                       THE BRAILLE MONITOR

                           July, 1988

                    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
                       THE BRAILLE MONITOR
       PUBLICATION OF THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND
                            CONTENTS
                           JULY, 1988

COURT DEALS WITH THE CONCEPT OF 
REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION 
 by Kenneth Jernigan

A CUP OF TEA   
by Zach Shore

KEEPING THE PEACE WITHIN YOURSELF  
by Kenneth Jernigan

EDUCATING THE PUBLIC TO THE BLIND 
INDEPENDENCE WAS HER KEY TO SUCCESS     

MRS. O'LEARY MOVES TO PHILADELPHIA 
   by Barbara Pierce

DON'T DANCE 
IT'S FOR YOUR OWN SAFETY 

BLINDNESS AND THE POLITICAL PROCESS     
   by Homer Page

A FEDERATION VICTORY: 
BLIND PARENT WINS UNRESTRICTED CHILD CARE LICENSE
by Sharon Gold

BRAILLE: THE AGONY AND THE ECSTASY 
   by Abraham Nemeth, Ph.D.

TOM BENHAM PROTESTS ACTION BY AMERICAN FOUNDATION FOR THE BLIND  

ON TRAFFIC SIGNALS  
   by Ted Young

HOW VALID IS THE SIGNATURE OF A BLIND PERSON

SOUTH DAKOTA LEGISLATURE PASSES RESOLUTION 
SUPPORTING FEDERATION    

RECIPES   

MONITOR MINIATURES  339

Copyright, National Federation of the Blind, Inc., 1988
               COURT DEALS WITH THE CONCEPT OF 
REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION 
by Kenneth Jernigan

The  Daily Washington Law Report  for March 31, 1988, deals with
a case which has particular interest for the blind. It is Carter
versus Bennett. Harold Carter is a blind man. I have known him
for almost thirty years, having employed him as a rehabilitation
teacher and counselor at the Iowa Commission for the Blind in the
late 1950's.  I found him to be intelligent, extremely good with
verbal skills, capable of making a good first impression, and
ultimately totally unsatisfactory as an employee. He was not
diligent in his work, and there were other more serious problems.
Without going into the details of his deficiencies (they are not
relevant to the purposes of this article) let me simply say that
he was separated from the service
of the Iowa Commission for the Blind after a longer period of
employment than I probably should have permitted. But, then,
there have always been those who have said that I am a soft
touch, and I kept hoping.  After Carter left the Iowa Commission
for the Blind, I lost track
of him. It seems to me that he worked for a while somewhere in
Illinois, but I am not sure. At any rate he turned up as an
employee of the federal Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare some time during the late 1970's, and for a time I again
heard nothing about him. Then, in 1982 (by now he was an employee
of the reorganized federal Department of Education) he was
dismissed. He filed suit in federal court, alleging that he had
been treated unfairly and that the government had failed to
provide him with  reasonable accommodation  as required by the
federal Rehabilitation Act.
He lost his case in the district court and then took the matter
to the U. S. Court of Appeals for the D. C. Circuit, where he has
now also lost. I was not familiar with the details of the case
until I read the decision of the appeals court, and I must say
that my heart was not gladdened by what I found. The record
contains such passages as this:
 ...Carter testified that he was the only blind person in the
Office of Civil Rights charged with answering congressional
correspondence and that even if he were provided with a full-time
reader and extensive equipment (which in his estimation would
cost $65,000-$70,000), he still could not be as efficient as a
sighted person in performing the duties expected of him.
According to Carter, he could only do satisfactory research if
all the materials were written in Braille and they were not. In
his words: `There is no way that you can interpret subtle
thoughts to a reader who is doing research.... To delve seemingly
with no direction into files to get information I don't know how
you could do it unless you can see enough to do it yourself.' 
This is what the record says and, of course, the experience of
hundreds and thousands of successful blind persons contradicts
it. I think
of Dr. tenBroek, who by his early fifties had authored five
full-length books and almost a hundred monographs and articles.
He was one of the outstanding research scholars in the nation,
and he was totally blind. Moreover, he produced more work product
in less time than most of his sighted colleagues. His writings
are still used today (twenty
years after his death) as standard references in the fields of
Constitutional law and political science.
And Dr. tenBroek is not alone. I myself handle more research and
paperwork than most sighted executives I know, and I do it in a
timely manner.  Charles Brown, President of the National
Federation of the Blind of Virginia, supervises more than twenty
attorneys in the federal Labor Department, and he came up through
the ranks to achieve that position as a blind person. There are
hundreds of other blind people who hold responsible positions in
state and federal government and who handle research and
paperwork as a routine matter of course.
Gilbert Ramirez is a trial court judge in New York City. Totally
blind he went through school, established a private practice, and
then (because of his competence and ability to get work done in a
timely manner) became a judge. Every step of the way he handled
more paperwork (probably often with less help) than Carter has
likely ever handled.
And it is not just in the public or the nonprofit sector. There
are thousands of blind people who work every day in almost every
job imaginable, and most of them handle paperwork in a thoroughly
competitive manner.  Yet, not only Carter but also his former
supervisor testified that in most circumstances it is difficult
if not impossible for a blind person to handle research and
paperwork competitively. And the government in resisting Carter's
claims was just about as bad. The Department of Education said
that while other employees were expected to produce twelve
letters a week, Carter was only asked to do six. Leaving to one
side the question of whether either number is very impressive
or even minimally satisfactory, one has to wonder how the next
applicant for a job with the Department will fare. If the blind
person is expected to do only half a job, will he or she be paid
only half a salary?  Or more likely, will the person simply not
be hired at all?
The plain truth is that a job (any job) requires ingenuity and
hard work if it is to be satisfactorily performed. This is true
for the blind as well as the sighted, and when blind people ask
for or accept more time or lighter assignments than others, they
inevitably pay a heavy price. As we in the National Federation of
the Blind have often said, there is no free lunch. There never
has been, and there never will be. In fact, there never can be.
And for the blind this is all right.
What we want is equal treatment and equal opportunity. We can do
the rest for ourselves. We can compete on equal terms with the
sighted,
and when we use our blindness as an excuse for our failures, we
lose even when we win. We hurt not only ourselves but also other
blind people as well. Indeed, blindness does at times pose
problems, and it can unquestionably be a nuisance. Handling
paperwork successfully and competitively requires thought and
preparation, just as does every other aspect of a job but the
bottom line is unequivocal. The blind can compete on terms of
equality with others. If this is not so, then let us stop asking
for equal opportunity, equal treatment, and equal rights.
So where does all of this leave us with respect to the concept of 
reasonable accommodation  for blind persons in employment?  For
my part, I favor it, but I want there to be no doubt as to what I
mean by the term. To me  reasonable accommodation  means
permitting the blind person to use different techniques and
methods to achieve the same results that are expected of other
employees.  I favor, for instance, permitting a blind person to
use a sighted reader even though the sighted employee does not
use or need one, just as I favor providing electric lights for
the sighted employee even though the blind employee does not need
or use them. Both lights and readers cost money but are not
prohibitively expensive. As you
read the record of Carter versus Bennett, reflect upon its
significance.  Here it is exactly as it appears in the March 31,
1988,  Daily Washington Law Report .

                     U.S. Court of Appeals 
for the D.C. Circuit 
CIVIL RIGHTS 
Handicapped

District Court did not err in finding that handicapped person was
not improperly assigned nor that department had not failed to
reasonably accommodate his handicap.
CARTER v. BENNETT, U.S. App. D.C. No. 87-5098, February 19, 1988. 
 Affirmed  per Wald, C.J. (Bork and Gesell, JJ. concur).  John
L. McGann  for appellant.  David Bensing  with  Joseph E. 
diGenova, Royce C. Lamberth, R. Craig Lawrence  and  William
Haubert  for appellee. Trial Court Harold Greene, J.
WALD, C.J.: Harold E. Carter brought this action against the
Department of Education (DOE or Department) in the District Court
for the District of Columbia. Carter alleged that the Department
did not reasonably accommodate his handicap (blindness) as
required by the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. Section 701
et seq., and that it retaliated against him for filing an Equal
Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaint, in violation of Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1974, Section 704(a), 42 U.S.C.
Section 2000e-3(a). The district court, after a two-day trial,
found in favor of the Department on both counts. We affirm the
district court.

I. BACKGROUND

The facts as found by the district court are as follows. In May
1977, Carter, who is legally blind, was hired by the then
Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) as a public
affairs assistant with the Office of Civil Rights (OCR). When
certain functions of HEW were moved to the newly established
Department of Education in 1980, Carter was transferred to the
same position in the new Department; there he became part of the
Special Concerns Staff within the OCR.   See  Transcript (Tr.) at
76. Although Carter was originally hired primarily to transcribe
printed matter into Braille, he was given different
responsibilities upon his transfer; from late 1981 until his
termination in August 1982, Carter's duties consisted of
analyzing and answering correspondence directed to the OCR from
members of Congress and the public.  See Carter v. Bennett , 651
F.Supp.  1299, 1300 (D.D.C. 1987).
In May 1981, Carter filed an EEO complaint alleging that the DOE
had
not reasonably accommodated his handicap as required by the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. Section 701 et seq. In
March 1982, Carter received a notice from his supervisor stating
that his job performance and attitude were unsatisfactory and
advising him that he had 30 days to improve or face termination.
Four months later, Carter received a notice of  Decision to
Remove.  In June and July of 1982 appellant filed another three
complaints with the Department's EEO office, alleging that the
Department had violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42
U.S.C. Section 2000e-3(a), by retaliating against him for filing
his original discrimination complaint. In October 1985, appellant
filed suit in the district court regarding his four complaints. 
The district court found that Carter was provided reasonable
accommodations
for the performance of his duties and that he was discharged for
nondiscriminatory reasons. This appeal followed.  See  Appellee's
Brief at 1-2.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Although this Court is bound by the  clearly erroneous  standard
of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 52 in reviewing the
district court's findings of fact, the ultimate question of
whether the government provided  reasonable accommodation  to the
appellant's handicap is not a question of pure fact but a mixed
question of law and fact.

III. THE LAW

Federal employers are obliged by Section 501(b) of the
Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 791(b), to provide
reasonable accommodation for the handicapped.
The EEOC promulgated extensive regulations to guide federal
employers in making reasonable accommodations for handicapped
persons.
(a) An agency shall make reasonable accommodation to the known
physical or mental limitations of a qualified handicapped
applicant or employee unless the agency can demonstrate that the
accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of
its program.
(b) Reasonable accommodation may include, but shall not be
limited
to: (1) making facilities readily accessible to and usable by
handicapped persons, and (2) job restructuring, part-time or
modified work schedules, acquisition or modification of equipment
or devices, appropriate adjustment or modification of
examinations, the provision of readers and interpreters, and
other similar actions.
29 C.F.R. Section 1613.704 (1986).
In cases in which a handicapped plaintiff sought but was denied a
position with the federal government, courts have held that the
initial burden is on the plaintiff to make a prima facie showing
that reasonable accommodation of his handicap is possible. Once
the plaintiff makes such a showing, the employer bears the burden
of demonstrating inability to accommodate. Credible evidence that
reasonable accommodation is not possible or would be unduly
burdensome shifts the burden back to the plaintiff to rebut the
employer's evidence.
The situation here is somewhat different. The plaintiff in this
case was not denied a job he sought; rather, the government not
only hired Carter initially but made the decision to transfer him
to the new position from which it subsequently discharged him for
failing to perform adequately. Of course the government might
have, but did not, show(n) that it had assigned Carter to his new
job when his old one
was abolished, only after finding that there were no suitable
alternative jobs to which he could be transferred; in this case,
the government would not have a duty to prove that the
plaintiff's new job was suitable for a handicapped person. In the
absence of such a showing, it is the government's burden to prove
that Carter's new job could have
been performed by a person with his handicap, if reasonably
accommodated, and that such accommodation was in fact provided.

IV. THE LAW APPLIED IN THIS CASE

A.  Whether Carter's Handicap Could Have Been Reasonably
Accommodated in His New Job 
The district court concluded that the Department  has met its
burden of persuasion with evidence that it reasonably
accommodated plaintiff's handicap.   Carter , 651 F. Supp. at
1301. Implicit in this conclusion is the factual finding that the
Department did
not assign Carter to a position in which it was impossible to
reasonably accommodate a visually handicapped person. We review
this finding under the clearly erroneous standard.
The nature and requirements of Carter's job were not disputed.
The parties agreed that answering congressional inquiries in this
instance required considerable technical knowledge of three civil
rights statutes and of  the implementing regulations and the
implementing policy directives.  The government conceded that 
Mr. Carter did
not have a fundamental understanding of [those] basic statutory
provisions.   Id.  It was also undisputed that answering
congressional correspondence requires considerable research into
regulatory guidelines and letters of noncompliance; it also
involves drafting and revising replies and in the process
incorporating verbal and written suggestion from others
in the office. The district court implicitly found that with the
assistance of readers or other accommodations, a visually
handicapped person would be capable of performing these
functions.
Carter now challenges this finding, based on both his own
testimony at trial and the testimony of his former supervisor.
Specifically, Carter testified that he was the only blind person
in the OCR charged with answering congressional correspondence
and that even if he were provided with a full-time reader and
extensive equipment (which in his estimation would cost
$65,000-$70,000), he still could not be as efficient as a sighted
person in performing the duties expected of him. According to
Carter, he could only do satisfactory research if all the
materials were written in Braille and they were not.
In his words:  There is no way that you can interpret subtle
thoughts to a reader who is doing research.... To delve seemingly
with no direction into files to get information I don't know how
you could do it unless you can see enough to do it yourself. 
Norma Mohr, Carter's former supervisor, corroborated Carter's
opinion. She explained:   [The congressional mail] required
research through the files,...  it involves consulting the
guidelines, letters of noncompliance....  Some preliminary
research is typically required before you can give a sensible
answer.... The other thing is... the letter takes a trip down the
corridors from office to office and notes are put in the margins,
so the letter writer must come back with his original draft and
see these notations and make decisions, and perhaps incorporate
them,... I don't think a visually handicapped person could do
this in a timely way. 
The record, however, also contains evidence that conflicts with
the testimony of Carter and Ms. Mohr. Dale Pullen, Carter's
supervisor
for most of the period covered by the complaint, testified that
although he agreed that Carter  was improperly placed on the
Special Concerns Staff,  in his view Carter was perfectly capable
of answering congressional correspondence. According to Pullen,
Carter's letters were primarily  issue-oriented  and  less than
routine ; no legal analysis was required for 95% of his work.
Pullen testified that Carter needed only  very basic skills, 
such as making phone calls within the office to obtain
information and inserting  boilerplate language  into form
letters.
The district court apparently credited the government's testimony
on Carter's ability to perform the functions of answering
congressional correspondence over the testimony offered by
Carter's witnesses. The district court's credibility
determinations are entitled to the greatest deference from this
court on appeal.  See, e.g., Wainwright v.  Witt,  469 U.S. 412
(1985).  When a trial judge's finding is based on his decision to
credit the testimony of one or more witnesses, each of whom has
told a coherent and facially plausible story that
is not contradicted by extrinsic evidence, that finding, if not
internally inconsistent, can virtually never be clear error.  
Anderson
v. Bessemer City,  470 U.S. 564, 575 (1985). Because we cannot
second-guess the trial court's credibility determinations, and
because we are not  left with the definite and firm conviction
that a mistake has been committed,  we uphold the finding below
that Carter was not assigned to a position in which it was
impossible for him to be reasonably accommodated.
B.  Whether The Department Reasonably Accommodated Carter  Next,
we consider whether the district court properly concluded that
the Department satisfied its burden of proving that it reasonably
accommodated Carter's handicap. We have no quarrel with the
district court's factual determinations that the Department 
provided persons to act as readers for plaintiff, it furnished
special equipment and office space, and it decreased plaintiff's
workload,   Carter,  651 F.Supp. at 1301; these findings are
amply reported by the record.
Nor do we disagree with the district court's formulation of the
applicable legal standard in this case; although  [t]he
government is not obligated under the statute to provide
plaintiff with every accommodation
he may request,  the government must, at a minimum, provide 
reasonable accommodation as is necessary  to enable him to
perform his essential functions.  Id.  at 1301 (emphasis added).
Rather, our concern
is whether the district court, in applying the appropriate legal
principles to the particular facts of this case, could properly
find that the accommodations provided by the Department made it
possible for Carter to perform his essential responsibilities. As
we discussed above, our review of this application of law to fact
is not limited by the clearly erroneous standard.
Carter testified that during the period covered by the complaint,
he had only two part-time readers, who together spent a total of
18 hours a week (approximately 3.5 hours a day) with him; that
neither of those readers was selected by Carter, that Carter
repeatedly told his supervisor that his readers  could not read 
and  didn't have the skills necessary ; and that it was not until
April 1982 that he was given a reader of his choice. On the other
hand, Carter conceded at trial that he never told his readers
that they were not satisfactory or made any suggestions as to how
they could improve their services. Furthermore, in a memorandum
to the acting director of the Special Concerns Staff dated August
27, 1981, Carter himself stated that in order to perform his
duties, he needed  a reader to work a minimum of 20 hours per
week  only a few more hours of reader time than the amount he
actually received. Moreover, Carter's supervisor Pullen testified
that the personnel office, at his request, immediately made
efforts to secure for Carter a full-time reader  that [Carter]
had some say in selecting,  and that although Carter
did not get a reader of his choice until April 1982, he  had
access to anybody in the office  in the meanwhile, since the
entire Special Concerns Staff had been asked to be  available to
Mr. Carter any time he needed some help reading.  In addition,
the record indicates that even after Carter was provided with the
reader of his choice, his supervisors continued to find his work
unsatisfactory and, in June 1982, recommended that he be
discharged. Finally, while other people in the OCR were drafting
up to 12 letters per week, Carter's workload was reduced to half
that amount, 6 letters per week.
Based on this evidence, the trial court concluded that the
government had reasonably accommodated Carter and that Carter had
not substantiated his contention that the additional
accommodations he requested including a voice synthesized
computer and two floppy disk drives were necessary for adequate
performance of his job.  See  Tr. at 98. To be sure,
a reader of the record may be somewhat perplexed as to why the
Department would assign Carter to a job that was so research and
reading-intensive in the first place and then delay in providing
Carter with full-time readers. Nonetheless, the district court
could reasonably conclude that the accommodations actually
provided by the Department made it possible for Carter to perform
his essential duties. We therefore uphold the district court's
ultimate finding that the Department did not fail to reasonably
accommodate Carter in violation of Section 501 of the
Rehabilitation Act.
We also uphold the finding that the Department did not retaliate
against Carter in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act,
42 U.S.C.  Section 2000e-3(a). The record amply supports the
district court's determination that Carter failed to prove that
there existed a causal connection between his filing of the EEO
complaint and the adverse employment action taken against him.

 Affirmed. 

                          A CUP OF TEA 
by Zach Shore
 Monitor readers will remember that Zach Shore was one of the
scholarship winners at the 1987 NFB convention in Phoenix. 
Recently he wrote to President Maurer, saying:  I am enclosing a
brief story which I recently wrote for a fiction writing class. 
The story is strictly for your enjoyment.  I hope you like it. 
(Note) President Maurer did like it.  So did the Monitor Editor. 
Perhaps you will, too.  Here it is.

 I'd like the sweet and sour shrimp, an egg roll, some chicken
fried rice, and, uh... 
 Yes, Mr. Dart?  the waiter said with a trace of impatience as he
looked down at me. I was surprised that he remembered my name,
even though I had come here plenty of times.
 I was wondering, is it possible to mix the wonton and eggdrop
soups together?  I figured I'd break new ground; try something
new.
The waiter nodded and rushed off before I could say  thank you. 
I loosened my tie and settled into the padded booth, which seated
four. I was alone. I had worked late as usual. It was 8:00 p.m.,
and the last thing I had eaten was a hotdog with mustard and
relish that
I got from one of those streetside food trucks that I call
kitchenmobiles; and that was at noon. I enjoyed eating out on
late nights, since about the only thing waiting in my apartment
was some peanut butter, a couple Chef Gourmet frozen dinners, and
a few eggs, but they were for breakfasts.  I poured myself some
hot tea and somehow managed to spill it on the tablecloth as I
always do. The tea made that impossible to hide a huge dark spot
on the white linen. I think there must be some group
of hysterical Chinese waiters in the back of every one of these
restaurants laughing at the stupid Americans who always spill
their tea. I added four spoonfuls of sugar a bad habit, but one I
had no desire to lose and gingerly held the teacup by the rim,
trying to avoid burning my fingers.
I felt much more relaxed now. I thought to myself that there's
something about hot tea that's very soothing. Maybe it's the way
you can feel the heat going through your throat and then coursing
through your body, warming you like an internal electric blanket.
Hey, I sound like a commercial!
Taking out my trusty pocket calendar from the inside pocket of my
blazer, I wrote down,  Mixed eggdrop and wonton at Chang Garden. 
I also noted that my birthday was in two weeks 29 on the 29th of
November. No gray hairs yet. I'd have to buy some champagne and
think of who to share it with.
I was comfortable. The restaurant was quiet on a Tuesday night.
There
were only about eight people in the whole place, most of them
couples all of them, in fact. But then I heard the bells on the
door which clank every time it opens, and I looked up.
She was, in a word, striking. She was Indian. She had that
characteristic long, straight black hair that came down to the
middle of her back.  Her complexion was dark, especially compared
to my paleness. She was about five foot three, probably in her
early twenties, and had a very desirable figure. She had a very
Indian look. And she had brought her dog with her.
My waiter rushed over and said something to her, but he spoke too
softly for me to hear. But then she replied in a clear and
beautiful accent,  He stays with me wherever I go. I'd like to be
seated please.  Then my waiter asked her to wait there for a
moment.  I stared at her for a minute. She looked my way. I
smiled, but she
paid no attention to me. She was blind. I felt an instant of
shock not because she was blind, but because it had taken me so
long to realize this. I suddenly felt extremely stupid.
The waiter returned with another man, who I guessed to be the
owner.  The owner was Chinese. He was dressed in a gray business
suit, white dress shirt, and a gray tie with thin silver stripes.
There was nothing unkempt or outstanding about him, but I sensed
that I didn't like the way he looked. Maybe it was his
expression.
 I'm sorry, Miss,  the owner said curtly,  but we cannot serve
you. 
 Why not?  she asked as though she already knew the answer.   I'm
sorry, but we don't allow animals in the restaurant. It is
against our policy. 
 I'm sorry, too,  she responded,  since your policy is against
the law. According to state law, guide dogs are permitted in
every restaurant if accompanied by its owner at all times.  She
waited. There was a pause.
The owner pulled at his tie and looked over at the waiter.  Well,
if we let you in, we would have to let your dog stay in a room
downstairs, and we really can't accommodate it. 
 Sir, by law my guide dog is allowed to stay with me at all
times.  I wish to be seated with him. 
The owner looked down at his feet for a moment and then looked up
at her again.  Wait here one moment please.  He disappeared into
a back room. While he was gone, a female waitress came over to
the blind woman.
 Miss,  she said in a saccharin voice,  won't you please leave
your doggie with me. I love dogs, and I'll take care of it.  I
promise.  She bent down and petted the golden labrador.   No. I
want my dog to stay with me.  She was beginning to sound tired.
 But it would be a big favor to me if you would. I'll be in
trouble with the manager if there is a problem. He will be angry
at me, because I am supposed to be in charge right now. You don't
want me to get in trouble, do you? 
The woman stood silently and then said,  I feel bad for you.  The
owner now returned and approached the blind woman.  Miss,
we don't have the facilities to serve you properly. You probably
need a Braille menu and things of that sort, and we don't have
any. I just checked for you. 
 I know what is on your menu, and I already know what I want to
order.  She really seemed immovable.
I kept thinking that I should say something. I thought about
asking her to join me. I couldn't understand why they were giving
her such a hard time.
Now the owner pulled at the knot in his tie and tried to loosen
it.   Yes, well, we are closing very soon, and it would not be
possible to serve you. Why don't you come back another day?  the
owner suggested, in a tone slightly pleading.
By this time everyone in the room had stopped eating and was
watching them.
 Your hours are from ten o'clock in the morning to ten at night. 
It is now  (she lifted up the cover of her watch and felt the
hands)  8:14. 
The owner's face flushed scarlet, and his ears turned slightly
pink.  He looked down at the floor. But the owner and the waiter
said nothing.  I wanted to stand up and shout at the owner. He
was being such an ass. I just didn't know what to do.
 I'm very hungry, and I'd like to be seated now. Thank you.  The
owner stood silently for a moment and then turned to look at his
customers.  I'm sorry, folks,  he announced,  but I'm going to
have to let her in. 
At that she looked extremely displeased, but she tugged at the
leash and said audibly,  Come on, Lily, follow the nice waiter. 
He seated her two tables in front of me.
As I thought about what had just taken place, I was struck by the
poise with which she handled both herself and the situation. She
never raised her voice or lost her temper. And all the time she
stood her ground. It was my understanding that Indian women were
taught to be seen but not heard. She certainly didn't live up to
that reputation.
I was very impressed by her. I thought how I probably would have
wanted to bash the owner's face in.
I was also kicking myself for not having said anything. I should
have gotten up and told the owner to shut up and seat the lady.
For a moment I saw the whole thing again in my mind, only this
time I was telling the owner off.
I looked over at her, sitting by herself. I wanted to go over and
say something to her, but I didn't know what. I had a feeling
that I wouldn't be able to sleep tonight if I didn't do it. But I
just wasn't sure.
She quickly made my decision for me. I had to talk to her now. I
had to meet the person who had done what she just did. She just
poured herself a cup of tea, without spilling a drop.

     KEEPING THE PEACE WITHIN YOURSELF  by Kenneth Jernigan
The best estimates indicate that there are about 500,000 blind
people in the United States today. At least half of these are at
or above retirement age. Quite a few have multiple handicaps, and
still others are children. Beyond that, blindness is not a
characteristic that selects for success.
If, for example, we consider the medical profession, we have
already weeded out a great many people who are on the lower end
of the success curve. Although it is true that there are quite a
number of doctors who are not (and never will be) world beaters,
it is equally true that the process of becoming a doctor selects
for success. Some people do not have the IQ to pass the tests to
enter medical school. Others have never even had the opportunity
to try because they have not had the money, the contacts, or the
background to finish high school or go to college which is, of
course, a necessary preliminary for
going to medical school. Still others have been too sickly, too
emotionally unstable, or too lacking in drive or something else.
On the other hand, being in medical school brings one into
contact with people who are likely to be influential and helpful.
It gives one valuable training and a salable skill. In short, the
fact of being a doctor is a characteristic which selects for
success.
What can be said of the medical profession can with equal
validity
be said of a hundred others teacher, lawyer, stockbroker,
minister, broadcaster, merchant, farmer, politician, et cetera.
And it is not just the profession or skilled trades or callings
which select for success but also the less glamorous occupations.
To say that one is employed at all is to say that a process of
elimination has taken place and that one is in a select group.
And this brings me back to my starting point. Blindness is not a
characteristic which selects for success. It strikes at random
throughout the population.  Yet, the National Federation of the
Blind now has (and has always had) an unusually large number of
capable, articulate leaders more than one would think possible
under the circumstances. Why? One is almost tempted to believe
that being a member of the National Federation is in itself a
characteristic which selects for success. Examine our state and
local leaders throughout the country, and ask yourself whether
they do not compare quite favorably with the leaders of far
larger groups groups which, by all logic, should have much more
potential to draw from.
As a prime example, consider Professor Charles Hallenbeck, First
Vice President of the National Federation of the Blind of Kansas.
To say
the least, his credentials are impressive. He is a professor of
psychology and a member of that department's clinical psychology
doctoral program faculty and its experimental psychology doctoral
program faculty at the University of Kansas at Lawrence.
Professor Hallenbeck earned a B.A. in social science from Union
College, Schenectady, New York, in 1953. He earned an M.A. in
psychology (general-experimental) in 1957 and a Ph.D. in
psychology (clinical) in 1960, both from Western Reserve
University (now Case Western Reserve) in Cleveland, Ohio. 
Professor Hallenbeck was Senior Post-Doctoral Fellow in the
Department of Applied Mathematics and Computer Science at
Washington University,
St. Louis, from 1967 to 1969. He was a visiting scholar at the
Carnegie-Mellon University Psychology Department in academic
1976-1977.
Before joining the faculty of the University of Kansas, Professor
Hallenbeck served as research psychologist, then staff
psychologist, and later chief psychologist at Highland View
Hospital, a chronic disease and rehabilitation hospital in
Cleveland, Ohio. He left that post for the Special Research
Fellowship at Washington University
in 1967, and after two years of study and research at that
institution joined the University of Kansas faculty in 1969. He
was promoted to associate professor in 1971 and to full professor
in 1974. Professor Hallenbeck served as director of graduate
studies in the psychology department from 1974 to 1976, during
which time he initiated the integration of the somatopsychology/
rehabilitation doctoral program into the clinical psychology
doctoral program. He was awarded sabbatical leave to attend
Carnegie-Mellon University during 1976-1977.
Professor Hallenbeck was co-founder and first chairman of the
Association of Computing Machinery Special Interest Committee on
Computers and
the Physically Handicapped. He was co-organizer of the Cleveland
International Conference on the Blind in Computing, held in
Cleveland in 1970. He was selected as one of the two
representatives of the United States
at a conference in Moscow, U.S.S.R., sponsored by the Soviet
government.  He was a member of the University of Kansas
Psychology Department's rehabilitation psychology program from
1982 to 1985. During his tenure as director of that program,
Professor Hallenbeck initiated formal training opportunities at
the University Medical Center for graduate students in
rehabilitation psychology who wished to work with in-patients on
the rehabilitation medicine unit.
Professor Hallenbeck's doctoral research attempted to
differentiate between mental deterioration attributable to
advancing age and that attributable to impaired brain function.
His interest in neuropsychology has been a central thread in his
career interests since that time.  He has actively contributed to
the area of technology and blindness and has been active in the
development of computer-based alternatives for the blind.
Professor Hallenbeck's teaching responsibilities have also
concentrated on courses in neuropsychology and in the application
of computing in psychology. He has supervised numerous doctoral
dissertations and M.A. theses in these areas as well as in other
aspects of rehabilitation and psychology.
As I say, Professor Hallenbeck's credentials are impressive. But
he finds time to participate on an active basis in the state and
local affairs of the National Federation of the Blind. Recently
he delivered the commencement address at the Kansas State School
for the Visually Handicapped, and I want to share his remarks
with you. They not only give insight into his personal philosophy
but also the reasons for
his success. Perhaps Federationism means caring coupled with
understanding.  If so, the characteristics which lead one to join
the National Federation of the Blind may, indeed, be
characteristics which select for success.  Here is what Professor
Hallenbeck said on May 22, 1988, to the graduating seniors at the
Kansas State School for the Visually Handicapped: 

____________________
 First, keep peace within yourself, then you can bring peace to
others. 
Today is the day you have often thought about and the day you
will often remember in future years. Today at last you finish,
and today at last you begin. The ceremony that honors your
passage today is called  Commencement  to remind you that nothing
ends unless something else begins. Your formal education may end
today, but your serious education may be about to begin.
There are two ways to think about getting an education. The first
way regards education as a kind of  product,  and getting
educated is like the manufacture of an automobile. Automobiles
are made in factories on assembly lines, where they are put
together, painted, polished, and tested to see if they come up to
specifications.  Only finished products are delivered to the
world, and their future performance depends on their design and
their construction, as well as how they are driven and
maintained. Perhaps your education has been like that. You are
now completely put together, your bodies are painted and
polished, your windshields sparkle, and your whitewalls are
brilliant. You certainly have been tested enough, and you have
met all specifications for your particular model. You are perfect
now, at your peak and ready for the road. Of course, you can come
back if you have trouble, but you should be good for five years
or 50,000 miles, whichever comes first.
There is another way to think about getting an education. It
might be called the  process  view of education. According to
this view, if you forget every fact you learned in school, you
would still be well prepared for your futures. The process view
says your education cannot be measured by how many facts have
been drummed into you or how many you can produce intact on
demand. Instead, your education
is measured in your habits of mind, in your style and method of
solving problems, in your resourcefulness as a person, and in
your relationship with yourself and with others. It does not
matter how many words are in your vocabulary: It is more
important for you to know how to use a dictionary.
As far as the factual content of your education is concerned,
there is both good news and bad news to report. The good news is
that about fifty percent of what you have learned in school is
correct. The bad news is that nobody knows which fifty percent is
correct and which is not. There is no need to despair; you may
not have been cheated.  You have the tools of thought to help you
out of this predicament.  You have the habits of mind and the
resources that you need. You can and you must evaluate what you
know to consider if it is really so, or if it needs revision. If
you have learned how to learn and how to revise your knowledge
separating the sound from the silly, you have been well educated.
There is an important lesson to be learned from your class motto, 
First, keep peace within yourself, then you can bring peace to
others.  One meaning of  keeping the peace  is especially
relevant to our lives today. Peace is kept by preventing or
resolving conflicts which threaten to disturb the peace. Your
inner peace and mine can be kept only if we can understand what
it means to be blind in a world where most people are not.
We need to understand and believe that it is respectable to be
blind.  We need to recognize that being blind is not the disaster
it is commonly regarded. We need to believe and act as though
being blind is neither more nor less important than being bald,
or short, or black, or from Missouri. We need to know about and
practice those alternative techniques that make it possible for
the average blind person to compete on terms of equality with the
average sighted person, performing the average job successfully
and with pride. We need to be skeptical of what we are told about
ourselves, being ready always to accept the sound and to reject
the silly.
There is a paradox which you must eventually confront. The
paradox
is that our society is extraordinarily generous and positively
oriented toward helping the blind, and yet damaging
discrimination and erroneous conceptions of blindness are also
plentiful and must be eradicated.  You will be offered the easy
path again and again, until you are in danger of preferring that
path. You will be advised toward or away from some course of
action because it is safer, until you will be
in danger of believing that it is unsafe to be blind. Most such
advice will be positively motivated in some sense but will be
harmful because of the assumption it makes that to be blind is to
be helpless, to be vulnerable, to be inferior. You will be asked
to accept those assumptions about yourself as you accept the easy
path and the safer road. Do not buy it. It is not a bargain. The
cost is much too high.  You will need to be on the watch for
those whose living depends on helping you. You may need their
help, and it is important to use it wisely and well. But never
pay the price of your inner peace to obtain it. Remain true to
your own dreams and goals. Take comfort in the knowledge that you
are not alone, that others have been there already, and that what
you want is not out of the question. Never listen to talk about 
feasible  or  realistic  alternatives if it means giving up your
heart's desire for the safe or easy way.  Remember that the more
you are made out to be in need of expert care and assistance, the
more credit and honor goes to the professional helper. You are
already the expert you need to be on matters of what it means to
be blind.
You can keep the peace within yourself by exercising the
resources you have acquired here these past few years. You are
surely not a finished product, but you have the habits of mind,
the tools of thought, and the alternative techniques you need to
make it. It is time for you to commence, to begin the tasks ahead
of you, and to join us as we change what it means to be blind. We
are proud of you today; and if our future depends on you, it is
in pretty good hands.EDUCATING THE PUBLIC TO THE BLIND 
INDEPENDENCE WAS HER KEY TO SUCCESS
 (This article by Joseph Hudon appeared in the April 29, 1988, 
Press-Register  of Orland, California. It underscores the caliber
of the Federation's local leaders throughout the country.) 

Diane Starin's mother yielded to her twelve-year-old daughter's
pestering, and finally bought her a horse. It was a safe horse
decrepit, sick, and inexpensive.
As the twenty-nine-year-old Diane now puts it,  She saw him, and
figured he was too weak to hurt me. 
Within a short but intense period of feeding and exercise,
however, the horse returned to its former self and picked up lost
ability.
The horse became such a runner that it promptly outran Diane's
mother's car the first time she came to see her daughter ride,
destroying her perception of the former struggling, sick, and
weak horse.
But Diane's mother did not forbid her riding her horse so fast,
despite her tender young age of twelve and the fact that she had
been blind for over ten years.
Diane has been fighting it ever since not her blindness, but her
right to ride her horses, her right to be treated as any other
person, sighted or not.
As president of the newly formed Glenn-Tehama, California,
chapter of the National Federation of the Blind, Starin would
like to help the community come to understand blindness, a
handicap that affects the bearer only as much as the public
allows it to do so, she says.
Starin calls it only a  minor inconvenience  or a  characteristic 
to be dealt with. She regards her major challenge as convincing
the
general public that she is quite capable of performing most of
the tasks any sighted person might perform or perceiving many of
the things others perceive with their eyes.
Take for instance the doctor who walked up to her, walked to one
side, walked to the other, then walked toward her, only to
convince himself that she could not see. Certainly she could not,
but she also certainly knew exactly what he was doing. That
attitude persists.
Starin lost her eyesight at the age of eighteen months after
surgery was performed on her eyes one had cancer of the optic
nerve, and the other was to meet the same ends within three
years. Her parents chose to take care of both eyes at the same
time so she would learn to live with the inevitable blindness
from an early age.
It was a choice that Starin says was the best decision her mother
could have made.
The adjustment was made, and Starin grew up like any other child,
while using  alternate techniques  to take advantage of her
alternate use of senses.
 I really have to hand it to my mom,  she says.  She was
a very smart lady because she didn't have any other contact with
parents with blind children, and her intelligent decision was to
make sure that she raised me like other kids. So any time she had
the urge to do something for me or help me, she would stop and
ask herself, would I do that for the other kids? And if the
answer was no, she wouldn't do that for me either. 
Starin was raised in the small town of South Sioux City,
Nebraska,
with her two sisters and moved to Sacramento in 1974, where she
attended McClatchy High School. She had attended the Nebraska
School for the Blind prior to moving to California. She earned a
scholarship from the National Federation of the Blind while in
high school and attended Sierra College in Rockland, where she
earned a degree in suburban agriculture and a certificate in
horse husbandry.
Her sterling performance in school, however, did not open doors
for her in the so-called real world, where a blind person is
often still considered crippled, and in many instances useless or
less human.  Starin applied at the Cheff Center in Michigan to
take a course in teaching the handicapped to use the horse as a
tool for rehabilitation.  Among the initial qualifications that
were required and had been fulfilled by Starin were a two-year
college degree, prior work with handicapped children, and
management of a commercial horse stable. She had managed the
Sacramento Valley Polo Club.
It seemed that she would be a shoo-in, and she was. She received
notice that she had been accepted.
Starin contacted the school the summer before she was to go and
asked if there would be any materials that would have to be
transcribed
into Braille or cassette tapes. From that day on, the instructor
became more intolerant of Starin's capability to take the course
or teach once she was finished.
Two days prior to her departure to Michigan Starin received a
phone
call from the instructor, who urged her not to come because she 
wouldn't be able to handle it. 
She went anyway, passed the individual courses in many of which
she was top in her class without the aid of transcribed material,
a lot of which had been lied about over the phone. When it came
to teaching, the director refused to let her do it, despite her
success in the course.
The dejected Starin returned to California minus $3,500 for a
course she thought she would never use plus an experience that
would draw her nearer her role in the National Federation of the
Blind.  Publicity first came to Starin when a free-lance reporter
from Carmel, California, contacted her and wrote a story which
appeared in a national horse magazine. As a result, the
Federation planned to take on the Cheff Center and its treatment
of Starin.
In the meantime a Texas horse facility contacted her in hopes of
hiring her as manager, despite her not finishing the Cheff
course.
All was well until the millionaire owner interviewed Starin,
insulted her, then asked her to work for a wage low enough not to
offset the Social Security she was receiving so that her earnings
could be subsidized to reduce his cost.
As always, Starin wished to be treated as any other citizen, and
wished not to be supported by the government, or anybody.
 I said, `Look, the reason I want to work is to get off of Social
Security. I want to be self-supporting,'  she said.
Through a misunderstanding in the Federation, a case against the
Cheff Center was dropped, but Starin became more active in the
group of
some 60,000 members nationally. She began attending meetings in
Sacramento, worked on committees, and last year traveled to
Washington, D.C., to help educate Congress on the position of the
Federation.
Starin makes it clear that the Federation wishes to alter laws
that segregate the blind from sighted society and cost taxpayers
money.  It is for this reason that the Federation shuns groups
that lobby for such items as audible traffic signals or barriers
to keep the blind from falling into fountains.
Starin and her husband Herb located in Orland last September on a
mini-ranch and orchard on the west side of Interstate 5. It is
there that the Glenn-Tehama Chapter of the National Federation of
the Blind will meet for the first time. And it is there that the
Starins may soon begin a horse hotel, catering to traveling race
horses and show horses.
Starin is also hoping to return to school soon, where she plans
on picking up a course in computers.
First and foremost, however, she will work to make the lives of
this area's blind more livable, more enjoyable, and more
comparable to the lives of the other citizens of the two
counties. By informing the local public of the capabilities of
the blind, she would like to help create a climate which would
not deny a twelve-year-old girl her dearest dream that of sitting
atop a horse and running like the wind.
               MRS. O'LEARY MOVES TO PHILADELPHIA 
by Barbara Pierce
After slogging through the muck and mismanagement detailed in  Of
Cows and Fires and the Associated Services for the Blind of
Philadelphia  in the February-March, 1988,  Braille Monitor ,
readers might have been pardoned for thinking that things at ASB
could not well
be worse.  But with humanity's infinite capacity to compound its
errors, the ASB management and board have continued to outdo
themselves in duplicity and disrespect for the blind.  As usual,
the strands of the story are knotted together, and untying them
is slow and tedious work.  But the blind of the nation deserve to
know the truth, and those who conduct vendettas against us must
learn that exposure is inevitable.
On January 21, 1988, Vincent McVeigh was named Executive Director
of ASB.  He took up his post on the following Monday, January 25. 
McVeigh had worked for more than seventeen years for the Elwyn
Institute, an agency serving mentally retarded people.  He had
supervised some programs for blind clients of that agency, but he
had no experience
with fully functional, competent blind adults.  Having become
disenchanted with his position at the Elwyn Institute, McVeigh
tendered his resignation last year in the hope of negotiating a
better arrangement.  Imagine his astonishment then, when his
resignation was accepted and he found himself without a job!  He
managed to forge an agreement by which he could begin a terminal
leave of absence in August, enabling him to complete the course
work for his doctor of education degree at Temple University. 
When Michael Coyle resigned from the executive directorship at
Associated Services in November, McVeigh, who was going to need a
job soon, was very much interested.
When the ASB board gathered on January 21 to select an Executive
Director, no other names or credentials were presented except
Vincent McVeigh's.  Board members were not even told whether
there had been in-house candidates.  The inner circle had chosen
McVeigh, and McVeigh it would be.  He was offered a one-year
contract, a feature of the arrangement which he did not care for. 
Apparently the Executive Committee had learned from its recent
experience with Benjamin Holmes to keep the executive director on
a short leash until they could be sure of their man.  In
retrospect it seems clear that they were looking for a director
who understood that dealing fairly and humanely with the workers
and their union would not be tolerated.  As you will see, McVeigh
learned this lesson quickly; a multi- year contract is no doubt
on his horizon now.
McVeigh came to work on January 25, 1988, and within the week he
had concluded that one Brenda Kavanaugh, a sighted employee who
was threatening to leave ASB, was just the person to become
Director of Social Services,
one of the responsibilities held by B. T. Kimbrough, Director of
Services who, as  Monitor  readers know, is blind. Kimbrough was
then named Director of Information and Technology Services.  This
new assignment reduces Kimbrough's area of responsibility.  Fred
Noesner, a blind ASB official, who directs the ASB store, had
been until this time
a member of the senior management team, entitled to attend staff
meetings.  With Kimbrough now directly supervising him, he showed
up for a staff meeting one morning, only to be told that he was
no longer a member of the senior team.
Shortly after this round of reorganizing, McVeigh took the
opportunity of his own secretary's resignation to add duties to
the job description and upgrade the position to Assistant to the
Director.  A blind employee who had been working closely with
McVeigh's secretary was interested in applying for the new job
but was told that a blind person could
not do the job as now defined.  Vincent McVeigh has apparently
absorbed the dictum that blind clients and employees must be
treated with skepticism and condescension.
Throughout February rumors drifted around ASB to the effect that
the loss of the Braille magazine contracts from the National
Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped would
result in layoffs.  On the morning of Friday, February 19, 1988,
Lou McCarthy, president of the union, was handed a list of
fifteen employees who were being discharged.  ASB's attorney
would later refer to these as layoffs, but the initial term used
was  separation.   This term allows for two weeks' severance pay
but no hope of later reinstatement.
The union contract, so long a matter of controversy before the
National Labor Relations Board, had actually been ratified by the
union on January 25 and by the ASB Board on February 8.  An
optimist, or even a pragmatist, might have assumed that ASB would
have the sense to conduct its layoffs (or separations) in careful
compliance with the provisions of the contract.  These provided
that layoffs should be based first on performance evaluations
done annually and then according
to seniority.  The union was to be consulted in establishing the
procedures by which a laid-off employee could exercise the right
to bump another worker with less seniority from a job which the
laid-off worker was able to do.
After years of dealing with ASB, McCarthy was not surprised to
find that his name topped the list of severed workers despite his
thirteen years' seniority.  He did not receive his performance
evaluation until after his separation notice, so it is hard to
believe that job performance had much to do with his inclusion on
the list.  ASB officials told him that the fifteen workers had
until 10:00 a.m. the following Monday to notify Dolores Godzieba,
Director of the Braille Division, whether
or not they were going to exercise their right to  bump another
worker.  McCarthy asked if the union could have a little time to
examine the list and
suggest an alternative plan for conserving resources while saving
jobs.  McVeigh replied,  You have an hour for lunch.  How much
time do you need? 
The week that followed was filled with confusion, threats, and
misinformation.  When the dust settled, several things were
clear.  Though both union and
nonunion members had been let go, no nonunion people ultimately
lost their jobs except for one woman, who is seventy-four and
whom ASB wants to consider as having retired.  No union member
was ever allowed to bump a nonunion employee with the exception
of one part-time worker, who finally lost his job.  New jobs were
created for nonunion people who were laid off or bumped, but five
union members lost their jobs:  two men who were bumped by more
senior workers; a deaf-blind man who could not find another job
that he could do; a woman who had left on the day of the layoffs
to be trained with a new dog guide; and McCarthy himself.
McCarthy's story is instructive.  On the Monday after the bomb
was dropped, McCarthy served notice that he would exercise his
right to bump.  This took some doing because Godzieba was not to
be found in her office prior to the 10 a.m. deadline.  He did not
know what job he would take because he was so senior that any
available job would
be a step down, and he wished to have time to think about his
options.  Two other workers postponed announcing their choices as
well.  Throughout the next several days they were harassed with
demands to choose their new jobs, but the union contract did not
put a time limit on this procedure, so they maintained that they
should not be rushed into making these difficult choices. 
Wednesday afternoon at 3:10 McCarthy was told that he must make
his choice by 3:30 or lose his
right to bump.  That deadline was extended to Thursday at 9:00
a.m.  That morning he said again that he should not be compelled
to make his choice yet, and management replied that he had
therefore forfeited his right to bump.
McCarthy then advised the other two workers, neither of whom was
a union member, that they had better choose jobs and tell
management.  On Friday the two women located Godzieba and David
Brown, whose role
in dealing with the union has always been central, and told them
what jobs they would take.  Their decisions were accepted and
their jobs preserved.  McCarthy followed them into conference
with management to name the job he would bump into, but he was
told that it was too late for him to make a choice.
Despite the statement of the shop steward, who had been with the
two women employees when they found Godzieba and Brown,
management maintained that the two women had been called to the
office to receive a warning like the one McCarthy had received on
Thursday.  They had responded by naming the jobs they wished to
have, so they were safe.  One is left with the clear impression
that getting rid of McCarthy was perhaps the most important
object in this whole exercise.  If so, it only shows how slow ASB
officials are to learn from past mistakes.
In order to tell the rest of the story, we must step back and
review the actions of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). 
Readers will remember that in April of 1987, when the ballot box
was opened, NLRB officials announced that the ASB workers had
voted overwhelmingly in favor of a union.  Workers have the right
to choose whether or not to join the union, but beginning in
April, 1987, the arduous task of writing a union contract with
ASB began.  From that time until the mid-August strike of blind
workers, the union filed six charges of unfair labor practice
against ASB.  The NLRB agreed to hear all the charges and rule on
them in February of this year.
When the ASB Board met to confirm McVeigh as Director at its
January meeting, the ASB leaders were hopeful that they could
avoid considering the contract which negotiators had completed
until the regularly scheduled March 17 meeting.  But the union
ratification on January 25 and the imminent NLRB ruling
apparently persuaded the ASB Executive Committee to call a
special meeting February 8.  A vocal and powerful group on the
board led by Robert Apple, Joseph Gable, and David Robinson
argued hard for refusing to sign the contract.
The Board's attorney, Freedley Hunsicker, urged that it be
signed.  He had scathing things to say about the lack of
sophistication of the union negotiators.  He clearly thought that
the union could have driven a much tougher bargain and that ASB
should be happy to have the document it had.  It should be noted
in passing that blind workers rarely have the luxury of fielding
high-priced attorneys to fight for them. The union members were
fighting their own battle and doing a pretty fair job of it.
Reluctantly the Board voted to ratify the contract at its
February 8 meeting.  The NLRB Regional Director meanwhile had
been working to solve the problems listed in the union's
collection of charges against ASB.  The first time the NLRB is
asked to rule on such charges in a dispute between management and
a union, it attempts to present
an agreement for both parties to sign instead of conducting a
hearing.  Immediately after the ASB Board's special meeting, the
NLRB called the two parties to its offices for separate meetings
in order to present its proposed agreement.
At the Board meeting on the eighth, Apple and company were hotly
insistent that ASB should not sign any agreement.  The agency
should make the union fight for everything; nothing should be
given away.  Cooler heads finally prevailed, and McVeigh was
given the latitude to make the decision of whether or not to sign
the agreement, but he could hardly have missed the message that
union-bashing was the way to make powerful friends and allies on
the ASB Board.
We here reprint the text of both the agreement signed by McVeigh
and McCarthy and the notice which was to be posted prominently
for sixty consecutive days in places where ASB employees gather. 
Note that the letter of reprimand placed in Lou McCarthy's
personnel file at the time of the strike last August was to be
removed and that ASB was required to assure employees that they
had the right to form a union and conduct union business without
retribution on the part of management.  The notice makes it clear
for all to see that, though ASB admitted no wrongdoing, the union
charges against the agency had been very much to the point.

____________________
                            AGREEMENT

Associated Services for the Blind, Inc. (Employer) and ASB
Employees Group (Union) hereby enter into the following
agreement:
Conditioned upon the Employer's ratification of the
collective-bargaining contract tentatively agreed upon by the
parties on January 15, 1988, and the Employer's execution of the
attached Settlement Agreement and Notice, the Union agrees to
request withdrawal of all Section 8(a)(1) and (5) allegations
contained in the Consolidated Complaint and Notice of Hearing in
Cases 4-CA-16629, 4-CA- 16821, and 4-CA-16954 issued by the
Regional Director of the Fourth Region of the National Labor
Relations Board on January 27, 1988, (specifically paragraphs 8,
9, 10, 11, and 13).
Representatives of Management and Union Officers and Stewards
shall meet to discuss any mutual concern that may exist between
the parties.  This Agreement does not constitute a waiver by
either party of any Statutory or contractual rights.

____________________
                 National Labor Relations Board
                      SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

In the Matter of
Associated Services for the Blind, Inc.
Cases 4-CA-16629, 4-CA-16821 
  and 4-CA-16954

The undersigned Charged Party and the undersigned Charging Party,
in settlement of the above matter, and subject to the approval of
the Regional Director for the National Labor Relations Board,
HEREBY AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
POSTING OF NOTICE Upon approval of this Agreement, the Charged
Party will post immediately in conspicuous places in and about
his plant/office, including all places where notices to
employees/members are customarily posted, and maintain for 60
consecutive days from
the date of posting, copies of the attached Notice made a part
hereof, said Notices to be signed by a responsible official of
the Charged Party and the date of actual posting to be shown
thereon. In the event this Agreement is in settlement of a charge
against a union, the union will submit forthwith signed copies of
said Notice to the Regional Director who will forward them to the
employer whose employees are involved herein, for posting, the
employer willing, in conspicuous places in and about the
employer's plant where they shall be maintained for 60
consecutive days from the date of posting.
COMPLIANCE WITH NOTICE The Charged Party will comply with all the
terms and provisions of said Notice.
BACKPAY The Charged Party will make whole the employees named
below by payment to each of them of the amount opposite each
name.  By executing this Agreement the Employer (Charged Party)
does not
admit that it has violated the Act or committed any wrongdoing
whatsoever.  Additional copies the notice will be produced by the
Charged Party
in Braille and posted next to each copy of the attached notice.
Charged Party will supply the Regional Director with a copy of
the Braille notice upon its posting.
REFUSAL TO ISSUE COMPLAINT In the event the Charging Party fails
or refuses to become a party to this Agreement, and if in the
Regional Director's discretion it will effectuate the policies of
the National Labor Relations Act, the Regional Director shall
decline to issue
a Complaint herein ( or a new Complaint if one has been withdrawn
pursuant to the terms of this Agreement ), and this Agreement
shall be between the Charged Party and the undersigned Regional
Director.  A review of such action may be obtained pursuant to
Section 102.19 of the Rules and Regulations of the Board if a
request for same is filed within 14 days thereof. This Agreement
is contingent upon the General Counsel sustaining the Regional
Director's action in the event of a review. Approval of this
Agreement by the Regional Director shall constitute withdrawal of
any Complaint(s) and Notice of Hearing heretofore issued in this
case, as well as any answer(s) filed in response.  PERFORMANCE
Performance by the Charged Party with the terms and provisions of
this Agreement shall commence immediately after the Agreement is
approved by the Regional Director, or if the Charging Party does
not enter into this Agreement, performance shall commence
immediately upon receipt by the Charged Party of advice that no
review has been requested or that the General Counsel has
sustained the Regional Director.
NOTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE The undersigned parties to this
Agreement will each notify the Regional Director in writing what
steps the Charged Party has taken to comply herewith. Such
notification shall be given within 5 days, and again after 60
days, from the date of the approval of this Agreement. In the
event the Charging Party does not enter into this Agreement,
initial notice shall be given within 5 days after notification
from the Regional Director that no review has been requested or
that the General Counsel has sustained the Regional Director.
Contingent upon compliance with the terms and provisions hereof,
no further action shall be taken in this case.

____________________
                       NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES

                      Posted Pursuant to a
                      Settlement Agreement
                 Approved By A Regional Director
              Of The National Labor Relations Board
                        An Agency of the 
United States Government

We post this Notice to inform you of the rights guaranteed to you
in the National Labor Relations Act.
The Act gives all employees these rights: To engage in self
organization; To form, join, or assist any union; To bargain as a
group through
a representative they choose; To act together for collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection; and To refuse to do
any or all of these things.
WE WILL NOT issue written disciplinary warnings to, or otherwise
discriminate against, our employees because they support or are
active on behalf of ASB Employees Group.
WE WILL NOT issue written disciplinary warnings to, or otherwise
discriminate against, our employees because they threaten to file
charges with the Board or give testimony under the Act.
WE WILL remove from the personnel file of Louis R. McCarthy and
from our other records, and destroy, all copies of the memorandum
of warning issued to McCarthy on August 14, 1987.
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. 
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the
date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or
compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's
Office, National Labor Relations Board, Fourth Region, One
Independence Mall, Seventh Floor, 615 Chestnut Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106; Telephone:  (215) 597-7601.

____________________
After McVeigh and McCarthy signed the agreement, the Regional
Director
of the NLRB had ten days in which to sign it and settle the
matter.  During those days the separation notices were issued,
and it was back to the battle stations again.  On February 22 the
union filed seven more charges of unfair labor practice with the
NLRB, and on April 18 two more were added to the collection.  The
Regional Director, seeing the handwriting on the wall, did not
bother to sign the agreement
but postponed the settlement until the new charges could be
considered.  At this writing (late in May) it is not clear when
that may happen.
On the Monday after McCarthy's last day of work, the union filed
for injunctive relief with the NLRB in an attempt to stop the
layoffs from taking effect.  In the course of the verbal
skirmishing that took place McVeigh inquired whether McCarthy
would consider dropping the new charges of unfair labor practice
if he were to be offered a job again at ASB.  McCarthy assured
McVeigh that he could not be bribed and that the charges would
stand.  McVeigh later let it be known that he had talked with the
heads of all ASB departments to see if anyone was willing to make
room for McCarthy and that no one would because he was a
troublemaker.  By ASB standards he undoubtedly was one, but the
remarkable point is that a reliable source in at least one
department reports that no inquiry about a possible job was made
there at all.
The whole history of ASB's dealings with and treatment of its
blind workers and the union formed to provide them the ordinary
protection other American workers have had for fifty years is
sordid and deeply disturbing.  The NLRB functions with all
deliberate speed, so months and perhaps years will no doubt
elapse before all of attorney Freedley Hunsicker's appeals on
behalf of ASB will have run their course.  Meantime, Lou
McCarthy, the leader and driving force of the union, is gone. 
The workers are dispirited and cowed.  Only the Federation is
left on the field of battle.
In January McVeigh began his tenure as Director with the clear
intention
to woo and win the NFB if he could.  In the early weeks of his
administration he made a point of calling Betsy Gerhart, First
Vice President of the NFB of Pennsylvania, almost weekly. 
Parenthetically it should be mentioned that these friendly
contacts suddenly ceased at just
about the time that the first article about ASB appeared in the 
Monitor .  McVeigh called a meeting of area Federation leaders
for February 18, 1988.  Rumors
of the impending layoffs were circulating, so the Federationists
met with McVeigh to see what they could learn.
In retrospect it is clear that McVeigh was prepared to say almost
anything to lull the Federation on the eve of the ambush of the
union.  For starters McVeigh indicated that he would recommend
that three members of the NFB of Pennsylvania be added to the ASB
Board and that two
of them serve on the Executive Committee.  However, this
recommendation was not mentioned at the March 17 Board meeting,
and no one seriously expects ever to hear McVeigh mention it
again.  Next McVeigh told the delegation that he personally
agreed with many of the suggestions
made in the NFB-P position paper reprinted in the February-March 
Braille Monitor .  He expressed interest in talking with the
directors of the training centers in Louisiana, Colorado, and
Minnesota in order to learn more about the possibility of having
cane travel taught by blind instructors.  Needless to say, no
contacts have been or are likely to be made.
In the course of this meeting, which took place the day before
the fifteen separations were handed to the union president, Betsy
Gerhart asked McVeigh about the rumors.  He assured the group
that any layoffs
that took place would be done in accordance with contract
provisions.  There would be no reprisals for union activity. 
McVeigh didn't know whose names might be on the list, but layoffs
would be made according to seniority, and people would be trained
to do new jobs if they bumped into jobs for which training was
needed.
Honesty and integrity still seem to be in short supply at the
management level of ASB.  The NFB of Pennsylvania is far from
giving up in its struggle to  seek redress for the blind
community of Philadelphia.  Pat Comorato, one of the leaders in
Pennsylvania, still sits on the ASB Board surely one of the
loneliest  and most thankless jobs being done by a Federationist
anywhere in the country today.  Also, the affiliate has sent a
letter to the Pennsylvania Attorney General in the hope that
state officials may be disturbed by some of the practices ASB has
engaged in recently.  The letter speaks for itself:  
____________________
                                         Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
                                                      May 1, 1988

The Honorable Leroy Zimmerman
Office of the Attorney-General
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

Dear Mr. Zimmerman:
The National Federation of the Blind of Pennsylvania is the
largest organization of blind people in the Commonwealth.  The
NFB has a membership of 50,000 nationwide and an affiliate in
each of the fifty states and the District of Columbia.  As
consumers of services to the blind, we believe strongly that the
Associated Services for the Blind of Philadelphia (ASB), a
Pennsylvania not-for-profit corporation, has violated the public
trust.  The information set forth in this letter will support our
allegation.  The people who are supposed to benefit from the
services and from the fund-raising activities of this agency are
being short-changed.  We request that your office conduct a
thorough investigation and remedy this most serious matter.
We believe that Robert Apple, Vice President of the Board of
Directors, benefits from his membership on the Board.  He owns a
company which provides insurance for agency employees and for the
agency.  No bids were solicited from other insurance companies. 
In fact, there was never an actual Board vote to use Mr. Apple's
company.  This decision
was made by the Executive Committee, fifteen members of a fifty-
four-person board.  Mr. Apple sits on the Executive Committee and
voted on the decision to contract with his company; consequently,
Mr. Apple benefits financially as a result of his position on the
Board of Directors.  Thomas Unkefer, another member of the Board
of Directors who sits
on the Executive Committee, owns a construction company.  ASB
received a grant of $250,000 from the Glen-Mead Trust to remodel
its lobby
and first floor.  The contract was awarded to Mr. Unkefer's
construction company.  No bids were sought from other
contractors.  Mr. Unkefer chairs the Building Committee, which
made the recommendation.
ASB entered into an exclusive contract with the Southeastern
Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) to provide
paratransit service for the President of the Board of Directors,
Ms. Joanne Davidoff.  This service, paid for by agency funds, is
provided only for Ms. Davidoff and is not available for other
staff members. SEPTA's paratransit serves only Philadelphia
County.  Ms. Davidoff lives in Montgomery County and therefore is
not eligible for this service.
We believe that the allegations set forth in this letter warrant
a thorough investigation by your office.  We are certain that
such an investigation would uncover a number of violations of the
law.  We also request a major audit of the agency's books. 
Frequently the
full Board of Directors is not given an opportunity to vote on
important contracts entered into and informal deals made. 
Rather, they are decided upon by the Executive Committee, many of
whose members personally benefit from their service on the
Board.We would appreciate an opportunity to meet with your
investigators to provide affidavits which will support the
allegations made in this letter.

                                                       Sincerely,
                                                    Terry McManus
                                                        President
                                 National Federation of the Blind
                                                  of Pennsylvania

____________________
The Federation has also been conducting an intensive public
education campaign.  To date more than four thousand leaflets
exposing the facts about ASB have been handed to Philadelphians. 
Many are frankly incredulous at what they read.  It is the old
story all over again: people cannot believe that an agency
created to assist the blind could behave as ASB has and does. 
But we know just how frequently it happens.  The actions of these
so-called  professionals  and of the community leaders who work
with them on their boards have inflicted incalculable damage on
blind workers and clients.  In Philadelphia they have done their
best to destroy a union, and they have acted with arrogance and
insincerity toward blind individuals and consumer
representatives.  With no respect for the capacity or rights of
the blind people they are supposed to be serving, they are
determined
to have their own way, even if the blind are damned in the
process.  At least Mrs. O'Leary's cow had the excuse of being a
dumb animal.              DON'T DANCE 
IT'S FOR YOUR OWN SAFETY
 (The following letter from Richard Fox to David Arocho appears
in the Spring, 1988,  Blind New Yorker,  the publication of the
National Federation of the Blind of New York State. When you
don't want to do a thing or when you feel uncomfortable with it
or don't understand it, just say your refusal to be reasonable is
based on your concern for the other person's safety.) 

Dear David:
It has been nine months since I moved from New York City to
Danbury, Connecticut. I miss my friends in the New York State
affiliate very much, and I send you my warmest greetings. My
activities in New York have not ceased altogether. However, one
of them has resulted in a case of discrimination.
Around Thanksgiving of last year Sharlene Czaja and I decided to
take lessons in ballroom dancing. I had a school already in mind,
the Fred Astaire Dance Studio in Manhattan. At a promotional
event held there about three years ago, I was fox-trotted,
waltzed, and rumbaed around a crowded floor by teachers who
exhibited vigor, skill, and no apparent worries about my
blindness. A few days before Christmas Sharlene and I entered the
school with high hopes. I thought our eagerness was reciprocated,
especially when we signed up for a package of private lessons
costing over $500. As our instructions progressed, anticipation
turned first to puzzlement, then to suspicion, and finally to the
conviction that something was dreadfully wrong with the way we
were being treated.
We had our lessons in a small room while the vast majority of
private students took theirs simultaneously in a large ballroom,
where they
all had separate teachers. We were told that practice parties,
bi-weekly events intended to simulate a social dancing
atmosphere, were reserved for those who had reached a certain
level of competency. Other students, along with the school's own
literature, made it clear that these were open to all. We had an
ever-increasing feeling of isolation in an activity which, above
all, is social in nature.
We decided to talk with Raymond Landry, the school's president.
We hoped to be diplomatic not confrontational, educational not
hostile.
Our hopes were dashed by Mr. Landry's arrogant, defensive, and
condescending attitude towards us.
He said he was shocked when he learned of our blindness and
considered it discourteous that we did not notify him of this
fact before we entered his establishment on the first occasion. 
I don't want you dancing in the ballroom or attending practice
parties,  he explained,  because it gets crowded. This is for
your protection
and the protection of our other students. I don't want any
collisions.  When Sharlene put forward the abstruse argument that
instruction in a hectic environment would be the only way there
was to prepare us for evenings in hectic dance halls, Mr.
Landry's reply was equally subtle:  Dance halls! Richard, what
will you do with your dog in a dance hall, and how will both of
you know where the dance floor ends and the real floor begins? 
My dog, Visa, seems to cause Mr. Landry particular dismay. When I
asked him why I was being treated so differently from the way I
had been three years ago, he replied that the reasons were
simple. Then I had been accompanied by a sighted couple and not a
blind woman, and I didn't have a dog.
The conversation continued in this vain about a half hour,
whereupon Mr. Landry announced he was quite irritated with us. I
suppose he
felt we were not sufficiently grateful for the services we had
received.  Since our discussion provoked hostility rather than
understanding,
we have filed a discrimination complaint with the New York City
Commission on Human Rights.
This experience has taught me that discrimination is much more
fun and exciting to read about than it is to live through. I am
again reminded of the value of my association with the
Federation. As I brace myself for the battle to come, I am aware
that I bring to it not only my own strength but the collective
power and wisdom of 50,000 Federationists. Please give me your
prayers and your support in this endeavor. Together we are
unstoppable.

                                                       Cordially,
                                                      Richard Fox
               BLINDNESS AND THE POLITICAL PROCESS
                          by Homer Page
 (This article underscores something which we have often said.
The National Federation of the Blind is not engaged in partisan
politics.  However, we do strongly urge our members and leaders
to support candidates and be active politically. Peggy Pinder,
Second Vice President of the National Federation of the Blind and
President of the National Federation of the Blind of Iowa, is a
staunch Republican and is working hard for the election of George
Bush as President. Many other Federationists are also active
Republicans.
(Note) At least as many are enthusiastic Democrats. As this
article demonstrates, Homer Page of Colorado is one of these. Dr.
Page is Deputy Mayor of Boulder, Colorado, and a professor at the
University of Colorado at Boulder. He is also one of the leaders
of the National Federation of the Blind of Colorado and of the
national movement.  Here is Dr. Page's account of his work for
Michael Dukakis.)
(NOTE)  On May 20, 1988, I was chosen to represent Colorado's 2nd
Congressional District at the Democratic National Convention in
Atlanta. I was committed to the candidacy of Michael Dukakis. My
selection culminated over six months of intense involvement in
the nominating process.
The political process is often long and almost always hard work,
but it can also be quite rewarding. Certainly all of this has
been true
for me as I have participated in the 1988 Presidential selection
process.  In the fall of 1987 I began to think about the upcoming
presidential election. I decided that I would choose a candidate
and work for that person. I also decided that I would try to
become a delegate to the Democratic National Convention.
Colorado is a caucus state. This means that national delegates
are chosen through a complex three-tiered system which begins at
the precinct level, moves to the county, and concludes at either
the Congressional District or the State Conventions. One gets
selected to be a national delegate by becoming affiliated with a
candidate's campaign and contributing visible work and
leadership. In other words one must pay his dues and one must
support a candidate who, when May rolls around, will have some
support.
In November, 1987, when I assessed the field of potential
candidates, there were three who appeared to me to have a chance
to win the Party's nomination. They were Richard Gephart, Mario
Cuomo, and Michael Dukakis.  I believed that Congressman Gephart
was too conservative and Governor Cuomo was too indecisive.
Michael Dukakis, on the other hand, had a solid financial base, a
national network of supporters which he had built while chairing
the National Governor's Conference, and he also had deep roots
into the Eastern European ethnic voter block, which is the single
largest ethnic population in the nation. These factors gave him a
major edge on his rivals, but equally important to me was my
feeling of philosophical compatibility and my confidence in the
personal integrity of Governor Dukakis. I had made up my mind
to support Michael Dukakis when I received a phone call over the
Thanksgiving weekend from Alice Wolfe, Vice Mayor of Cambridge,
Massachusetts.  I had served with Alice on the Human Development
Steering Committee of the National League of Cities. She was
recruiting local elected officials who would endorse Governor
Dukakis at an upcoming press conference which was to be held at
the National League of Cities Annual Convention in Las Vegas. The
press conference was scheduled for December
15. I agreed to join the Dukakis campaign and participate in it. 
I spoke with Governor Dukakis at the NLC convention and took part
in the press conference. The morning of the Dukakis press
conference Gary Hart announced that he was getting back into the
race. Since I was the only elected official from Colorado who
participated in the Dukakis press conference, I received many of
the questions from the large group of media representatives who
were present.
After the press conference I met with Alice Travis, the Deputy
Director of the Dukakis campaign for political affairs. We
discussed my involvement in Colorado.
I told Ms. Travis that I had a good deal of experience working
with political campaigns and that as a blind person I often
initially was not taken seriously. However, I could be very
helpful to the campaign.  My only requirement was that my
blindness would not be an issue. She said that she understood
what I was saying and that she was sorry that I had to say it,
but she knew that the issues which I raised were real. She
guaranteed me that I would be treated with respect within the
campaign and that the same hard demands would be placed upon me
as upon any local official who was willing to commit to the
Michael Dukakis candidacy.
Upon returning to Colorado, I began to work with the Dukakis
campaign.  Soon I was deeply involved. My responsibilities
included chairing
the Boulder County and 2nd Congressional District Dukakis for
President Committees and serving on the State Steering Committee.
The Colorado precinct caucuses were held on April 4, just nine
days after the Michigan caucuses had projected Jesse Jackson into
a prominent position. Colorado seemed at that time to be a
crucial state. Another Jackson win would have given him all
important momentum. Boulder County is the location of the
University of Colorado. It is the type of community where the
Jackson campaign had done well. Calls came from the national
campaign office urging us on. In the end Dukakis carried Boulder
County, the 2nd Congressional District, and the State. The
following day he won in Wisconsin, and the handwriting was on the
wall.
One may ask,  Why get involved with the political process?  It
takes time and work, and it often requires the expenditure of
one's own hard-earned cash. The answer is not too difficult. I
enjoy the political process, it is a challenge, and it is
exciting. I also believe that as a citizen of a democratic
nation, I have duty to be involved.  Yet, there is more.
I am blind. We who are blind face overt discrimination and more
subtle prejudice on a daily basis. We have been denied
opportunities, and we have been told that it is due to our
limitations. I participate
in the political process to gain the power and the influence to
change this state of affairs for myself and for others.
I have won the right to participate in the Democratic National
Convention.  I can raise questions and ask for support from this
national political body to deal with issues such as the
discrimination that blind persons face at the hands of the
airlines. I will be able to discuss new approaches to
rehabilitation and factors affecting the education of blind
children.  The political process is long and involves hard work,
but I believe it is worth it.
                     A FEDERATION VICTORY: 
BLIND PARENT WINS UNRESTRICTED CHILD CARE LICENSE
                         by Sharon Gold
Debra Duncan is a wife and the mother of two beautiful little
girls.  For more than eighteen years, Debbie has cared for the
children of other parents and, at all times, has been in demand
to provide child care services.  In April 1986, Debbie made
application to the Sacramento County Department of Social Welfare
for a Family Day Care Home for Children License for six children. 
One week later and in response
to her application, a Licensing Evaluator/Social Worker for the
County of Sacramento, Department of Social Welfare, visited
Debbie's home for the usual  announced home visit  to see if
there were any deficiencies before licensing the home.
During her visit, the social worker identified four deficiencies
which Debbie was required to correct before the license could be
approved.  It is not unusual for homes to have deficiencies which
must be cleared to meet the specific requirements of the County
such as child-proof locks on kitchen cabinets and medicine
cabinets, decals on sliding glass doors to mark the glass panes,
and the preparation of an approved disaster plan.   Debbie agreed
to correct the deficiencies in her home that day and the social
worker agreed to return the next day
to clear the deficiencies.  When the licensing evaluator left
Debbie's home, she advised Debbie that everything was in order
for the license and that all Debbie needed to do was to correct
the four deficiencies and the social worker would sign the
deficiencies off the next day and approve the home.  The social
worker also said that Debbie could expect to receive her Family
Day Care License in about a week after the approval of the home.
The next day, May 1, the social worker returned to Debbie's home
for the announced follow-up visit, cleared the four deficiencies,
and approved the licensing report clearing the home for a Family
Day Care License.  During this visit, the licensing evaluator
inquired as to whether Debbie intended to have her husband on the
license since Debbie is blind and her husband, Larry, is sighted. 
Debbie explained that she applied for the license because she was
the one who cared for
the children.  The social worker became hostile as she began
questioning Debbie about blindness.  Debbie answered all of the
questions raised by the social worker concerning the alternative
techniques she used to care for children.
The next day, the social worker telephoned Debbie to say that her
supervisor was denying Debbie's application for the Family Day
Care Home for Children License for six children, unless Debbie
would put her husband on the license or otherwise allow the
stipulation of a sighted assistant.  Following that telephone
conversation, Debbie
contacted the National Federation of the Blind of California for
assistance.  We immediately made contact with the Sacramento
County Department of Social Welfare and had two lengthy
discussions by telephone with Tom Stinson, the supervisor who
denied the license.  The Department's answer was to call Debbie
and to request another home visit to discuss blindness.  We
advised Debbie not to allow the social worker to return to her
home.  After all, the home was approved for a Family Day Care
Home for Children License and a return visit to the home was not
common procedure in the licensing process.  Debbie told the
social worker that she would be pleased to go to the County
Welfare Office to discuss blindness with the worker and/or her
Supervisor.  During this and a number of subsequent telephone
conversations, the social worker refused to make an appointment
to meet with her in the County Welfare Office to discuss
blindness.  This offer for a meeting was repeated
in correspondence from the National Federation of the Blind of
California, in which the county was reminded that Debbie's home
was approved,
that California law prohibited discrimination against a blind
applicant for a license, and that the County had a responsibility
to issue Debbie the license or provide her with an appropriate
letter of denial.  In early June, the social worker sent Debbie a
form letter, which
is used to close active day care licenses at the request of the
licensee.  The form contained an additional statement which had
been written on it which said that Debbie had been 
non-cooperative  and thus her license was closed.  But of course,
Debbie did not have a license to be  closed  since none had ever
been issued.
When the use of a wrong form and the failure to issue or deny the
license was brought to the County's attention, the social worker
again sent Debbie the same form letter which repeated that Debbie
had been non-cooperative and that the still unissued license
would be closed effective July 10, 1986.  The intent here was to
pressure Debbie into having the social worker and her supervisor
come to her home so that Debbie could perform for them to show
that she could measure up to the task of a child care provider.
Debbie stood firm and did not succumb to the pressure.  She
wanted no part of being the provider of a  dog and pony show  for
the social worker and her supervisor.  It should noted that at no
time was Debbie advised that she had any right to appeal the
action of the County Welfare Department and at no time during the
preceding
three months was Debbie given a properly executed denial of the
application for the Family Day Care Home for Children License.
In early August of 1986 the National Federation of the Blind of
California filed with the State of California a request for a
hearing concerning the  effective denial by non- response of the
County  of Debra Duncan's application for a Family Day Care Home
for Children License for six children.  On August 14, in response
to our filing, Tom Stinson, the Social Service Supervisor of the
Sacramento County Department of Social Services, sent Debbie a
written denial of her April 22, 1986, application for a Family
Day Care Home for Children License.  He claimed that Debbie had  
refused a site visit to discuss requirements for licensing.   The
National Federation of the Blind of California filed an appeal
from this denial.
Months went past and neither Debbie nor the National Federation
of the Blind of California received any communication from the
Sacramento County Department of Social Welfare or the California
Department of Social Services.  Following a threat to petition
the court to compel the State of California to hear Debra
Duncan's case, I received in late April of 1987 a telephone call
from a staff attorney for the State of California Department of
Social Services.  This attorney wanted to set up a meeting
between Debbie and representatives of the Sacramento County
Social Welfare Office and claimed that she wanted to settle
immediately the issue of Debbie's license.  The attorney
from the Department of Social Services and I held a negotiating
conference during which we planned a meeting between Debbie and
representatives of the Sacramento County Department of Social
Welfare.  We agreed to some specific rules and guidelines for
this meeting, and it was scheduled for April 30, 1987.
Representing the Sacramento County Department of Social Welfare
at the April 30 meeting were Tom Stinson, the supervisor, one of
his assistants, and the licensing evaluator/social worker.  The
staff attorney and a paralegal represented the Legal Affairs
Division of the Department of Social Services of the State of
California.  Debbie and her husband attended the meeting, and I
was present on behalf of Debbie and the National Federation of
the Blind of California.
During this meeting, Debbie answered questions developed by the
Department of Social Services and asked by Tom Stinson.  Among
these questions asked of Debbie were  Describe the floor plan of
your home.   How will you know if a child is unconscious in your
backyard?   Do you know when, how, and what to feed children? 
and  What would you do if one child snatched a sandwich from
another child? 

Debbie was advised by Mr. Stinson that these questions were
designed
to educate the Department on blindness and to assist the
representatives in determining her eligibility for the Family Day
Care Home for Children License.  After about one hour of
questioning, during which Debbie
was asked more than twenty-five questions, the State and County
representatives excused themselves to go to another office for a
private discussion.  They returned in approximately one-half
hour.  Mr. Stinson announced that although Debbie had answered
all of the questions to his satisfaction, and although he would
feel comfortable at leaving his own child in her care, he would
not issue to Debbie the Family Day Care Home for Children License
for six children for which she had applied.  As he did in May
1986, Mr. Stinson offered Debra Duncan a license for six children
with the stipulation of a sighted assistant.  One of the problems
we faced was that there were several blind persons in California
who were holding a license for a Family Day Care Home for six
children and who had succumbed to the restriction of a sighted
assistant.  No blind person held an unrestricted license for six
children.
We left the meeting room, filed for an administrative hearing,
and put out a call for help from Federationists across the
country.  Our Federation network immediately apprised us of blind
persons who are involved in child care.  In reading and comparing
the laws of some
states with the laws of California, we found that California was
significantly regressive in its general practices of licensing
family day care homes as well as in its attitudes toward the
blind as child care providers.  Serving as examples in our
comparison of state laws and attitudes were such states as North
Carolina, Missouri, and New Mexico.  The state that we found
having the oldest practice of not discriminating against the
blind seeking a child care license was New Mexico.  The state
having undergone the most recent attitude change was Missouri,
where two years ago the National Federation of the Blind of
Missouri won a child care license for a blind Missourian.
To document our findings, we gathered sworn affidavits from
around the country and filed these affidavits in the matter of
Debra Duncan, which was before the Department of Social Services
of the State of California.
Four of these affidavits are reprinted here as follows:

                   AFFIDAVIT OF PAULINE GOMEZ

I, Pauline Gomez, hereby swear and depose:
1. My name is Pauline Gomez.
2. I reside at 329 East Buena Vista Street, Santa Fe, New Mexico,
87501.
3. I am legally blind.
4. For more than thirty years, I was self-employed and provided
child care and educational programs for preschool children.
5. I have been retired since 1983.
6. In the early years of my work with preschool children, New
Mexico did not require a license for day care providers.
7. In the early 1950's, the New Mexico Department of Health
established requirements for a day care license.  I was issued an
unrestricted
day care license with the State's having full knowledge of my
blindness.
8. The license described in Paragraph #7 was issued each
succeeding year, and I annually applied for and received a
renewal.
9. Throughout my career as a day care specialist and preschool
teacher, I supervised groups of children ranging in number from
six to thirty-five and in age from toddlers to five years.
10. The rules set forth by the New Mexico Department of Health
were applicable alike to all persons, including blind persons,
and I was never required to have a sighted person present when
supervising the children.
11. The New Mexico Regulations required that all day care
providers must have additional adult help if the group of
children exceeded a specific number.  (I think that the number
was eleven.)
12. At no time during my career as a day care provider, who
happened to be blind, did any child under my supervision sustain
a serious injury, nor were there any discipline problems that I
could not handle.  AFFIDAVIT OF CAROL COULTER

I, Carol Coulter, hereby swear and depose:
1. My name is Carol Coulter.
2. My address is 2504 Glenn Drive, Columbia, Missouri, 65202.
3. I am legally blind.
4. In 1985, I took a job at a day care center where I became the
lead teacher supervising one adult worker and nine children.
5. I now manage a day care facility in Columbia, Missouri, where
I supervise and care for the children of others.
6. I hold an unrestricted certificate issued by the Missouri
Division of Family Services, which licenses me to conduct a day
care service for six children ages zero to twelve.  A true copy
of this certificate is attached hereto.
7. At no time during my career as a day care provider, who
happens to be blind, have any children under my supervision
sustained serious injury, nor have there been any discipline
problems which I could not handle.

                   AFFIDAVIT OF LINDA SHEVLIN

I, Linda Shevlin, hereby swear and depose:
1. My name is Linda Shevlin.
2. I reside at 217-C Millbrook Road, Raleigh, North Carolina
27609.
3. I am legally blind.
4. For more than fifteen years, I have been providing child care
to groups of children.  These groups have ranged in size from
four to eighteen children.
5. From 1984 until April, 1987, I worked for the Hayes Barton
Baptist Church, of Raleigh, North Carolina, where I supervised
eight to ten children each day.
6. I currently work for the Edenton Street Methodist Church of
Raleigh, North Carolina, where I supervise twelve to fourteen
children each day.
7. For the churche set forth in Paragraph five, I work as a 
Mother's Day-Out Teacher with toddlers ranging in age from
fourteen months to two years old.
8. On Sundays, I teach Sunday School and run the toddler child
care program for the Hudson Memorial Presbyterian Church of
Raleigh, North Carolina, where I have from four to sixteen
children in both the Sunday School class and in the toddler child
care program.
9. I also run a Wednesday night child care program for the Hudson
Memorial Presbyterian Church, where I supervise from two to six
infants, toddlers, and children through the age of five years.
10. If the Hudson Memorial Presbyterian Church has a need to
offer child care during a special program being offered by the
church, I am called to run this child care service.
11. At no time have children who have been under my supervision
sustained serious injury, nor were there discipline problems
which I could not handle.

                   AFFIDAVIT OF RAMONA WALHOF

I, Ramona Walhof, hereby swear and depose:
1. My name is Ramona Walhof.
2. My address is 1301 South Capitol Boulevard, Boise, Idaho
83706.

3. I am legally blind.
4. I am the mother of two sighted teen-age children, whose father
was also blind.  My husband died when our children were babies
and thus I have raised my son and daughter as a single parent.
5. I have worked in the Head Start Program and have been charged
with the sole supervision of groups of sighted children.  At no
time did the children sustain serious injury while under my
supervision, nor were there discipline problems which I could not
handle.
6. When my children were small, I used day care programs to care
for my children while I worked.  One of the day care programs
which I used was managed by a blind person.  This day care
manager solely and competently attended to all of my children's
needs, including feeding, bathing, and other personal care and
supervised indoor and outdoor play.
7. For now more than twenty years, I have been employed in work
with the blind.
8. I have worked as a teacher, supervisor, and have served as
Assistant Director of the Iowa Commission for the Blind, Director
for the National Blindness Information Center, and am the former
Director of the Idaho Commission for the Blind.
9. I currently work as Director of the Outreach Office for the
National Federation of the Blind of Idaho.
10. I am the author of many published articles on blindness.  My
article,  I Am a Blind Mother Fighting to Keep My Children from
Corruption,  appeared on pages 96 through 101 of the  Braille
Monitor , April, 1978, published by the National Federation of
the Blind, and is attached hereto as Exhibit #1.
11. I am the author of several books on blindness.  My book, 
Questions Kids Ask About Blindness , published by the American
Brotherhood for the Blind, is attached hereto as Exhibit #2. 
Other books I have written address the subject of blindness as it
concerns post-secondary education, employment and career
development, senior citizens, etc.

12. In my work with the blind, I have been in touch with
thousands of blind children and adults throughout the country.  I
currently know and have known blind parents, who have
successfully raised large families, and I currently know and have
known blind adults who competently and successfully operate day
care programs.
Because the term  legal blindness  is used in these affidavits it
should not be assumed that none of the people involved is totally
blind, for such is not the case. These four affidavits were an
important part of the evidence which we collected.
Federationist Fred Schroeder, the Executive Director of the New
Mexico Commission for the Blind, served as a consultant in the
development of the Duncan Case.  Mr. Schroeder planned to travel
to California
and serve as an expert witness at the time of the administrative
hearing.  The support given by Federationists throughout the
country was critical in bringing this case to a successful
conclusion. It was a classic example of the National Federation
of the Blind in Action. Federationists felt a strong camaraderie
and knew that this case would set a precedent for other blind
persons everywhere in the country wishing to seek a Family Day
Care License in the future.
Not only did Federationists come forward in support of Debbie,
but parents of children for whom Debbie had previously provided
child care also rallied to the cause with affidavits, as did
parents of children for whom she was currently providing care. 
The affidavits of these parents speak for themselves. Here are
three of them:

                  AFFIDAVIT OF KATRINA HEXBERG

I, Katrina Hexberg, hereby swear and depose:
1. My name is Katrina Hexberg.
2. I reside at 4119 Zephyr Way, Sacramento, California, 95821.
3. I am the mother of a two year old daughter, named Marte, who
is my first child.
4. Debra Duncan has been caring for my daughter since she was a
tiny infant, and I have never been concerned for my child's
health or safety while she was in Mrs. Duncan's care.
5. Mrs. Duncan changes my daughter's diapers, administers
medicine to her, prepares her meals, feeds her, and does
everything necessary to care for her including maintaining
discipline in the child care setting.
6. As a new mother, I was very worried about leaving my baby with
a complete stranger for nine to ten hours a day, five days a
week.  After interviewing Mrs. Duncan by telephone and in her
home, I knew that I had found just the person to take care of my
daughter.
7. My daughter is now two years old and considers Mrs. Duncan's
home her second home.
8. Debra Duncan's blindness does not handicap her in any way that
would make her ineligible to care for children in her own home. 
Her conscientiousness and alertness have overcome her blindness
so well that it may, in this case, be considered a mere
inconvenience.
9. By the sounds the children make, Mrs. Duncan knows exactly
where they are and what they are doing.
10. Debra Duncan's home is always hazard-free, and she is the
first to notice a potentially dangerous situation.
11. Debra Duncan has never failed to notice a rash or bruise on
my daughter and is often the first to notice the beginnings of a
fever.
12. If I had another child, I would take it to Debra Duncan for
child care, and I recommend her to other parents.

                  AFFIDAVIT OF VICKIE L. WERTZ

I, Vickie L. Wertz, hereby swear and depose:
1. My name is Vickie L. Wertz.
2. I reside at 6717 Birnam Street, Rio Linda, California, 95673.
3. I am the mother of a boy, Brandon, who is three and one- half
years old.
4. When my son was four months old, I employed Debra Duncan to
serve as his babysitter.  She cared for my son for about two and
one-half years.
5. While my son was in her care, Mrs. Duncan bathed, clothed,
fed, and changed him and provided a healthy environment for play
activities for him.
6. While in Mrs. Duncan's care, my child was happy and content to
be taken to her home and was always clean no matter when I came
to pick him up.
7. When my son was about eight months old, I thought it would be
more convenient for me to use a different babysitter.  However,
my son was unhappy, frequently cried, and was poorly kept.  I
returned him to the care of Mrs. Duncan where he immediately
returned to being a happy and clean baby.
8. I have nothing but praise for Debra Duncan as a babysitter. 
She was always aware of what the children were doing and truly
cared for them as if they were her own.
9. I have referred several parents to Debra Duncan and would not
hesitate to take another child of my own to her for child care
services, if I should have one.

                 AFFIDAVIT OF PAULA J. ROBINSON

I, Paula J. Robinson, hereby swear and depose:
1. My name is Paula J. Robinson.
2. I reside at 6112 Ogden Nash, Sacramento, California, 95842.
3. I have two daughters, ages ten years and two years.
4. When my ten-year-old was a toddler, Debra Duncan cared for her
in a child care setting.
5. Many years later, after the birth of my second child, I again
sought Debra Duncan to be my babysitter.
6. I have always felt very secure in the child care and parenting
capabilities of Mrs. Duncan.
7. One time, while Mrs. Duncan was visiting in my home, my oldest
daughter was choking on the pull tab from a soda can.  Mrs.
Duncan noticed the unusual sounds coming from my child and took
full control of the situation before I even realized what was
happening.  Debra Duncan dislodged the tab from my daughter's
throat.
8. Debra Duncan takes great precautions in providing a safe
environment, and she is always aware of the safety of the
children in her care.
9. I believe that one of the greatest attributes of Mrs. Duncan
is her ability to communicate with children.  The children
communicate with her by bringing her something they might find or
by taking her hand and guiding her to toys.  They learn at an
early age of their own sense of touch and smell, and they have
begun talking much earlier than normal.
10. My second child was under the care of Mrs. Duncan when she
was denied a Family Day Care License, at which time she was no
longer able to care for the child.  I was unable to find another
day care program for my child which provided stimulation and
communication for my daughter of the quality offered by Mrs.
Duncan.  I therefore closed my business and am remaining at home
with my child.  
____________________
As with the affidavits from Federationists, the testimony of the
parents
was compelling and irrefutable. We were within one week of the
administrative hearing when the Department of Social Services
requested that we have a settlement conference before an
Administrative Law Judge.  We agreed to hold the settlement
conference on July 16, 1987.  The conference lasted more than
three hours as we went back and forth trying to reach some
amenable resolution of the problem.  We maintained our position
that Debra Duncan was competent and deserving of the unrestricted
Family Day Care Home for Children License which she sought.  We
further held the position that the State of California was
discriminating against Debbie because of blindness and that the
State was preventing her from gainful employment because of this
discrimination.  The State of California's position was that
there were other blind persons in California holding the Family
Day Care License for six children with the restriction of a
sighted assistant. Therefore, there was a precedent which
required blind persons to have sighted assistants.
In an effort to require Debbie to have a sighted assistant,
County and State officials attempted to issue to Debbie a license
for twelve children which has the requirement of an assistant. 
Debbie was not qualified for this license because she did not
have one year of experience as the operator of a licensed Day
Care Home for Children.  We agreed to suspend the hearing pending
further negotiations.  In the meantime, Debbie was to be issued a
Family Day Care License for twelve children.  Debra Duncan never
was issued the license for twelve children because in October of
1987 the California Attorney General overturned the decision of
the officials of the Department of Social Services to give Debbie
the license for which she was not qualified and ordered that
Debra Duncan be awarded an unrestricted license for a Family Day
Care Home for six children the very license for which she had
applied eighteen months earlier.
This story would not be complete without an additional word about
Debra Duncan.  Debbie knew very little about the National
Federation of the Blind prior to that day in April of 1986 when
she came face to face with discrimination.  Someone Debbie
contacted suggested that she call the Federation for help.  At
the very next meeting of our Sacramento Chapter, Debbie and her
husband Larry were in attendance, and they have become active
members of the chapter.  When chapter elections were held some
months later, Debbie was elected the chapter treasurer.
She is, of course, pleased that she now has her license and, when
there is a vacancy, parents are standing in line to get their
children into her Day Care Center. Debbie will be the first to
tell you that
it was a long, hard battle and that it is unfortunate that such
discrimination and prejudice exist. However, she also says that a
part of her is glad that it happened because if she had not been
denied the license, she might never have found the National
Federation of the Blind and become a member of the movement.

               BRAILLE: THE AGONY AND THE ECSTASY
                    by Abraham Nemeth, Ph.D.
 (Dr. Nemeth, who is a member of the Research and Development
Committee of the National Federation of the Blind, is a brilliant
mathematician and a thoughtful scholar. Here is what he has to
say about some of the technicalities of Braille.) 

If you were asked to list, in order of their importance, those
ideas, inventions, or discoveries which, throughout the ages,
have contributed the most to improving the quality of human life,
the invention of Braille would surely be somewhere near the top
of the list.  Braille has liberated a whole class of people from
a condition of illiteracy and dependence and has given them the
means for self- fulfillment
and enrichment.  The negative feelings of frustration and
self-deprecation have been replaced by positive feelings of
accomplishment and self-esteem by the thousands of blind people
for whom the use of Braille has become one of the skills of
everyday living.  Braille makes it possible for a blind person to
assume a role of equality in modern society, and
it can unlock the potential within him to become a contributing
member of his community on a par with his sighted fellows.
So much for the ecstasy, and now for the agony!
The sorry plight of the Braille reader today is that the Braille
material he receives contains many areas in which the
representation is far below any standard of acceptable quality. 
What he encounters ranges anywhere from the ludicrous to the
unreadable.  In the following paragraphs I will highlight these
troublesome areas and offer a historical perspective on how the
difficulty arose.  At the end, I will offer some recommendations
on how the problems might best be solved.

Nonplused by the Plus Sign

In the books, magazines, newspapers, fliers, posters, and all
manner of printed material, the signs for plus, minus, equals,
and others are as commonplace as eggs in a henhouse. 
Nevertheless, these signs are  scrupulously avoided no, forbidden
in the general material that Braille readers receive.  The
reason: The mathematics codes sanctioned by the Braille Authority
of North America (BANA) and the Braille Authority of the United
Kingdom (BAUK) are different.  In particular, they do
not use the same Braille representations for the signs just
mentioned.  The Americans, so the logic goes, could not read the
British versions of these signs, and the British could not read
the American version of these signs.  The solution: Make no
provision for representing these signs at all!  Instead, replace
them by the words which one
might use for them when reading aloud. But this is a specious
argument.  There are many issues on which the two Authorities
differ.  With respect to such issues, each Authority implements
its own interpretation in
the  area over which it has jurisdiction.  Why not extend this
principle to the issue of the above-mentioned signs?  How these
signs should
be represented is one of the most poorly kept secrets in the
Braille-using community in this country; most blind people are
already routinely using them in their personal work.  And for the
few who still might not know how such signs should be
represented, how long a course of study do you suppose would be
required to acquaint them with the signs which have already been
sanctioned?  Such a situation is demeaning
both to the intelligence and to the literary capabilities of the
Braille reader, and its continuance is unacceptable.

The Hype About The Hyphen

One of the most tyrannical rules in the Literary Code is the one
which requires the maximum use of hyphens to divide words into
syllables.  The proponents of this rule operate under the
delusion that by implementing this rule, a considerable amount of
space saving would be realized.  Experience has shown, however,
that very little, if any, actual space  is saved.  Because most
press Braille is currently formatted by computer, where 
hyphenation is not practical, books and magazines produced by
this technology are exempt from the hyphenation rule.  However,
transcribers who use the Perkins Brailler or who produce Braille
on a computer by using a speciallly designated set of six keys to
form
the Braille characters must still conform to  the hyphenation
rule.  This creates a double standard.  The only meaningful space
saving occurs when a Braille volume can be reduced by at least
one page. Most of the time, maximum hyphenation reduces the
length of the last line of a paragraph, but does not eliminate
that line, with no saving in the line count. When, on occasion, a
line is saved by applying maximum hyphenation, this line is
absorbed on the last page of a chapter (or volume if chapters do
not begin on new pages).  Assuming a 25-line page, you would have
to save at least 25 lines in the course of an 80-page volume to
be certain of having saved a page of Braille a highly unlikely
feat.  To save a page within a chapter is even more unlikely. 
Meanwhile, the transcriber must spend uncounted hours consulting
a dictionary in a mostly futile attempt to save space instead of
devoting time and skill more productively in the creation of
Braille text.  As for the Braille reader, he is required to read
longer lines and more Braille characters when hyphenation is
maximized, without any offsetting reward in the form of a slimmer
volume.  Surely, the reader's time and effort are at least as 
valuable as a sheet of Braille paper.  It would be better to
abolish the maximum-hyphenation rule altogether, thereby
reverting to a single standard and utilizing the transcriber's
skill, time, and effort more effectively.  All of the above does
not
imply that hyphenation should never be used.  Words like 
psychotherapy  and  pseudoscientific  almost beg to be hyphenated
when appropriate.  But failure to hyphenate should never be
considered a Braille error.

The Cart Before The Horse

One of the rules of the Literary Code requires that an
abbreviation of measure be transposed from the position it
normally occupies  in print to a position preceding the number
which specifies the magnitude of the measured quantity; e.g., ft5
in Braille vs. 5 ft. in print.  This rule was also devised with
the goal of saving space.  After all, if you transpose the
abbreviation to a position ahead of the number which it affects,
you can ignore  any period which might be attached to
the abbreviation, and you can also save a space by writing the
abbreviation close up to the number.  Thus, it would take six
cells to write 5 ft. as in print, but only four cells to write
the same expression in accordance with current Braille rules.  If
you accept the premise of the preceding paragraph, namely, that
the only meaningful space saving is that which results in the
reduction of at least one page in a volume, I leave it to you to
estimate how much space might be
saved in a volume of Braille by  putting the cart before the
horse.   Most of the rules of the Literary Code were formulated a
long time ago,
when most blind students attended a residential school where many
of the teachers were also blind.  In such a setting, it was a
harmless rule.  The students could communicate with each other
and with their teachers on the basis of this rule because
everyone knew the rule.  This deviation from print practice,
however, together with other deviations resulting from other
rules had the effect of producing a kind of subculture to which
only the users of Braille were privy.  Today, an enlightened
society mandates the mainstreaming of blind students into the
public
schools to the greatest extent possible commensurate with their
abilities.  This mainstreaming is not confined to the schools; it
extends into adult life both in the workplace and in other
community activities.  A blind person must be able to communicate
on a basis of equality with his sighted peers.  They must both
have a common understanding of what constitutes accepted English
usage.  When the  cart must be before the horse,  a blind person
must always be on guard not to lapse into his subculture when
creating print documents; to his sighted colleagues, it would
seem arcane.  Worse, a blind person could project an image of
being just short of competent.  It is time to put  the horse
before the cart  again.  The transposition rule is nothing more
than an anachronism and an impediment to a blind person trying to
be functional in the society in which he must participate.

Tables

I can think of no Braille-reading experience more frustrating
than trying to read a table in any of the periodicals which I
regularly receive. It really isn't a table at all.  It is
introduced by the announcement:  In the following table, the
columns follow each other in this order : There then follows an
enumeration of the column headings.  Some tables contain seven or
more columns whose
headings the reader is supposed to remember as he reads the
information.  Thereafter, each row of the table becomes a
paragraph in Braille.  When the Literary Code was formulated long
ago, there was very little input from the Braille user.  The
decisions were made by their custodians  who knew what was best
for the blind.   It was  obvious  that a blind person must read a
Braille book by starting at the first cell of the first line of
the first page and that he must then read character after
character, line after line, and page after page, until he arrives
at the last cell of the last line of the last page.  Near the
beginning of this century, many British books contained no
paragraph indentations by way of applying this principle. 
Instead, the beginning of a paragraph was separated from the end
of the preceding paragraph on the same line by two blank spaces. 
An asterisk was embossed in the margin
next to the line on which a new paragraph began as a flag to the
Braille reader that a new paragraph could be found on that line. 
The poetry-line sign, which is part of the present Literary Code
is another application of the same principle.  By using the
poetry-line sign, you can avoid starting a new line of poetry on
a new line of Braille.  And the presentation of a table in the
manner described above is a third application of this principle,
more debilitating than the other two.  It is true that the method
is authorized in the present Literary Code, but it is a shameless
cop-out.  There are better and more effective ways of presenting
such a table; just ask any volunteer transcriber. What sighted
person would be content to cope with a tabular presentation in
this format?  The need to save space is an ingrained compulsive
obsession, outweighing all other considerations, even readability
itself.  I have been advised not to press this matter too hard;
to produce tables in a readable format would create an inordinate
delay in the timely delivery of the magazine.  Such advice is a
corollary of the kind of advice blind people frequently receive
when they seek to improve their condition, either implicitly or
explicitly, and which can best be summed up in the couplet:

 Bless the squire and his relations,  And keep us in our proper
stations. 

The negative declaration  It can't be done  could be more
profitably replaced by the positive question:  How can we do it? 
There are other issues which need to be addressed, but for now,
the above will suffice.

Recommendations

It is difficult to bring about change.  First, the needed changes
must be brought to the attention of the proper people, and
secondly, those people need to be convinced that the changes are
desirable.  Whenever I have raised any of these issues, I have
been reminded about the constraints imposed by code rules.  But
code rules are made by people and can be changed by people.  In
the last decade, the Braille
Authority of North America has released addenda to more than one
code.  Furthermore, all of the major groups with an interest in
the Braille delivery system have representation on BANA and are
in a position to initiate the process of change.  But we are
dealing with bodies of great mass and great inertia.  Its
inclination for modification can be summed up in the couplet:

 Come weal or come woe,
 Our status is quo. 

Nevertheless, with an open mind, good will, and sincere intent,
it is possible  to bring about the needed changes.
Finally, it would be a good idea for the rest of the community
involved in the Braille delivery system to take an example from
the volunteer transcribers. These transcribers conduct local,
regional, and national conferences in which the main feature is a
series of workshops for
the sharing of know-how and skills.  They publish bulletins and
newsletters containing skills columns featuring solutions to
Braille transcribing problems.  They maintain networks of area
representatives who are
willing and qualified to help transcribers with problems in all
areas literary, scientific, music, textbook format, tables,
drawings, etc.  The truth
is that the volunteers produce Braille of a higher quality than
is produced professionally.  These professionals would do well to
learn from the volunteers.  It would not be amiss for them to
subscribe
to the volunteer publications, to attend their workshops, and to
avail themselves of the services of the area representatives. 
They would do well to consider initiating workshops and
publications of their own.
                 TOM BENHAM PROTESTS ACTION BY 
AMERICAN FOUNDATION FOR THE BLIND
From the Editor: There was a time when the name of Professor
Thomas Benham was virtually a household word among many blind
people in this country. However, I had not heard much about him
for a number of years, and then recently some interesting
correspondence between him and the American Foundation for the
Blind came to my attention. It moved me to call Professor Benham,
which I did on May 31, 1988.
He refreshed my memory and filled in the gaps of my knowledge
concerning his career. Blind since childhood, he received a
doctorate in electrical engineering from the University of
Pennsylvania and taught electronics, physics, and math at
Haverford College in Pennsylvania until his retirement at age
sixty-five in 1976. Shortly after the Second World War he began
working under contract with the Veterans Administration to
produce
an electronic travel device for the blind. He says that this
eventuated into the laser cane, which is now being manufactured
by another company.  In the late 1940's he began modifying manual
calculators so that they could be read by the blind. As I
remember it, these were antiquated
models with a crank on the side which you turned to finish the
calculations.  But Benham's calculators had the virtue of being
both cheap and workable.  I wish the same could be said of many
of the hi-tech devices which are on the market today.
Benham also began turning out various low-cost measuring devices
which could be read by the blind micrometers, a gadget to read
meters in broadcasting stations, automobile repair equipment, and
the like.  It was at about this time that his name became widely
known among the blind and that he established the nonprofit
organization called Science for the Blind. He says that Science
for the Blind was created in 1954 and incorporated in 1962.
Apparently Science for the Blind limped along for about ten years
with a contract here, a sale there, and a grant from somewhere
else.  Benham says that the single most important factor in
keeping Science for the Blind afloat was a contract from the
National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped
to duplicate material on open reel tape and that when NLS shifted
to cassettes in 1973, he couldn't make the change. He says that
the duplicating equipment would have taken almost $150,000 of
personal money which he did not have and that as a result Science
for the Blind had to stop operating.

He says that the board of directors of Science for the Blind
transferred the assets of the organization to him and his wife
Lee and that they began operating a profit-making corporation (at
least, they hoped it would be profit-making) under the name
Science Products. Although Science Products continued to make
certain devices for the blind, it also moved into other fields.
In the meantime hi-tech took the center of the stage, and
Benham's name largely became a memory. Many of the blind of today
have probably never heard of him which, incidentally, might serve
as a caution to all who comfort themselves that today's claim
will insure tomorrow's immortality.
Then, as I have already said, correspondence came to my attention
which I thought  Monitor  readers might find interesting and
instructive. So here it is from a voice not silenced, from a
spirit not quenched:

____________________
                                       Southeastern, Pennsylvania
                                                    April 4, 1988

Mr. William Gallagher
Executive Director
American Foundation for the Blind
New York, New York

Dear Bill Gallagher:
It has come to our attention that AFB has submitted a voice
system to Lifescan for their review for use with the Glucoscan
Blood Glucose Monitors.
As I am sure you know, we have been marketing a voice system for
blood glucose meters for some time we came to New York a few
years ago to discuss this and other activities with your staff.
It disturbs us to think that AFB might be planning to compete
with us on this produce. We have several concerns:
1) We have already spent a great deal of money and other
resources designing and redesigning voice modules for blood
glucose analyzers.  Every time the manufacturer changes design,
we must change also. It is expensive, the market is small, the
rewards are meager. We have done it because we need products to
keep our technical departments active on not only this but other
projects for the blind as well.
2) At least two other private enterprise companies have produced
talking blood glucose analyzers: Boehringer Mannheim and Orange
Medical. We have competed successfully with both.
3) AFB's stated purpose has been to encourage development and
distribution of aids for the vision impaired. Duplication of
development costs on products already on the market does not seem
consistent with this purpose.
4) Since AFB subsidizes with nonprofit funds both development and
marketing of its own products, production and sale of an item
already being successfully marketed by private enterprise would,
in our opinion, constitute unfair competition.
We have been developing and marketing special aids for the vision
impaired for more than twenty years. We have provided
one-of-a-kind items for individuals, and we have developed a few
products which sell in the hundreds each year. Overall, we have
made ends meet and, we feel, provided a service to the vision
impaired which they cannot obtain from anyone else. We had some
financial help in the beginning, but since the early seventies
all funds for this activity have come
from our own pockets. The projects which do not work out well
financially we subsidize, as it were, from our own dinner table.
The American Printing House recently brought to market a new
four-track speech compression cassette recorder. It is the same
unit for which we were developing an adaptation. We lost $5,000.
The Printing House can afford to cut us and others out of the
market, because they have not only nonprofit funds but government
subsidy as well. Those of us who compete with the Printing House
do so at our own risk, though we may hope that the system will
change and that federal education funds will be made available to
purchase aids from the general market and not just from the
Printing House, whose products may or may not be best for all
applications.
We have worried about competition from AFB in the past since you
obviously have the resources to swamp anything we might try to
market. Fortunately for us and for blind consumers the
relationship with AFB has been one of mutual respect; and though
we have received little direct help from the Foundation, we have
not been directly harmed by any of your activities.
Your entry into the talking glucose monitor market would
seriously undermine our entire business and probably cause us to
withdraw gradually from all activity involving aids for the
blind.
We would very much like to explore ways in which AFB can help us
to help the vision impaired not only with the talking module for
the blood glucose monitors but in other ways as well. We feel
that our purposes are compatible, that competition can only waste
resources, and that cooperation can bring more and varied aids to
the market for enhancement of life for the vision impaired.
We hope you agree, and we look forward to hearing from you.

                                                Very truly yours,
                                               Tom and Lee Benham
                                                 Science Products

____________________
                                               New York, New York
                                                   April 18, 1988

Dear Tom and Lee:
Thank you for the frank and sincere comments contained in your
letter
of April 4.
It is, and always has been, the policy of the American Foundation
for the Blind (AFB) for the National Technology Center (NTC) to
develop needed products for blind and visually impaired
consumers. The projects we are working on are discussed openly,
and we always solicit information from the field to assist us in
our planning.
LifeScan, a Johnson & Johnson company, has given us technical
information on the operation of their One-Touch unit. Since no
such low-cost blood glucometer with voice is being marketed, we
have proceeded to develop a prototype voice box attachment for
this unit. In discussions with LifeScan, they indicated that they
have given out the same technical information to your
organization and others to allow everyone a chance to develop
adaptations to their unit.
We would be happy to entertain any thoughts you might have on
possible collaboration between our organizations on this and/or
any future developments. It might also be appropriate to
investigate the sale
of this unit by two or more companies. This, of course, does not
preclude Science Products proceeding with and marketing their own
voice box.  Please feel free to contact us should you have any
additional questions or wish to pursue avenues of cooperation.

                                                       Sincerely,
                                             William F. Gallagher
                                               Executive Director
                                American Foundation for the Blind

____________________
                                       Southeastern, Pennsylvania
                                                     May 13, 1988

Dear Bill:
Thank you for your response to our letter of April 4 questioning
AFB's entry into the talking blood glucose monitor market. After
reading your reply we wonder if you realize that we have been
working with Ray Underwood, Vice President of Engineering at
Lifescan, for almost two years planning and then pursuing the
development of a speech unit for Johnson & Johnson blood glucose
analyzers.
Changes in technology and delayed availability of new technology
retarded our progress and increased our costs. When we were given
information on the One-Touch recently, we were in the final
stages of a long and, for us, expensive project to produce a new
speech module for many applications. The GlucoScan 3000 and
One-Touch were given first priority since we had not provided
voice for LifeScan units with our old technology.  New units, now
in production, will be shipped in May.
We, and several others (Boehringer Mannheim, Diascan, Orange
Medical, and Med-Equip), have taken risks over the past five to
six years to bring a sound or talking blood glucose analyzer to
the market. As
a result of our efforts the demand for such a unit has increased
significantly, we have all lost money one way or another, and all
have certainly
made a substantial investment.
It certainly does not seem to us to be in the best interests of
the blind community for AFB to use its nonprofit advantages to
invade
an already developed market and usurp sales from those of us who
have spent money to develop that market.
AFB has claimed a commitment to encourage private business to
develop and produce technology beneficial to the vision impaired.
You mail
your catalogs at a rate less than half what we have to pay. You
purchase capital equipment, hire technicians, and administer your
activities with donated money. You pay no taxes. If you use these
advantages to undercut prices and take over a portion of the
already very small volume market, businesses which have made a
commitment to a product for the blind will certainly not be
encouraged to do so again. We will recognize that aids for the
blind is a no-win market and stop trying. The ultimate result
will be control of the market by AFB and fewer options for the
blind.
If you leave the free enterprise system alone, private business
will develop not only a better and less expensive talking blood
glucose analyzer but other products as well. If you deprive us of
the portion of the market we have earned by taking risks and
offering products and services in fair competition, we will seek
other markets where
we do not have to fear being undercut by subsidized, tax exempt
organizations.  We have counted on revenues from the sale of out
Digi-Voice GlucoModule to fund development of other low-volume
special employment-education instruments. If you take away some
of our sales or cause us to reduce our prices because of your
nonprofit competition, some or all of these instruments will be
abandoned.
We, and others who enter the market of aids for the vision
impaired, are entitled to and need an honest return on our
investment when we produce a device which proves useful and
viable. Certainly there must be other areas in which AFB can help
the vision impaired rather than duplicating what is already on
the market to the detriment of those who put it there!
We continue to hope AFB will not upset the free enterprise system
which has brought the talking blood glucose analyzer to the
market and improved it. Many blind people over the past six years
have had talking units to use because of Science Products and
others. Many will have other instruments in the future because of
Science Products' long- standing commitment to this market unless
we are deprived of a return on our investment because of unfair
competition.

                                                Very truly yours,
                                               Tom and Lee Benham
                                                 Science Products
                       ON TRAFFIC SIGNALS
                          by Ted Young
 (Ted Young is District Manager of the Southeast Region of the
Pennsylvania Blindness and Visual Services, the agency
administering the state's rehabilitation program for the blind.) 

The question of chirping, burping, burbling, buzzing, squeaking,
squawking, or otherwise noisy traffic signals needs to be looked
at from several perspectives. 1) Are they necessary? 2) Are they
even minimally convenient or useful? and 3) Are they harmful?
As to the usefulness of such devices, allow me to point out that
blind persons have been traveling successfully and safely
throughout history without such props and aids. Unless one can
prove that traffic conditions have radically changed or that
something has caused the blind as a whole to deteriorate or
become less able, it is difficult to build a case for the
necessity of such devices. We strongly believe that, given proper
mobility training, a blind person can safely cross any street
without such gimmicks.
There are those who argue that this is a point of view held by
the elite, the fortunate blind who somehow manage to travel and
do most things well. This argument goes on to suggest that such
blind persons have no empathy for the needs of their less
fortunate blind brothers and sisters. Let us take a moment to
examine the weakness of this argument.
There is something seriously wrong with an assumption that there
are two classes of blind people, the able and the unable. Yes,
there are varying degrees of natural ability and skill among
blind persons just as there are varying degrees of ability and
skill among members of
any group in our society. The harm of the argument lies in its
assumption that people who can do things somehow miraculously got
that way, and that the rest of the given population is incapable
of achieving the
same level of functioning. Let me assure you that with very few
exceptions the blind person who can travel, read and write
Braille well, type, use computers, shop, and live independently
learned the alternate techniques to do those things from some
place. By assigning a blind person who cannot do those same
things to the ranks of the less fortunate blind, we affix a label
to him or her. We subconsciously make the decision that further
and better rehabilitation would not benefit this individual. This
is a sad position to take concerning any human being. However,
having taken that position, it is easy to understand how one
would fall into the trap of turning one's thoughts away from
providing the best possible rehabilitation services and to the
task of seeking a miracle cure for the lack of them. What should
that cure be? Something visible and loud, a much less expensive
solution than designing the kinds of programs that would provide
the necessary skills to the individual. If you convince yourself
that this signal does the job for those you have not trained
properly, then why bother with upgrading the training?
 Okay,  say the proponents of such devices,  suppose you have
done your best, and the individual has not learned? Suppose that
past rehabilitation services have been poor, and there are a
number
of blind people walking around who still cannot cross the street
safely.  Suppose that the blind person has other handicaps that
prevent him or her from being able to learn to cross the street. 
 Now we have reached the second difficulty of the argument that
suggests that there are less fortunate blind people, namely, the
question of whether such signals help at all. What do the signals
actually do for the individual? I suppose the theory is that by
providing a loud sound, the person knows that it is safe to cross
the street. Take a minute to ask yourself how the trained blind
person does it? The answer should not be surprising. It is done
by listening to traffic flow, and when the traffic is moving
beside you, as opposed to in front of you, it is okay to cross.
It is difficult to understand how a signal chirping and burbling
in the air is more reliable than the tried and tested technique
of listening to traffic flow. Indeed, if a person cannot be
trained to analyze traffic flow despite the best efforts of
rehabilitation or because of other handicaps, it is questionable
whether a traffic signal can help that person to cross any street
safely or independently. If a person's only handicap is blindness
and if that person has been properly trained, a squealing traffic
signal will not be helpful. If the difficulty is other than
blindness and has to do with the inability to detect traffic
flow, there is a danger in trusting only the knowledge that the
light has changed in crossing a street.
It could be argued at this point that if certain blind persons
don't need those signals, more power to them. But why fight the
idea if it has even the smallest potential of benefiting someone
else. If such signals neither helped nor harmed anyone, then
there would be little point in fighting against them. If such
signals provided the most minimal help to anyone and did not harm
others, it would be a callous act to fight against them. However,
we believe that not only do such signals fail to help anyone,
they can and do cause harm to blind persons.
Such signals are harmful on a number of fronts. First, from the
standpoint of mobility, the less noise the better when crossing
the street. One is already bombarded with loud unmuffled traffic,
jack hammers, sounds of building construction, etc. Surely
another noisy addition to this scene is unneeded and unwanted.
Indeed, there is a liability question being considered by some
cities that goes like this: If I put up a noisy signal and a
blind person does not hear a car turning (causing his or her
injury), are we as a city liable for contributing to that
accident?
Then, there is the question of whether such signals generate a
false sense of security. Over a period of time does one come to
believe that a chirping, squawking, burbling signal makes better
drivers?  Does one become careless in the belief that the signal
is predicting a safe crossing? Does such a suggestion of safety
contribute to the suit against the city which can no more
guarantee the care of its drivers than a fortune teller can
guarantee the future?
Next comes the question of the general impression such
unnecessary devices leave with the public. That same signal that
burbles for you burbles to the general public, proclaiming that
the blind cannot cross streets without such special assistance.
Obviously if the blind cannot cross streets without such
assistance, what other assistance do they require to do the
mundane everyday tasks of living and working and what about the
streets (most streets, in fact) which have no such signals? If I
am an employer exposed to such unnecessary devices, what will I
think when asked to hire a blind person? Sure, but what will it
cost me? Will I need to have a chirping bathroom door, a singing
desk chair, a warbling waste can? No, not for me today thank you. 
I can't afford it. Such questions might not be so bad if they
were asked outright, but far too often human beings make
decisions based on their myths and misconceptions without
thinking twice about them.  Indeed, how strong can an argument
against such myths and misconceptions be if it needs to compete
with the employer's daily experience of crossing the street
beneath that obnoxious siren of helplessness and dependency?
Finally, there is a much broader issue involved here. In the
areas of more and better jobs, the right to sit where we want to
on public transportation, the right to live, go to school, work,
and recreate where we choose, it is necessary to educate the
public concerning the real nature of blindness. Such education
cannot occur if a person cannot be made to evaluate his or her
present thoughts on blindness and discard the many incredible,
unfounded myths, misconceptions,
and assumptions that most persons have on the subject. Such
introspection is not easy for any of us; and when one considers
that various polls have established the fact that the general
public fears blindness
almost as much as it fears cancer, it is easy to understand the
difficulty we face in getting people to do this. When we ask for
unnecessary things that convey an incorrect impression of
blindness in the first place, are we not defeating the long,
arduous task of educating the general public about the
capabilities of the blind. Isn't it easier to spend a little
money and make a public display than to change one's attitudes
and beliefs?
To many people a beeping, squeaking, hanging-up-there-
proclaiming-our-goodness-to-the-world traffic signal would be a
good thing to do for the blind. There it
would hang for years shouting forth the beneficence of the city.
No candle under a bushel in this case. But alas, such a gift
given under
a mistaken notion of charity may also be the death knell of more
serious pursuits by the blind. After all, don't all of us have
some limit beyond which we are not willing to go? Don't we all
sometimes feel that having done something for one cause or
another, we should now
be left to pursue other interests and other causes? Is it then
remarkable that when approached on an issue that requires deep
introspection about blindness (something the average American
would prefer to avoid), many persons would refuse to do so with a
gesture to the burbler of beneficence. Look what we have already
done. After all, wasn't it easier in the first place to
understand that a helpless blind person might need special
assistance at street corners, than to understand that I should
open my plant to that helpless individual? Wasn't it easier to
put that signal there than to rent to a blind person who might
somehow damage my house? Wasn't it easier to put that signal
there than to pass laws assuring the blind equal opportunities in
employment? Why should the blind want them in the first place
since they lack the capabilities of using them?
The issue of special traffic signals for the blind transcends the
burbling, buzzing, and chirping of the signal itself. Indeed, it
is as basic as what we as blind persons believe we are and how we
want the general public to think of and respond to us.
                          HOW VALID IS 
 THE SIGNATURE OF A BLIND PERSON
Sometimes it is worthwhile to look at our problems in
perspective.  How far have the blind of the United States come in
comparison with the blind of other nations? Of course, it depends
upon the country and the issue.
In this connection we recently received in the National Office a
letter from the Ethiopian National Association of the Blind. It
raises questions and shows how far the blind of the world still
have to go before achieving equality and first-class status.
Although a scattering of uninformed bank officials in this
country
try from time to time to prevent blind persons from renting safe
deposit boxes, this is the exception rather than the rule, and
generally blind persons do not have difficulty establishing
checking accounts. Likewise, quite a number of blind persons
throughout the nation are judges, lawyers, and government
officials. Moreover, we know of no law anywhere in the country
which prohibits the blind from entering into contracts on the
grounds that the unnotarized signature of a blind person is not
valid.
Here is a letter from the blind of Ethiopia asking for
information and assistance. We sent letters and documents and
will provide such other help as we can.

____________________

                                            Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
                                                     May 18, 1988

To the National Federation of the Blind  of the United States

Dear Sir or Madam:

There have been some problems concerning the acceptability and
validity of blind persons signature related to official documents
here in Ethiopia.  Therefore, our Association would like to avail
itself of your experience in this respect.
In some government offices blind employees are not allowed to
sign their written work on the ground that their signature is
liable to forgery and that their knowledge about the document is
based on their reader. As a result, such employees, how qualified
and experienced they may be, are not given executive posts. This
has hindered their promotion to a large extent.
The basis for this problem is supposed to be the Ethiopian Civil
Code Article 1728(3) which provides:  the signature or thumb mark
of blind persons affixed may not bind them unless authenticated
by a notary, a registrar, or a judge in the discharge of their
official duties.   Although this provision was intended to
protect the blind in their contractual undertakings, it has been
wrongly extended
by analogy as to cover other areas of interaction in a manner
prejudicial to the blind. On account of this extension, for
instance, the blind cannot draw or endorse checks by themselves,
cannot withdraw money from their personal bank account as their
signature is considered insufficient and has to be attested by a
sighted person.
We would appreciate if you could share with us the experiences of
your country in the following: 1) Whether the blind are given
posts in such capacities as ministers, judges, public
prosecutors, etc.
2) How the blind carry out their official duties and personal
activities pertaining to signature, i.e. whether their signature
requires authentication or attestation by sighted persons.
We would also be grateful if you could provide us with
information on related matters.

                                                       Sincerely,
                                         Berihun Girmay, Chairman
                                  Ethiopian National Association 
of the Blind
           SOUTH DAKOTA LEGISLATURE PASSES RESOLUTION 
SUPPORTING FEDERATION
As the National Federation of the Blind continues to grow in
strength, membership, and resources, it is increasingly coming to
be recognized
as the voice of the blind of the nation. Government officials,
legislative bodies, and the public at large understand and offer
support. A case in point is the following resolution, adopted by
both House and Senate of the South Dakota Legislature:

                  House Concurrent Resolution 
No. 1024
A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION, expressing support for the National
Federation of the Blind of South Dakota and its efforts towards
bettering the lives of South Dakota's blind citizens.
WHEREAS, the National Federation of the Blind of South Dakota
held its 1987 annual meeting in Mobridge on May 2, 1987; and
WHEREAS, at the annual meeting the National Federation of the
Blind of South Dakota endorsed several resolutions supporting
action to enhance the opportunities of blind people; and
WHEREAS, the National Federation of the Blind seeks to work with
state officials in order to assist all blind students in learning
Braille; and
WHEREAS, the National Federation of the Blind supports federal
legislation which would provide grants to states for the purpose
of assisting
the growing number of blind people who require life-sustaining
immunosuppressive drug therapy following an organ transplant; and
WHEREAS, the National Federation of the Blind has resolved to
take a position against wasteful and annoying installed travel
aids for the blind, such as audible traffic signals and
pathfinder tiles; and WHEREAS, the National Federation of the
Blind has also taken a stand against unreasonable and
discriminatory airline procedures for blind persons:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the House of Representatives
of the Sixty-third Legislature of the state of South Dakota, the
Senate concurring therein, that the National Federation of the
Blind of South Dakota is supported and recognized for its efforts
to enhance the opportunities of all blind individuals in the
state of South Dakota.  Adopted by the House of Representatives
February 11, 1988; Concurred in by the Senate February 12, 1988.

Debra Anderson, Speaker of the House
Paul Inman, Chief Clerk of the House
Walter D. Miller, President of the Senate
Fee Jacobsen, Secretary of the Senate
                          R E C I P E S
We recently received the following letter and recipe from
newlywed
NFB of Nevada President, Joan Abraham Tait:
 Enclosed you will find a recipe for an absolutely delicious
soup.  Last year the South Chapter of the NFB of Nevada packaged
and sold the beans and other grains, along with the recipe. Those
who purchased it seemed to like it, so we thought that the other
members of the Federation might like to try it, too. 
                 LAS VEGAS LUCKY SEVEN BEAN SOUP
1/4 cup of the following:
black-eyed peas
butter beans/large limas
small limas
great northern beans
pearl barley
pinto beans
black beans
red/pink beans
split green peas
lentils

Wash thoroughly, cover with water and one tablespoon of salt.
Soak overnight. In the morning drain, add two quarts of fresh
water, one-half pound of ham or ham hocks, and bring to a boil.
Stirring occasionally, simmer for two and a half hours, then add:
one large onion, one large can of tomatoes (twenty-nine ounces),
one pod of red pepper or one teaspoon chili powder, juice of one
lemon, salt and pepper to taste.  Simmer only another half hour
then serve (six) with French bread or crackers and green salad.
This can be purchased with the first ten items prepackaged for
$2.50 postage paid from the Southern Nevada Chapter, National
Federation
of the Blind of Nevada. Send check or money order for $2.50 to:
Beans, 1001 North Bruce, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101.
                         PINEAPPLE BEETS
                        by Ronald Greene
 (Ronald Greene is one of the long-time, stalwart members of the
National Federation of the Blind of Iowa.) 

2 cups diced beets
2 tablespoons oil or margarine
1 cup crushed pineapple
2 tablespoons vinegar
2 tablespoons corn starch
1/2 teaspoon pineapple flavoring
salt and pepper to taste

Cook beets. Then, peel and dice. In a small saucepan combine oil,
pineapple, vinegar, corn starch, and pineapple flavoring. Cook
just until it thickens. Pour pineapple mixture over diced beets.
Stir until well mixed. Add salt and pepper. Cool until well
chilled.  

                        CARAMEL BROWNIES
                      by Mary Lou Anderson
 (Mary Lou Anderson is a long-time member of the National
Federation
of the Blind of Louisiana.) 

1 box German Chocolate Cake mix
1 5-ounce can evaporated milk
1 cup pecans
1 12-ounce bag caramels
1 12-ounce bag chocolate chips
2 sticks butter

1) Combine cake mix with butter, chopped pecans, and evaporated
milk (one-third cup). 2) Put a thin layer of mix on thirteen- by
nine-inch pan and bake at 325 degrees for ten minutes. 3) Melt
caramels and evaporated milk (one-third cup) over low heat. Pour
caramels over cooked portion. 4) Add chocolate chips, then
remaining mix, and spread evenly on top. Bake for fifteen to
twenty minutes.


                    FROZEN PEANUT BUTTER PIE
by Mary Lou Anderson
1 Chocolate Crunch Crust *
1 8-ounce package cream cheese,
softened
1 14-ounce can sweetened condensed milk
(not evaporated milk)
3/4 cup peanut butter
2 tablespoons Real Lemon Juice
from concentrate
1 teaspoon vanilla extract
1 cup (1/2 pint) whipping cream, whipped
or 1 (14-ounce) container frozen
nondairy whipped topping, thawed
Chocolate fudge ice cream topping

In large mixer bowl beat cheese until fluffy; gradually beat in
sweetened condensed milk, then peanut butter until smooth. Stir
in lemon and vanilla. Fold in whipped cream. Turn into prepared
crust. Drizzle topping over pie. Freeze four hours or until firm.
Return leftovers to freezer.

* Chocolate Crunch Crust

In heavy saucepan over low heat melt one-third cup margarine or
butter and one (six-ounce) package semi-sweet chocolate chips.
Remove from heat; gently stir in two and a half cups oven-toasted
rice cereal until completely coated. Press on bottom and up side
of buttered nine- or ten-inch pie plate. Chill thirty minutes.

                         FOUR LAYER BOMB

                      by Mary Lou Anderson

 Layer One: 
2 sticks oleo, melted
2 cups flour
1 cup pecans, grated
Mix, press in oblong 9 by 13 pan,
bake 20 minutes at 350 degrees.

 Layer Two: 
1 cup sugar
1 cup cool whip
Mix well, spread on first layer.

 Layer Three: 
2 packages large instant chocolate pudding
3-1/2 cups milk
Mix with package instant pudding
and spread on second layer.

 Layer Four: 
9 ounces cool whip spread on third layer
Refrigerate overnight and serve.

               * * * * MONITOR MINIATURES * * * *
**Dies:

The April, 1988,  Alaska News  (the newsletter of the NFB of
Alaska) reports the death on February 14, 1988, of Joe Paul. 
Joe, a native Alaskan, was active in the Federation and will be
greatly missed

**Letters:
Edgar Sammons, RFD 1, Box 1840, Mountain City, Tennessee 37683,
writes:   I would like to get Braille letters from blind men of
any age from the United States and Canada.  I would be glad to
write back. 

**Blind Photographer:
We have been asked to carry the following announcement:
 I am a legally blind freelance photographer and teacher located
here in Biddeford, Maine. I'd like to ask your readers if they
would be interested in reading a column I'm considering writing
on the ways blind and visually handicapped individuals can
successfully photograph.  I teach photography at the University
of New England and would like to incorporate my own teaching with
the knowledge I've gained from dealing with my visual limitations
in an occupation that is visual
in nature. I'd like to teach photography to visually handicapped
people if there's interest. I'd appreciate any input from your
readers on this idea and would like to correspond with any and
all interested parties.  Contact me, Jonathan P. Ramsdell, at: 20
Chapel Street, Biddeford, Maine 04005, phone (207) 282- 0213. 

**Michael Baillif Wins Recognition and Opportunity:
Under date of March 17, 1988, Claremont McKenna College,
Claremont, California, issued a press release which said in part:

                Claremont McKenna College Student
                     Wins Watson Fellowship

Michael Baillif, a senior at Claremont McKenna College, is one of
75 college seniors across the nation to win a Thomas J. Watson
Fellowship.  Baillif, who is blind, contends that the blind can
be harmed by paternalism and that what they really need is to
develop their independence. Baillif will use his fellowship to
study the social attitudes toward and facilities for the blind in
England and Sweden.
Baillif is active in the United States' largest organization for
the blind, the National Federation of the Blind. He is President
of the organization's Student Division and in that capacity has
traveled widely throughout the country, speaking and writing
about matters concerning blindness.
While in England and Sweden, Baillif will also interview blind
persons and meet with leaders in the National Federation of the
United Kingdom and the World Blind Union. He will then evaluate
the facilities for the blind in England and Sweden.
Baillif is a top student at Claremont McKenna. He is a literature
major and has written his senior thesis on Henry David Thoreau. 
Subsequent to receiving this press release, we learned that
Michael Baillif graduated second in his class of 213 on May 15.

**Chapter Report:
We recently received the following report from the Prairie State
Chapter of the National Federation of the Blind of Illinois:
 The Prairie State Chapter of the National Federation of the
Blind of Illinois elected officers at its thirteenth anniversary
meeting.  This meeting was held April 16, 1988, at the Assumption
School in Coal City. Allen Schaefer of Mazon was re-elected
President. He has served as President since 1979, during which
time the chapter has grown to be the second largest Federation
chapter in the state. John Salvatore of Joliet was elected Vice
President; along with Mrs. Ruth Isaacs of Bourbonnais, Secretary;
and Mrs. Ruth Anne Schaefer of Mazon, Treasurer. Board members
elected were Earl and Elaine Salems of Morris, and Bill Isaacs of
Bourbonnais. `Sharing the Spirit of Federationism' was the theme
for this thirteenth anniversary, and all reports emphasized the
continued growth in membership and financial development, as well
as the people-oriented social action of the chapter. 

**Toilet Tissue:
The following item appeared in the April 7, 1988,  Aurora 
(Minnesota)
 East Range Journal-Facts :

                       Funding Needed for
                Lighthouse for the Blind Project

Between 40 and 50 new mid- to high-pay jobs will be created if a
public loan of $250,000 can be gained for the Duluth Lighthouse
for the Blind to process toilet tissue.
The St. Louis County Board on April 12 will consider an
application for a Small Cities Economic Development grant in that
amount with the money ultimately going to the Duluth Lighthouse.
Total funding for the project will amount to just under $6.2
million dollars.
St. Louis County Commissioners Marilyn Krueger and Bill Kron are
facilitators for the project at the County level.
The Lighthouse will use this money along with other monies to
supply the federal government with toilet tissue. The sale of the
tissue is expected to result in new annual  revenue of $13
million for the Lighthouse.
The Lighthouse will not manufacture this tissue but will purchase
tissue from paper mills in large 2,500 pound rolls and convert
them to standard size rolls of tissue.
The necessary grant money would come from the Minnesota
Department of Trade and Economic Development. The federal
government has already agreed to make the specified purchases
from the Duluth Lighthouse.  **Presbyterian Officers Wanted:
We have been asked to carry the following announcement:
I wish to make contact with anyone who is now or has been
recently an officer in the Presbyterian Church USA. Any blind
person who can provide information as to how he handled specific
duties is requested to contact: Willis Gene (Buck) Saunders at
1509 Kanawha Street, Point Pleasant, West Virginia 24550.

**Francis Joseph Campbell Award:
We recently received the following press release:
 Mr. James G. Chandler will be awarded the Francis Joseph
Campbell Citation and Medal at the American Library Association
Annual Conference in New Orleans on July 9th. The award has been
given to Mr. Chandler in recognition of his significant
contribution to access to the printed word for the blind and
visually impaired reader through his development of `Voice
Indexing,' a unique, rapid retrieval system which enables persons
with sight loss to quickly and efficiently locate information
(titles, chapter headings, section headings, key words, etc.).
This method requires no advanced technology or highly
sophisticated and expensive equipment. Its practicality is
exemplified by the fact that `Voice Indexing' can be utilized on
the kind of cassette players available to the blind from the
National Library Service of the Library of Congress.  Mr.
Chandler has set up Voice Indexing for the Blind, Inc., 9116 St. 
Andrews Place, College Park, Maryland 20740, a nonprofit
corporation established under Maryland law. 

**For Sale:
We have been asked to carry the following announcement: Votrax
Personal Speech System. Used very little. In original carton and
packing, with necessary cables. $150 or best offer. Write to
Janiece Betker, 1886 29th Avenue N.W., New Brighton, Minnesota
55112. Phone: (612) 639-1435.

**Iowa Leader Dies:
From the Editor: As this issue of the  Monitor  goes to press, I
have just learned of the death of Fred Kinne of Iowa. He died May
12, 1988, of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS), commonly known
as Lou Gehrig's disease. He was eighty-four years old and is
survived by his wife Evelina and three children. He was a native
of Minnesota, a graduate of the Iowa Braille and Sight Saving
School, and a long-time staunch member of the Federation. He last
attended an NFB convention in Kansas City in 1983.
When I went to Iowa as Director of the State Commission for the
Blind in 1958, Fred was farming. In fact, for many years he ran
the only Grade A dairy farm in Webster County, Iowa.
He was scrupulously honest, bluntly outspoken when he needed to
be, and a friend who could be trusted. He never hunted trouble,
but he never backed away from it either. Never flamboyant, he
could always be depended upon to come up with common sense
answers to any question.  Above all, he was a man of integrity.
During the troubles in Iowa in the late seventies and eighties
Fred was always a rock of quiet strength. I had not seen very
much of Fred during the past few years, but this in no way
lessens my sense of loss at his passing. Fred is gone and our
movement is diminished by his going.

**Cash Register and Coin Dispenser:
We have been asked to carry the following announcement: Aids
Unlimited is the exclusive distributor of the R. C. Allen talking
cash register (Model #204T) and the automatic coin dispenser
recently developed
by Triad Design, Inc. (Model #400TR). This coin dispenser is the
only one which will work with the talking cash register. The cash
register can be purchased for $1,755 plus $22 for shipping and
handling. The automatic coin dispenser can be purchased for
$1,050 plus $10.75 for shipping and handling. A cash management
system including these two items and other accessories may be
purchased for $2,880 plus $40 for shipping and handling. More
detailed information regarding these items may be obtained from
Aids Unlimited, 1101 North Calvert Street, Suite 405, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202; telephone (301) 659- 0232.

**Bypass Surgery:
From the Editor: On Wednesday, May 25, 1988, Searcy Ewell
(President of the National Federation of the Blind of Arkansas)
called me to say that Jim Hudson was in the hospital after having
undergone bypass surgery. As  Monitor  readers know, Jim, who is
a past president of the National Federation of the Blind of
Arkansas, is now the head of the Arkansas state agency for the
blind. Later on May 25 I called Jim and talked with him. He said
that he had been having pains in his arms for quite some time and
had gone to the doctor for a general physical and stress test.
The results of the test were available on May 18, and he was
immediately hospitalized. He had double bypass surgery on
Thursday, May 19, and as of May 25 was feeling energetic and
preparing to leave the hospital. He will be recovering at home
for several weeks.

**New Baby:
Larry and Donna Posont of Dearborn, Michigan, announce the birth
of Peter Joseph, who joined the family at 9:58 p.m. on Wednesday,
May 11, 1988. Peter Joseph weighed nine pounds and was twenty-one
inches long. As Federationists know, Larry and Donna are
long-time members of the movement. Larry is President of the
national Merchants Division and Chairman of the elected Committee
of Blind Vendors in Michigan.  Donna serves as Second Vice
President of the NFB Merchants Division and Treasurer of the
Detroit Chapter. Congratulations to the Posonts.

**Jackson, Mississippi, Chapter:
Sam Gleese, Vice President of the National Federation of the
Blind
of Mississippi, writes as follows: On March 1, 1988, Mr. William
Richardson (President of the Jackson Chapter) was admitted to the
University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson for a kidney
transplant.  At the time of this writing he is recovering nicely.
The officers elected for the Jackson Chapter on December 12,
1987, to serve in 1988 are: William Richardson, President; Dennis
Neely, First Vice President; Alfred Hudson, Second Vice
President; Lena Harris, Secretary; Mary Reed, Treasurer; Louise
Stubbs, Board Member; and Margaret Wheaton, Board Member.

**Tribulation:
Mabel Conder, Secretary of the National Federation of the Blind
of North Carolina and a member of the board of the Charlotte
Chapter, has recently undergone a series of tribulations which
rival those experienced by Job. On April 14 she fell and broke
her shoulder in several places. On April 19 (shortly after she
had returned home) a violent storm blew a large oak tree onto her
house, causing it to be virtually destroyed. Mabel and her family
had to move to a hearby hotel. In all of the turmoil the shoulder
was injured again; and to climax matters Mabel developed a severe
staph infection, necessitating a return to the hospital. Your
Editor talked with her this morning (May 10), and she is on the
road to recovery and in good spirits.

**Idaho Convention:
We recently received the following report concerning the Idaho
convention:  Our long-time President Norman Gardner announced
recently that he is moving to Arizona. His resignation was
accepted with regret, and he was honored with the Thelander Award
at the banquet April 16, 1988. The NFB of Arizona is fortunate to
add Norm and Maggie to its ranks. Our officers are now:
President, Ramona Walhof; First Vice President, Laurence
Smith; Second Vice President, Betty Sabin; Secretary, Mary Ellen
Halverson; and Treasurer, Harry Gawith. Two important actions
were taken at the state convention: one to call upon airports to
refuse to support airlines when they discriminate against the
blind, and the second to call upon the board of the Idaho
Commission for the Blind to dismiss Howard Barton.
**Leave It Be:
                                                Wausau, Wisconsin
                                                      April, 1988

Dear Dr. Jernigan:
I would like to comment on a subject which is being discussed in
England but not, so far as I know, here. It is Braille reform.
Personally I think that Braille should be left as it is. I am
concerned that
the coming conference in London may, to our surprise, vote for a
Braille code which we did not ask for, do not want, and do not
need. I hope my concern is unfounded.

                                                       Sincerely,
                                                        Roy Luber

**New Chapter:
Betsy Gerhart writes:
Pennsylvanians are pleased and proud to tell you that we have a
new chapter. On April 23rd, 1988, Federationists joined together
to organize the Delaware Valley Chapter of the National
Federation of the Blind
of Pennsylvania. Federationists from around the state came to
participate in this joyous occasion. There were several people in
attendance who
had never heard of the organization before. Altogether we had
approximately thirty-five people at the meeting. The first order
of business was to write a constitution. Once that was done, we
elected officers who are: Tom Gerhart, President; Haydn Wyer,
Vice President; Betsy Gerhart, Secretary; and Chris Kuczynski,
Treasurer. The three board members are: Judith Williams, Lillian
Wyer, and James O'Neill. The meeting was enthusiastic and set the
tone for great things to come in the future. To top things off we
were addressed by Mr. David Clark, the President of the City
Council of Washington, D.C., and a member of the Jessie Jackson
campaign. April 23rd will be a day that none of us will easily
forget. The spirit of unity and purpose that bound
us together will guide us to carry on the work of the National
Federation of the Blind in the months and years to come.

**Jury Duty:
Will and Lorraine Webb are two of the long-time leaders of the
National Federation of the Blind of New York State. Recently the 
Herald Journal  said:
 As far as anyone knows, a blind citizen had never served on a
jury on Onondaga County until last month. That was when Lorraine
Webb volunteered and was sworn in as a juror. She was picked for
a county court jury and heard a DWI case. Next month her husband,
Will, is scheduled to be called for jury duty. He is blind, too. 
Step by step and day by day we are changing what it means to be
blind.

**Used Equipment Clearinghouse:
We have been asked to carry the following announcement: If you
want to buy or sell anything from a slate to an Optacon, contact
Barbara Mattson, 134A Hall Street, Spartanburg, South Carolina
29302. Phone:  (803) 585-7323. Please enclose a self-addressed
envelope if you write.  If you call and no one answers, you can
leave a message on the answering machine.

**Chess Championship:
Gintautas Burba writes: The 1988 Chess Championship for the blind
will be held at the Airport Hilton Hotel in Fort Wayne, Indiana,
August 26-28, 1988. All accommodations are sponsored, the only
cost being a $20 entry fee. You should bring your own chess
pieces and a chess clock. If you don't have a chess clock, one
will be provided. Those interested in competing should contact
Joseph Kennedy, 5621 Fox Cross Courts, Fort Wayne, Indiana 46815.

**The Next Generation:
The following letter appeared in the May 11, 1988,  Ottumwa 
(Iowa)  Courier :

Editor, The Courier:
I'm a fifth grade student at Cardinal Elementary. I wish to not
complain, but to express my feelings openly on the treatment of
handicapped people.
My mother, being blind, is handicapped. I dislike the treatment
shown to her and others I know. It is hard to watch. I wish for
it to stop, although it will not. Some a lot are nice and
generous, and help. There are many barriers to overcome, before
all are treated as equals in our society.
Now, since I have voiced my opinion, what I wish is that more
people would understand all people. Such as my mother, and many
more. In a way, I feel special about this, at least, trying to
help in what ways I can.

                                              Tammy D. Farrington
                                                     Agency, Iowa

 Tammy is the daughter of Regina Farrington, Secretary of the
Pathfinder Chapter of the National Federation of the Blind of
Iowa and niece of Carol Smith. 

**Exchange Correspondence:
We have been asked to carry the following announcement:

I have been blind since birth because of retrolental fibroplasia.
I wish to start a correspondence club with other people who have
RLF with the main intent of helping people to come closer to God.
We would also discuss questions and problems (pertaining to us
who are blind), and hobbies and interests. Contact: Adelaide E.
Wink, Evangelical Message Interdenominational, 61 South Lee
Street, Beverly Hills, Florida 32665-9130.

**Ham Radio Products:
We have been asked to carry the following announcement:
 For Sale: Specially marked (Brailled) Ham Radio Equipment
available
at bargain prices from Tom Benham, W3DD. Included are receivers,
transmitter, frequency marker, transformers, filter capacitors,
and chokes. For full description and prices write to T. A. Benham
at 1043 Lancaster Avenue, Berwyn, Pennsylvania 19312, or call
(215) 296-2114. 
