                       THE BRAILLE MONITOR

                           March, 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

MARCH 1987

THE TRUTH ABOUT REHAB'S MONEY
THE BUDGET HOAX
  by Marc Maurer

EHAB
MAN OF SEEING HEART AND GREAT HANDS

AN ANNUAL RITUAL
  by Kenneth Jernigan

DR. JERNIGAN HONORED BY MARYLAND LEGISLATURE

BLIND VENDOR FIGHTS BACK IN UTAH
  by Marc Maurer

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
RESPONDS POSITIVELY TO NFB REQUEST

COURTS MAKE IMPORTANT RULING CONCERNING
SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME

SENATOR DANFORTH
COMMENTS ON THE AIRLINE PROBLEM

PROFILE OF THE LEADERS OF THE
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND

THE SILLY SEASON IN IOWA
NANCY NORMAN LEADS THE PARADE

YOUR PERSONAL RETIREMENT INCOME PROGRAM
A JOKE THAT WASN'T FUNNY
  by Kenneth Jernigan

REACHING OUT AS FEDERATIONISTS
  by Catherine Horn Randall

PLAYBOY LAWSUIT
WAS IT VICTORY OR DEFEAT
  by Kenneth Jernigan

EDUCATOR OF THE YEAR AWARD

PROCLAMATION

RECIPES

MONITOR MINIATURES

     Copyright, National Federation of the Blind, Inc., 1987
THE TRUTH ABOUT REHAB'S MONEY THE BUDGET HOAX

by Marc Maurer


  Who has not heard this or that official of a state vocational
rehabilitation  agency for the blind say, "We just don't have the
money."  How many clients have been told by their rehabilitation
counselors: "We would like to help you, but we don't have the
money.  Come back next year."
  Crying "poverty" is a common theme among most governmental
agencies these days, including the rehabilitation agencies. 
After all, the talk of a budget crunch is very fashionable with
state and federal bureaucrats.  It may be true (in fact, it is
true) that some federal programs have experienced fairly
significant budget cuts in recent years.  There are also many
programs that have not been cut but have also not grown.  They
have maintained roughly "level funding," taking into account the
nation's current moderate annual inflation rate.
  But vocational rehabilitation fits neither of these categories.

The heart of the program is the money distributed to state
vocational rehabilitation agencies under Section 110 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended.  In federal budget terms
this is referred to as "Vocational Rehabilitation Services State
Grants."
  Section 110 of the Act provides almost eighty percent of the
rehabilitation funding used by each state agency.  By law the
states are required to match the federal grant with at least one
state dollar for every four dollars received from the federal
government.  Sometimes a few states fail to provide enough money
to receive their full federal share of the Section 110 funds. 
The funds that cannot be used or received by one state are
reassigned to other states where the money can be used.  Some
states actually turn back large sums of unspent federal money
each fiscal year.  And all the while the blind and other disabled
rehabilitation clients of those state agencies are told: "We just
don't have the money to help you."
  At best this is misleading double talk.  At worst it is a
knowing, deliberate falsification.  The blind consumers of
vocational rehabilitation services have the right to know the
truth.  Is the state agency actually broke, or is it not?  If it
is broke, why?  Looking at the federal side of the funding
ledger, it is hard to imagine that any state agency in the
vocational rehabilitation program can with a straight face cry
poverty to the clients.  In very real, actual, monetary terms,
vocational rehabilitation has "never had it so good."
  Federal spending cuts have been real for many domestic social
programs.  That very fact has been used by some officials of
other domestic social programs as a smokescreen to protect their
funding while failing to provide improved (or even meaningful)
services.  Congress should expect more and better services (not
diminished performance) from vocational rehabilitation when the
funds are increased.  Certainly the consumers should and do. 
Instead, the trend is decidedly in the direction of more money
and less service, with a great deal of crying about nonexistent
budget cuts and a lot of blame for the administration thrown in
for good measure.  This is a situation that the consumers and the
taxpayers will not tolerate if they know the truth. 
Rehabilitation agencies continue to talk about hard times and
budget cuts, apparently hoping that no one will understand what
is going on or call them to account.
  And just what is going on?  Are vocational rehabilitation
agencies really suffering financially?  Here are facts that speak
for themselves.  Here is the truth about rehabilitation money and
funding.  For fiscal year 1987 state grants for vocational
rehabilitation services are funded at an all-time high of
$1,277,197,500.  This is up from $1,145,148,000 for fiscal year
1986, an 11.5% increase for fiscal year 1987 over fiscal year
1986.  But inflation during fiscal 1986 was only a little over
1%.  So vocational rehabilitation funding is now up more than 10%
in real dollars over the 1986 spending level.
  Then, there is 1986 as compared to 1985.  Fiscal 1986 was also
a banner year for rehabilitation state grants, funded at
$1,145,148,000.  That was up 4.1% over the 1985 funding level of
$1,100,000,000.  Inflation during fiscal 1985 was about 3.5%. 
So, again, rehabilitation had real growth in funding for fiscal
1986 as compared to fiscal 1985.
  The same is true in comparing fiscal year 1985 with fiscal year
1984.  In fiscal 1984 the appropriation for the vocational
rehabilitation state grant program was $1,037,800,000, as
compared to $1,100,000,000 for fiscal year 1985.  The increase
was 6%, again during a time of relatively modest inflation.
  Looking back to fiscal year 1982 (the first full budget year
during the Reagan Administration) the federal appropriation for
vocational rehabilitation state grants was $863,040,000.  So,
during the six most recent fiscal years (beginning with 1982)
funding for state grants for vocational rehabilitation has grown
to $1,277,197,500, for an increase of 48%.  This phenomenal
growth rate has far outstripped inflation at a time when other
federal programs have actually been cut or have received funding
only at previous year levels.  In fact, the Consumer Price Index
for all urban consumers shows a growth rate of 12.38% from
October, 1982, to October, 1986, the same period during which
funding for rehabilitation climbed by 48%.  Based on these
figures, we observe that federal appropriations for vocational
rehabilitation services have increased nearly 36% in excess of
the inflation rate during the most recent six fiscal years
combined.
  These facts are not intended to trigger a political discussion
as to the relative merits of this or that president, candidate,
or any national administration.  In point of fact, Congressional
leaders who have sharp differences with President Reagan's budget
priorities are largely responsible for the increased funding for
vocational rehabilitation state grants during the period under
discussion.  Still, President Reagan has at least acquiesced in
these actions by signing the appropriations measures.
  Politics aside, facts are facts.  The vocational rehabilitation
program is not bankrupt--at least, not financially.  In other
ways a convincing case can be made that it is.  This is the
truth, and the figures substantiate it.  Blind consumers know
that there is much that is wrong with the vocational
rehabilitation program, but the problem is not money--unless it
is that the program has too much money.  Who can truthfully say
that the federal-state rehabilitation program has improved its
service delivery or responsiveness to human needs by as much as
36% since fiscal 1982?  Yet, that is how much the money has
increased--the real money, not just the dollar amounts.  Most
blind consumers would say that rehabilitation agencies are less
responsive today than they were in 1982 and that the trend is
continuing and accelerating.
  Part of the problem of nonresponsiveness by the state agencies
for the blind is the smokescreen they use when they take the
easy out of telling the blind that money is tight and that they
have suffered budget cuts.  As the figures demonstrate, the truth
is exactly the opposite.  Whatever may have happened in the way
of federal budget slashing for other domestic social programs, it
did not happen to vocational rehabilitation.  Perhaps it should
have happened.  Whether it should or not, we should see that the
truth is known and that the excuses stop.  We should expect
service from rehabilitation agencies in proportion to the money
they are receiving.  Instead, we are getting less.
  If the problem is not money (and it clearly is not), then
Congress and the consumers must look elsewhere to achieve the
needed reforms in the program.  The challenge to do just that is
now before us.  There is a rising tide of discontent among the
blind of the nation for something to be done about the
rehabilitation system in this country.  Whatever else we know
about it, one thing is certain.  More and more money dumped into
the present system (unaltered and unreformed as it is) will not
bring positive results.  That has been repeatedly tried.  It is
obviously time for a new look and a new approach.  Meanwhile, let
us have a cessation of the cry that rehab is broke, for it
certainly is not.


EHAB

MAN OF SEEING HEART AND GREAT HANDS


  Under date of April 5, 1986, this article (written by feature
writer Victor A. Mahoney) appeared in Creative Loafing, which is
a newspaper with more than 100,000 circulation throughout the
metropolitan Atlanta area.  Ehab Yamini (President of the
National Federation of the Blind of Georgia) is a celebrity in
his own right in Atlanta.  His massage room at the Downtown
Athletic Club is never empty.  The Editor of the Monitor has been
at that massage room and has experienced the soothing magic of
Ehab's hands.  Here is Mr. Mahoney's article.

  Ehab Yamini is black granite.  He has shoulders that go from
here to there and a chest that could support a frame of I- beams.

His arms are massive; his hands, steel grips.  Ehab is the
essence of strength.
  But he's a gentle giant, who moves barefoot about his small
massage room with the sure movements of a blind man who knows his
turf.  His great hands fluff out towels and sheets with a
delicate touch.  There is an easy flow of energy abut him, a
controlled power.  His strength goes beyond the mere physical.
  Ehab--massage therapist at the Downtown Athletic Club--doesn't
talk your ear off.  He has that instinct which tells him when to
draw you out and when to let you go with the flow of the massage.

He relishes good conversation, though.
  "You aren't from these parts, are you?" he asked during my
first visit.  He had already determined from my funny accent that
I was from Boston.  "I've been there," he told me; "that's a good
place--good seafood."  And then we talked about Boston and the
Irish.  Time was ignored.  The intensity of the deep muscle
therapy was eased by Ehab's enthusiasm for things Boston.
  Now, for me, at least initially, there is the awkwardness of
the sighted around the sightless.  With Ehab that awkwardness
disappears quickly.  He sets you at ease with expressions such
as: "I see you are in pretty good shape"; or "I see where the
tightness is."  You become relaxed about his blindness.  You find
yourself concentrating on the man and his special qualities. 
That's what he wants.
  Ehab is South Georgia.  At the age of three he was blinded in
one eye in an encounter with a cotton field nub.  By age five he
was totally blind.  Midville was rural, poor, and prejudiced
enough to let him go without the proper advice and big city care.
  The little boy adjusted quickly to the physical demands of his
handicap.  In a family of twelve brothers and sisters he had to. 
"I did everything they did," Ehab recalls.  "I became the best
tree- climber.  I watered the hogs.  I peeled the peaches.  I
threw rocks with accuracy.  I even learned to ride a bike."  He
also developed an acute sense of presence.  He knew his brothers
and sisters were near by the creak of a bone, by the beat of a
heart.  They refused to believe that he was blind.
  Inwardly, the boy was confused, angry, but he kept control
generally.  Sometimes he'd rebel against his mother's
protectiveness by acts of wanton destruction such as turning the
dogs loose in the chicken house.  Most of his anger was turned in
on himself.  He became withdrawn.  "I thought everyone looked
down on me because I was blind," he said.
  His family was deeply religious, and their care and concern
took the boy through the early darkness with a loving protection
that softened his anger.  And then he left home to attend the
Georgia Academy for the Blind.
  When he graduated from the Academy high school in 1965, he had
no desire to return to Midville.  Here in Atlanta he learned
mobility and the use of his long, wand-like cane that is his
radar.  It was here also that he found his first job, making
brooms at The Shelter Shop.  "Employment doesn't come easily for
the blind," Ehab points out.  "About 70 percent of them are
unemployed even today."  Ever since then, he has worked in their
behalf through the National Federation of the Blind, serving as
the President of the Georgia affiliate from 1978 to 1980 and
holding that same office currently.
  Broom-making wasn't Ehab's love.  Through a friend he turned to
the life of a masseur.  "I didn't know what a masseur was," he
said, "but when I put on that white uniform as a trainee, I felt
good about myself."
  Within six weeks he had control of the Swedish technique.  At
the end of six months, he was doing 15 to 20 massages a day. 
"They were mostly rubdowns," he said.  "I didn't get into deep
muscle therapy and reflexology until later."
  Ehab is established now.  His great reputation as a masseur
extends far beyond Atlanta and Georgia.  Testimonials could use
up walls.  Plaudits come in from the mighty as well as from just
plain folks.  And running through the collection is the recurring
reference to Ehab the Man of Great Hands, the Man of Great Heart.
  Getting to know Ehab is a pleasant experience.  He is without
guile.  He talks animatedly, openly, about his wife, Sabrina;
about playing ball with his son, Balal; about changing baby
Hanan's diaper; about his past prejudices.  He speaks with pride
of his Islamic name, Ehab, which means "Bestower."  And longingly
he wishes he could see his wife and children.  "I know what they
look like because I can feel their faces, but I do wish I could
really see them."
  In his quiet, humble way, Ehab emphasizes that we are all
handicapped in some way.  The physical or mental handicap is easy
to spot.  The handicap of the spirit, though, is not always
apparent, but always more painful.
  "With me," says Ehab, "it is not the loss of eyesight which is
important but the gain of insight.  I thank God for the gift of a
seeing mind, a seeing heart."


AN ANNUAL RITUAL

by Kenneth Jernigan


  There are for each of us certain events which punctuate the
passing of seasons--commas, periods, semicolons, and question
marks on the calendar of time.  Some of these happenings quicken
the spirit; others sadden the heart; and still others stimulate
the mind to cause it to revel in the wonders of yes and no. 
There are holidays, work days, birthdays, and special event days.

The year is a veritable wheel of recurrence, winding its way
through the seasons and giving us repeated exposure to certain
events which (were they suddenly to cease) would impoverish our
lives and disturb our routines.
  Like others, I have certain things on which I can count--things
which lift my shoulders, raise my head, and cause me to know that
the day will not crawl to a turgid end.  I know, for instance,
that winter will bring Christmas and a fire on the hearth.  I
know that summer will bring outdoor cooking and the savor of
roasting meat.  And I also know that sometime after each NFB
convention I will receive a letter from Dr. Walter Stromer, a
blind college professor from Mount Vernon, Iowa.  It no more
occurs to me to wonder whether I enjoy this correspondence than
it would to question whether I am glad that the earth turns or
the year progresses--although, for whatever it is worth, I am. 
The 1986 convention of the National Federation of the Blind took
place on schedule, and a few months later (equally on schedule) I
received my letter:

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

                       Mt. Vernon, Iowa January 1, 1987

Dear Mr. Jernigan:
  I have just listened to the Braille Monitor which covers the
July convention.  You certainly had a large and enthusiastic
group at KC.  I know that a friend of mine from Des Moines was
there and enjoyed it.  I have no doubt you will miss the
spotlight and the applause and that it will be difficult to keep
quiet when Mark M does things in a different way, but I'm sure
you will go on to even greater things.
  I do want to comment on a couple of items from the convention. 
First, you really did flub one word in your banquet speech.  Is
it possible you misread your Braille?  From you that is not
expected.  You were reading from the list of things required by
the guide dog people, and the list included "Rain Boats."  Rain
Boats?  Never heard of them.  Could it have been rain boots?  But
rain boats is funnier anyway.  And you do handle Braille
amazingly well.
  As for Recording for the Blind, I
intend to write to them with regard to your resolution.  Contrary
to your whereases, they do ask for feedback with every box of
tapes, and of course anyone is welcome to write or call them at
any time with complaints.  As for the need for them to get in
touch with the "organized blind, the NFB,"--this is a bit of
arrogance and conceit which is not quite accurate.  I think they
know that there is at least one other group of organized blind,
the ACB, which broke away from the NFB, years ago.  And then
there are the blind who are consumers but do not belong to either
group.
  I also intend to write to the Postmaster General to say that I
think it would be a splendid idea to recognize some blind person
on a stamp.  But I think that person should have the approval of
the majority of blind people, not just the leader of one partisan
group.
  Likewise I intend to write to the various dog guide
organizations to agree that they should hire blind persons
wherever possible.  But I would not want a dog trained solely by
a blind person, nor do I want blind persons trained in travel
only by blind persons.
  I' m also glad that the Department of Transportation is going
to investigate airlines and rules.  What I think they need to
keep in mind is that not ALL blind persons want the same thing. 
Some want and accept help going by air.  Some don't need or want
help, and some irritate everybody by their angry rejections of
any proffered assistance.  I hear stories about one such from a
small town in Iowa.  So by all means, let us recognize different
needs and people.
  As for the Lutheran hymnal, I think your sarcastic
interpretation is one view; there may be another more positive.

                            Walt Stromer

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

                     Baltimore, Maryland January 8, 1987

Dear Dr. Stromer:
  I have your letter of January 1, 1987, and I thank you for it. 
As usual, your opinions are definite and clear-cut.
  Sometimes you tell me that the NFB (and particularly I) jump to
conclusions and make unwarranted criticism.  In this connection
you are incorrect in saying that I "flubbed" one word in my
banquet speech.  Maybe I did, but it was not the word "rain
boat."  Like you, I don't know what a rain boat is, but that is
what the list says.  I read and pronounced it accurately.
  With respect to most of your other comments, it is
understandable that you and I would disagree.  I think the
National Federation of the Blind is the most constructive force
in the affairs of the blind today and that it has done more than
any other single entity to better the lives of the blind in this
century.  From your comments I think that I can reasonably
conclude that you do not share this view.  This does not mean
that my view (which surely you would agree I have the right to
hold) is arrogant--or, for that matter, even wrong.  Let me
hasten to add that it does not mean that your view is wrong
either.
  By all means, believe what you want-- that blind people should
not train guide dogs, that they should do some of it but not all
of it, or that there should be no guide dogs at all; that blind
people should not be travel instructors, that they should do some
of the work but not all of it, or that blind people should have
much mobility or none; and that Recording for the Blind is a
splendid organization, a poor organization, or a something in
between.  Believe what you please, but consider whether you have
the right to be annoyed or displeased if I hold another view.  In
fact, is it not the essence of democracy that those of us in the
NFB have the right to hold our beliefs and try (by every legal
means) to persuade others that those beliefs are right?  It seems
to me that you are often bitter and resentful because we have
views different from yours, because we have organized to do
something about what we want to change, because we are joyful and
positive in our behavior, and because we are effective.
  You are a man of real ability, and in my opinion (an opinion
which, of course, you are under no obligation to share) you would
have been happier and more productive if you had come to
recognize the validity of our philosophy and had put it into
practice and helped us propagate it.  Whether you believe it or
not, this is said with all good will and not one iota of malice.
  Let me conclude by agreeing with you that I will at times
undoubtedly be uncomfortable with this or that which Marc Maurer
will do, but I am confident that he will make a good president
and that it was right for me to leave the presidency when I did. 
Of course, I left the presidency with mixed feelings, for I have
found it to be a tremendously rewarding experience.  At the same
time I have always tried to the best of my ability to do what I
thought was in the best interest of the Federation--and,
therefore, (as I see it) in the best interest of the blind.  Mr.
Maurer and I work closely together, and I hope I will have the
commitment and good sense to want him to be not only as good a
president as I have been but a much better one.  Thank you again
for your letter and for giving me your reactions to the 1986 NFB
convention.

                              Sincerely, Kenneth Jernigan


DR. JERNIGAN HONORED BY

MARYLAND LEGISLATURE


  On January 23, 1987, the House of Delegates of the Maryland
Legislature adopted a resolution commending Dr.  Kenneth Jernigan
for his "selfless devotion to the blind" and commended him for
his work as former president of the National Federation of the
Blind.  The resolution had been scheduled for presentation the
day before, but a major snowstorm hit the area and caused the
postponement.  As the resolution was being read and discussed,
Dr. Jernigan, Mrs. Jernigan, and President Maurer walked to the
speaker's rostrum.  Since the adoption of the resolution occurred
immediately prior to the Governor's State of the State message,
the chamber was filled with an assemblage of dignitaries.  In
presenting the resolution Delegate Elijah Cummings said:

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

Dr. Kenneth Jernigan Eminent Citizen of Maryland

  Dr. Kenneth Jernigan became a part of the life of Maryland in
1978. Within a few months he had established the National Center
for the Blind in Baltimore. The National Center for the Blind,
which serves as headquarters for the National Federation of the
Blind, is the nerve center of programs and activities for the
blind in the United States.
  Dr. Jernigan has devoted his life to serving the blind.
However, his accomplishments have ranged far beyond this single
endeavor. As I review the accomplishments of Dr. Jernigan I
reflect that because of his dynamic presence in Maryland and his
ongoing participation in the overall civic life of the state,
Maryland is a richer and a better place to live.
  He has received many honors and awards. In 1967 he was p
resented the Francis Joseph Campbell Award by the American
Library Association for outstanding accomplishments for providing
library services to the blind. Dr.  Jernigan has been awarded
three honorary doctorate degrees: Coe College in Cedar Rapids,
Iowa, presented him with a Doctor of Humanities degree in 1968;
Seton Hall University in Newark, New Jersey, presented him a
Doctor of Law degree in 1974; and Drake University in Des Moines,
Iowa, presented him with a Doctor of Humanities degree in 1975.
Dr.  Jernigan has also been asked to serve on numerous advisory
boards and planning committees. In 1972 he became a member of the
National Advisory Committee on Services for the Blind and
Physically Handicapped (appointed by the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare); in 1975 he was named by the Federal
Commissioner of Rehabilitation as a Special Consultant on
Services for the Blind; in 1976 he was made an advisor on museum
programs for blind visitors to the Smithsonian Institution; and
also in 1976 he was appointed a Special Advisor to the White
House Conference on the Handicapped. In 1977 he was named by the
President of the United States to be an advisor for the White
House Conference on Library and Information Services.
  In 1968 services for the blind in Iowa (under the direction of
Dr. Jernigan) had reached a level never before achieved anywhere
in the world. In that year Dr. Jernigan was given a Special
Citation by President Lyndon B. Johnson.  Harold Russell, the
Chairman of the President's Committee on Employment of the
Handicapped, came to Des Moines to present the award. He said:
"If a person must be blind, it is better to be blind in Iowa than
anywhere else in the nation or in the world."
  The National Center for the Blind established in Baltimore by
Dr. Jernigan in 1978 has come to be the finest facility of its
kind in the nation.  Building this new Federation headquarters (a
reservoir of information on blindness, a supplier of special aids
and appliances, a growing computerized data base, a place for
coordinating and administering legislative information and legal
activities for the blind, a facility for gathering together
leaders of the blind in seminars for study and planning, and all
of the other things that enhance the effectiveness of a national
movement) has turned out to be more meaningful and dynamic than
anything previously accomplished in work with the blind. The
blind of the nation and the citizens of Maryland are proud of it.
In partnership with the Department of Labor, the National
Federation of the Blind operates the Job Opportunities for the
Blind program as an integral part of the work at the National
Center for the Blind. Dr.  Jernigan serves as Director of the
National Center for the Blind. Some of the services available
through the Center include Twin Vision books, by which sighted
parents and blind children or blind parents and sighted children
can read together; scholarships; assistance to the older blind
and deaf- blind; Braille calendars; aids and appliances and new
technology; consultation to governmental agencies; study and
compilation of laws affecting the blind; assistance to parents of
blind children throughout the nation in forming self- help and
support groups; operation of the National Blindness Information
Center; and a broad range of other activities. New technology,
new ideas, new methods, new literature, new challenges, and new
opportunities come together to make the National Center for the
Blind the focal point of change and the vehicle for bettering the
lives of the nation's blind. And directing the growth and
development of it all is Dr.  Kenneth Jernigan.

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

  After Delegate Cummings had spoken, Dr. Jernigan stood at the
rostrum and responded as follows:

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

  Mr. Speaker, Ladies, and Gentlemen:  I am, of course, moved and
gratified by the honor you have given me.  Who wouldn't be?  But
I am sensible of the fact that your action is more than a mere
personal tribute.  It is a tangible affirmation by you of the
legitimate hopes and aspirations of the blind as a group--and not
just the blind of this state but, indeed, the blind of the nation
as well.
  It is no accident that the National Center for the Blind is
located in Maryland.  After considering the entire country we
deliberately established it here a decade ago because we thought
it should be in this state--because we believed then (as we still
do today) that the climate of opinion in Maryland was and is
fertile ground for the expression and achievement of human
dignity.
  The National Center for the Blind is the headquarters of the
nation's organized blind movement, the National Federation of the
Blind.  The National Federation of the Blind is not a
governmental agency or private charity.  It is the blind speaking
for themselves.  It is a watchdog on the actions of the
government agencies and private charities.  The National
Federation of the Blind believes that the principal problem of
blindness is not blindness itself but the public attitudes and
misunderstandings which exist.  We want opportunity and
first-class status, not pity and charity.  We do not want to be
supported by the government.  We want to support ourselves, and
we want to contribute to the growth and strength of the nation. 
The philosophy of the National Federation of the Blind can be
summed up in six words:  It is respectable to be blind.
  I thank you personally for what you have done here today, and I
also thank you on behalf of the tens of thousands of blind men
and women throughout the country who make up the National
Federation of the Blind.

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

  After Dr. Jernigan's response, pictures were taken of Delegate
Cummings, Dr. Jernigan, and the speaker of the House.  A number
of Federationists were in the gallery to witness the proceedings.

They had come to Annapolis the day before to hold a legislative
reception in the evening, and even though more than a foot of
snow fell during the morning and early afternoon, the reception
went forward as planned.  It was well attended by legislators and
seemed to be much enjoyed.  As in other parts of the country, the
Federation's prestige in Maryland continues to grow.


BLIND VENDOR FIGHTS BACK IN UTAH

by Marc Maurer


  There are approximately 4,000 blind vendors participating in
the Randolph-Sheppard program throughout the nation.  Each of
these vendors must deal on a daily basis with a state agency for
the blind. In some instances the blind vendor is  encouraged to
be an independent business person, but this is not always the
case. Sometimes the state agency attempts to custodialize and
dominate the vendor's life. What happens when the vendor decides
to fight back?
  Laura Silas is a blind vendor in Utah.  She and her husband
Vince each operate a vending stand within the Randolph-Sheppard
program. When Laura began operating a vending facility in the
Department of Health Building, she was told that she would be
required to pay a percentage of the income from certain of her
vending machines to the Department of Health Employees'
Committee. She assumed that the state agency for the blind knew
what it was talking about.  Nevertheless, she objected to paying
twenty-five percent of the net from the vending machines in
question to the employees' committee. She thought it was unfair,
but the agency said that it was a requirement.
  During the convention of the National Federation of the Blind
of Utah (held the weekend of September 20, 1986) Laura asked me
whether the payments to an employees' committee could be
justified under the Randolph-Sheppard Act. I told her that the
National Federation of the Blind has demonstrated dramatically
that such payments violate the law. The federal arbitration panel
in the Tetzlaff case addressed this question directly. Their
decision (published in the Federal Register) states that any
agreement made by the state licensing agency granting money from
a vending operation to an employee committee is illegal.
  I told Laura to inform the agency that she had discovered the
improper nature of its demands and that she would not pay the
illegal charge. She did this in a letter dated October 19, 1986.
This should have been the end of the matter.  One would think
that any responsible public official reviewing the law and
finding the actions of a state agency to be out of compliance
would, as a matter of course, take immediate steps to make
changes. This should have happened in the case of Laura Silas.
Not only did her letter inform the agency for the blind that its
direction to her to pay an employees' committee was illegal, but
the Utah Attorney General's office had also rendered the same
opinion in August of 1986.
  For several weeks after Mrs. Silas had dispatched her letter
nothing happened.  Then, under date of December 22, 1986, she
received a reply from Robert Walsh, Coordinator, Business
Enterprise Program, Services for the  Visually Handicapped of the
State of Utah.  Instead of acknowledging the agency's error in
requiring the payment of vending machine income to an employees'
committee, Walsh charged Laura Silas with a violation of the
regulations for operation of a vending facility. His letter makes
it clear that he is raising questions about the suitability of
Mrs.  Silas to operate a vending facility. But this is not all.
The letter also implies that Laura's husband Vince may also not
be a suitable vending operator. The message (though crude) is not
hard to understand.  It is difficult to see this letter as
anything other than a threat.
  Black's Law Dictionary Fourth Edition contains the following:
"Blackmail ...  The extortion of money by threats or overtures
towards criminal prosecution or the destruction of a man's
reputation or social standing ... the exaction of money for the
prevention of an injury."
  The letters reprinted in this article contain the basic facts.
Laura Silas began working in the Randolph-Sheppard Program in
April of 1986. Even though the agency for the blind knew that its
direction to her might be illegal, it insisted that she pay a
percentage of her income to the Department of Health Employees'
Committee. Then, the Attorney General issues an opinion that
these payments were not authorized by law.  Instead of complying
with the law the agency for the blind demands that the illegal
payments continue, and it charges Laura Silas with a violation of
state rules for failure to be quiet and pay up.  But here is
where the National Federation of the Blind enters the picture. 
This is the very sort of thing we are committed to preventing. 
The National Federation of the Blind has been defending the
rights of blind vendors for decades.  The appeal process is a
product of the imagination and work of the Federation.  A
majority of the case decisions dealing with vending have been
reached through the work of our movement.  What a difference if
there had been no National Federation of the Blind--or, for that
matter, if the Federation should suddenly cease to exist or
should become ineffective!
  Laura Silas understood these facts before her own case of need
arose.  She is one of the leaders of the Federation in Utah.  Her
work has helped give strength to the organization so that it now
has the capacity to use that strength on her behalf.  This, of
course, is the way the process should work, each of us
contributing so that all of us may thrive.  Because of the
National Federation of the Blind the outrage which was about to
occur will not take place.  The object lesson is clear, not only
to vendors but to all who have the capacity to understand.
  When it filed an application for a vending facility at the
Department of Health building, the Utah agency for the blind
included an exhibit called "Attachment F."  Section Four of
Attachment F declares that the vending facility operator must pay
a percentage of vending machine income to the Department of
Health Employee's Committee.  However, the language of this
section makes it clear that the agency for the blind (even at the
time of the filing) thought that its agreement was quite possibly
illegal.  This is what the attachment says:

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

  4. The DSVH (Division of Services for the Visually Handicapped)
has been asked to return 25% of the net profit from the canned
drink machines in the building which are outside of the cafeteria
area to the Department of Health. This excludes the machines in
the cafeteria.  There is only one location within all of the DSVH
program that receives such a rebate from the vendor. The legality
of this requirement is still under legal consideration.
Therefore, the 25% rebate to DOH will be done on an interim basis
until a final decision can be reached about the interpretation of
the Utah State Law. All parties need to be aware that this
Paragraph of the agreement will be voided if it is found to be
contrary to the intent and purpose of the law.

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

  The Attorney General rendered his opinion on August 21, 1986. 
His opinion says in part:

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

                    The Attorney General State of Utah
                      David L. Wilkinson August 21, 1986

Daryl J. McCarty
Associate Superintendent
Utah State Office of Education

Re:  Informal Opinion Request No. 86-38 UBEP Food Service Subsidy
of Public Employees' Building Fund

Dear Daryl:
  This letter is in response to your request of June 20, 1986,
regarding the Utah Business Enterprise Program (UBEP), Utah Code
Annotated Sections 55-5-1, et seq. Your specific question is
whether it is legal for a UBEP food service vendor to make
payments to a public building employees' group or committee.
  This question arises out of the particular circumstances
outlined in your letter and other correspondence regarding the
food services at a newly constructed state-operated building. 
Essentially, when the building was first operational the
employees of the state agencies located in the building were
allowed to operate vending machines which supplied employees'
groups with an income for their group activities. At about the
same time, UBEP started up public food services located in the
same building. The UBEP vendor agreed to make payments to the
employees' group to replace the income lost when UBEP took over
operation of the vending machines.  A question then arose as to
public employees' groups operating vending machines in public
buildings where UBEP food services is located and the propriety
of the UBEP vendor making payments to an employees' group to
replace income lost when UBEP took over operation of the vending
machines.
  It is my opinion that payment to an employees' group by a UBEP
vendor under the circumstances outlined in your letter is
contrary to public policy and state law and an agreement to make
such a payment is unenforceable as against public policy.

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

  So said Utah's Attorney General, and
surely there can be no misunderstanding about what he meant. 
After discussing the matter with me during the Utah convention
Laura Silas sent the following letter to the Coordinator of the
Business Enterprise Program:

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

                    Salt Lake City, Utah October 19, 1986

Robert Walsh, Coordinator Business Enterprise Program Salt Lake
City, Utah

Dear Bob:
  This letter is in regard to our conversation on Tuesday,
September 9, 1986.  I apologize for my delay in responding to
you. I have been somewhat short- handed, and have not had the
opportunity to do so until now.
  I have carefully read, and done research on Attachment F
section 4 of my copy of the Application and Permit for the
establishment of the cafeteria at the Department of Health
(hereafter referred to as DOH), which requests that the Division
of Services for the Visually Handicapped give twenty-five percent
of the net profit from the canned drink machines in the building
which are outside the cafeteria area to the DOH. I have made the
following observations concerning this matter:
  1. A request in a permit, the legality of which is questioned
(and in this case has been deemed to be illegal), cannot be
considered legal or binding in any way for any length of time.
  2. On August 21, 1986, the Attorney General confirmed in
writing that the request in Attachment F Section 4 is illegal.
Therefore, if it had been binding, which it was not, Attachment F
Section 4 would then be void without question.
  Prior to August 21, 1986, I had not been given written or
verbal request for payment of the money to be received, if
Attachment F Section 4 had been legal.
  On Tuesday, September 9, 1986, you verbally requested that you
and I make arrangements for payment of the money you considered
the DOH entitled to, because of Attachment F Section 4. I would
like to point out that I have not yet received any written
request for payment.
  On Tuesday, September 9, 1986, I
verbally refused to make arrangement for, or to make any payment
to the DOH in regard to Attachment F Section 4, for the reasons
mentioned above. After receiving advice from counsel, I am now
reaffirming this fact in writing.
  You then verbally requested that I give you an estimate of the
amount of money I would owe the DOH, if I complied with
Attachment F Section 4, from April 14, 1986, (my starting date)
to September 1, 1986. I did not keep a record of the number of
cans I used to stock the canned drink machines, because, shortly
after your assistant, Emmalynn Heath, suggested that I do so, she
then told me that this would not be necessary and to discontinue
"wasting my time," because the Attorney General had verbally
stated that Attachment F Section 4 is illegal and that his
written confirmation would soon follow.  Having been given the
impression that Emmalynn had discussed this matter with you, I
followed her advice. It is my belief that I should not have to
confirm with you the advice given to me by your assistant, unless
she recommends that I do so, or specifies that it is her own
opinion and not that of the B.E.P., which in this case she did
not.
  I have been in the B.E.P. for approximately six months. I do
not feel that I have had enough experience with stocking canned
drink machines in enough of a variety of seasons and conditions
to give an accurate estimate of the amount of money you consider
I owe the DOH, especially when such facts as that there are
considerably more canned drinks purchased during the summer
months than any other time of the year are taken into
consideration. Therefore, I am not enclosing one.
  You recommend that I pay the DOH the estimated amount of money,
legal or not, as a form of good will and to help the B.E.P. make
a good impression on, and retain a good relationship with, the
Division of Facilities, Construction, and Management. You then
implied that failure to comply with your recommendation might not
only jeopardize my own operation, but that of other B.E.P. 
operators, and also risk opportunities to improve the B.E.P. in
the near future.
  My cafeteria is doing very well financially, considering the
short period of time which it has been in operation.  But, no
matter how well I do financially, I should not, and refuse to be
expected to, pay any portion of my net income or operating
expenses as a form of good will.
  I believe that, as the B.E.P.  Coordinator, it is your
responsibility to retain a good relationship with the DFCM. I
also believe that operating a cafeteria or vending stand which
satisfactorily meets the needs of the state employees and
complies with all legal contracts and permits would make a good
impression on the DFCM. Furthermore, I do not believe that
payment of money which has been deemed illegal would make a good
impression on the DFCM or help the B.E.P. to obtain opportunities
for locations in the future.
  As long as I satisfactorily meet the needs of the state
employees and comply with all legal contracts and permits, which
I have done, my operation should not be in any jeopardy.
  I also hope that my willingness to stand up for my legal rights
might help to give confidence and support to other operators in
similar circumstances, who may otherwise be intimidated or feel
frightened.
  I feel that the B.E.P. should uphold my decision and that I
should not be condemned for exercising my legal rights.
  If you wish to contact me concerning this or other important
matters, please do so in writing.

                              Cordially, Mrs. Laura E. Silas

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

  Under date of December 22, 1986, Robert Walsh, Coordinator of
the Business Enterprise Program for the Utah Services for the
Visually Handicapped responded:

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

                        Services for the Visually Handicapped
Salt Lake City, Utah
                       December 22, 1986

Dear Laura:
  I have read your letter a number of times. Even though I have
had different thoughts about it each time, some of them are
fairly consistent.
  I am really disappointed that you feel that you have been
treated unfairly by the B.E.P. and me.
  I have never said nor felt that it was correct for any operator
to have to pay a "commission" to any building committee. I also
know that Emalynn and I worked hard, under adverse circumstances,
to secure the Department of Health Building for a B.E.P.
facility.  There is no doubt in my mind that if I had taken your
approach to the challenge, that you would not be working at the
DOH today.
  It is not correct for you to say that you did not agree to pay
the commission as established until a legal opinion could be
obtained. The situation was discussed with you and the others in
the training classes held at the Murray B.  Allen Center. The
fact was reported in the information to the operators when the
location went out for bid. It was also discussed verbally with
you on a number of occasions. In addition it is also clearly
written on attachment F of the Permit signed by B.E.P. and the
D.F.C.M. of which you were given a copy.
  I do not understand the confusion about "what you should have
done" based on "what was said." As I indicated to you I am not
aware of you ever having been told that you should not keep track
of the canned drink sales outside of the cafeteria area. If after
your discussion with my assistant you felt that her instructions
were contrary to those previously given by me or in the permit, I
feel confident that you would have verified them with me at that
time.
  The agreement was made in good faith with all the parties
involved, pending the outcome of the Attorney General's opinion.
For you to now decide that you are not in agreement, is certainly
not in the spirit of cooperation I am trying to build between our
agencies. I do not understand the logic behind the idea that
since it is determined illegal on a certain date that everything
established prior to that date is null and void.
  I do not believe it is necessary for me to request in writing
that you supply the needed information. As far as I am concerned
it is just a matter of following the rules and regulations of the
B.E.P. and the Permit that is in force.
  May I also remind you that you agreed to provide me with the
information within two weeks of September 9th. While following up
on a number of occasions you told me that the information was
being prepared, about to be sent, then that it was mailed, and
then it was lost in the mail, and then it was found and finally
it was postmarked on November 12, 1986. You also agreed to send a
copy which you did not. You can imagine my surprise when instead
of the expected information, I received your letter which states
that you are unwilling to follow the Permit and the rules and
regulations of the B.E.P. Also that I should be understanding of
your need to seek counsel to assure that you receive your "legal
rights."
  If it is important to you, please consider this a written
request for the amount of profit from canned drink sales outside
of the cafeteria from April 14, 1986 to August 22, 1986.
  It is not correct to say that I asked you to pay the commission
as a form of goodwill. I asked that it be paid to meet the
obligation of the Permit. It should not be hard to see that if we
work hard for an extended period of time, and get the best deal
we   can that to then change our mind is not in our best
interest.
  This is a concern at the DOH, where they can terminate the
Permit with 30 days notice, or at other new locations that we are
negotiating for at this time. I recognize that the on-site
presence of our Operators is always a more powerful influence
than mine. This is the way it should be.
  I have reviewed the financial statements of both your location
and that of Vince, your husband. I would not say that they are
doing "very well." Even though you each have high quality
locations, your total "reported income" for the month of October
is $322. Your income for the first 6 1/2 months averaged $519 a
month. Vince's average for the 10 months of 1986 is $689 a month.
I believe that you both should receive more income for your
efforts than is indicated by the reports.
  My assistant and I have offered to spend time with you to look
at wages, purchasing, etc. On each occasion we have been told "No
Thanks."
  You say that the location should not be in jeopardy if you are
meeting the needs of the employees and the permits.  You are not
doing this. For example there is no suggestion box. The payment
of the commission is part of the Permit.
  I think the B.E.P., along with other programs of the Division
of Services to the Visually Handicapped have been generous and
more than fair to you and Vince.
  I hope the above information will clarify the situation so you
can comply with the permit and my request and allow you to devote
your energies to more productive pursuits.

                              Sincerely,
               Robert Walsh, Coordinator Business Enterprise
Program

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

  James Gashel, Director of Governmental Affairs for the National
Federation of the Blind, replied to the Walsh letter on January
9, 1987:

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

                     Baltimore, Maryland January 9, 1987

Mr. Robert Walsh, Coordinator Business Enterprise Program Utah
Services for the Visually Handicapped

Dear Mr. Walsh:
  I am responding on behalf of Laura Silas to your letter to her
dated December 22, 1986. Your letter is a threat to Mrs. Silas'
status as a licensed blind vendor in the Utah Business Enterprise
Program. Therefore, Mrs. Silas has sought the advice and
representation that we (the National Federation of the Blind)
provide in such matters.
  You allege at least twice in your letter that Mrs. Silas is in
violation of the permit for her vending facility and the
requirements of Utah state rules and regulations. Your specific
complaint with Mrs. Silas appears to be that she has not paid
certain vending machine commissions to an employee group at the
Department of Health. You are hereby notified that Mrs. Silas has
no intention of paying these vending commissions now or at any
time. You are also notified that Mrs. Silas will not submit to
your attempts to coerce her into violating the laws of the state
of Utah.
  The position which Mrs. Silas has asked me to convey to you is
consistent with the ruling of the Attorney General dated August
21, 1986. Requiring Mrs.  Silas to pay vending commissions is
illegal and unenforceable. Attachment F of the permit to which
you make reference in your letter clearly states that the
provision on payment of vending commissions is "void" if a legal
opinion determines it to be unlawful. That determination has now
been made and the provision is void. Therefore, you have exceeded
the authority of your agency by attempting to compel Mrs. Silas
to honor this void provision. Officials of government agencies
may be subject to personal liability when they exceed the
authority vested in their agencies.
  Your belief that Mrs. Silas has violated the permit or the
state's rules and regulations is unfounded. If you think
otherwise, there are procedures available to your agency for the
suspension or revocation of Mrs. Silas' license. Threats and
coercion against Mrs. Silas and her husband are not in accordance
with the law or your agency's procedures. Moreover, these threats
are made despite the advice you sought from the Attorney General.

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

P.S. Mrs. Silas directs that if you wish to communicate further
on this specific matter (orally or in writing) that you do so
with me.

cc: The Honorable David L. Wilkinson Attorney General

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

  Every blind person in the nation would do well to consider the
implications of the Laura Silas case.  What would have happened
to her if there had been no National Federation of the Blind? 
How much lead time is required to build the legal know-how and
resources, get the laws passed, inform blind persons of their
rights under those laws, and establish the confidence and
communication network necessary to focus the strength
successfully to meet a threat like the one posed in the Silas
case?  The time, effort, and money which a blind person puts into
building the Federation today may be the deciding factor three
years, five years, or ten years in the future when that same
blind person faces attack or discrimination.  The Federation is a
long-term matter.  It is serious business.  It is growing
stronger every day.  It is the strongest force in the affairs of
the blind in the nation, and it is here to stay.  We are truly
changing what it means to be blind.


SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

RESPONDS POSITIVELY TO NFB REQUEST


  Once again the Social Security Administration (SSA) has
responded favorably to an NFB convention resolution.  The
attached letter from J. Kenneth McGill (External Liaison
Specialist at Social Security headquarters in Baltimore) explains
how SSA has revised the notice of benefit changes which goes to
all Social Security recipients and SSI beneficiaries at the
beginning of each year.
  Our Resolution (86-23) asked the Social Security Administration
to notify blind disability insurance beneficiaries that some work
is permitted while receiving SSDI checks.  We also asked that
some reference be given to the special blindness rules that
encourage work.  Notices sent in prior years have only stated the
requirement to report all earnings to the Social Security
Administration.  This approach discouraged work attempts by the
blind and other SSDI beneficiaries.
  Because of our Resolution and SSA's response to it, the notice
that was sent with the January, 1987, Social Security checks was
a great improvement.  It states forthrightly that work is
permitted.  Blind beneficiaries are encouraged to inquire about
special rules which may apply to their work.  The full text of
the check stuffer notices is attached to Mr. McGill's letter. 
Here are NFB Resolution 86-23, Mr. McGill's letter, and the
annual check stuffer sent by the Social Security Administration.

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

RESOLUTION 86-23

  WHEREAS, Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits
are an important and in many cases the sole source of income for
blind people; and
  WHEREAS, the law provides for an annual adjustment to be made
in the amount of earnings that will be counted as substantial
gainful activity in the case of each blind SSDI beneficiary; and
  WHEREAS, by law, the substantial gainful activity test for the
blind permits the same amount of earnings for the blind as the
Social Security Retirement Program permits for people who retire
at age 65; and
  WHEREAS, annual notices sent by the Social Security
Administration to blind SSDI beneficiaries announce the amount of
earned income that will be exempt during the ensuing year for
retirees but the notices do not announce the revised substantial
gainful activity amount for the blind, a fact which leads to
confusion; and
  WHEREAS, the notices in question further discourage blind
beneficiaries from attempting work by conveying the impression
that in general the disabled may not work and must report any
earnings to the Social Security office, immediately leading the
reader of the notice to the conclusion that benefits cease
because of the earnings; and
  WHEREAS, this generalization is misleading to blind SSDI
beneficiaries and does not accurately report the value of the
work incentive that Congress intended to give to the blind
through a higher substantial gainful activity:  Now, therefore,
  BE IT RESOLVED by the National Federation of the Blind in
convention assembled this fourth day of July, 1986, in the City
of Kansas City, Missouri, that this organization ask the Social
Security Administration to revise the noticed identified in this
resolution to convey accurate and complete information about
substantial gainful activity of the blind and the annual
revisions in its amount.

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

                     Baltimore, Maryland November 28, 1986

Mr. James Gashel
National Federation of the Blind

Dear Jim:
  I am enclosing an advance copy of the annual check stuffer
scheduled for release with Social Security and SSI checks in
January, 1987.  The section pertaining to people who receive
Disability Insurance and SSI checks has been revised along the
lines you suggested.  I believe the new language should be less
confusing to disabled people, by stressing that work is
encouraged and explaining where more information is available. 
The mention of special rules for blind people should also help to
clarify the intent of the notice.
  I assured Pat Owens before she left SSA that we would keep her
promise made in Kansas City to work on improving the language of
this check stuffer.  Thank you for your and NFB's participation
in the process.  Your contributions and active interest in our
programs are valued here at Social Security.

                              Sincerely,
                       J. Kenneth McGill External Liaison
Specialist
          Office of Governmental Affairs Social Security
Administration

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

New Payment Amount

  Your Social Security benefit is
increased by 1.3 percent with this month's check.  This automatic
increase is based on the rise in the cost of living.
  If you are paying for Medicare medical insurance, the amount
taken from your Social Security check this month covers the
higher premium rate that started January 1, 1987.  The basic
premium for medical insurance--the amount most people pay--is now
$17.90 a month, up from $15.50.  Because of the medical insurance
premium increase, your check may not be higher than it was last
month.

If You Plan to Work in 1987

  Beginning January 1, 1987, you can earn more and still receive
all your Social Security checks.
  If you are now 65 or older, or you will reach 65 in 1987, you
can earn $8,160 and still receive all your checks.
  If you are under 65 all of 1987, you can earn up to $6,000 and
still receive all your checks.
  Generally, $1 in benefits is withheld for each $2 you earn over
the limit.
  Beginning with the month you reach age 70, you get your full
check each month no matter how much you earn.
  In 1986 the annual exempt amounts were $7,800 for people 65 and
over and $5,760 for people under 65.
  If you worked and earned more than the annual exempt amount in
1986 while receiving benefits, you must complete an annual report
of earnings by April 15, 1987, unless you were 70 or older all
year.
  Different rules apply to people receiving Social Security
disability or SSI payments who work.  If you receive Social
Security disability or SSI payments, you must report all work. 
(If you are a payee for someone receiving these benefits, you
must report for him or her.)
  There are special provisions that encourage disabled people to
return to work.  A free leaflet explaining these provisions,
including special rules for blind people, is available at any
Social Security office.

New Hospital Insurance Amounts

  For benefit periods in 1987 the Medicare hospital insurance
deductible and daily amounts will be:
  -- For the first 60 days in the hospital (hospital insurance
deductible)-- $520 (up from $492).
  -- For the 61st through the 90th day in the hospital--$130 a
day (up from $123).
  -- For the 60 hospital reserve days-- $260 (up from $246).
  -- For the 21st through the 100th day in a skilled nursing
facility--$65 a day (up from $61.50).
  For more information or to make a report, contact any Social
Security office.  The address and phone number are listed in the
telephone directory under "Social Security Administration" or
"U.S. Government."


COURTS MAKE IMPORTANT RULING CONCERNING

SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME


  (This is an Associated Press article which was recently
published throughout the country.)

  The Supreme Court today rejected a Reagan administration appeal
to recover alleged overpayments to Social Security recipients.
  The court, without comment, let stand a ruling that threw out
the government's claims in a New York case.
  The case began in 1982 when New York recipients of Supplemental
Security Income (SSI) sued the government to block recovery of
the alleged overpayments.  Supplemental Security Income,
authorized by the Social Security program, provides benefits to
needy, blind, or disabled people.
  A federal judge in 1983 ordered the administration to drop the
recovery program against the New York recipients.  On January 4,
1985, the judge awarded $40,734 in lawyers' fees to the
recipients.
  Under federal law the government has 60 days to appeal final
judgments in such suits.
  Government lawyers apparently did not learn of the lawyer fee
award until 64 days had passed.
  The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last January that
the government was barred from appealing the lower court ruling
on the recovery issue because it waited more than 60 days from
the January 4, 1985, judgment to file its appeal.
  "As that judgment was entered more than 60 days prior to the
... filing of
(a) notice of appeal, we ... lack jurisdiction to entertain an
appeal challenging the judgment or any orders that preceded it,"
the appeals court said.
  Justice Department lawyers said the appeals court ruling could
have "dramatic effects."  The appeals court ruling "permits the
expiration of the time for appeal before the losing party
effectively has been apprised that the appeal time is running,"
the government's appeal said.
  It added that the appeals court ruling prevents the government
from imposing uniformity in its SSI recovery program, in effect
in nearly all states.
  The government is losing approximately $1.5 million a year
because it is barred from enforcing the recovery program in New
York, the appeal said.


SENATOR DANFORTH COMMENTS ON THE AIRLINE PROBLEM


                    United States Senate
         Committee on Commerce, Science,
                      and Transportation Washington, D.C.
                       November 24, 1986

Mr. and Mrs. David J. Walker Jefferson City, Missouri

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Walker:
  Thank you for your letter expressing concern over the airlines'
improper treatment of blind air travelers and the Department of
Transportation's (DOT) proposal to gather comments on that issue.
  I agree with you that blind air travelers should not be
discriminated against and I have worked to ensure that the
airlines treat all handicapped people fairly.  During this past
session of Congress, I cosponsored S.2703, the Air Carrier Access
Act of 1986, which became law on October 2, 1986.  This
legislation amends the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 to prohibit
all airlines from discriminating against blind and other
handicapped individuals and requires the Secretary of
Transportation to issue regulations within four months of October
2, 1986, to require the non- discriminatory treatment of
handicapped individuals.  The Secretary's rules are to ensure
that the airlines do not treat the handicapped differently from
other passengers by requiring them to pre- board, sit in certain
areas, or other such practices, unless a clear safety risk is
shown to exist.
  I believe the Secretary of Transportation shares my concern
that the airlines ought not to treat blind or other handicapped
passengers in an undignified manner.  The DOT proposal, to which
you refer in your letter, was initiated at the urging of blind
passengers who found that the airlines were discriminating
against blind persons by refusing to allow them to sit in
emergency exit rows, restricting the placement of guide dogs, and
informing blind persons that they should not evacuate the plane
in an emergency until the other passengers had left the plane. 
DOT's proposal seeks to determine whether any reason truly exists
for treating blind passengers differently in these or other
situations, or if these practices are merely a convenience for
the airlines.  The rules which DOT will draft after reviewing the
comments submitted in response to its proposal will be included
in the regulations required under the Air Carrier Access Act.  To
the extent that any of the regulations DOT may issue are
inconsistent with the Air Carrier Access Act, they would be
subject to being invalidated by the courts.
  Thank you for writing.  Your views are always welcome in this
office.

                              Sincerely, John C. Danforth

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

                     Baltimore, Maryland December 23, 1986

Dear Dave and Betty:
  The letter from Senator Danforth is right on the money.  I
commend you for giving him the education to understand what must
be done.  Without the Federation at work, this would never have
happened.

                              Cordially,
                  Marc Maurer, President National Federation of
the Blind


PROFILE OF THE LEADERS OF THE
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND

by Kenneth Jernigan

  Statistics can be misleading, boring, or useful.  They can also
be just plain fun.  All of this was brought home to me recently
when I began to study the facts and figures about the leaders of
the Federation.
  I was moved to make the study when I realized that a majority
of our state presidents are now women.  We have 51 state
affiliates, one in each state and one in the District of
Columbia.  As of January 1, 1987, 27 of the affiliate presidents
are women, and 24 are men.  This led me to wonder what other
interesting data I might uncover, not only about state presidents
but also about the National Board.  Here are some of the things I
learned:
  Let's begin with the Board.  The average member is just over 46
years of age.  The breakdown goes like this:  The oldest Board
Member is 62.  One member is 60; one is 58; one is 57; two are
54; one is 52; one is 51; one is 45; one is 44; two are 41; one
is 40; one is 35; one is 33; one is 31; and one is 29.  So there
is a spread of 33 years from the youngest Board Member (29) to
the oldest (62).
  The average member of the Board has been a member of the
Federation for 17- 1/2 years.  The breakdown looks like this: 
One joined in 1955; one in 1956; one in 1960; two in 1967; two in
1968; three in 1969; two in 1970; one in 1972; two in 1974; one
in 1975; and one in 1982.  Therefore, as you can see, there is a
spread of 27 years--1955 to 1982.
  How about first attendance at a national convention?  The
average Board Member has been coming to NFB conventions for 15
years.  The statistics are somewhat skewed by the fact that in a
few instances a member may have skipped a convention, and this
has not been taken into account.  The breakdown looks like this: 
One Board Member attended his first national convention in 1956--
and, incidentally, has never missed one since: Donald Capps of
South Carolina.  One member first attended a national convention
in 1961; one in 1962; one in 1968; two in 1969; two in 1970; two
in 1971; two in 1972; one in 1977; three in 1978; and one in
1982.  As you can see, the spread is 26 years, 1956 to 1982.
  As you know, there are 17 members on the National Board of
Directors.  Eleven of these became Board Members in 1980 or
later.  Five became Board Members in the 1970's, and one became a
Board Member in the 1950's.  Here is the breakdown:  One of the
current members was elected to the Board in 1959; three in 1974;
one in 1977; one in 1978; one in 1981; three in 1982; one in
1983; two in 1984; two in 1985; and two in 1986.  Counting 1986
as a full year (even though two of the current Board Members were
elected in July), the average member has been on the Board for 7
years.
  The way that the Members of the Board were recruited into the
Federation is interesting.  Eight joined because they were
contacted by other Federationists; three were contacted by
organizing teams; two joined the Federation as a result of
contact with the Iowa Commission for the Blind, either as
students or visitors; one joined the Federation because of our
mass mail campaigns; one (Joyce Scanlan) heard about the national
convention when it was in Minneapolis in 1970 and came to see
what was going on; one heard about us after joining ACB and
becoming disillusioned with that organization; and one joined the
Federation because of reading the Monitor.
  The occupations of Federation Board
Members are also interesting, as well as being quite varied. 
Three are attorneys; five are engaged in work with the blind; one
is a teacher in a public school; one is a hardware store owner
(retired); one is an automobile dealer; one is an insurance
executive (retired); one is owner-operator of a restaurant chain;
one is a homemaker; one is a minister; one is a consultant; and
one is a senior analyst and programmer.
  In the past we have from time to time printed biographical
sketches of the members of the National Board in a booklet
entitled Who are the Blind Who Lead the Blind.  We are in the
process of revising and updating this booklet, and we hope we can
soon bring out a new edition. However, Who are the Blind Who Lead
the Blind does not give the kind of comparative statistical data
and perspective which this compilation provides.  With respect to
the state presidents we have never gathered any data at all
except in scattered articles which have appeared in the Monitor
and elsewhere.  The statistics about the state leaders are as
interesting as those concerning the Board.
  Let us begin with age.  As would be expected, the average age
of a National Board Member is slightly higher than that of the
state presidents.  Whereas the average board member is somewhat
over 46, the average state president is
44.  Also, the spread is greater.  Here is the list:  One state
president is 70; one is 65; two are 62; two are 58; one is 57;
one is 55; one is 54; one is 52; two are 51; one is 50; two are
48; two are 46; two are 45; one is 44; one is 43; four are 42;
five are 41; four are 40; four are 39; one is 38; three are 37;
one is 36; one is 35; one is 34; three are 33; and three are 31. 
So the spread is 39 years, from 31 to 70.  It will be observed
that there is a clustering around age 40.  Seventeen of the state
presidents come in the range from age 39 to age 42.  I wonder how
this compares with the ages of state governors.
  Again, as might have been expected, the average Board Member
has been in the Federation (17-1/2 years) longer than the average
state president (13-1/2 years).  Two of the state presidents
joined the Federation in the 1950's; thirteen joined in the
1960's; thirty joined in the 1970's; and six joined in the
1980's.  Here is the breakdown:  1955, 1; 1956, 1; 1964, 1; 1965,
2; 1966, 1; 1967, 3; 1968, 4; 1969, 2; 1970, 4; 1971, 2; 1972, 3;
1973, 3; 1974, 4; 1975, 4; 1976, 4; 1977, 2; 1978, 3; 1979, 1;
1981, 1; 1982, 2; 1983, 1; 1984, 1; and 1986, 1.  So the spread
is 31 years, from 1955 to 1986.
  As to first-time attendance at a national convention, one state
president attended his first convention in the 1950's; seven
first attended a national convention in the 1960's; thirty-four
in the 1970's; and seven in the 1980's.  Two state presidents
have not yet attended a national convention.  The average state
president has attended 12 NFB conventions.  Here is the
breakdown:  one first attended a national convention in 1956; one
in 1961; one in 1964; two in 1966; two in 1968; one in 1969; four
in 1970; four in 1971; one in 1972; one in 1973; three in 1974;
five in 1975; three in 1976; six in 1977; five in 1978; two in
1979; one in 1980; one in 1982; four in 1983; one in 1986; and
(as already noted) two have not yet attended.
  One of the state presidents was first elected to that position
in the 1950's; no current state president was first elected to
that office in the 1960's; twenty were first elected state
president in the 1970's; and thirty were first elected state
president in the 1980's.  The average state president has served
slightly more than 6 years.
  Nine of the state presidents have had interrupted terms.  One
of these has served as state president for 16 of the last 30
years.  The others have served for shorter periods of time.
  The state presidents were recruited into the movement in widely
divergent ways.  One joined because of receiving greeting cards
in our mail campaign.  One went to a national convention because
it happened to be in her area.  She liked what she saw and joined
up.  One attended an organizing meeting because she was
responsible for opening the building where the meeting was being
held.  Again, she liked what she heard and joined.  In another
instance a Federation student chapter needed an academic advisor.

A blind college professor (now a state president) went to be
helpful and found, as he puts it, people he wanted to be like. 
He joined and has been active ever since.
  Another state president visited the Iowa Commission for the
Blind (not as a student) and witnessed Federationism in action. 
Shortly afterward, she joined.  One state president reports that
while he was a student at Hines Veterans Hospital in Illinois, he
met Steve Benson and learned of the Federation.  Another reports
that she joined the American Council of the Blind, heard their
negative comments about the Federation, investigated, liked what
she found, quit the ACB, and joined us.  Still another reports
that he contacted the Federation for help with a Social Security
problem, became interested, and joined.
  Each state president's story is different.  One reports that he
read about the Braille Monitor and the Braille Forum in another
magazine, ordered both, and joined the Federation.  One joined
through the NFB Student Division; another was invited to speak at
a state convention; two were recruited by relatives who were in
the Federation; some were recruited through contacts with the
Iowa Commission for the Blind; and many were recruited by other
Federationists or by organizing teams.
  The occupations of the state presidents are as varied as the
methods by which they were recruited into the Federation.  The
range is unbelievably wide: massage therapist, professor of
finance, chairman of social studies department in a high school,
college voice teacher, band director, assistant director of
college alumni association, heating and plumbing contractor,
insurance claims executive, social worker, children's counselor,
a number of lawyers, several in work related with computers,
insurance agent, contract purchasing specialist, writer-editor
for large federal agency, drug and alcohol counselor, and
counselor for Girl Scouts.  Eight are in work with the blind, and
five are teachers.  Five are retired.  Six are federal employees.

Three are vendors.  Regardless of the job, certain
characteristics are universal.  The state presidents of the
National Federation of the Blind are leaders.  They are alert,
dynamic, and involved in community and civic affairs.
  What has been said about the members of the National Board and
the state presidents can also be said about the hundreds of
leaders of the local Federation chapters throughout the
nation--and in large part about the rank and file members of the
movement.  The National Federation of the Blind is serious
business, and its members treat it accordingly.  It is as vital
and as important as the lives and destinies of us all.  Go to our
national conventions; go to the state conventions; go to the
average local chapter meeting--you will find interested,
intelligent, caring, participating people.  The blind of the
nation know that for the first time in history they can have a
controlling voice in determining their own destiny.  We have
respect for our leaders, faith in our future, and pride in our
movement.  This is the essence of the National Federation of the
Blind.


THE SILLY SEASON IN IOWA

NANCY NORMAN LEADS THE PARADE


  It is truly the silly season in the State of Iowa.  It seems as
though every public official has sworn an oath to all citizens to
behave whimsically.  This weird determination might be amusing if
the cost to the blind were not so high.  Even so, the contortions
and convolutions of Iowa state officials provoke the response
these days:  "You must be kidding."
  It all started when Iowa Commission for the Blind board
chairman Arlene Dayhoff (who has long and loudly sung the praises
of Commission director Nancy Norman) grabbed at the first
opportunity offered her to jump ship.  In late August, l986, she
accepted appointment to the Council on Human Services.  This is
the board which oversees the Department of Human Services, the
state's welfare agency, with a name confusingly similar to the
Department of Human Rights.  The Human Rights department is the
umbrella agency created in 1986 to house the Iowa Commission for
the Blind and several other agencies dealing with minorities. 
One commissioner gone.
  The remaining two commissioners, John Wellman and Dr. Russell
Watt, became more and more insistent that Nancy Norman obey
federal law.  This may seem an unusual point to press, but Norman
was serving as part-time director of a state vocational
rehabilitation agency for the blind (the Iowa Commission for the
Blind) in defiance of the federal law which requires directors of
VR agencies to be full-time.  On June 3, 1986, the regional
Rehabilitation Services Administration Commissioner, Isaac
Johnson, ruled that Norman could not be both part-time Commission
director and part-time director of the umbrella Human Rights
Department.  She did it anyway, jeopardizing Iowa's federal VR
money.  Throughout the summer and into the fall the commission
board asked, pleaded with, and finally ordered Norman to obey
federal law.  They even adopted a policy that federal law will be
obeyed and ordered Norman to choose one job or the other by
October 1, 1986.  Norman simply ignored this order.  But the
commissioners insisted, and Norman finally provided an answer in
October to the question first raised in June.  She said she would
do what she pleased.  She said so in a letter addressed to the
Commission board chairman in his private capacity.  Norman was
obviously not willing to admit that the board chairman had any
authority over her and, to make this point, she refused him even
the courtesy of addressing him in his official capacity as
Chairman of the Commission for the Blind.  (Norman has a long
record of doing as she pleases.  These same commissioners ordered
her to work for a separate agency for the blind in the l986 Iowa
legislature and she did just the opposite, thereby winning for
herself promotion to head of the umbrella agency she helped to
create.) Here is Norman's letter:

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

                        Des Moines, Iowa October 9, 1986

Mr. John Wellman, Director Citizen's Advocate Office Des Moines,
Iowa

Dear John:
  At the Commission board meeting on September 20, you requested
that I choose either the Director of the Commission for the Blind
or Director of the Department of Human Rights position.  I
referred this matter to Doug Gross of the Governor's Office since
the Governor appointed me to serve in those two capacities.  I
understand that the two of you visited by telephone on
approximately October 2.  I did not realize that you wished for
me to respond in writing, so I am doing so at this time.  Doug
Gross indicated to you that the Governor's Office does not want
to make a change now, and therefore I continue to serve in both
capacities.  The Governor wants the Commission for the Blind to
have a full-time director, and believes this matter will be
resolved by the first of the year.
                              Sincerely,
               Nancy A. Norman, Director Commission for the Blind

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

  This proved too much for commissioner Watt.  He quit.  He not
only quit, but he wrote Norman a letter explaining why.  As he
told the Des Moines Register, "I just felt that if we didn't have
any ability to control what is going on, then we didn't have any
function as a commission."  Here is Dr. Watt's letter of
resignation:

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

                        October 28, 1986

Ms. Nancy Norman, Director Commission for the Blind Des Moines,
Iowa

Dear Ms. Norman:
  At the Iowa Commission for the Blind
board meeting of September 20, 1986, it was decided by the
members of the Commission that the Commission for the Blind was
in violation of the federal regulation requiring a full-time
director of the vocational rehabilitation program (federal
regulation 34 CFR 361.8).  The Commission members also directed
that you choose either to be the full-time director of the
Commission for the Blind or director of the Department of Human
Rights.  It is my understanding from your letter of October 9,
1986, to John Wellman, Chairperson of the Commission, that
Governor Branstad wants you to continue to serve in both
capacities at least until January 1, 1987.  This decision appears
to be in direct conflict with both the federal regulation and the
unanimous decision of the commissioners on September 20, 1986. 
Because of this violation of the regulation and the action of the
Commission, I find I am unable to support "business as usual" at
the Commission for the Blind.  Therefore, I am submitting my
resignation from the Commission effective immediately.

                            Yours truly, Russell H. Watt, M.D.

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

  Another commissioner gone.  The rapidly diminishing supply of
commissioners went relatively unnoticed since, as Dr. Watt says,
the Commission board has no function.  The Governor now hires and
fires the director, leaving the Commission board no power to
enforce its policies.    The commissioners meet every several
months or so to listen to Commission staff talk for a while. 
Beyond that, everyone seems to forget about them.  Nancy Norman
certainly did.  In addition to ignoring their policy
determinations, she habitually acted for the agency in matters
which should have been decided by the Commission board.
  By law, the Commission board determines the Commission budget. 
The board decides what to request and how much will be spent in
the various budget categories.  During the summer and fall of
1986 the Rehabilitation Act was debated and reauthorized by the
U.S.  Congress.  The reauthorization created opportunity to earn
more federal dollars with additional allocation of state dollars.

All this was well-known to Norman, who could easily have
presented the facts and possibilities to the Commission board. 
She didn't bother.  In early December, l986, she appeared before
the Governor at a public hearing on the Commission's budget
request and asked for $60,000 more than the Commission board had
authorized her to seek.  She explained this by saying that there
had not been enough time since the reauthorization of the
Rehabilitation Act for the commissioners to consider the
possibility of earning more federal money. Federationists in the
audience refrained from pointing out that Iowa is supplied with a
sufficiency of telephone connections for purposes such as this. 
The lack of time persisted until December 30, l986, when the
commission board finally considered the additional $60,000
request.  They did it by conference telephone.
  In the meantime, a new commissioner was appointed.  She has had
nothing whatsoever to do with blindness.  One commissioner
replaced.
  Then, welfare chief Joseph O'Hara's
shady dealings  got exposed in Missouri.  Now, this may seem to
have nothing to do with Iowa, but the silly season can make use
of anything.  O'Hara was out and Iowa's Human Services director
Michael Reagan accepted the Missouri offer to direct its welfare
agency.  He'll get more money, have a car, and double the size of
the population he serves.  And he might escape the silly season. 
We wish him luck.
  Back in Iowa, Republican Governor
Terry Branstad moved promptly and in accord with the prevailing
silliness.  He appointed Nancy Norman to head the state
Department of Human Services, the largest agency in Iowa state
government.  The appointment was greeted with a storm of
ridicule, scorn, and jeers.
  One hotbed of derision was the Iowa legislature, which is
controlled by the Democrats.  The Des Moines Register reported
that: "[Democratic Senate majority leader C.W. "Bill"] Hutchins
wrote a letter to Branstad saying the governor acted too quickly
and didn't select from a pool of applicants who would be of the
same caliber as Reagen.  'While I am not now making any specific
charges against the individual you selected, I do feel
administration of an agency with a $700 million plus budget is a
job which should only be filled after a thoughtful process in
which applicants with significant experience and proven
credentials--from across the nation--are considered....' 
Hutchins said he still is concerned about Norman's ability to
take on the job.  'I'm saying her experience has not been with
dealing with an agency of that size, and it's the whole scenario:
If we lose people like Mike Reagen because of a low salary we
ought to address that, and ought not to think of lowering our
standards for the type of people who run state government.'"
  As Norman's appointment became a topic of state-wide
discussion, many blind Iowans must have felt like time travelers.

They were already familiar with Norman's practice of climbing by
means of her husband's influence.  In l982, over their protests,
Norman was appointed commission director by a board chaired by
the law partner of her husband.   In 1986, Iowa's Republican
Governor, though the incumbent, squeaked through to re-election
with a bare majority of the votes.    Grateful to Norman's
husband, one of his most active supporters, the Governor elevated
Norman to the Human Services directorship.  When asked about this
favoritism, Norman replied to a Des Moines Register reporter:
"It's a free country."  Anyone familiar with modern political
discourse knows that, when someone tells you its a free country,
you'd better hold your wallet and run.
  In 1982, the commission board tried to cover up its favor to
Norman's husband by hiring a national search firm to whom it paid
nearly $10,000 for camouflaging its choice of Norman.   In l986
there was no camouflage.  The Governor simply appointed Norman
when he announced the departure of her predecessor.  No search
firm.  No nationwide hunt for talent.  Just the payoff right
there in public.
  Public scoffing at Norman's appointment went on for five
straight days in the Des Moines Register and has cropped up
several times since.   The chairman and vice-chairman of the
Council on Human Services, both Republicans like the Governor,
were furious that they had not been consulted about the
appointment.  They pointed out that the spirit of the law (if not
its letter) required the Governor to receive their
recommendations before making his choice.  The vice-chairman, a
fifteen-year veteran on the Council, told a Des Moines Register
reporter: "I am outraged that Governor Branstad chose not to
involve the council in appointing someone for one of the most
responsible positions in state government.  He has slapped us on
the face and I am angered that he completely ignored us.  So I am
reviewing my situation with the department, and that saddens me."

The Council on Human Services, like the Commission board before
it, is about to learn that Nancy Norman's style is to do what she
pleases (regardless of the law).  They won't like it, but Norman
enjoys the unconditional support of the Governor.
  Another person who must be unhappy with the appointment is
Arlene Dayhoff.  She had recently fled the Commission herself to
help oversee Human Services.  Despite her public protestations of
admiration for Nancy Norman, she was well aware of Norman's
principal fault.  Norman can't administer anything, and Dayhoff
knows it.  Dayhoff must be regretting the opportunity to change
agency boards.  She's ended up right where she started, having to
oversee an agency and make policy for a woman who can't
administer and won't follow policy.
  The Council on Human Services will have to learn something else
about Norman as well.  She has a record.  In 1982, there were
widespread rumors that the Department of Human Services, where
she had been a middle manager for ten years, was trying
desperately to palm her off on anybody who would take her.  In
1986, Human Services workers all across the state are expressing
disgust that the woman they got rid of four years ago is now
coming back to be their super boss.
  Nancy Norman now faces a nasty confirmation battle in the
senate.  But some legislators are talking of giving the Governor
exactly the person he wants.  They point out that the Human
Services department is a very complex agency with several huge
problem areas which will almost certainly explode into public
controversy in the next year.  Let the Governor have her as
director, these people say.  She can't handle it.  So much the
worse for her and her Governor.  That's what they both wanted and
that's what we should give them.
  Back at the Commission for the Blind, search firms are still
all the rage.  The Governor didn't need a search firm to help him
find Norman's qualification for her new job running a $700
million agency.  But he's asked the Commission board to conduct
an intensive nationwide talent search for a new director to run
this $3 million agency.
  Another new commissioner has also been appointed, bringing the
board up to three again for a time.  He lives in Iowa, it is
true, but he works in Illinois.  Two of the three commissioners
live about sixty miles from each other on the Mississippi river,
Iowa's eastern border.  This places them one hundred to three
hundred miles away from most Iowans and therefore beyond the
reach of bothersome personal visiting from citizens.
  It is the silly season in Iowa.  Residents probably get up in
the morning and debate whether they should take a chance on
learning the morning's news.  After all, you never know what
bizarre thing one of those state officials will do next.  We're
waiting for reports from Iowa that cows have started to bleat,
sheep to oink, and pigs to moo.  Why shouldn't they?  The humans
around them all seem to have flipped.


YOUR PERSONAL RETIREMENT INCOME PROGRAM A JOKE THAT WASN'T FUNNY

by Kenneth Jernigan


  As members of the National Federation of the Blind we often say
that: "We are changing what is means to be blind." Exactly how do
we do that?  Do we do it by coming together in meetings and
conventions, discussing major issues and trends, passing
resolutions, and then taking collective action on a nationwide
basis to bring about change?  Yes, that is one way we do it--but
it is not the only way.  Perhaps it is not even the most
important way.
  Where does our Federationism begin and end?  Do we pick it up
like a cup of coffee or a piece of paper when we enter the door
of the local chapter meeting or the state or national
convention--and then put it aside when we leave?  What does
Federationism mean in our daily lives and routine
activities--working, playing, eating, shopping?  Karen Mayry,
President of the National Federation of the Blind of South
Dakota, could give you an answer to that question.  A few weeks
before Christmas she was shopping in a mall--an ordinary trip, an
average day.  In one of the gift shops she observed a small
shoebox-shaped item.  On the top this caption was printed:  "Your
Personal Retirement Income Program."  In small letters was
printed:  "IRS Approved/Tax Sheltered Income." Also on the top
were various attractive retirement scenes: a sailboat and sea
gull, golfing, and a San Francisco scene.  When the box lid was
lifted, the contents were disclosed to be the stereotyped
apparatus of a blind beggar:  A pair of dark glasses, a tin cup,
a pencil, and a pair of shoestrings.  Funny?  Karen didn't think
so--but she didn't just turn away in disgust or fuss and fume. 
She took action--reasoned, dignified, decisive, effective action.
  When the time comes that the majority of us who are blind,
along with our families and friends, (and a growing number of our
sighted associates and members of the public who have come to
understand) take similar action as a routine part of our daily
lives, our battle will be largely won.  Karen's letter will have
repercussions far beyond the immediate results in South Dakota. 
It should cause each of us to reflect and take stock:

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

                Rapid City, South Dakota December 1, 1986

Ms. Meris Dickey, Manager Spencer Gifts
Rushmore Mall
Rapid City, South Dakota

Dear Ms. Dickey:
  How disappointed I was recently while shopping in your store to
notice that you had among your sale items "YOUR PERSONAL
RETIREMENT INCOME PROGRAM," containing a tin cup, sunglasses,
shoelaces and pencils.  This item is NOT amusing to those of us
who are blind.  It is demeaning and derogatory toward blind
persons.  I request that you consider its implications and how it
reflects on your business as well.
  Blind persons in our country have been working for decades to
change the image of blind people.  The National Federation of the
Blind strives to obtain first-class citizenship for all blind
citizens.  We can only do that when our sighted friends and the
public realize that we are no longer relegated to standing on
street corners with tin cups.  Thousands of us are employed,
raising families, holding public office and participating fully
in our communities.  Even so, over 70 percent of working-age
blind persons are unemployed or underemployed.  Why is that? 
Simply because too many individuals continue to have the
antiquated sterotypic image of a blind person, i.e., begging on a
street corner.  Until the public no longer views us in that way,
we will continue to have the highest rate of unemployment of any
minority group.  Items like "YOUR PERSONAL RETIREMENT INCOME
PROGRAM" retard our progress.  I am sure that was not your
intent.  I again urge you to remove it from your shelves.
  If you wish to discuss this matter further, I will be glad to
visit with you.  In addition, I refer you to Mr.  Marc Maurer,
President, National Federation of the Blind, 1800 Johnson Street,
Baltimore, Maryland 21230, telephone (301) 659-9314.

                       Very truly yours, Karen S. Mayry,
President
        National Federation of the Blind
                         of South Dakota

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

                     Spencer Gifts, Inc.  Pleasantville, New
Jersey
                       December 29, 1986

Dear Ms. Mayry:
  I want to apologize for offending you, as well as anyone else. 
The item in question (Your Personal Retirement Income Program)
was not intended to offend, demean or be derogatory towards blind
people.  We take great care not to offend people with our
merchandise and reject large numbers of items we know would sell
simply because they could be offensive to some people. 
Obviously, we are not 100% effective all the time.
  I have referred your letter to our Vice President and General
Merchandise Manager.  The item in question will be reviewed
carefully and a determination will be made as to whether we
should continue to carry this item in our stores.  In the
meantime, I have instructed all our South Dakota stores to remove
the item from their shelves and hold the item until that
determination has been made.
  Again, I apologize if we offended you.  It was not our intent. 
If you'd care to discuss this further, please let me know.  You
can contact me at the address listed below.  I will let you know
regarding the final disposition of this item.

                              Sincerely, Emery D. Clarke
                  Regional Sales Manager Lewisville, Texas


REACHING OUT AS FEDERATIONISTS

by Catherine Horn Randall


  (Catherine Horn Randall is one of the leaders of the National
Federation of the Blind of Illinois.  This article appeared in
the January, 1987, Month's News, the newsletter of the NFB of
Illinois.)

  "We must reach out to other blind people.  We must make it
clear that our business is the business of human beings."  So
spoke NFB National Secretary Allen Harris during his banquet
address at the NFBI 1986 convention this past September in
Peoria.  This phrase in Allen's speech has come to mind, time and
time again.
  In November I received an early morning telephone call from
Mary Ellen Reihing in Baltimore.  Mary Ellen's call was in
response to a letter the National Office had received from the
distraught mother of a legally blind seventeen- year-old teenage
girl.  The girl's mother had heard one of Dr. Jernigan's public
service announcements and had written for help for her daughter.
  Laurie Porter and I spent a memorable Saturday, traveling over
300 miles to meet Lynn (not her real name) and her family.  We
talked with Lynn at length about the problems she faces as a
partially blind person.  She is a high school senior, and she is
having real problems keeping up with reading assignments and
homework in general.  Lynn was an honor roll student last year,
but her grades have suffered this year.
  The unique problems of being partially blind kept cropping up
throughout our conversation.  Laurie and Lynn could really relate
to each other, because Laurie is also partially blind.
  Mary Ellen had sent Lynn a packet of Federation information
including a Job Opportunities for the Blind application form and
a national scholarship form.  Lynn had filled out both forms
before Laurie and I arrived.
  We left my copy of the "Four Pioneers" video tape programs with
Lynn and her family.  I hope they have learned more about the
Federation by watching the tape.  Laurie and I spent a wonderful
day together, and we each made a special new friend in Lynn.
  I think we were able to show Lynn and her family how much we do
care about other blind people, because we were willing to travel
several hundred miles to meet and talk with them.
  Lynn is ambitious.  She had a job interview at a pet shop that
afternoon after we left.  Her dream is to start her own day care
center some day.  I hope we in the Federation will be able to
reach out to help her fulfill her dream.
  A mutual friend introduced me to Greg Suddarth.  Greg will have
become a Ferris Wheel Chapter member of the NFB of Illinois by
the time you read this article.  He hopes to obtain sheltered
workshop employment in Jacksonville.
  Greg had never seen an NFB fiber glass cane before I gave him
one of mine.  He prefers his new NFB cane to his old rehab short
cane.  Like Lynn, Greg is anxious to learn more about the
Federation and to meet our members.
  Recruiting Federation members is one of the most rewarding
experiences I have ever had.  You make new friends, and you
introduce them to a national network of caring blind friends
around the country.  I doubt that I shall ever be able to repay
the NFB for all it has done for me, but it is fun to try.  If
each of us in Illinois would make a solemn promise to ourselves
to recruit a new member, we could significantly change what it
means to be blind for hundreds of people.
  Let's get back to basics.  We truly are in the business of
human beings.  There is no more precious gift we can give to
another person than that of membership in our Federation family.
  In conclusion, I shall borrow a line from Shakespeare: "The
more I give to thee the more I have, for both are infinite." 
Please make reaching out to a blind person the top priority on
your 1987 list of New Year's resolutions.  You won't regret it.


PLAYBOY LAWSUIT

WAS IT VICTORY OR DEFEAT

by Kenneth Jernigan


  During the past year and a half there has been a great deal of
commotion about Playboy magazine.  It all started in July of 1985
when Congressman Chalmers P. Wylie (Republican of Ohio) offered
an amendment to an appropriations bill to prevent the National
Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped (NLS)
from producing Playboy magazine in Braille.  The amendment passed
both houses of Congress and was signed into law by the President.
  Shortly afterward, it was noised about in circles knowledgeable
about blindness that Playboy had found a golden opportunity to
get publicity (and possibly to increase their prestige and
respectability).  Very soon the American Council of the Blind was
also contacting the media to get on the bandwagon.  Then came the
much publicized "lawsuit."  The lawsuit is now at an end, and the
American Council of the Blind has its so-called "victory"; but
one wonders if they really understand what they have done and
what the long-term consequences will be.  Before commenting on
the matter, let us consider the American Council of the Blind's
version of the situation.  Here is the complete text of what they
said in the September-October, 1986, Braille Forum:

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

ACB Triumphs in Censorship Battle

by Lynn Abbott
Legal Assistant

  In what can only be described as a thrilling victory, the
American Council of the Blind has emerged the victor in its
"Playboy lawsuit" against the Librarian of Congress.  Declaring
the librarian's elimination of Playboy magazine from the Braille
publications offered through the National Library Service for the
Blind and Physically Handicapped as violative of the First
Amendment, District Judge Thomas F.  Hogan found the facts of
censorship to be constitutionally impermissible.  Those who
benefit from the diverse selection of publications available from
the Books for the Blind program have been given back their right
to read what they choose.
  The situation surfaced in July 1985 when Congress was
considering the budget for the Library of Congress. 
Representative Chalmers P. Wylie (R-Ohio) offered an amendment to
the legislative branch appropriations bill which would, in
effect, prohibit the Librarian of Congress, Dr. Daniel Boorstin,
from continuing production of the Braille edition of Playboy. 
Representative Wylie determined the magazine to be morally
offensive and should not be available to blind readers. 
Unfortunately, the Wylie amendment was adopted by Congress and
the President signed the appropriations bill into law late last
year.
  The American Council of the Blind, the Blinded Veterans
Association, the American Library Association, Playboy
Enterprises, and three subscribers to Playboy--ACB members Scott
Marshall, Deborah Kendrick, and Brian Charlson-- filed a lawsuit
on December 4, 1985, to protest the cutback in funding aimed
specifically at Playboy because of its content.  The cause of
action cited in the complaint was the violation of the free
speech provisions of the First Amendment of the United States
Constitution.  The cessation of the Braille edition of the
magazine represented blatant censorship and paternalism toward
blind people, and the action of Congress could not remain
unchallenged.  The lawsuit was filed in Federal District Court
for the District of Columbia.  After several months of
"discovery" or fact-finding, the plaintiffs submitted a motion
for
summary judgment with the court.  Such a motion requests the
judge to decide a case based on the information gathered through
the discovery process, thereby eliminating the need to go to
trial.  On August 28, 1986, attorneys representing the parties to
the action appeared before Judge Hogan and presented their
arguments orally.
  Much to the surprise of all in attendance, the judge announced
his decision at the conclusion of the oral argument.  "Bench
opinions," or decisions issued orally by the judge following the
presentation of evidence, are quite rare, but most welcome.  A
written opinion will be issued by the court at a future date,
more fully outlining the judge's reasoning.
  Judge Hogan noted from the bench that he desired to issue an
opinion immediately in order to prevent further delay in the
case.  "The court has concluded...from the materials submitted to
it on summary judgment motions of both the plaintiff and
defendant, judgment should be entered for the plaintiffs on their
claim of First Amendment violation by Dr. Boorstin on his
decision not to publish Playboy in 1986 because this decision was
non-content neutral..." The judge remarked that he did not fault
Dr. Boorstin personally, because he was in a bad position.  "He
was in the classical position of a bureaucrat who faces either
sanctions from Congress or certain Congresspersons because of his
actions if he did not strike Playboy..."
  Recommendations concerning acceptable and appropriate remedies
will be submitted to the court in order that the judge may
fashion an order of relief.  Negotiations are underway with the
defendants, and hopefully an agreement will be reached soon.
  In the meantime, as the plaintiffs anxiously await the written
opinion and relief order, the ACB national office has been
bustling with activity.  ACB staff has been spreading the good
news via the Washington Connection, over radio and television,
and through newspapers and magazines across the country. 
National Public Radio, the New York Times, CBS Morning News, USA
Today, the Washington Post, ABC Radio, and even the BBC have
brought this important ruling to the attention of the public.
  (Note: Readers should note that an appeal of this decision by
the defendant is possible.  However, this is considered unlikely,
under the circumstances.)

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

  This is what the Braille Forum had to say, and since that time
there have been further developments.  It has been agreed that
NLS will produce back Braille issues of Playboy for 1986 and that
it will continue to produce the magazine in Braille for 1987 and
the foreseeable future.  It has also been agreed that there will
be no appeals from the judge's decision.  In short, the lawsuit
is over; the ACB has claimed its victory; and we can survey the
situation to determine what really happened and what it means.
  The first thing one is moved to say is this:  Some people are
perpetually unlucky in love, some in war, and some in lawsuits. 
The American Council of the Blind falls into this latter
category.  Even when it appears to win, it loses--and big.
  For openers:  Disregard the publicity, and see what really
happened.  The Wylie amendment passed by a very narrow vote.  It
would almost certainly have been reversed by Congress in the next
appropriations bill.  In the meantime Playboy continued to be
available on cassette (as it still is) from the Associated
Services for the Blind of Philadelphia.  Anybody who wanted it
could get it without cost so nobody was prevented from getting
the magazine or deprived of the right to read.
  Taken alone in that context, the ACB lawsuit was harmless
enough and a mere publicity stunt--but it cannot be taken alone. 
It diverted the attention of the public and the media from the
real problems of blindness and allowed them to deal with the
blind at a level at which they felt comfortable and at ease. 
There were lots of poor taste jokes about feeling the Playboy
pictures in Braille and a good deal of talk about how Congress
should be ashamed of depriving the blind of some of the few
remaining pleasures they could enjoy, etc.  When the so-called
"victory" was achieved, many in the media and some in the
Congress seemed to feel that they had done their good deed for
the blind and now they could forget about them.
  But the real effects of the Playboy lawsuit are only now
beginning to surface.  Never before in all of the history of
legislation concerning the blind has anybody been able to make
the Books for the Blind Program of the Library of Congress
controversial.  The Playboy lawsuit has succeeded in doing it.  I
recently talked with one NLS official who was very much concerned
about it.  "What will happen," he said, "if individuals or
committees from the Congress begin to inquire about the titles in
our overall book collection?" Playboy is tame, a veritable Sunday
school pamphlet, compared to some of the items in the NLS
collection.  If the lawsuit had never been brought, the whole
thing would long since have been ended; Playboy would have
continued to be available; and the Books for the Blind Program
would have continued to be noncontroversial both in budget and
content.
  Now, we face a different situation.  Moral issues have been
raised.  The program is controversial.  There is every likelihood
that budgets will receive closer scrutiny than in the past.  And
above all, there is the very real possibility that someone from
the Congress will choose to make further inquiry about the
content of the books in the NLS collection.  If this should
occur, the ruckus created by the Playboy incident will seem like
child's play compared to the outcry and controversy which will
ensue.
  The only beneficiary of the lawsuit was Playboy itself, which
got a great deal of free publicity.  The losers were the blind. 
We were made to look ridiculous, and our library programs were
made controversial--a feat which would have seemed impossible to
achieve before the Playboy lawsuit.
  Yes, the ACB is unlucky: in love, in war, and in
lawsuits--especially in lawsuits.  It has loved certain agencies
and others who have not helped it; it has failed abysmally in its
wars; and as to the courts--perhaps the ACB should devote its
talents to other areas and leave the courts to those who
understand them.


EDUCATOR OF THE YEAR AWARD


  The National Association of Blind Educators is an organization
devoted to encouraging blind persons to enter the field of
education.  Throughout history there has been a succession of
blind men and women who have been recognized for their superior
contributions as professional educators and leaders in the
organized blind movement.  It is not surprising that the founder
of the National Federation of the Blind, Dr.  Jacobus tenBroek,
was universally acclaimed as an outstanding scholar through his
work at the University of California at Berkeley.
  For this reason the National Association of Blind Educators has
created a special award to recognize the achievements of blind
professionals who have demonstrated superior ability in their
work as educators.  This award, known as the "Educator of the
Year Award," will be presented during the annual business meeting
of the National Association of Blind Educators.  This meeting
will take place on Monday, June 29, 1987, in Phoenix, Arizona, in
conjunction with the annual convention of the National Federation
of the Blind.  The recipient of the "Educator of the Year Award"
must be present to receive the award.
  The honoree will be presented with a plaque appropriately
inscribed to reflect the significance of the recognition being
bestowed.  The honoree will also receive a cash award in the
amount of $200.  Two runners-up will also be recognized for their
achievements as outstanding blind educators.
  Selection of the "Educator of the Year" will be by the
recommendation of a three-member committee comprised of board
members of the National Association of Blind Educators.  Each
member of the committee is an outstanding educator in his or her
own right.  The chairperson of the committee is Patricia Munson,
who can be contacted at: 833 Key Route Boulevard, Albany,
California 94706.  Also serving on the  committee is Allen
Schaefer of Illinois and Lev Williams of Tennessee.
  Anyone wishing to recommend an outstanding blind educator for
consideration should submit the following information in writing
to Patricia Munson at the address above.
  1. A letter of nomination must be submitted to the chairperson
of the selections committee by Wednesday, April 15, 1987.  The
nomination letter may be submitted by the nominee or on behalf of
the nominee by a friend or colleague.  The letter should include
a professional profile of the nominee, as well as information on
community service or other distinguishing activities.
  2. At least one letter seconding an individual's nomination
must be submitted by the prescribed date to the selections
committee chairperson.  This letter may also be from a friend or
colleague and should affirm the nominee's qualifications.  This
letter may also be used to expand upon or provide additional
information which the committee may find useful in making its
selection.  Additional letters seconding a nomination may be
submitted on behalf of an individual nominee.
  The "Educator of the Year Award" represents a real opportunity
to honor a blind educator who has made significant contributions
both in his or her professional work and to the organized blind
movement.  Please submit your nominations as soon as possible so
that the selections committee will be able to give each
recommendation the careful attention it deserves.


PROCLAMATION


  (Here is how it was done in Brockton, Massachusetts.  May the
rest of us go and do likewise.)

City of Brockton, Massachusetts Office of the Mayor A
Proclamation

"National Federation of the Blind Month"

  WHEREAS, through the years many organizations have developed
programs to promote self-sufficiency and pride among blind
persons.  The National Federation of the Blind has long been
committed to this concern.  Today the Federation is represented
by fifty thousand members nationwide, who continue to work to
secure equal rights and opportunities for the blind; and
  WHEREAS, the Massachusetts affiliate of the National Federation
of the Blind, now in its forty-fifth year, stands in the
forefront in meeting the needs of our blind people.  Its members
offer service such as counseling to newly blinded persons,
self-rehabilitation, and public education; and
  WHEREAS, in an effort to aid in the self-sufficiency of the
blind the National Federation of the Blind of Massachusetts helps
to obtain employment through its Job Opportunities for the Blind
program; and
  WHEREAS, in addition, the Federation is an advocate for equal
rights for the blind under state law:  the rights of employment,
to rent or purchase housing, to travel on public thoroughfares
and public conveyances, and to obtain access to public places. 
In 1980 the Blind Jurors Law and in 1981 the law prohibiting
discrimination in the sale of insurance to blind persons were
also passed; and
  WHEREAS, in tribute to the dedicated membership of the National
Federation of the Blind of Massachusetts and in recognition of
their vital and worthwhile work;
  NOW, THEREFORE, I, CARL D. PITARO, Mayor of the City of
Brockton, do hereby proclaim the month of November, 1986, as:

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND MONTH

and urge all the citizens of Brockton and surrounding areas to
support the work of the National Federation of the Blind.

Signed and Sealed
This 22nd Day of October, 1986 CARL D. PITARO, MAYOR


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

RECIPES

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


  (Gene and Ethel Parker are long-time Federationists from
Mississippi.  It was
E. U. who provided the stimulus which led to the establishment of
the Pre- Authorized Check Plan.  Here are seven casseroles from
Gene.  If the recipe is from Gene Parker, it is good.  You can
count on it.)


GROUND BEEF CASSEROLE

2 pounds ground beef
1 medium onion, chopped 1 green pepper, chopped

  Brown beef with onion and pepper in large skillet.  Add:

2 tablespoons chili powder 1 can tomatoes, chopped 1 small can
tomato paste
1 small can ripe olives, chopped 1 8-oz. package fine noodles,
  cooked and drained
1 tablespoon worcestershire sauce 1 can cream corn
1 small can tomato sauce

  Mix and place in greased casserole.  Cover with grated cheese
and bake in 350 degree oven for one hour.  This will serve about
twelve people.  I usually divide mixture into two casseroles and
freeze one (without the cheese) for later.  When ready for frozen
one, just defrost, add cheese, and bake.


SIX CANS CASSEROLE

1 can white tuna
1 16-oz. can French style green beans, drained
1 can water chestnuts, drained and chopped
1 can cream of mushroom soup 1 can French-fried onions
1 large can chow mein noodles

  Mix first four ingredients.  Pour into greased casserole and
bake at 350 degrees for thirty minutes.  Top with French-fried
onions and bake five minutes more.  Serve over chow mein noodles.


QUICK CASSEROLE

3 cups cooked rice
1-1/2 cups drained tuna (cooked chicken may be used instead)
1 can cream of chicken soup 1 cup evaporated milk 1/2 cup chopped
celery
1 cup cooked green peas, drained 1/4 cup finely chopped onion
1 teaspoon worcestershire sauce 3/4 cup shredded cheese

  Combine all ingredients except cheese.  Mix thoroughly.  Pour
into a greased 1- 1/2 quart casserole.  Top with cheese.  Bake in
350 degree oven thirty-five minutes.


CHICKEN AND BROCCOLI CASSEROLE

2 10-oz. packages frozen chopped broccoli
4 chicken breasts, cooked and chopped 1 can cream of chicken
soup,
  undiluted
2/3 cup mayonnaise
1/2 cup evaporated milk
3/4 cup shredded cheddar cheese 1 tablespoon lemon juice 1-1/2
teaspoons curry powder 1 cup buttered breadcrumbs

  Cook broccoli according to package directions; drain well. 
Place in a lightly greased 1-1/2 quart casserole; top with
chicken.  Combine remaining ingredients except breadcrumbs,
stirring well.  Spoon mixture over chicken, top with breadcrumbs.

Bake at 350 degrees for thirty minutes.


CHICKEN CASSEROLE

  Cook 1/2 cup rice until tender in 1- 1/2 cups chicken broth. 
Combine with:

2 cups cooked diced chicken 1 can cream of mushroom soup 1/4 cup
slivered almonds 1/4 cup finely chopped onion 2 boiled eggs,
chopped 1/2 teaspoon salt
1/2 cup mayonnaise
1/4 cup diced celery 1 teaspoon lemon juice

  Pour mixture into greased casserole and refrigerate overnight. 
Remove one hour before baking.  Sprinkle with a heavy layer of
crushed potato chips and bake uncovered at 350 degrees for thirty
minutes.  This serves about six people and can easily be doubled
for a crowd.


EASY CHICKEN AND RICE CASSEROLE

  Melt one stick of oleo in a casserole.  Add one cup uncooked
rice, 1/2 medium chopped onion, two 10-ounce cans chicken broth,
one can chopped mushrooms.  Salt and pepper about six pieces of
chicken and place on top.  Bake uncovered one hour at 350 degrees


HOT TOMATO HAMBURGER CASSEROLE

1 pound ground beef
1 small onion, chopped
1 can cream of chicken soup
1 10-oz. can tomatoes & green chilies 1 cup cheddar cheese,
grated 1 8-oz. package tortilla chips

  Brown beef and onion; drain.  Chop tomatoes and mix with soup. 
Lightly crush tortilla chips; layer all ingredients in a
two-quart casserole, beginning and ending with chips.  Bake
uncovered at 350 degrees for twenty minutes.  Do not prepare dish
much in advance or chips will get soggy.


MONITOR MINIATURES * * * * * * *


**Elected:
  Lois Nemeth writes:
  The Milwaukee Chapter of the National Federation of the Blind
of Wisconsin recently held its elections of officers for the
coming year.  Elected were:  Bonnie Peterson, President; Arthur
Tyson, Vice President; Cheryl Orgas, Treasurer; and Lois Nemeth,
Secretary.  The two board positions are held by Paul Gabias and
Mike Hall.

**Deaf-Blind Directory:
  We have been asked to carry the following announcement:
  "The Helen Keller National Center for Deaf-Blind Youths and
Adults announces the publication of its revised DIRECTORY OF
AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS SERVING DEAF-BLIND INDIVIDUALS, 1987,
which is designed as a resource and an aid to parents and
professionals who are seeking services for deaf-blind individuals
nationwide.  The Directory includes Federally Funded and Public
and Privately Funded Programs, and the listings appear
alphabetically according to state, city and name of agency.  The
data include director's name, geographical service area,
eligibility requirements, age range of the population served,
major services, communication modes, funding sources, and contact
person.  The Directory's three-ring binder permits the addition
of updated material which will be forwarded periodically to
users.  To order, send $10, payable to HKNC, to:  Community
Education Department, HKNC, 111 Middle Neck Road, Sands Point, NY
11050, (516) 944-8900."

**Dies:
  Tom Anderson of Youngstown, Ohio, writes:
  "I have the sad duty to inform you that Mrs. Violet Doepping, a
member of the National Federation of the Blind of Mahoning Valley
for almost twenty-five years, passed away on Tuesday, December
16, 1986.  She was eighty-three years old."

**Informational Fair:
  Ruth Schroeder, one of the leaders of the National Federation
of the Blind of Iowa, tells us of an Informational Fair held by
the National Federation of the Blind of Iowa.  The announcement
says:  "On Wednesday, January 14, 1987, the National Federation
of the Blind of Iowa will hold an Informational Fair.  Our
purpose is to offer the opportunity to meet and talk with
successful blind people and to provide demonstrations and
exhibits of methods and ideas.  We are inviting legislators,
other public officials, and families with blind children. 
Exhibits and activities will include:  woodworking; computers,
including one which will display your name in Braille and greet
you aloud by name; games; travel; Braille; cooking and sewing;
methods used by the deaf- blind; employment opportunities; aids
and devices; and activities especially for blind children of all
ages.  This exhibit will include a small gift for every blind
child in attendance.  This event will be enjoyable for all ages,
since guests may proceed from one exhibit to another informally
and participate actively.  The location will be the beautiful Des
Moines Botanical Center; after attending the Fair, you may stroll
among the impressive plant displays (with no charge for our
guests).  Light refreshment will also be served."

**Accepts New Position:
  Richard (Dick) Davis, long-time teacher and rehabilitation
counselor at the Iowa Commission for the Blind, has accepted
employment at the New Mexico Commission for the Blind, where he
will be assisting in the development of the new programs which
that state is inaugurating."

**Labels:
  We have been asked to carry the following announcement:
  "Free Matter Mail Labels: Bold-print, self-adhesive, and
touch-keyed for orientation.  1 x 3-1/2", 100 for $2.00.  Unique
3 x 4" package size, has bold outlines and embossed boxes for
address location, 50 for $2.00; custom-printed with return
address, only 50 cents more.  Send to: J.P. Enterprises,
Department M, Box 44217, Denver, Colorado 80201.  Free
information and samples.  (Braille, cassette welcome: send tape
for information.)"

**Strip on the Stairs:
  On January 11-12, 1987, the American Foundation for the Blind
sponsored a conference on mass transit in Washington, D.C.  It
was the sort of conference one might have expected.  Fred
Schroeder, Director of the New Mexico Commission for the Blind
and a member of the Board of Directors of the National Federation
of the Blind, attended and participated in the sessions.  He
says:
  "The conference was attended by approximately 150 people.  The
unquestioned assumption throughout the conference was that the
environment must necessarily be changed to afford blind travelers
access to mass transit.  With this premise topics were centered
around issues such as providing inservice to transit employees
and textured edge protection.
  "The absorption with low vision issues was snowballed to an
alarming extent.  Speaker after speaker talked about the hazards
faced by the low vision traveler, with the solution inevitably
being a need for high contrast visual information.  We were told
how dangerous a flight of stairs can be for the partially sighted
traveler if the first step is not marked with a black strip.  No
one raised the opinion that since it is unlikely that all
staircases will ever be so marked, then the low vision traveler
relying entirely on vision will always be in danger.  Although
the obvious solution is the use of a cane, at no time was cane
travel proposed as a solution for the problems of the low vision
traveler."

**Officers:
  The officers of the Dayton, Ohio, Federation of the Blind for
the present year are: President, Claude Ray; Vice President,
Robert Kuchlewski; Treasurer, Charles Kuhnwald; Recording
Secretary, Martha B. Hays; Corresponding Secretary, Sheila
Samson; and Board Members Ronald Williamitis and Jana Schroeder.

**Air Travel Card:
  The airlines have so consistently misrepresented to blind
passengers that Federal Aviation Regulations are the same thing
as airline policies and that it is an FAA regulation that blind
persons may not sit in exit row seats that we have printed a
billfold-sized card which we are making available without cost to
anybody who requests it.  On one side of the card is a picture of
the United States eagle, accompanied by the following language:

Public Law 99-435
October 3, 1986
AN ACT
  To amend the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 to provide that
prohibitions of discrimination against handicapped individuals
shall apply to air carriers:  "Prohibition on discrimination
against handicapped individuals; no air carrier may discriminate
against any otherwise qualified handicapped individual, by reason
of such handicap, in the provision of air transportation." 
(Section 404(c) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 as amended)

  The other side of the card reads as follows:

  STATEMENT of the Honorable Elizabeth Hanford Dole, Secretary of
Transportation responding to inquiries from Congress, July 22,
1986, regarding the legal status of airline procedures including
restricted seating:

         The Secretary of Transportation
                        Washington, D.C.  July 22, 1986
                     1986 JUL 24 PM 1:15

  The airline procedures filed  with the FAA under 14CFR 121.586
(a Federal Aviation Regulation) do not become, or have the
authority of, Federal Aviation Regulations.  They are simply
company policies.  The FAA does not enforce these policies.

                              Sincerely,
                  Elizabeth Hanford Dole

  At the left edge of the card is the seal of the U.S. Department
of Transportation.  This card may be helpful in dealing with
airline personnel.  If you want one, contact your state president
or write to: National Federation of the Blind, 1800 Johnson
Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21230.

**What's Your Opinion:
  Claude Everett is a Federationist from Monterey, California. 
Recently he sent a letter to Andy Rooney, one of the regulars on
the television show 60 Minutes.  Here in part is what he said:

Dear Mr. Rooney:
  I feel that I must write to you after recently reading "Charity
is Never Easy" in your recent book Pieces of My Mind.
  I must compliment you for your statement that you do not give
to the blind man who begs on the sidewalk with his dog in front
of Sax Fifth Avenue.  Because you say, "He demeans every blind
man who does not beg."  He not only demeans all blind men and
women who do not beg but every self-sufficient blind person in
this country.

**Federation Wedding:
  Dick Porter (President of the National Federation of the Blind
of West Virginia) and Joyce Turner (Board Member of the
Charleston, West Virginia, Chapter) were married December 27,
1986, at the Boulevard Church of Christ in Charleston, West
Virginia.  The minister was Mike Smith, who is First Vice
President of the NFB of West Virginia.  Another Federationist
from West Virginia, Marvin Whiteman, provided the music.  Many
Federationists were on hand at the wedding to help celebrate this
joyous occasion.  Congratulations and best wishes to Mr. and Mrs.
Porter.

**Dies From Cancer:
  On January 12, 1987, Harold Krents
(whose life story was the basis of the movie and broadway play
"Butterflies Are Free") died at Calvary Hospital in New York
City, where he was being treated for brain cancer.  Krents was a
graduate of Harvard University and Harvard Law School.  His
autobiography To Race The Wind gives his view of what it was like
to be a blind student at Harvard Law School.  The book was made
into a television movie, which was broadcast on CBS in 1980. 
Krents had been blind all of his life.  Federationists will
remember that he spoke at one of our national conventions a
number of years ago.

**New Chapter:
  Hazel Staley, President of the
National Federation of the Blind of North Carolina, writes:
  "On Tuesday afternoon, December 30, 1986, ten people met at the
library in Albemarle, North Carolina, and organized the National
Federation of the Blind of Stanley County.  Others had planned to
attend but were unable to be there because of illness.  They plan
to join later.  The following officers were elected: President,
Maryland Dickerson; Vice President, Janie Hinson; Secretary-
Treasurer, Carrie Smith; Board Member, H.K. Efird.  The chapter
plans to meet at 7:00 p.m. the third Tuesday of each month."

**Jargon Jitters:

Please give me no directives.  I'm tired of the term.
Nor do I want your guidelines; Just the mention makes me squirm. 
I will not contribute input, Though I'll gladly have my say.  If
you ask me to communicate, My answer's: "Not today."
I'm dead set against relating, But I'll be a loyal friend;
And if you ask for this in depth, Forget it!  It's the end!
