by sheltered workshops, it is
not too hard to imagine that the avalanche of hearings that are
sure to come will give us an effective new means of winning the
minimum wage for all blind people.
  As we contemplate the new law, let us remember our victories
before the National Labor Relations Board in recent years.  Once
we got the Board to understand that the sheltered workshops are
regular factories, it was virtually assumed that their employees
(who happen to be blind) should have the right to be represented
by labor unions.  Those victories before the National Labor
Relations Board were won through hearings of a very similar type
to the kind which we will now begin to have under the Fair Labor
Standards Act amendments.
  Moreover, there is nothing on earth that the sheltered workshop
employers can do about the fact that they will have to face their
blind employees in these hearings.  They cannot hide behind the
excuse that they are performing rehabilitation or therapy for the
blind.  Congress has spoken, and the blind will be heard.  With
the advantages of the new law the practice of paying subminimum
wages to blind people may soon be at an end.  It will take
organizational skill and resources to make it happen, but the
goal is attainable--and the future is bright.  This is the
message of our movement.  Each day brings tangible progress.  We
are truly changing what it means to be blind.


MORE ABOUT DOG GUIDES AND GUIDE DOGS


  In the May-June, 1986, Monitor, we carried an article entitled
"Of Dog Guides and Guide Dogs."  The article provoked
considerable reaction.  Here is what Cherie Heppe of Connecticut
had to say:

--------------------

                   Hartford, Connecticut June 21, 1986

Dear Dr. Jernigan:
  Your introduction to the article: "Of Dog Guides and Guide
Dogs" in the June, 1986, Monitor summed the whole thing up
nicely.  However, I would like to add the following comments.
  Some of the information presented by Professor Ed Eames et al
is accurate; some is exaggerated; and some is omitted.
  Dog Guide Schools?  The number of
dog guide schools in the U. S. might depend more on how the term
"dog guide school" is defined, rather than on how many
organizations exist which train and provide dogs to blind
travelers.  In Europe the term "dog guide school" may apply to a
center with a physical plant, staff, set administrative,
financial, and training practices and regularized training for
dogs and blind students.  It may just as often mean a person,
usually a man working out of his home, having on occasion the
trappings of training in evidence--such as a few dogs, a guiding
harness, and a blind person or two--but being otherwise quite
unaccountable for any work done or money raised or spent.
  In the United States The Seeing Eye introduced and pioneered a
modern, scientific, standardized, workable and largely
predictable means of selecting dogs and blind students and
educating them to work successfully together.  For the most part,
subsequent dog guide schools have worked toward similar high
standards in their work, thereby making dog guide ownership and
work in the United States standardized, widely accepted, and
successful.  We blind people and members of the public must be
thorough in investigating schools training dogs for blind people
to be sure the term "school" is applicable.
  Professor Eames cites Peter Putnam's book: "Love in the Lead"
and says that Mr. Putnam uses the term "guide dog" instead of
"dog guide."  This is true.  Professor Eames does not mention
that Putnam's stated reason for using "guide dog" reflects simple
personal preference.  Mr. Putnam goes on to explain that in the
1940's the three major schools operating then (Guide Dogs for the
Blind, Inc.; Leader Dogs for the Blind, Inc.; and The Seeing Eye,
Inc.) met and agreed that to avoid confusion, the term "dog
guide" would be adopted by them when referring generically to a
dog guiding a blind person.
  Guide Dog in the Title?  Just as with any other commodity that
has been discovered to be salable, many dog guide schools must
have wanted the public and the donors to have no question as to
who their worthy efforts were being directed toward.  Perhaps,
unsure that their reputation in their chosen area of service
would bring enough recognition, many schools incorporated the
words "for the blind" or "guide dog" into their official titles. 
For example, instead of Fidelco Foundation, we have Fidelco Guide
Dog Foundation; instead of Leader Dogs, we have Leader Dogs for
the Blind; and finally there is Second-Sight Guide Dog Foundation
for the blind.  I have wondered who would be receiving dog guides
if not the blind.
  A Grammar of Common Sense.  We are very fortunate that the
English language is still a growing and dynamic language.  This,
however, makes learning it especially difficult, since it is
noted for the many exceptions to rules.
  Protocol and etiquette for business and professional writing
exemplifies a more static and structured form than personal
letter-writing.  In business and the professions accuracy,
neatness, proper punctuation, spelling, and business format
convey a clear sense of the company, as well as the letter
writer.  When I sign my business correspondence I use my given
name and surname, no nicknames, and a title--if appropriate. 
When I sign personal correspondence I may add a greeting from my
dog guide, although I am not one for anthropomorphizing.  My dog
guide is to me a highly valued working guide with many
commendable canine qualities, but she is nonhuman.  She cannot
"talk" as humans talk or "think" as humans think.  She cannot
sign letters and does not know what letters are, except perhaps
as an object I have dropped and asked her to "fetch."
  It looks childish and unprofessional for Ed Eames, Professor of
Anthropology; Toni Gardiner, a rehabilitation counselor with a
master's degree; and Charles Warnath, whose qualifications are
not known to me, to sign their dogs' names to business or
professional correspondence, such as the article in the June
Braille Monitor.  Or is it just another cuteism, tolerated
because we are blind?  Would a sighted business person or
professional writing to a corporate head or university president
sign a letter: Sincerely, Dr. Smith and the Wife Jane, with the
Kids Sally, Dick, and Tabatha?

                              Sincerely, Cherie Heppe


SHONEY'S APOLOGIZES


  (The following article was taken from the November, 1986,
Palmetto Blind, the official publication of the National
Federation of the Blind of South Carolina.  It shows what can be
accomplished by vigilance, courtesy, persistence, and
determination.  Because the NFB of South Carolina is strong and
active, the blind of the state are moving at an accelerating pace
toward first-class citizenship and equal status in society.)

  In recent months there has been a rash of restaurant operators
in South Carolina denying access to blind persons with their dog
guides.  In an effort to alleviate this situation the NFB of
South Carolina secured the cooperation of the South Carolina
Restaurants Association, which agreed to carry an article on this
matter in their newsletter.  It was pointed out in the newsletter
that it is against the law for restaurant operators to deny
access to blind persons with dog guides and that all restaurant
association members should cooperate.  The following
correspondence also deals with this issue:

--------------------

                         August 27, 1986

Shoney's Restaurant Conway, South Carolina Attention: Manager

Dear Sir:
  The National Federation of the Blind of South Carolina has been
notified by Billy Bratcher, Route 5, Box 362, Conway, South
Carolina 29562, that he and his seeing eye or leader dog guide
were denied access to your eating establishment Saturday, August
23.  It is our understanding that you made this decision because
you did not wish the dog to enter your establishment.  If our
understanding of this situation is correct, it would appear that
you are in violation of state law.  We quote from State Law No.
H. 3071 as follows:
  "Section 2.(a) The blind, the visually handicapped, and the
otherwise physically disabled have the same right as the
able-bodied to the full and free use of the streets, highways,
sidewalks, walkways, public facilities, and other public places;
  "(b) The blind, the visually handicapped, and the otherwise
physically disabled are entitled to full and equal
accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of all
common carriers, airplanes, motor vehicles, railroad trains,
motor buses, street cars, boats or any other public conveyances
or modes of transportation, hotels, lodging places, places of
public accommodation, amusement or resort, and other places to
which the general public is invited, subject only to the
conditions and limitations established by law and applicable
alike to all persons;
  "(c) Every totally or partially blind person shall have the
right to be accompanied by a guide dog, especially trained for
the purpose, in any of the places listed in Section 2(b) without
being required to pay an extra charge for the guide dog; provided
that he shall be liable for any damage done to the premises or
facilities by such dog."
  We ask that you please give us a prompt response to your
position in this matter including what will be your position in
the future should Mr. Bratcher with his dog guide wish to
patronize your eating establishment.

                   Yours very sincerely, Donald C. Capps,
President
        National Federation of the Blind
                       of South Carolina

--------------------

                         August 29, 1986

Dear Mr. Capps:
  I appreciate very much your letter dated August 27 informing us
of the state law No. H. 3071 concerning guide dogs in
restaurants.  We acted out of a lack of knowledge of that law
when we asked Mr. Billy Bratcher if he could leave his guide dog
outside.
  We at Shoney's have a desire to serve anyone who wishes to dine
in our restaurant.  On the day Mr. Bratcher came in we had no
intention of refusing to serve him.  Since he was accompanied by
three or four other people we thought that he may be able to
leave his dog outside.  Not knowing the law, we were concerned
about violating a health law.  We apologize to you for our
actions.  I have spoken to the President of the Lions Club in
Conway as well as the Secretary.  I have also spoken with Mr. 
Bratcher.
  Our policy on guide dogs in our restaurants is the same as the
law.  We will welcome guide dogs into our restaurant.  Thank you
again for providing a statement on the state law on guide dogs in
restaurants.  All members of our management staff have been
informed.

                              Sincerely, Ken McNeill, Manager
                            Shoney's 180


MONEY TALKS: NFB WINS BIG FOR VENDORS IN MARYLAND

by James Gashel


  When Dr. Kenneth Jernigan went to Iowa in 1958 and pioneered by
installing a truly fair grievance procedure for the blind vendors
of that state, most of today's vendors (regardless of where they
may be throughout the country) were not even in business.  Still,
the vendors of today have benefited immeasurably from those
decisions made in Iowa almost thirty years ago.  The Iowa model
is now firmly established as an integral part of the law.  This
came about because the Federation insisted that it be done if
there was to be a solid front in approaching Congress for new
Randolph-Sheppard amendments.  Today any blind vendor who has a
grievance against the state licensing agency has the right to a
fair hearing followed by the convening of an arbitration panel if
the results of the fair hearing are not satisfactory.
  And (as the Federation has proved in repeated appeals and court
cases) the process works.  The vendors of Maryland can now give
firsthand testimony to the fact.  The National Federation of the
Blind has assisted the vendors of that state to win an important
victory.  As is so often the case, all of the vendors (not just
those who are Federationists) have benefited.  But the
non-Federationists are taking a new look at becoming vendors.  In
the business world (as elsewhere) money talks.
  In mid-September of 1986 a total of $45,000.00 was distributed
to blind vendors throughout the state of Maryland.  The payments
were reimbursements for equipment repairs owed to the vendors
from as far back as August, 1985.  There was never any certainty
that the vendors would collect on the past due payments from the
state.  The money was owed to them.  That much was clear.  But
the state was not paying.
  Then, the National Federation of the Blind entered the picture.

After that, it was not whether the vendors would be paid but
when.  Formal complaints were filed for eight vendors, using the
appeals process provided for under the federal Randolph-Sheppard
Act.  Of course, the initial decision from the State Division of
Vocational Rehabilitation was unfavorable.  It acknowledged that
the vendors had paid for their own equipment repairs since
August, 1985.  Also, the state had promised to reimburse them. 
By law, it is the state agency's responsibility to pay for all
equipment repairs.  We knew we could win eventually on that
point, but the initial decision was that there was no money
available to pay the vendors.  We pressed on.
  Under the Randolph-Sheppard Act any
blind vendor may have a hearing.  There is no way for the state
to avoid it unless the matter is settled.  Under date of August
14, 1986, the following letter requesting a hearing for Betty
Couch--one of the eight blind vendors who had decided not to take
"no" for an answer--was sent to the director of the Maryland
State Agency.  Letters for the seven other vendors who also had
complaints were identical.  Incidentally, each complaint
mentioned Blind Industries and Services of Maryland (BISM) as one
of the agencies responsible for not paying the vendors.  BISM was
identified since that agency receives and distributes funds for
the Maryland Blind Vending Program, acting as agent for the
state:

--------------------

                     Baltimore, Maryland August 14, 1986

Mr. Richard Batterton
Division of Vocational Rehabilitation Baltimore, Maryland

RE: Request for Appeal Hearing, Maryland Blind Vending Program

Dear Mr. Batterton:
  This is a request for an Appeal Hearing filed on behalf of Ms.
Betty Couch pursuant to COMAR (Code of Maryland Administrative
Regulations)
13A.05.02.03.  I am authorized to act as a representative for the
complainant in the matter pursuant to a written authorization
filed with the request for an administrative review.
  The issue to be addressed in the Appeal Hearing is the failure
of the Maryland Blind Vending Program to fulfill its equipment
maintenance and repair responsibilities pursuant to COMAR
13A.05.02.02E and relevant provisions of the Randolph-Sheppard
Act (20 USC107 et. seq.).  The COMAR provision states in relevant
part:  "The State Board of Education is responsible for
furnishing each vending stand with (1) adequate suitable
equipment and for maintenance and repair of the equipment...."
  Beginning in August, 1985, Ms. Couch, along with all other
vendors in the program, was advised that there might be instances
when it would be necessary to pay for equipment repairs and to
obtain reimbursement later from the program.  Following these
instructions, Ms. Couch has obtained authorized repairs of
program-furnished equipment, amounting to at least $3,000.00. 
All invoices documenting these costs of equipment maintenance and
repair have been submitted to Blind Industries and Services of
Maryland, the nominee agency for the program.  However, to date,
the nominee agency has failed (and continues to fail) to
reimburse Ms. Couch for the costs of equipment maintenance and
repair.
  This failure of Blind Industries and Service of Maryland to
reimburse Ms.  Couch in the amount of $3,000.00 plus interest is
a violation of the COMAR regulation and relevant provisions of
the Randolph-Sheppard Act.  An adverse Administrative Review
decision dated July 16, 1986, has been received.  Therefore, Ms.
Couch requests an Appeal Hearing in a further attempt to secure
reimbursement for the amount of unreimbursed equipment repairs
plus interest.
  Please advise me of the scheduling of the Appeal Hearing and
the procedures to be followed in resolving this matter.  I can be
reached here in Baltimore by telephone at 659-9314.  Thank you
for your cooperation.

                 Respectfully submitted,
                            James Gashel
        Director of Governmental Affairs National Federation of
the Blind

--------------------

  Thus, the vendors had taken the first major step to challenge
the state's decision not to pay them.  They would take the matter
to a hearing if necessary, and they would win.  On August 28,
1986, their answer came.  The state agency director (Richard
Batterton) miraculously announced that the money (which had not
existed only a few weeks earlier) had been found--something in
excess of $45,000.00.  All repair bills would be paid and all
accounts brought current through the end of the 1986 fiscal year.

Could anyone imagine that such a result would have happened
without requests for hearings from a united front of vendors,
backed by the National Federation of the Blind?
  Here is Mr. Batterton's so-called
"offer of settlement," followed by a further response on behalf
of the vendors.  Now that the vendors of Maryland have found
their way into the National Federation of the Blind, all of them
(even those who have not yet joined the Federation) can expect
improved treatment from the state agency.  It is not that the
agencies are necessarily bad (some are--some of them are not). 
It is only that t hey are tiny cogs in a giant mechanism, a
mechanism which tends to dehumanize and be unable to respond to
individual needs and moral justice.  Agencies respond best to
organized groups--groups which have know-how, resources, and
determination.  They understand strength and respect power. 
Anyone who does not comprehend this elementary point should
consider carefully the case of the Maryland vendors:

--------------------

                     Baltimore, Maryland August 28, 1986

Mr. James Gashel
National Federation of the Blind Baltimore, Maryland

Dear Mr. Gashel:
  I am in receipt of your requests for an Appeal Hearing for the
following individuals:  Mr. Pat Capuano, Mr. Bruce Carter, Mr.
Harold Cochran, Mr. Rodger Cochran, Ms. Betty Couch, Mr. Charles
Guetler, Mr. Jack Haden, and Mr. Ed Mulligan.
  The issue being addressed is reimbursement of costs of
equipment maintenance and repair on their respective vending
facilities.
  I am pleased to report that the Department has received
authorization to utilize Fiscal 1986 funds toward the purpose of
meeting the aforementioned costs.  Accordingly, the Division is
making a grant of $40,000.00 state funds to the Maryland Blind
Vending Program to be used for the purpose of reimbursement of
equipment maintenance and repair costs paid by vendors.  Required
additional funds--something around $5,000.00--will be paid out of
Program operating expenses to liquidate the total payable to all
vendors, (not just those filing appeals), who had incurred such
costs through June 30, 1986.
  The grant should be available to BISM (Blind Industries and
Services of Maryland) within approximately 10 days to two weeks
and payment to vendors should follow within approximately a week.

As appropriate, for those individuals who previously claimed the
repair cost as an expense and did not remit set aside, unpaid set
aside will be assessed against the reimbursement due.  There
will, however, be no interest paid.
  Given the above information, if the vendors who you are
representing still wish to request an Appeal Hearing, please
advise me as quickly as possible.
  Thank you.

                              Sincerely, Richard A. Batterton
          Assistant State Superintendent in Vocational
Rehabilitation Maryland State Department of
                               Education
                  Division of Vocational Rehabilitation

--------------------

                     Baltimore, Maryland October 29, 1986

Mr. Richard Batterton
Division of Vocational Rehabilitation Baltimore, Maryland

RE: Hearing request of Pat Capuano, Bruce Carter, Harold Cochran,
Rodger Cochran, Betty Couch, Charles Guetler, Jack Haden, and
Edward C. Mulligan.

Dear Mr. Batterton:
  This is in response to your letter of August 28, 1986,
regarding
the hearing request of the above-named blind vendors.
  Each of the vendors has agreed to accept as a settlement the
reimbursement now received by each for equipment repairs during
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1986, subject to the following
agreement by you:
  (1) That you agree to meet with any of the affected vendors (or
other vendors) and with me to reach an understanding of the
equipment repair procedure that will exist throughout fiscal year
1987;
  (2) that a prompt payment policy be established in order to
avoid the necessity for similar appeals by these or other vendors
in only a few months; and
  (3) that vendors will be paid interest on all overdue accounts
under the same terms and to the same degree as the program would
pay such interest charges as may be incurred in the course of its
normal dealing with commercial suppliers.
  Please call me at your earliest convenience in order to
schedule a meeting with us to discuss these points.  If I do not
hear from you within (30) days, I shall assume that the Division
has made a conscious decision again to withhold the equipment
repair reimbursements.
  Further recourse to the appeals process is always an option for
us.  On behalf of the vendors, however, I want you to know that
we are grateful for your efforts to secure funding for a
reasonable settlement of these grievances.  In that spirit, we
are also looking forward to your cooperation in resolving the
remaining issues described above.

                 Respectfully submitted,
                            James Gashel
        Director of Governmental Affairs National Federation of
the Blind

--------------------

  So what does it all mean?  For one thing, of course, it means
that the vendors of Maryland have $45,000 which they would not
have had if it had not been for their united action in concert
with the National Federation of the Blind.  Of even more
importance, perhaps, is the process which has been
established--and, hopefully, the lesson which has been learned. 
Yes, money talks--but there is more to the Maryland vendor case
than that.  When the blind work together through the National
Federation of the Blind, they increase their likelihood for
decent income and first-class status.  When they do not, the odds
are considerably lower and the results more chancy.


****************************************

RECIPES

****************************************


  (Patricia Eschbach needs no introduction to Monitor readers or
members of the National Federation of the Blind.  She is
dedicated and competent.  She is also a whiz at organizing food
preparation and cooking.  Here are two of her recipes.)


NEVER FAIL PIE CRUST

3 cups flour
1 cup lard or 1-1/2 cups shortening 1-1/2 teaspoons salt
1 beaten egg
5 tablespoons cold water
1 teaspoon vinegar

  Method: Cream shortening and flour, add salt.  Add one beaten
egg and 5 teaspoons cold water with vinegar and blend into
shortening and flour mixture.  This will seem very moist, but do
not change the recipe.


NO PEAK--NEVER FAIL COOKED RICE

  (For those that don't want to buy a cooker.)

  Bring 1-1/2 cups of water to boil in a 2-quart pan which has a
tightly fitting lid.  Add 1 cup rice and 1 teaspoon salt (or less
if you desire) and 1 tablespoon butter or margarine and bring to
a boil.  Immediately reduce heat to lowest setting, cover, and
set time for 40 minutes.  Do not remove lid until ready to serve.

Stir with wooden or nylon spoon.  This should be light and
fluffy.  This will serve about 4 people.  Leftover rice makes a
good ingredient for rice pudding or casseroles calling for cooked
rice.

********************


  (Mr. Moyer handles building maintenance at the National Center
for the Blind in Baltimore.  He has many assets, not the least of
which is the fact that Mrs. Moyer turns out some of the finest
baked items to be found anywhere on the continent.  Here is her
carrot cake.)

MRS. MOYER'S CARROT CAKE

3 cups grated carrots 1-1/2 cups Wesson oil 2 cups sugar
4 eggs
1/2 cup chopped nuts
1/2 cup crushed pineapple (optional) 2 cups flour--sifted
2 teaspoons cinnamon
2 teaspoons baking soda 2 teaspoons baking powder 1 teaspoon salt

  Cream oil and sugar, add carrots, then eggs one at a time. 
Beat well.  Add other ingredients with nuts.  Bake at 350 degrees
1 hour and 20 minutes.

Frosting:
8 ounces cream cheese
1 teaspoon vanilla
1 stick margarine
1 box powdered sugar

*********************


  (Ray Harmon is a member of the Baltimore Chapter.  Here are two
interesting recipes which he recently submitted.)

TOMMY'S CORNBREAD

1 cup corn meal
1/4 cup all-purpose flour 1 tablespoon brown sugar 1 teaspoon
salt
1/2 teaspoon baking soda 1/2 cup corn cut from cob
1 4-ounce can chopped green chilis
1 8-ounce carton commercial sour cream 4 ounces shredded cheddar
cheese 2 eggs, beaten
2 tablespoons butter or margarine 1 spondaflex pan

  Combine the first 5 ingredients; mix well.  Stir in remaining
ingredients except butter.  Heat butter in an 8-1/2 inch cast
iron skillet until very hot.  Pour batter into a hot skillet. 
Bake at 350 degrees for an hour or until browned.  Makes 8 to 10
servings.

WAMPUS BREAD

2 cups cornmeal
1 cup all-purpose flour
1 tablespoon baking powder 1 teaspoon brown sugar 1 teaspoon salt
1 cup minced onions
1 cup peeled shredded potatoes 1 cup evaporated milk

  Combine the first 5 ingredients, mixing well.  Stir in onions,
potatoes, and milk.  Drop by tablespoon into hot oil (375
degrees).  Cook until golden (3 to 5 minutes), turning once. 
Drain on paper towel.  Yield: about 1-1/2 dozen.

********************


JEWISH COFFEE CAKE

by Sue Null

  (Sue Null is a member from Missouri.  Her recipe sounds
scrumptious.)

1 yellow cake mix
1 box vanilla instant pudding
4 eggs
1/4 cup oil
1 teaspoon vanilla
1 teaspoon margarine
3/4 cup water

  Blend all ingredients for four minutes.  Grease and add sugar
to sides of a bundt pan.  Add batter and topping alternately in
pan.  Add slices of butter on top if desired.  Bake at 350
degrees for one hour.  Cool and remove from pan.

Topping:
2 teaspoons cinnamon 3/4 cup chopped nuts 1/2 cup sugar

********************


MONITOR MINIATURES * * * * * * *

**Oklahoma Convention:
  Rhanda Hasley, Secretary of the NFB of Oklahoma, sends a report
concerning the Oklahoma convention, held in Tulsa Saturday,
October 4, 1986.  She says that even though one of the worst
floods ever to hit Oklahoma was taking place, the convention went
forward with spirit and enthusiasm.  Fred Schroeder, Director of
the New Mexico Commission for the Blind and a member of the
National Board of Directors, was present to represent the
National Office of the Federation.  The following people were
elected to office:  Mark Noble, President; Jerry Halstead, First
Vice President; Bob Sellers, Second Vice President; Rhanda
Hasley, Secretary; Charlotte Bellmyer, Treasurer; Eva Chaney and
Gus Burge, One-year Board Members; and Doug Elliott and David
Dowland, Two-year Board Members.

**Married:
  Federationists Scott Lewis and Barbara Clucas met during our
national convention in Kansas City.  Scott is former President of
the NFB of Washington, and Barbara is a member of the Board of
Directors of the NFB of Alaska.  The couple met again during
September at the Alaska state convention in Anchorage and were
married October 18, 1986, in Port Angeles, Washington, where they
will reside, along with Barbara's daughter Tania.

**Need Brailler:
  Del Gray, Route 1, Box 1794, Holts Summit, Missouri 65043, is
interested in purchasing a used Perkins Brailler.

**Mural:
  On October 26, 1986, at Maire Elementary School in Grosse
Point, Michigan, in a public ceremony a mural was unveiled which
shows the history of Maire Elementary School.  Among the
thirty-three people depicted is Eddie Ball, a blind student using
an NFB cane.  Blindness didn't keep him out of school, and the
artist didn't keep him out of the picture.

**Elected:
  Regina Farrington, Secretary of the Pathfinders Chapter of the
National Federation of the Blind of Iowa, writes that the
Pathfinders Chapter met in Ottumwa, Iowa, on Tuesday, October 21,
1986, and elected James Canny President.

**Reguest for Braille and Pen Pals:  Mildred Baugh of Naples,
Florida, asks
that we carry the following announcement:
  May Ladah, House of Hope, Box 27,
Bethlehem, Israel, would like Braille copies of the Reader's
Digest.  She would also like pen pals in Braille.

**Dies:
  Jim Willows, one of the leaders of the Federation in
California, writes:
  "Alice Preston, a long-time member of the Federation, died
after a short illness in early September of 1986.  Alice was
living in Cincinnati, Ohio, at the time of her death.  Alice was
most active in the NFB of California during the decades of the
60's, 70's, and 80's.  She held many offices and chaired several
important committees during that era.  Those of us who knew her
remember Alice's enthusiasm and cheerful determination in all of
her activities.  Alice was a source of strength to many of us
through the chaotic year of 1978.  She was less active after
leaving California, but she continued to live Federationism until
her passing."

**Microwave Cooking:
  We have been asked to carry the following announcement:
  "CL Productions is now making available The Microwave Times in
Braille (approximately 88 pages per issue) and on tone-indexed
cassette.  It is a bi- monthly microwave cooking magazine
featuring an average of 45 pre-tested recipes per issue, tips,
and techniques of microwave cooking.  This magazine has been
produced in print since 1975 and is for use with any microwave
oven.  Prices:  1-year subscription in Braille, $34.00;
tone-indexed cassette with binder, $31.00.  Contact: CL
Productions, 2905 Berkshire Lane, Mesquite, Texas 75150, (214)
681-2771."

**New Baby:
  Brett and Marie Winchester announce
the arrival of their daughter Evelynne Marie, who was born
November 18, 1986.  Evelynne weighed in at seven pounds, one
ounce.  Brett and Marie Winchester are leaders of the Boise
Chapter of the National Federation of the Blind of Idaho.  All
are doing well.

**St. Louis Report:  Deborah Worley writes:
  "The St. Louis Chapter of the National Federation of the Blind
of Missouri held its annual elections on Sunday afternoon,
October 10, 1986.  Kevan Worley was re-elected President.  Also
elected to serve on the 1987 board were the following: Vice
President, Mark Harris; Secretary, Susan Ford; Corresponding
Secretary, Deborah Worley, Treasurer, Charlene Hedgecorth; and
Board Member, Adam Dempsy.  The St. Louis Chapter is in a period
of tremendous growth.  Our chapter is very proud that we have
recruited twenty-three members over the past nineteen months."

**Extravaganza:
  Ernest Robbins, President, and Tyron
Palmer, Secretary, of the Chatham County Chapter of the National
Federation of the Blind of Georgia, write:
  "The National Federation of the Blind of Chatham County held
its Annual Gospel Musical Extravaganza on Sunday, November 16,
1986, at the Bethlehem Baptist Church.  The theme of our musical
extravaganza was 'We Won't Give Up.'  In other words the National
Federation of the Blind has taught us that it is indeed
respectable to be blind.  Our musical extravaganza is not just
entertainment, it also gave us the opportunity to convey our
Federation message to the public.  Also we held a Mr. and Mrs.
National Federation of the Blind of Chatham County Pageant, and
the winners were: Mrs. Lillian Jenkins and Mr.  Clarence M.
Green.  Our musical extravaganza as well as our Mr. and Mrs. 
National Federation of the Blind Pageant enabled us to raise some
much needed funds for our local affiliate."

**Fifth Chapter:
  The National Federation of the Blind of New Hampshire announces
with pride the formation of its fifth chapter:
  "The Tri-County Chapter of the NFB of New Hampshire was
recently formed and has elected the following officers: 
President, Theresa Dufault; Vice President, Josephine Chick;
Secretary, Robert Pinkham; Treasurer, Paul Richards; and Mark
Bennett will be handling public relations.  Three of the officers
are from Dover and two from Somersworth.  President Dufault
transferred to New Hampshire with her family from the NFB of
Massachusetts, where she was a member of the Worcester Chapter. 
She and Theresa Herron, State President of our New Hampshire
affiliate, are pleased to be members of a chapter nearer to their
homes.  There is a wide span of years and experience in the
group.  Federation spirit is evidenced by some of our members
discussing making themselves available to classroom teachers who
have blind or visually impaired students in need of assistance. 
For information call Mrs. Dufault at (603) 749-0815, 59 Glenwood
Avenue, Dover, New Hampshire 03820."

**Interface:
  To kiss.

**North Carolina Convention:  Hazel Staley writes:
  "The National Federation of the Blind of North Carolina held
its seventeenth annual convention September 12-14, 1986, at the
Hilton Inn in Raleigh.  It was our biggest and best yet.  Our
national representative, Diane McGeorge, brought an excellent
national report Saturday and a very inspiring banquet address
that evening.  Other items on the agenda dealt with radio reading
service, current status and pending changes in the Division of
Services for the Blind, and the future of the Governor Morehead
School for the Blind.  Consideration is being given to combining
the school for the blind with the schools for the deaf. 
Federationists are speaking at hearings around the state opposing
this move.  We learned at the convention that the Governor
Morehead School does not plan to seek reaccreditation from NAC. 
This frees the state of NAC: 'N.C. is NAC- Free.'
  "This was our big election year.  The following officers were
elected: President, Hazel Staley of Charlotte; First Vice
President, Jim Rowell of Greensboro; Second Vice President, Joe
Hayes of Raleigh; Secretary, Mabel Conder of Charlotte; and
Treasurer, George Best of Charlotte.  The following board members
were elected: Regina Evans of Whiteville, Wayne Shevlin of
Raleigh, Patricia Tessnear of Wilson, and Byron Sykes of
Greensboro.  Archie Muldrow of Fayetteville and James Benton of
Raleigh each have one year remaining of a two- year term.  Our
1987 convention will be in Rocky Mount September 11-13.  Consider
this an early invitation.  Y'all come now."

**Centennial:
  We have been asked to carry the following announcement:
  "The Alumni Association of the Western Pennsylvania School for
Blind Children will make the convention of 1987 something
special.  We will be helping the school celebrate its centennial.

All graduates who are interested in this centennial should write
to: The Alumni Association of the Western Pennsylvania, School
for Blind Children, 291 N. Bellefield Avenue, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania 15213."

**Milestones:
  On Tuesday, November 25, 1986, the Job Opportunities for the
Blind program (JOB) sent out its 100th JOB Bulletin.  During the
time that the JOB program has been in operation more than half a
million job listings have been analyzed.  More than 3,500 people
have been JOB applicants.  Fifty-seven JOB seminars have been
conducted.  More than 150,000 tapes have been distributed.  And
finally--the most important fact of all--there are 664 blind JOB
applicants we know about who now have jobs.

**Married:
  Terence Magoo Dorsey, a member of our Central Ohio Chapter in
Columbus, married Joyce Ann Freeling at 10:00 a.m.  November 2,
1986, at the Seventh Day Adventist Church in Grasonville,
Maryland.  They met at our Columbus, Ohio, chapter meeting
October 2, 1984.  We wish the Dorseys much joy.

**Dies:
  Brother John Soehnel, one of the leaders of our Ohio affiliate,
died on Tuesdsay, November 11, 1986.  Brother John was a
Marianist Brother.  He had been a member of our Dayton Chapter
for close to twenty years.  Brother John attended our 1986 Ohio
convention during All Saints Day Weekend, and he participated in
our Dayton Chapter meeting on Saturday, November 8, just three
days before he died.  He brought quiet strength to the movement. 
When he found new people he made them feel welcome and a part of
the Federation family.  He was never one to seek the limelight,
but Brother John brought steadiness, integrity, and rock-solid
commitment.  Of such is our Federation built.

**Another Texan:
  Jeff and Zena Pearcy have a baby boy, Jeffery Wayne, who came
into the Pearcy household October 6, 1986, weighing seven pounds,
eight ounces.  Jeffery Wayne was 19-3/4 inches long.  Jeff and
Zena are long-time leaders of our Texas affiliate, and Jeff
serves as President of our Austin Chapter.

**Seventy-Fifth:
  The members of the National Federation of the Blind of
Washington are sponsoring a dinner in honor of Mrs. Hazel
tenBroek's seventy-fifth birthday.  They invite Federationists
and friends from throughout the country to send cassette or
written communications to Mrs.  tenBroek to commemorate the
joyous occasion.  The dinner will be held on Saturday evening,
January 17, 1987, at the Four Seasons Olympic Hotel in Seattle. 
The January Monitor will probably not arrive in time for readers
to respond to this announcement, but we wanted to carry news of
the event.  A video tape will be made of the party and shared
with us at the Phoenix convention.  For further information about
the birthday, you may contact: Suzi Spigle, Post Office Box 2516,
Seattle, Washington 98111; (206) 328-9242.  It is most fitting
and appropriate that this birthday celebration should occur, for
Mrs. tenBroek symbolizes what the Federation is and what it has
done through the years.  She was there at the founding in 1940,
and she has lived and exemplified Federationism ever since.  We
honor her and congratulate her, and we express to her our
appreciation for the continuing contributions which she has made
and continues to make.
