                       THE BRAILLE MONITOR

                           March, 1989

                    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
                           MARCH, 1989

FLORIDA SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF AND THE BLIND: 
A DANGEROUS PLACE FOR CHILDREN

LAYING THE GROUNDWORK FOR INDEPENDENCE
  by Barbara Walker

OF EDUCATION AND ITS PSEUDOS
  by David Hyde

WHEELING AND DEALING IN TECHNOLOGY FOR THE BLIND
BY  Barbara Pierce

NFB MEMBERSHIP POLICIES: 
CORRESPONDENCE WITH LARRY ISRAEL

BOSTON INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY: 
THE WORLD OF MOHYMEN SADDEEK
  by Kenneth Jernigan

REFLECTIONS ON THE LIFE AND WORK OF JACOBUS tenBROEK

THINK ABOUT IT

PAUL GABIAS AND MARY ELLEN REIHING MARRY

THE MEAT OF THE BUFFET
  by Joyce Scanlan

OF REGRET AND RESOLUTION
  by Karen Mayry

MANAGING READING ON THE JOB
  by Mary Ellen Gabias

WHEN BLIND MEN STUMBLE

LITERATURE REVIEW: 
Just Enough to Know Better: A Braille Primer

CHERRANNE
  by Charlotte Verduin

THE BIRTH OF TWO STUDENT DIVISIONS
  by Tami Dodd

RECIPES

MONITOR MINIATURES

Copyright, National Federation of the Blind, Inc., 1989

FLORIDA SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF AND THE BLIND:  A DANGEROUS PLACE FOR
CHILDREN
The National Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving the Blind
and Visually Handicapped (NAC) prides itself on its assertion
that the public can count on the NAC seal of approval as an
indication of the excellence of the agency displaying it. Twice
in recent years the National Federation of the Blind has had
occasion to warn Floridians that the NAC seal, far from being a
hallmark of quality, is more often an indication that the
institution in question is not serving its constituents well. In
the last year the citizens of the state have learned with tragic
clarity what we meant.
The Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind (FSDB) enrolls 530
students from as young as four years of age to twenty-one.
Roughly 300 are students in the department for the deaf; almost
100 are enrolled in
the department for the blind; and the remaining 128 are either
deaf-multihandicapped or blind-multihandicapped. The number of
the multihandicapped was
129 until October 13, 1988, when Jennifer Driggers, age nine, was
scalded to death in the shower room at Vaill Hall, the residence
of 39 multihandicapped children.
On April 26, 1988, a twenty-two-year-old residence supervisor and
Boy Scout leader was fired and arrested for sexually assaulting
seventeen deaf boys. He is currently standing trial on
twenty-four counts of sexual abuse. Four other male staff members
(including the father
of the man currently standing trial) have been prosecuted for
criminal offenses against students of both sexes. One of these
four was a teacher in the department for the blind, and his
offenses were against blind girls enrolled at the School as
students.
Tragedy and abuse have been a way of life at FSDB for several
years.  In September of 1982, a fourteen-year-old student,
Christi Eddleman, fell from her infirmary bed and suffocated in
the plastic trash basket liner beneath the bed. She died of
complications several months later.  About two years ago a blind
student, James Thomas, was fatally injured while wrestling with a
friend. In addition, at least nine suicide attempts have been
made by students at the school during the past year, and abuse of
children by other students and staff is widespread.

How could all this have happened in a school with an annual
budget
of eighteen and a half million dollars and accreditation in good
standing for its department for the blind from NAC (the National
Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually
Handicapped)?  Is it that the staff members are irresponsible and
evil? Is it that the parents are heartless and uncaring? Is it
that NAC was too loose with its accreditation and lulled the
public and officials of state government with its seal of good
standing and its assurance that the school was providing quality
services?
With respect to this question, there can be no doubt, for the sex
offenses committed by the teacher in the department for the blind
occurred almost a year ago and received publicity in the press.
There was a court action with all of the trappings, but the NAC
accreditation was not withdrawn. At the time of this writing
(January, 1989) NAC accreditation has still not been withdrawn.
Only after (as detailed later in this article) the Associate
Editor of the  Monitor  called and asked probing questions did
NAC indicate that it might consider possibly perhaps taking some
sort of undefined action. The Florida School for the Deaf and the
Blind (a school riddled with student deaths, suicide attempts,
and widespread sex abuse of students by
staff) is accredited with NAC's stamp of approval, and that
accreditation and approval still continue. Children die; children
are subjected
to nightmarish unbelievable abuse; yet, NAC accreditation is not
withdrawn.  If the defense by NAC is that it was unaware of the
situation, that is almost as damning as if it had known and
failed to act. If the claim is that NAC knew but was powerless,
that is equally damning.  If NAC (like Pontius Pilate) should try
to wash its hands of guilt by saying that the offenses have
occurred in the department for the deaf and not in the department
for the blind and that, therefore, NAC has no responsibility,
that is perhaps most damning of all. Can one department of an
institution be pure while the other departments in the overall
structure are corrupt? Can a piece of an apple be sound and the
rest of it rotten? And what about the sex abuse in the department
for the blind?
As we have probed into this house of horrors, we have repeatedly
been told of a feeling of despair on the part of  the students, a
fear
to speak out. The revelations are enough to make one weep with
outrage, frustration, and sorrow.
The Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind was founded a
little over a hundred years ago, and until 1979 it educated
students in either the department for the deaf or the department
for the blind. That year the school accepted its first
multihandicapped students, and as a result (or, at least, this is
the claimed reason), its budget has increased by about thirty-two
percent each year since. The 1980 cost for educating each student
at the School was reported as $10,944.  The cost in 1989 will be
$34,943. Yet, each year since 1983 the school has gone to the
legislature, warning of dire consequences if it did not receive
even larger appropriations than it was given. Despite these
predictions of doom, the school (at least, so far as we can
determine) has never had to refuse a child because of
overcrowding.

When asked, an FSDB official described the institution as being
like
a private boarding school. Yet, the funding comes from the
legislature.  A seven-member board of trustees runs the school
and answers to the Governor's Cabinet, which is also the State
Board of Education. Although the Commissioner of Education is one
of the Governor's Cabinet (and is, therefore, a member of the
State Board of Education), this is
the only connection between the School and the Department of
Education (DOE), which has no direct jurisdiction over the
School. The School has consistently argued that provisions of
Public Law 94-142, the Education of All Handicapped Children Act,
do not apply to it.
Both blind and deaf children can qualify for admission to the
School only by meeting very specific medical criteria.
Multihandicapped youngsters, on the other hand, are designated as
such by parents and FSDB officials and then enrolled. If the
staff cannot immediately determine whether a child meets the
institution's criteria, the practice has been to enroll him or
her for (depending on which official you believe) either thirty
or ninety days while conducting an exhaustive evaluation. It is
not surprising that the natural inertia of the situation results
in the School's deciding to keep students who are already
enrolled regardless of the test results. Whether or not the local
school district believes that it is able to educate the child,
the parent can choose to have a multihandicapped youngster placed
at FSDB if the school agrees.
Those close to the School report that since the passage of P.L.
94-142 and the resulting mainstreaming of many handicapped
children, the student body (even in the Departments for the Blind
and the Deaf)
has changed. For example, about eighty percent of the youngsters
currently enrolled in the department for the blind receive
counseling of some kind. Relatively few students graduating from
the School go on to college.
But the 128 children designated as multihandicapped are not, for
the most part, profoundly disabled. Most are either blind or deaf
and, in addition, exhibit a behavioral or emotional disorder.
Some are mentally retarded, but the retardation is usually mild.
It is clear from the catastrophic problems FSDB has had in the
past several years that supervising the students outside of
school hours presents staff with serious difficulties. Roughly
80% of the youngsters' time is spent in their dormitories. We
were told that the position
of live-in house parent was eliminated shortly after William T.
Dawson became president of the institution in the early 1980's.
Differing reasons have been given for this action. Some have said
that the live-ins wanted to be moved on the campus not for the
good of the students but for their own convenience, but others
have said that there seemed to be concerns about abuses by staff
if they spent long periods of time with the children and that
this is why the position of live-in house parent was
discontinued. Be this as it may, FSDB has paid a steep price for
its decision. The current practice is to have three eight-hour
shifts of residential supervisors, and the youngsters have no
opportunity to form strong relationships with house parents since
every shift brings new supervisors into the dormitory. There are
also many more staff members to hire, train, and supervise.
According to an official state report, school administration and
staff supervision costs have grown until thirty-three percent of
salaries are paid to administrators, and twenty-seven percent of
all School personnel have no day-to-day contact with children.
Whether as a result of the staff problems or for other reasons,
dismaying things have (according to the official report) happened
in the dormitories.  Deaf-blind students have sometimes spent as
much as seven hours without a staff member nearby who could
communicate with them. Children have been left for shockingly
extended periods of time (up to ten days) in seclusion, and even
though the staff-to-student ratio is one to six, children
frequently abuse one another without intervention or sometimes
even without staff recognition (until later) that injury has
taken place.
The residential component of the School's program is not
integrated with the two educational departments. So, for example,
the principal of the department for the blind has (except
tenuously) no involvement with the students in his residential
school except when they are engaged in academic pursuits. When we
interviewed Dennis Hartenstine (NAC's executive director), he
said that NAC could not comment on any part
of the School's program which it did not accredit. Presumably,
therefore, if dormitory life is not considered part of the
department for the blind, NAC (as the accrediting body for the
department for the blind) might take the position that it is not
involved in what goes on in the dormitory. One can reasonably
infer from the comments Hartenstine made in our interview with
him that this is the line of defense NAC will use if confronted
with its failings in Florida. Not many people would understand or
give credence to such hair-splitting distinctions.  Most who have
considered it at all have undoubtedly assumed that the dormitory
arrangements for blind children have been evaluated and
accredited along with the academic program in the department for
the blind.
Jennifer Driggers was nine years old at the time of her death
last October. She was deaf, had some vision problems, and had an
IQ of about thirty-five. She functioned at a mental age of
between two and three years. She seems also to have had
difficulty getting along with other children and staff. She
frequently exhibited aggressive behavior although no other
student seems to have been injured by her punching, pinching, and
hair-pulling.
Jennifer arrived at the school five years ago and caused problems
there throughout her short life. In November of 1987 the members
of
the School staff who worked with her recommended that she be
transferred to another facility. Her disabilities, they had
concluded, were too profound for FSDB to manage effectively. The
administration did not sign this recommendation. In fact,
record-keeping procedures at FSDB are so faulty that senior
members of the administration apparently did not even know of the
recommendation. At least President Dawson is reported to have
seemed genuinely shocked when he learned of this assessment at
the hearings after Jennifer's death.
Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind officials have been
concerned because members of the press have painted their
institution in lurid colors. They urged the  Braille Monitor  to
be fair and even-handed in its treatment of the story. Here,
therefore, is the list of abuses against Jennifer Driggers culled
from staff notes in FSDB's own records.  They were compiled and
printed in the report produced by the Department of Health and
Rehabilitative Services:
____________________
11-22-85 A handful of Jennifer's hair was pulled out by another
student.  11-15-86 Jennifer was hit by another student and found
with blood on her face and shirt due to a nose bleed. Also on
11-15-86, she was pushed by another child, causing a bruise on
her head.
01-25-87 Jennifer received a cut lip when she was hit by another
student.  02-28-87 A blind boy called Jennifer an animal and
pushed her.  04-09-87 Another student took Jennifer's clothes off
while she was in bed and beat her with a clotheshanger.
04-10-87 Another student hit Jennifer in the head and caused her
to bleed.
05-27-87 Jennifer was involved in a fight with a boy was pushed
down and this resulted in severe bruises on both of her legs. 
09-14-87 Jennifer was found to have severe scratches, her arms
were bleeding, there was broken glass found by her bed, and
another child was thought to be involved.
10-07-87 House parent left Jennifer to continue dressing herself,
and when she returned Jennifer was crying there were marks,
bruises and open welts all over her body. These injuries were
determined to be inflicted by K.C. by using a shoe and a coat
hanger.
02-20-88 Another student hit Jennifer with an umbrella and caused
her nose to bleed.
03-26-88 Another student hit Jennifer and caused her to have a
bloody nose.
06-06-88 Jennifer was kicked in the clavicle by another student. 
09-10-88 Jennifer received a bloody nose after being hit by
another student.
09-12-88 Jennifer received a bloody nose after being hit by
another student.
09-13-88 Jennifer was bitten on the arm by another student. 
09-16-88 Jennifer received a bloody nose after being hit by
another student.
09-21-88 Jennifer received a bloody nose after being hit by
another student.

Additionally we found the following notes made by staff on the
daily comment sheets:

05-29-88 Staff stated,  Can you believe Jennifer had no skills,
cannot help herself in any way, and has the nerve to try and be
stubborn and hit someone! The nerve of her! 
09-09-88 Jennifer cries a lot. Children are pretty rough.
09-15-88 Staff had to push Jennifer slightly - then she accepted
where she had to be led.
09-16-88 Jennifer was pestered by other kids - cried. She is too
lonely to be here.
09-20-88 All these girls can hurt her bad if they blow up. She
was lucky that I was in every fight.
09-22-88 Jennifer needs closer supervision to prevent other kids
from beating her - happens a lot - kids can't stand her.
09-22-88 Jennifer being rejected by kids and staff (most).
Getting more and more bruises from kids. Staff member feels sorry
for her.  09-23-88 Jennifer is a mess - bumps and bruises -
starts when she
hits or pulls hair. Other kids hit back. Jennifer looks like a
punching bag. Other kids okay.

Based on infirmary records and daily comment sheets, the
following are incidents of unexplained injuries to Jennifer:

11-20-84 Jennifer was found to have unexplained marks on her
back.  10-15-85 Jennifer was referred to the infirmary for having
redness and edema on her face that was unexplained.
10-30-85 Jennifer was seen in the infirmary for a rash and red
swollen face.
11-10-85 Jennifer was taken to the infirmary by dorm parent with
unexplained bruise on her left shoulder.
01-12-86 Jennifer was found to have an unexplained bruise on her
left upper hip. A notation was made that she had wet the bed and
smelled bad.
02-13-86 Jennifer was found to have scratches on her face and
neck with no explanation.
02-17-86 Jennifer was found bleeding from an unexplained
laceration on her head that had to be sutured at Flagler
Emergency Room.  05-06-86 Jennifer was found to have abrasions on
her arms, shoulders, and around her neck with no explanation for
these injuries.  05-20-86 Jennifer was found to have a bruise on
her buttocks with scratches. The house parent stated she did not
know what happened
but felt like she had sat on something or had been jabbed with
something.  Later that same day she was found to have an
unexplained bruise on her cheek.
11-15-86 Dorm parent found an abrasion on Jennifer's elbow, bumps
and abrasions to the child's forehead while the dorm parent was
giving her a shower.
11-20-86 The dorm parent found a bump and swelling on Jennifer's
forehead.  Severe enough for the child to be taken to the Flagler
Emergency Room with no explanation for the injury.
05-09-87 Jennifer was found to have abrasions on her back. They
were diagnosed as rug burns with no explanation.
10-07-87 Jennifer was found to have a bruise on her forearm. 
01-08-88 Jennifer was found to have scratch on her forehead with
no explanation.
02-12-88 Jennifer was found bleeding from the mouth. A tooth was
missing
- the tooth could not be located.
02-17-88 Jennifer had abrasions across her abdomen. Doctor
diagnosed
them as a rug burn.
02-18-88 Jennifer was found to have a black and blue mark on her
upper
arm with no explanation.
04-21-88 Jennifer was found to be bruised on her buttocks with no
explanation.
09-22-88 Jennifer was found to have puffiness on right eye,
curved mark on her cheek - school questions whether this may be a
belt mark
- many bruises on her legs.
09-30-88 Several round marks described as hickies on Jennifer's
face and neck and cuts and scratches with no explanation.
10-30-88 Jennifer was found scalded and unconscious in a shower
in Vaill Hall, which resulted in her death.
_____________________
One hardly knows how to react to such a document. Granted, FSDB
officials did not have the advantage of reading a tidily written
report before this child was fatally injured, but the data were
there. The staff knew that serious problems existed. Something is
profoundly wrong in a system that has no mechanism for preventing
what happened to this child.
Precisely what did happen is not clear. Jennifer suffered from a
complicated intestinal problem, to combat which she was to be
given a high-fiber diet. She was then to be placed on the toilet
in a comfortable position for thirty minutes at a time. She was
to have things to amuse her while she sat. The Health and
Rehabilitative Services report states that no change was made in
her diet. She apparently was placed on the toilet without the use
of a footstool for comfort and was given neither toys nor books.
The supervisor had to attend to other children who were
decorating for Halloween, so she left two mildly retarded girls,
ages twelve and seventeen, to supervise Jennifer.
What happened next will never be known. At some point Jennifer
vomited, but whether this was while she was still seated or after
she was in the shower room seems to be in dispute. She removed
her clothes and went (or was taken) into the shower area. One
shower head did not have tempered water. All the others were
adjusted in such a way that
the water could not get too hot. In this one, however, the water
temperature was eventually measured at 139 degrees fahrenheit.
The staff reported that Jennifer  Had a propensity for turning on
the hot water in
the showers and tubs.  But her mother said that Jennifer was
frightened of hot water. The two girls have said that they felt
the vibration when Jennifer fell. They looked into the shower
area and tried to remove her but could not. They then went for
help, and the staff were eventually able to remove the child.
Testimony before the grand jury indicated that the supervisor was
away for only about eighteen minutes. But a source close to the
situation told the  Braille Monitor  that the medical examiner
reported
she must have been exposed to the hot water for at least thirty
minutes for her flesh to have been as thoroughly cooked as it
was.
To one reading the bald facts of this tragedy, it seems
incredible that the grand jury found no one at fault or even
negligent in this situation. According to one source, the School
was able to make its case convincingly that there was simply not
enough money to provide adequate supervision. The supervisor on
duty did not seem to have broken any rules, and apparently no one
was prepared to place blame on the two retarded students.
But even if the grand jury was not willing to find the School
negligent, it did make recommendations. Here they are:
____________________
Dormitory staff members need training in recognizing and
reporting abuse, aggression control and sign language
communications.
A central filing system for all injury reports should be
maintained.  Appropriate dorm staff-to-student ratios should be
established for multihandicapped students. The grand jury found
10 to 17 multihandicapped students have routinely been left alone
with a single staff member for an entire shift.
Dormitory staff members should get emergency training.
Dormitory teachers should be made aware of the medical condition
of each multihandicapped student in their care.
A position at the school should be established to get parents of
students quick information about their children.
Regular reviews of programs at the school should be started.
The 911 emergency system should be updated to pinpoint the exact
location of school buildings.
____________________
That is what the grand jury recommended, and we wonder again
about the NAC accreditation. Is it really conceivable that
conditions were this bad in other parts of the School and not bad
in the department for the blind? How can one segment of an
institution (an institution with the problems of FSDB) be
accredited in isolation from the rest of the facility?
The members of the grand jury were not the only ones looking at
the Driggers case and offering suggestions. Florida's newspapers
have been full of the case for months. On November 13, 1988, the 
St.  Augustine Record  printed a story that dredged up old
memories that the School would, no doubt, have preferred to let
rest. Here is what it said:
____________________
                     Driggers Death Mirrors 
6-Year-Old D & B Tragedy
                        by Cynthia Beach

Change the time and place, and the deaths of 14-year-old Christi
Eddleman and 9-year-old Jennifer Driggers are all too similar.
Both girls died in bizarre incidents six years apart at the
Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind one in a scalding
shower, the other suffocating inside a trash bag.
Both raised questions about supervision at the state school. Each
brought conflicting reports of how long the girls were left
alone.  Miss Eddleman's case ended with a $125,000 out-of-court
settlement.  No media attention. No pickets or grand jury. And,
according to some, no answers.
 The basis of the suit was negligent supervision,  said Tampa
attorney Robert Banker, who represented Miss Eddleman's mother,
Donna.   I felt some confusion among the people that were
supervising the infirmary at the time.
 I felt, yes, there was a lack of supervision in Christi's case, 
Banker added,  and I was ready to prove it. 
During Banker's preparation of the case, FSDB officials were
queried about staffing ratios. Banker argued if there had been
additional supervision, the brown-haired girl might still be
alive.
Miss Eddleman was found unconscious under her infirmary bed by an
aide around 10:15 a.m. Sept. 8, 1982. She suffocated from a
garbage bag and garbage can covering her head. She was found with
her arms crossed over her chest. Suffering from brain damage, the
girl remained in a coma until she died on May 2, 1983.
 I was very dissatisfied with the whole situation,  Mrs. Eddleman
said.  They tried to act like she committed suicide. We really
didn't get any answers. 
Miss Eddleman, who was blind from birth, slightly retarded, and
epileptic, was on medication and feeling nauseated when she
checked into the facility.
With one nurse on duty and two other children in the infirmary,
Miss Eddleman was left under the supervision of a maid while the
nurse was in a separate section of the facility to tend to other
children.  FSDB officials said, however, the woman was hired as a
nurse's aide, in addition to a custodian.
Robert Dawson, president of Florida School for the Deaf and the
Blind, testified to Banker that Miss Eddleman was left alone for
five minutes.  Banker said the time she was left alone was never
resolved, but evidence was submitted that she remained alone up
to 20 minutes.
Dawson refused an interview about the lawsuit. FSDB public
information officer Mary Jane Dillon replied to questions about
the case with  He (Dawson) had no recollection of an allegation
of neglect.  Yet an attorney for Banker's firm sent a letter to
Dawson dated Nov.  17, 1982, saying  an investigation conducted
into this matter indicates that Christi's injuries were caused
solely by the negligence of employees of the Florida School for
the Deaf and the Blind. 
Dawson met recently with officials of the state's Office of Risk
Management in Tallahassee, the agency which oversees civil
lawsuits against state agencies. Said Mrs. Dillon,  In a meeting
with an official with risk management in Tallahassee... it was
confirmed it was not an issue of neglect. 
An attorney representing the state, Bernard McLendon of
Jacksonville, responded to the suit in 1984 by placing the blame
on the girl. He contended the death was due to  the carelessness
and negligence of the deceased. 
Nurse Betty Frady, who was on duty at the time of her death, told
Banker she was  short-handed  in the infirmary at the time
because another nurse who was supposed to be on duty had called
in sick. A replacement was not called in.
 Only the maid would keep an eye on the students when she (Ms. 
Frady) was up in the clinic,  testified the infirmary's head
nurse, Shirley Harvey.
The staffing standards had been compiled by the FSDB board of
trustees, who  had no medical training,  said Dawson, except one
member who was a dentist.
Banker also questioned why the infirmary staff allowed the child
to use the bathroom alone, leaving her unattended with  a tub,
sink, shower, and mirror. 
But, he added,  My impression of that school was it's a good
school.  They do wonderful things up there. Through no fault of
their own, they probably didn't have enough money to care for the
kids.  The death was investigated by the St. Augustine Police
Department, who ruled the death accidental after interviewing
staff members. Mrs.  Eddleman told police she found a large
bruise on her daughter's right side.
As a result of her death, changes in the infirmary were
implemented, according to Dawson's testimony.
 We immediately took all the plastic bags out of the
wastebaskets, and the nurses were told, `From here on out, you're
not going to have coffee together,'  said Dawson, according to
court records.  But the death of Miss Driggers has resulted in
more than a $125,000 settlement.
The St. Johns County grand jury is investigating, along with
probes (ordered by Gov. Bob Martinez) of the Florida Department
of Law Enforcement and Florida Department of Health and
Rehabilitative Services. Those reports are expected to be
completed by December. Deputy State Attorney Steve Alexander said
the jury will reconvene when the Florida Department of Law
Enforcement report is completed, and a presentment will follow. 
Department of Education Commissioner Betty Castor has allocated
approximately $100,000 to the school for immediate additional
staffing at Vaill Hall, the dorm where Miss Driggers died.
The jury investigation also could look into requests made by FSDB
trustees and allocations given by the Florida Legislature
relating to staffing.
 If I don't get answers here,  said Miss Driggers' mother, Robin
Williams,  I'm not going to stop. 
____________________
That was the November 13, 1988, story in the  St. Augustine
Record , and it is easy to see why the reporter was reminded of
the earlier tragedy as she worked on the Driggers story. It is
also clear that tragic lapses in staff supervision of students at
FSDB are not recent or isolated occurrences. The Department of
Education managed to find $100,000 immediately in order to
provide ten more dormitory supervisors for Vaill Hall. Though
several months have passed since the allocation was made, our
information indicates that no additional personnel have yet been
hired. Even if (as some have alleged) the delay is more a matter
of bureaucratic inertia than laxness on the part of the School,
those involved are still culpable. The Department of Education's
response to the School's lament that eighteen and a half million
dollars a year is not enough to run the School was the first
indication that
the funding excuse might be taken seriously as a mitigating
circumstance.  The grand jury's decision in December of 1988 was
the second. But not everyone was prepared to say that the School
was blameless.  At FSDB, School officials seem to believe that
the press has been unjust to the institution. They say that the
School has been the victim of bad luck and that no one set out to
harm these children except, of course, the five male staff
members who assaulted students and, after all, they were fired.
The press, however, was not the only body to criticize the School
as ultimately responsible for what happened to Jennifer and the
others.
The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) was
charged with the duty of investigating the School in the wake of
the Driggers death. On December 7, 1988, it released an
exhaustive study. An independent organization called Therapeutic
Concepts, Inc. conducted the actual assessment of the facility,
and HRS officials wrote the final report, including eighty-five
recommendations. On December 8, 1988, the  St.  Augustine Record 
printed two stories about the case, the HRS report, and the FSDB
Board of Trustees' reaction. Here are both:

                 HRS Report Blasts FSDB: Agency 
Urges Dismantling of Trustees Board
                        by Cynthia Beach

Unqualified staff, an  insensitive  administration and excessive
physical and mental abuse of students at the Florida School for
the Deaf and the Blind were cited in a hypercritical report
released late Wednesday by a state health agency.
Sweeping suggestions by the Florida Department of Health and
Rehabilitative Services for the state-run school include
dismantling the board of trustees and freezing student
enrollment.
The school provides residential and academic programs for deaf,
blind, and (on an increasing level) multi-handicapped students.
And although a dorm for multi-handicapped students is dangerous
for children, the report says,  students are at risk of abuse in
all FSDB residential facilities. 
In addition to nine suicidal acts by students during the past
year,
drug abuse and depression  may also be problems among FSDB
students,  it states.
An administration which receives 33 percent of the school's
tax-funded salaries, it says, has been uninvolved in the
day-to-day operation of the school. A  general lack of
accountability  of school administration coupled with poor
management practices also was outlined.  The report calls Vaill
Hall, the dorm for multi-handicapped students such as the late
Jennifer Driggers,  a poorly staffed, inadequate facility. 
The findings and recommendations are part of a 100-page report
completed by HRS investigators and a private consulting firm,
Therapeutic Concepts Inc. of Jacksonville. The report was
released Wednesday following a press conference by Gov. Bob
Martinez.
Martinez called for the probes following the Oct. 13 death of
9-year-old Jennifer Driggers, a deaf, multi-handicapped dorm
student. Miss Driggers died after being left unattended in a
scalding dorm shower.
HRS officials feel the school  provides excellent overall
classroom instruction,  but the health and safety of
multi-handicapped children and other dorm students have been
largely overlooked. The report says about 80 percent of the
students' time is spent in dorms, as opposed to 20 percent of
time in classrooms.
Aside from staffing inadequacies, HRS officials found poor
sanitary conditions for food preparation, fire code violations, a
lack of security, inappropriate disciplinary practices, and
students who were afraid of reprisal if they reported abuse.
Close to 19 percent of the 530 students reported being abused
since 1981, with four abuse cases involving neglect at the
school.
Miss Driggers, according to separate reports, had been the
subject of physical abuse numerous times while at the school,
including being beaten by a coat hanger.
The report says some students appeared traumatized by the death
of
Miss Driggers, but FSDB  administration and staff appear
insensitive to their mental health needs. 
The report, without a timetable, recommends:
@BULLET = A review by the Florida Department of Education on a
corrective
plan of action by FSDB staff.
@BULLET = A review of the mission of the school.
@BULLET = Placement of Vaill Hall under licensed supervision. 
@BULLET = Evaluation of all dorms.
@BULLET = Establishment of licensing standards by HRS through
legislation.  Suggested are the founding of a support program for
abused children and improved reviews of students' educational
progress.
The report also concludes: adults who have committed sexual abuse
on students be tested for AIDS, a building for multi-handicapped
students under construction be checked for suitability, criminal
history checks and abuse registry checks for dorm staff, and
further analysis of FSDB management.
Management, it suggests, faces problems of increased expenses per
child and  high ratios of administrative costs to direct service
costs. 
Administration lacks a  sufficient understanding  at all levels
relating to the needs of the multi-handicapped.
HRS also found administration lacking in:
@BULLET = A system to evaluate residential staff-to-student
ratios.  The ratios go unchecked with only one supervisor to 25
dorm parents at night.
@BULLET = Physician review of medical reports.
@BULLET = Effective detection of potential abuse of students.
@BULLET = Ongoing review of student services.
@BULLET = Referrals of students by school districts. Currently,
most of the students are enrolled after referrals by
organizations for the handicapped, and  friends and relatives. 
@BULLET = Training for residential staff in first aid, sign
language, or mental retardation.
@BULLET = An appropriate boys' dorm staff following the placement
of an all-female staff after complaints of sexual abuse.
Other problems found attributed to administration are work orders
being signed off by maintenance staff although not completed. 
Bottlenecks  in the flow of information of staff have 
permit(ted) problems
to go undetected or uncorrected...,  it says. An increase in the
annual cost per student from $10,944 in 1980 to $34,943 in 1989,
yet a high ratio of administrative costs needs to be addressed. 
Students, the report says, lack proper placement, with some
hearing impaired students  appear(ing)  to be placed in
multi-handicapped units without clear evidence of handicaps, lack
student advocates
and suffer from  superficial  contact between staff and parents. 
Other problems for students include:
@BULLET = Inadequate disciplinary practices, namely, students
being placed for up to 10 days  in seclusion. 
@BULLET = Menus, room signs, microwave ovens and stoves not
Braille labeled.
@BULLET = A  hopelessness  by students of getting issues resolved
because of  staff insensitivity. 
@BULLET = Deaf-blind students left for up to seven hours without
staff able to communicate with them.
@BULLET = A lack of services resulting in approximately 75
percent of students  unduly restricted. 
@BULLET = A lack of privacy. For example, infirmary nurses
examine students in a large clinic receiving room without privacy
screens.  The condition of school grounds also was criticized. In
addition to  numerous  fire code violations and poor security,
HRS concerns include:
@BULLET = Improper access to chemicals or other poisons.  @BULLET
= A lack of training of infirmary nurses.
@BULLET = Improper discarding of used needles and scalpels in the
infirmary.
@BULLET = Students left unattended in the clinic for short
periods with access to unlocked medicine cabinets.
@BULLET = An infirmary stock of controlled drugs without current
registration from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency.
@BULLET = Health and safety problems in Moore Hall and Bloxham
Hall, as well as Vaill Hall.
@BULLET = Unlocked toxic substances in dorm halls.
@BULLET = Improper food temperatures being maintained and
detergent labeled as  pancake and waffle syrup. 
____________________
                      FSDB Trustee Charges 
Report Findings Invalid
               by Pete Osborne and Deborah Squires

Gov. Bob Martinez has urged the board of trustees of the Florida
School for the Deaf and the Blind and two other state departments 
to implement immediate changes  at the school located here. 
Martinez urged the changes after accepting a lengthy report
Wednesday critical of many aspects of the 102-year-old school.
But the governor's view is not universally shared by the school's
trustees.
 In my opinion that report is not valid at all,  said board
member Celida Grau of Hialeah.
Mrs. Grau, the parent of a recent FSDB graduate, said  the
governor has been misinformed about everything,  and that
investigators sent by his office were ignorant about handicaps.
However, she said the original scope of the school, to educate
the blind and the deaf, should be emphasized. The state has
pushed for inclusion of multi-handicapped students that should
not really be there, Mrs. Grau said.
Trustee chairman Gene Pillot of Sarasota said,  I categorically
and strongly disagree with dissolving the board as a governing
body.  To give the school to the Department of Education is to
guarantee that the right kind of attention to governing the
school is not going to be given. 
Pillot said dissolving the board would be a  patently wrong
decision.  Besides the FSDB board of trustees, which meets here
Friday, Martinez sent the report and its recommendations to the
state Department of Education and back to the Department of
Health and Rehabilitative Services. The trustees meeting was
scheduled prior to the Oct. 13 scalding death of Jennifer
Driggers, 9, of Ruskin.
School President Robert T. Dawson declined Wednesday to comment
upon
the report or the governor's recommendations, saying he had just
received a 35-page summary of the findings and recommendations.
 My priorities are set to prepare for the grand jury and the
board,  Dawson said.  I need to spend all the time I can
preparing for those two meetings,  he told The Record.  That's
why I made the decision not to make myself available to the press
until then.  The St. Johns County grand jury today continues its
investigation into the death of Miss Driggers, as well as other
incidents at the school in recent months. The board of trustees
meets at the campus Friday at 9 a.m.
The report given to Martinez detailed a month-long investigation
by HRS and contained 85 recommendations prepared by that
department and Therapeutic Concepts Inc., a private consulting
firm.
Martinez ordered the investigation after Miss Driggers' scalding
death in a dormitory shower. Miss Driggers was enrolled in the
school's multi-handicapped program.
In his Wednesday press conference in Tallahassee, Martinez said, 
dramatic change must occur  at the school to ensure the safety of
the 530 students.
In accepting the report, the governor said the school  needs to
be changed, overhauled. 
The investigation revealed that about 40 students had been
reported as abused, and nine suicidal acts by students were
recorded in the past year.
Other findings of the report include:
@BULLET = The number of multi-handicapped students at the school
has increased from 35 to 128 since 1985 and now makes up 23
percent of the student enrollment.
@BULLET = All 39 students in Vaill Hall fit the profile for high
or moderate risk of abuse from caretakers or peers.
@BULLET = Vaill Hall residents have suffered 10 times as many
injuries as were found in a representative sample of children in
HRS-licensed residential facilities for children with
developmental disabilities.  @BULLET = Thirty-nine students had
been reported as abused at the school.
@BULLET = Costs per student have risen to almost $34,943 a year
from
$10,944 in 1979, and one-third of the school's salaries are for
administrative or supervisory positions.
Saying the state would seek to take governing control of the
school operated by the board of trustees, Martinez said,  We need
to reduce the level of incidence of injury. There is urgency
here,  he said.
However, the governor would not answer questions about the safety
of students still residing at Vaill Hall, where the Driggers girl
died.
School trustee William Proctor of St. Augustine, president of
Flagler College, said  I'd have to look at that recommendation, 
referring to the governor's statements.
 It would be premature on my part to make any statement. I would
hope the administration would give us some reaction to it, but
even tomorrow at the board meeting it would be hard to comment. 
Stephen Kiser of Tallahassee joins the board of trustees at its
meeting Friday.
 I don't really know at this point what I'm getting into,  he
said Wednesday night.
 I have no problem conceptually with a single school serving the
deaf and blind, and, in addition, serving the multi-handicapped,
assuming they have the facility to do that, the staff to do that. 
 Lumping together, I don't think is good for either group,  he
added, saying proper facilities would be separate.  However, if
it's going to be a custodial facility, then I certainly think it
should meet HRS standards. 
Trustees Mike Hannon of Ponte Vedra Beach and Gay Gold, Tampa,
contacted by  The Record  Wednesday night, declined to comment on
the matter.  But the school's former president, William McClure
of St. Augustine, had strong comments:
 I think the problem is that the state has regarded the school as
a dumping ground a place to send children that have no other
place to go. When I was president we didn't have to take these
children,  he said.
 The problem is not with the administration, but with what has
been expected of the school in recent years without providing for
it. I think Mr. Dawson is a fine administrator. The state has
demanded they take these children. 
 I don't think the state has provided adequately for this kind of
child,  McClure said.  The school has asked for a review because
that precedes change, and they haven't gotten that from the
state. 
 In my opinion they (multi-handicapped) shouldn't be there, 
McClure said in response to Martinez's calls for increased
provisions for the multi-handicapped.
 I would say the change needs to be going back to the type of
student the school has traditionally had,  McClure added. 
Trustee Mary Mauldin, Panama City, attends her last meeting
tomorrow and will be replaced by Kiser.
 Personally, I think that would be a mistake,  she said of the
governor's recommendations.
But she said she felt the capable deaf and blind students in the
state are being shortchanged under present circumstances. Mrs.
Mauldin, who is blind, is an FSDB graduate.
_____________________
That's what the  St. Augustine Record  paper said about the
release of the HRS report, and other news organizations around
the state also focused on the same recommendations and the
Governor's public reaction to the findings.
The cumulative power of the non-binding recommendations is
staggering.  There has been widespread speculation about whether
or not the School would implement any of them. The board met
January 14, 1989, to consider its response to the HRS report.
Most of the recommendations would be fairly simple to put into
place.  Detergent can be removed from containers that say 
pancake and waffle syrup,  and janitorial and medical supplies
can easily
be made secure. It should not even be particularly expensive to
insure that dishes are washed in sanitary conditions in buildings
with a water supply hot enough to scald a child to death. And, as
a matter
of fact, at its January 14, 1989, meeting the Board passed a
resolution directing the administration to comply with all of the
safety-connected recommendations and to report to the board about
how long it would take to complete their implementation.
But there are a handful of recommendations which HRS and the
Department of Education view as very important that the board
will find more difficult to implement. The HRS recommendation to
freeze school admissions immediately until the FSDB house is in
order was not carried out immediately by the president. Actually,
according to one source, what HRS wanted was to insure that the
multihandicapped population would not increase until it could be
certain that those children were receiving proper treatment.
According to our information Dawson has not imposed the
recommended freeze on multihandicapped admissions, but as of the
beginning of 1989 he has (with the concurrence of the Board of
Trustees) reportedly changed the old procedure of evaluating
hard-to-place youngsters after admission. From now on, even if a
prolonged assessment is necessary, it will presumably be
completed before a child is enrolled.
With respect to the knotty problem of integrating the academic
and residential programs for the students at FSDB, the board
voted to merge the Individual Educational Plan and the Individual
Dormitory Plan for each child into one document. This should
enable the right hand to know what the left is doing. How the
entire residential program is to be integrated into the two
academic departments is more difficult to determine. But the
question is now under study.
The Board of Trustees is not at all willing to vote itself out of
existence, but it is struggling with the problem of
accountability.  Negotiators have been working on a plan that
would, in effect, designate the school as the sixty-eighth school
district in the state. The Board of Trustees would then act as
the school board. The school would clearly be subject to Public
Law 94-142, and referrals of multihandicapped students would be
made by school districts. The Department of Education would have
jurisdiction over the school. We are told that the board's
attorney is examining several very real problems associated with
this plan.
In the meantime there may be another, simpler way of resolving
the accountability issues. Consideration is being given to
strengthening an agreement between the school and the Department
of Education which would give the department jurisdiction over
the school. These reported negotiations may or may not be
successful. According to one source, Betty Caster, Commissioner
of Education, has assured the Board that
she has no intention of going to the Legislature to ask them for
clarification on the question of whether or not the School is
bound by Public Law 94-142 and the issue of parental choice. In
cases of multihandicapped youngsters this appears to be a deeply
held principle at the School, and parents are reportedly adamant
about preserving it.
Perhaps a word should be said about the parents' reaction to the
the revelations of the past year. One mother withdrew her son
from the school in the aftermath of the Driggers death. Another
parent testified before the grand jury about her son's treatment
at the school before she withdrew him several years ago. She had
tried then to make other parents take her warnings about staff
abuses seriously, but they were reportedly unwilling to do so.
Throughout this past fall, parents have been fiercely loyal to
the school. They rallied to protest the efforts of the assistant
state's attorney who was pleading Florida's case before the grand
jury. They were part of the cheering section in a gathering that
took place when the grand jury found the School
not guilty of negligence in December of 1988. And they have been
lobbying Craig Kiser, the new member of the Board of Trustees and
a blind attorney.  These parents are convinced that the school is
the best place for their children and that it is being maligned.
Many in the blind community in Florida wonder how much of this
support for the school is a direct result of parents' panic at
the prospect of having to provide year-round supervision of their
children. It
is impossible to judge from the outside, but one would feel more
confidence in the wisdom of the parents' stand if the general
public (parents of blind, deaf, and multihandicapped children
included) were free of ignorance and prejudice concerning such
youngsters.
Maybe there is hope for the students at the Florida School for
the Deaf and the Blind, but one would have to be powerfully
optimistic to believe it. Judging from the amount of distrust,
fear, and despair reported among students in the HRS findings,
the children are not hopeful about their situation. Perhaps now
that state officials have entered the picture, changes for the
better will be made at the School.  From now on, the institution
will presumably be accountable for its actions to outside
experts. This, of course, is what one expects as
a benefit of accreditation. And on this subject the HRS had an
interesting comment:

  There was,  its report said,  no evidence of an ongoing
self-assessment based on the school's objectives, goals, and
organizational framework. There were no effective problem-solving
activities, including an ongoing review and evaluation of
services provided for the students and procedures for remedial
action, as deemed necessary. The School for the Blind had pursued
accreditation, but this process was not an internal quality
assurance mechanism. 

This is what the HRS report says. NAC is the accrediting body
referred to, but it is interesting to note with what respect HRS
treats the highly touted (by NAC, at any rate) self-study
required of member agencies. HRS says that there was no evidence
of such  internal quality assurance mechanism. 
When the Associate Editor of the  Braille Monitor  asked Dennis
Hartenstein, Executive Director of NAC, for his reaction to the
FSDB situation, he said,  I can't comment on any programs that we
do not accredit.  Many of HRS's findings and recommendations,
however, apply to the entire School, and all the children at FSDB
are suffering from the School's current crisis.
Hartenstein was asked specifically if NAC would be concerned by
an incident in a member agency like the one in which a male FSDB
teacher in the Department for the Blind, after plea-bargaining,
offered no contest to a charge of battery against a blind female
student. Under Florida law,  A person commits battery if he: (a)
actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person
against the will of
the other; or (b) intentionally causes bodily harm to an
individual.  It is the charge typically brought when authorities
are backing off from pressing charges of sexual offenses. Sources
have assured the  Braille Monitor  that this case was only the
most clear-cut of several brought against the teacher in question
by female high
school students. Hartenstein replied that NAC certainly would be
concerned about such a problem and was only waiting for the
report on the incident.  Since it occurred in May of 1988, the
report seems a little slow in arriving on Mr. Hartenstein's desk.
But then there were a lot of problems at the Florida School for
the Deaf and the Blind last spring, and record-keeping does not
seem to be the administration's long suit.  The problems faced by
the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind are complex and
difficult. Every such school is struggling with the question of
meeting the needs of multihandicapped youngsters. Society does
not know how to deal with such children, and dumping them into
schools for the blind or deaf, when that impairment is one of the
child's handicaps, has become the standard solution. In cases
like Jennifer Driggers', it is not the correct one, however, and
schools and parents should insist on seeing that the proper
determination is made. But as so often happens, the schools seem
to be eager to insure their continued existence by snapping up
every child they are offered, and parents too often are grateful
to have any assignment at all made for their children.
But regardless of whether or not a given youngster belongs in a
particular school, it must be a fundamental principle that every
child should be safe safe from assault by teachers, staff, and
other students; and safe from subhuman care. Even if FSDB
officials are correct in their contention that they are trying to
do their best for the students enrolled at the school and that no
one knowingly set out to injure Jennifer Driggers, the press and
public's outrage focused on the school during the past several
months has been justified. In fact, the only fault to be found
with it is that it did not begin sooner. The Board of Trustees,
or whoever is finally charged with running the Florida School for
the Deaf and the Blind, must find and train competent staff,
people who can keep accurate records and devise sensible
procedures.  Recruitment for dormitory staff has already improved
with the doubling of the number of references required and the
stipulation that the writer have known the applicant for two
years. Such changes take no additional funds and very little
extra time.
The Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind is not going to go
away.  There are children living in Florida who need the kind of
care provided by such an institution. There are others who will
be dumped there because families or local schools cannot or will
not keep them at home for their education. The same statements
can be made about every residential school in the country. We in
the National Federation of the Blind must be vigilant. In a very
real way these are our spiritual children. We must fight for
their right to a good education in the most constructive
environment which can be provided. We must do what we can to
guard their safety and well-being. We must also insure that the
Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind and its like are no
longer dangerous places for children.

Postscript: After completing this article, we received further
information.  On January 20, 1989, the Associate Editor talked
with both Robert Dawson, President of the Florida School for the
Deaf and the Blind, and Tuck Tinsley, Principal of the Department
for the Blind. On January 23, 1989, the Editor talked with
Tinsley.
Mr. Dawson said with respect to the live-in house parent question
that it had traditionally been the practice at the School to have
live-in house parents plus a roving supervisor who circulated
through the dormitories throughout the night to see that all was
well but that the School became worried about the provisions of
the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. The concern was that since
the house parents would be expected to be available for
emergencies anytime during the night, compensation would have to
be paid as if they were on full-time duty. Dawson said that such
compensation had not been paid and that, accordingly, the
practice of having live-in house parents had been discontinued.
With respect to more staff to supervise activities at Vaill Hall,
Dawson said that the promised $100,000 for extra employees has
just
now (January) been received. He said that immediately after the
Driggers tragedy, staff was transferred from a segment of the
deaf program to fill the need at Vaill Hall on a temporary basis
and that those staff will now be able to return to their former
assignments.
Dawson emphasized his conviction that the Florida School for the
Deaf and the Blind is deeply committed to the welfare of its
students and that both he and the board are behaving accordingly.
He says he feels that the HRS recommendations are seriously
flawed but that the school will move quickly and decisively to
implement those that are valid.  In view of the long years of
chaos and mismanagement one has to wonder why the Driggers death
and the HRS report were needed to make Dawson take action action
which he says will be immediate and thorough.

Dr. Tinsley, who is said by some to be the brightest and most
sensitive administrative staff member at the school, has
apparently decided to leave. On January 19, 1989, we were
informed that Dr. Tinsley had accepted the position of President
of the American Printing House for the Blind in Louisville,
Kentucky, succeeding Dr. Carson Nolan.

The Associate Editor began her conversation with Dr. Tinsley by
alluding to this new appointment. He said that he felt that the
problems at the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind were
almost entirely in other areas of the institution and not in the
department for the blind. He said that the HRS report commended
the staff of the department for the blind for warmth and
understanding and the dormitory for being  cheery.  In this
connection no mention was made of the sex abuse charges.
Dr. Tinsley told the Associate Editor that NAC met in Houston
during the weekend of January 14, 1989, and renewed the
accreditation of the department for the blind of the Florida
School for the Deaf and the Blind for the maximum term. He said
that NAC commended the school for its work study program, which
brings Flagler College students onto the FSDB campus; its eye
health care program; its ear, nose,
and throat clinic; its mobility pass program; and its dormitory
curriculum.  In addition, he said that the Southern Association
of Colleges and Secondary Schools has also recently accredited
the school with commendation.  In this connection it should be
kept in mind that outside accrediting bodies such as the Southern
Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools tend (this is part
of the problem) to rely on NAC accreditation and simply rubber
stamp what NAC does. It is to be hoped that the Florida case will
go a long way toward changing this.
When Dr. Tinsley talked with the Editor on January 23, he
confirmed that there was a sex abuse offense by a staff member in
the department for the blind against a blind student some time
early last year and another such case of sex abuse by a teacher
in the department for
the blind in either 1986 or 1987. Dr. Tinsley couldn't remember
exactly when. In answer to a question from the Editor Dr. Tinsley
said that he believed at least some time was spent in jail by one
or the other of the offenders. He said the school was very
concerned about such things.
When Dr. Tinsley was asked whether NAC (the National
Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually
Handicapped) had been aware of these problems at the School, he
said yes. He said that the NAC team had been on hand last year in
the midst of some of the revelations. When he was asked to
comment on whether NAC's silence about the problems of the school
and its reaccreditation of the school in January of 1989 might
not legitimately give rise to questions about NAC's claim that
its seal of approval is an assurance of quality services, he
remained silent.
Dr. Tinsley said that the Florida School is a good institution
and that the charges against it are politically motivated. He
gave no explanation as to why anyone would be motivated to attack
the school politically, and he confirmed the facts concerning the
major abuses we have detailed.
It will be remembered that Dennis Hartenstine, NAC's executive
director, told the  Monitor's  Associate Editor that he was
waiting for a report concerning the sex abuse incidents in the
department for
the blind at the school before taking any action. In light of
subsequent developments we can reasonably guess what he meant. If
Dr. Tinsley's report is accurate, NAC reaccredited the school on
the weekend of January 14, 1989, with accolades and commendation.
The facts speak
for themselves, and neither the blind of the nation nor the
self-respecting agencies and schools will forget or remain
silent.
@NO INDENT = subsequent developments we can reasonably guess what
he meant. If Dr. Tinsley's report is accurate, NAC reaccredited
the school on the weekend of January 14, 1989, with accolades and
commendation.  The facts speak for themselves, and neither the
blind of the nation nor the self-respecting agencies and schools
will forget or remain silent.
             LAYING THE GROUNDWORK FOR INDEPENDENCE
                        by Barbara Walker
 As  Monitor  readers know, Barbara Walker is the President of
the National Federation of the Blind of Nebraska.  This article
is reprinted from the Fall, 1988, issue of  Future Reflections, 
the magazine of the Parents Division of the National Federation
of the Blind. It was given as a speech at the July 2 Parents
Seminar at the 1988 National Federation of the Blind convention
in Chicago.  Barbara Walker was one of three panelists who spoke
on the topic:   Laying the Groundwork: Independence for the Blind
Infant, Toddler, and Preschooler.  Here is what she said: 

When my son John, at the age of three, said he wanted some
fruitcake that had been in the refrigerator for quite awhile, I
said:  Just a minute, please. I need to see what kind of shape
it's in.  His response was immediate:  It's in a rectangle shape,
and I want some.  And he was right. It was. Chalk up one more
reminder of how literally children interpret and respond to their
world.  I have always been blind. My sister, Laurie, is also
blind. Our older brother, Lani, isn't. There was, to our parents'
knowledge, no history of blindness in our family. Discussing my
sister's case, the doctors said they didn't know the cause of
blindness, but thought there was
probably a one in a thousand chance of recurrence. Since I
arrived blind fourteen months later, either I'm one in a
thousand, or they didn't know what
they were talking about. All of us are now grown, married, and
have children none of whom is blind.
In dealing with the subject of laying the groundwork for blind
youngsters, I draw from my own childhood and the raising of my
own children who are currently seven and four-and-a-half. My
message is, as are most things of consequence, easier to say than
to live. It is simply that parents should have equal expectations
of blind and sighted children in activities and goals and, more
importantly, should cultivate equal expectations in the children
themselves.
But what exactly does this mean? Let me be specific.  A moment
ago, I mentioned my son's response to my use of the word  shape. 
That incident and many others continue to help him define that
and other words. An important word for children to define is 
blind.  As a child, the first phrase of definition I internalized
about blindness was that I didn't see very well. At a very early
age I knew that not to do something well was not good. It may
seem like an exercise in semantic game-playing, but if you really
think about it, most of us would rather affirm that we are a
certain way or have a certain characteristic than accentuate our
inability to do something well. I think this is especially true
of characteristics which are beyond our control. A child who is
told that he or she doesn't see very well may try desperately to
do it better, especially if doing so would please his or her
parents. A child who is told that he or she is blind will, most
likely ask:  What's blind?  in the same way anything else might
be questioned. Your response, not only in words, but also through
your attitudes and actions, will set the stage for your child's
life.
So what does blind mean? It means that, in varying degrees, you
don't receive information directly through your own eyes. It does
not, however, mean that you can't get that information.
Obviously, telling an infant this in words won't affect him or
her any more than telling him or her that he or she is first or
tenth-born, a boy or a girl, a blessing or a burden, etc. It is
primarily through your attitudes and actions that your baby will
learn about him- or herself and the world.  So, what are blind
babies like? If my sister and I were typical, and I believe we
were, it would be as impossible to generalize about blind babies
as it is to do so about any youngsters. My sister, from what I
remember my mother's telling me, crawled, walked, and talked at
about the same time as neighbor kids her age. She ran away from
home more than once while still in diapers, handled everything
she could get to, was adept with her fingers, questioned
incessantly, and insisted on a prominent place in her world. I,
on the other hand, neither walked nor talked until I was about
two, showed little visible evidence that I was particularly
curious about my environment, and was clumsy and awkward with my
hands and body breaking many things with which I came into
contact.
As toddlers and preschoolers, we continued to show contrasts.
Laurie, at age two, walked along the piano reaching up to pick
out melodies on the keyboard. She generally chose gentle play
interacting with others, real or imaginary and was afraid of high
slides, going on carnival rides, and the like. I loved rough play
wrestling, running hard, swinging and/or climbing high, flipping
over and off of bars, throwing and catching balls, etc. and I
loved high slides, carnival rides, and the like.
I could go on and on, but I hope my point is clear. Blind babies,
toddlers, preschoolers in fact all blind children, youth, and
adults have as wide a range of interests, abilities, and
approaches to life as do others, even when raised in the same
family. As I have mentioned before, there was no known history of
blindness in our family.  Our parents knew nothing about
blindness. They struggled with stereotypes as all of us do, but
their hope for us was the same as that for our brother that we
would eventually be contributing and fulfilled adults, no longer
needing or wanting to live under their care.  Mom, the more
verbally expressive of our parents, said there were many times
when she didn't understand how we would or could do things, and
it scared her to have us try. But she didn't stand in our way. 
She learned Braille so that we could correspond privately. She
persistently went to bat for us when we were left out or
mistreated not in ways that made us dependent upon her, but in
ways that preserved respect and dignity for everyone, and
provided us with experience in everything from fielding questions
to finding alternative methods for doing things ordinarily done
with the use of sight.
Dad showed his acceptance of us in other ways. He showed us how
things worked. He pointed out nonvisual qualities of things
generally perceived visually, like the contrasting cool and hot
pavement where his shadow passed. He made us doll cribs and a
playhouse; punch pillows; and shelves that would accommodate
Braille books. (For those of you who are unfamiliar with punch
pillows, or who may know them by another name, they are flat
cushions with a solid bottom used for tracing or free hand
drawing with a stylus or cutter to make raised-line pictures or
cutouts.) Dad also took me fishing, showed me how to shoot
baskets, and encouraged my interests in competitive sports.
My sister and I were given hands-on experiences whenever their
availability and our interests coincided. I was a very shy child,
and sometimes my self-consciousness prevented me from taking full
advantage of these opportunities. If Laurie was along, I
generally asked her later about whatever we had seen, and she
would explain it in detail sometimes creating a replica to show
me.
Underlying all of these things were our parents' respect for us
as people and their encouragement toward our finding a place in
society not a pigeonhole created by them or anyone else, but a
place we could earn as others do. That genuine attitude of
respect and affirmation of our worth and dignity did more than
all the experiences and skills combined in allowing us to grow
and become contributing members of society. Laying the
attitudinal groundwork does have results. I think an example from
my recent past will illustrate.
One morning last month, as I was dropping my children off at
their Vacation Bible School rooms and heading down to teach the
fifth- and sixth-graders, one of my daughter's teachers stopped
me in the hall.  She said that when the first- and second-grade
class was talking about Jesus' helping disadvantaged people, the
other teacher in the room had asked Marsha what she does to help
her disabled parents. (Both my husband and I are blind.) Marsha
hesitated, and the teacher relating the incident to me told
Marsha she could pass. At that point, Marsha said something like: 
This spring, when Mom had her appendix taken out, I helped her
pick things up off the floor, carry things, and get things she
needed.  Marsha, whose seventh birthday is today, just completed
first grade. She is certainly aware that we do some things
differently. But if this response is a reflection of her
perception of life (and I have every reason to believe that it
is), she doesn't at this point equate these differences with
disadvantages, either for herself or for us.
I'm not intending to imply that my family no longer struggles
with the consequences of blindness, both real and imagined. We
do, as does everyone who is blind or associates with the blind.
But I am saying that if we lay the groundwork well that is, if we
provide equal, although not necessarily identical, opportunities
to blind and sighted youngsters (for example: Braille rather than
print, a model rather than a one-dimensional picture, verbal
rather that visual instruction to be imitated, etc.); and if we
see blindness as a characteristic rather than a handicap, living
our lives in such a way that the inconveniences blindness causes
are seen as nuisances (no more, no less) our children, from
babyhood on, will internalize that attitude, and the result will
be that we will raise blind and sighted children who will expect
to live and work as equals, and our society will change. You and
I, both singly and as a unified voice in the National Federation
of the Blind, have the opportunity to share in that exciting
process.          OF EDUCATION AND ITS PSEUDOS
                          by David Hyde
 This article is reprinted from the Fall, 1988, issue of the 
Oregon Outlook,  the newsletter of the National Federation of the
Blind of Oregon. David Hyde is the President of the NFB of
Oregon. 


It was Samuel Johnson who said,  Sir, a woman's preaching is like
a dog's walking on his hinder legs. It is not done well; but you
are surprised to find it done at all.  I am reminded of this
quotation whenever I think about the state of education for blind
children in our public schools today. Many, if not most, blind
children who work their way through the public schools emerge
with few of the skills necessary for survival in the
predominantly sighted world. Many cannot read fast enough to do
day-to-day work. A great number cannot do simple math without a
calculator or computer.  Still more cannot travel without a
sighted guide, and many (I am tempted to say most but lack
sufficient data to do so) function well below their age level.  A
blind preschooler in Roseburg, Oregon, sees a special education
teacher for two hours each month. In a headstart program, this
same child would receive twenty hours of enriched instruction
each week.  A blind first grader receives instruction in Braille
for one hour each week while sighted classmates spend a
significant part of every day reading print. The blind child is
told that physical education is beyond him, while sighted
children are encouraged to participate in team sports and in
other team- building activities. The blind high school student
learns that his papers need not be submitted on time since, after
all, it is more difficult for him to write them. Sighted
youngsters in the same class receive lower grades for turning in
late homework. Teachers do not expect blind students to complete
their assignments well; completing them at all is sufficient. 
Most of us recognize that all education is not what it used to
be.  It should be made clear, however, that the education of
blind children is worse than ever. Students with residual vision
are taught to read large print and are indoctrinated with the
idea that print is the normal way to read and, conversely, that
Braille is abnormal. These children believe that they are better
off than, and therefore superior to, the totally blind students
who read Braille. Of course, it necessarily follows that they
believe that they are worse off than and not as good as children
with normal sight.
Why is this information so false and damaging? First of all, a
blind student who has had the opportunity to learn Braille reads
about as fast as the sighted student reading print. In the second
place, most partially sighted students using large print read
slowly and with agonizing effort. Also, Braille is much more
portable than a seventy-five pound camera and the closed circuit
television used by many partially blind students.
With proper training totally blind students who use canes are
able to travel more efficiently and safely than many partially
sighted students who do not. Partially or totally blind students
who use all of the techniques available to them have a wider
range of accomplishments than those who try to pass as sighted.
Think back, those of you who have ever worked with a competent
blind person and have seen him or her deliver a speech. The
speech was probably written in Braille, and the person was able
to look at the audience while reading the text. Often speeches
delivered by partially sighted people are (when they are read at
all) read from several sheets of paper held two inches in front
of the speaker's nose, or from the screen of a closed circuit
television. Would George Bush or Michael Dukakis be as effective
at twenty words a minute or even forty or sixty? On the other
hand, remember that in 1976 the seconding speech for Vice
Presidential candidate Robert Dole was delivered by a blind
woman, Peggy Pinder. The speech was written and read in Braille
and, by the way, not delivered at twenty words per minute.
Training in alternative techniques is essential for all blind
people, whether or not they have any residual vision. Without
such training, we set them up to fail. As parents, teachers, or
Braille students, you must think about the education you or your
students received or are receiving. Let us not forget Samuel
Johnson. His words too often apply to the educational system
today in its approach to and attitude about blind and visually
impaired students.
   WHEELING AND DEALING IN TECHNOLOGY FOR THE BLIND by Barbara
Pierce
Lee Brown, President of Enabling Technologies, Inc., of Stuart,
Florida, makes no bones about it. The field of technology
(particularly, technology for the blind) has been good to him. He
has made money, and he says that he feels some obligation to
insure that if possible the field continue to provide improved
products and services to blind people.  He believes, however,
that this should be done in a context of undiminished profits.
The free enterprise system encourages (or should encourage) such
energy and initiative. There have been a number of people and
companies in recent years that have tried their hand at making
money while providing technology and service in the blindness
field. But the same economic pressures that have caused airline
consolidations have also had an impact on technology providers.
There are still a few small (and even smaller) enterprises in the
picture, each scrapping for a corner of the market, but the
number is shrinking. Although the American Foundation for the
Blind, the American Printing House for the Blind, and perhaps one
or two others have been players in the technology game for a long
time and although newer companies like Boston Information and
Technology (see article in this issue) are coming on strong,
increasingly the center of the high-tech stage in the blindness
field has been dominated by the big three: Enabling Technologies,
Telesensory Systems, Inc.  (TSI), and VTEK (formerly Visualtek).
Over the past few years these three companies have been the
subject of constant rumor and speculation their stability, or
lack of soundness; their financial strength, or impending
bankruptcy; their relations (whether friendly or hostile with
each other); and anything else you might care to mention.
Recent developments make it necessary for the  Braille Monitor 
to dip into this morass of complexity to seek answers to
troubling questions. Technology is increasingly important to the
blind. In one way or another it plays a central part in the lives
of all of us.  Therefore, we cannot be unconcerned when mergers,
the disappearance of long-established producers, and the
shuffling of products and markets call into question the basic
structure of the system.

The Demise of 
Maryland Computer Services, Inc.

Lee Brown is perhaps the most active single player on the
high-tech stage in the blindness field today. How much money he
has made and whether he has damaged or enhanced the lives of
blind people are matters of controversy and speculation. Deane
Blazie, owner of Blazie Engineering and one time President of
Maryland Computer Services (MCS), is obviously still disgruntled
about the part which Brown played in the takeover of MCS in May
of 1986. He maintains that Brown snapped up MCS and walked away
with assets and technology worth tens of thousands of dollars. He
also accuses Brown of bleeding off funds from Enabling
Technologies (Brown's own company) and leaving creditors with
unpaid bills totaling at least $200,000. Blazie implies that
Brown can get away with this because creditors hesitate to deal
as rigorously with a blind man as they would with a sighted
counterpart.  Readers should know that Blazie and Brown have
recently settled a lawsuit, which has dragged on for almost two
years, in which Brown accused Blazie of fraud, and Blazie
demanded the $20,000 still owed him from the MCS settlement. Each
party maintains that he could probably have won if the case had
come to trial. But Blazie says he didn't want to pour more money
into lawyers' fees, and Brown says that he (Brown) is basically
just a nice guy. In the court settlement Brown agreed to pay
Blazie $2,500 and give him a Braillo printer, for which MCS
originally paid $45,000.
Lee Brown's version of the Maryland Computer Service deal differs
widely from Blazie's. He maintains that his primary impulse for
stepping in to save the company was a desire to protect the
technology users who would have been left high and dry if MCS had
gone under in May of 1986. Brown says that the bank held a note
for $350,000 at that time and was talking about liquidation
proceedings. Enabling Technologies, according to Brown, stepped
in to guarantee the note and find someone to buy it. When, almost
a year later, MCS did close, Brown and company (according to
Brown) were left to pay off the note. In the meantime they had
paid nearly $200,000 for technology including that for the Romeo
printer, which, according to Brown, needed to have eighty percent
of its parts reworked. Blazie hotly denies this statement,
maintaining that the Romeo was about ready to market.
By Brown's reckoning, then, Enabling Technologies has nothing but
headaches to show for having tried to rescue MCS. Their debt load
provides a monthly reminder, according to Brown, of the cost of
doing good. Regardless of Brown's protestations about his losses, 
no one can dispute the fact that Maryland Computer Services is no
more. What is left of its assets belongs to Enabling
Technologies, which paid off Blazie's ex-partner with a block of
preferred stock and settled in court to pay Blazie in cash and
equipment.
In passing, Brown notes that MCS's books were in such chaos by
May of 1986 that no one really knew how much debt existed. Up
until ten months before, MCS had had accurate financial records
prepared by independent accountants. Brown says that he simply
misjudged the extent of the managerial and financial confusion
that had crept in since the audit the year before. In his defense
he explains that his people had to assess the situation and make
their decision very quickly.  When the dust settled, Brown says
that he was facing twice as much debt as he had expected to take
on plus, as it turned out, not getting the Thiel distributorship.

The Adventure of the 
Thiel Braille Embosser

Something must be said here about Hans Thiel and the Thiel
Braille Embosser. MCS, before its demise, had been the U.S.
distributor for the Thiel. Blazie says that there was never a
contract governing this arrangement, only an understanding. Other
people report, however, that Thiel never does any business
without drawing up a contract, and, though the confidentiality
constraints of the lawyer-client relationship did not allow
Thiel's attorney to provide the  Monitor  a copy, a source close
to Hans Thiel said that a contract with MCS had been used as a
model in drawing up Thiel's most recent agreement with an
American distributor. When Enabling Technologies (the eventual
producer of the Marathon Braille printer, which is something of a
competitor with the Thiel) began expressing interest in buying
MCS, Hans Thiel started looking for another distributor. Blazie
says Thiel presumed that Lee Brown wanted to stifle sales of the
Thiel and, at the same time, help himself liberally to the Thiel
technology in order to speed the development of the Marathon. So
Thiel eventually negotiated an arrangement with VTEK (See the 
Braille Monitor  for November, 1986, and February, 1987.) A
source close to Thiel says that, in preliminary negotiations,
Brown ruined his chances of getting the Thiel contract by trying
to take advantage of Thiel.
In any case, Brown reports that, if he had had the least idea in
May of 1986 that distributing the Thiel was not to be part of the
package Enabling Technologies was buying, the deal would not have
gone through, stranded MCS users notwithstanding. He says that he
has now seen a telegram that Thiel sent to Blazie and his partner
in early May of 1986 which clearly said that Thiel was severing
his relationship with MCS as of that time. Brown maintains that,
even if there were no written contract, such notification
demonstrates that an agreement to distribute Thiel printers had
existed and that he was quite consciously prevented from learning
of its cancellation.
Be that as it may, in July of 1986 Thiel signed a contract with
VTEK to distribute the Thiel Braille Embosser in this country.
From the start, Thiel was discontented with the way in which VTEK
conducted business. (See the  Braille Monitor  for November,
1986.) Our information indicates that he has continued to be
dissatisfied with VTEK's marketing and pricing of his product.
Thiel has recently invested heavily in a large production
facility in Ireland, which will turn out many more products than
just the Braille embosser. Considering the weakness of the dollar
against the deutsche mark, there is widespread speculation in
knowledgeable circles that Thiel may be planning to set up his
own distribution network in this country.

And Then There Was One

When  The Braille Monitor  asked Brown how   he would
characterize the financial health of Enabling Technologies today,
he   said,  People in the field would tell you that we are just
about bankrupt, but they've been saying that ever since I have
been associated with the company.  According to Brown,
Triformation Systems, Inc. showed a loss in 1985. That was the
year Brown took it over and formed Enabling Technologies by
merging it with his hearing aid company and a military production
concern he had bought in order to have access to its technical
know-how. However, he was on the scene for only seven months of
that year, and he says that in five of those seven months
Triformation Systems showed a profit. In 1986 Brown says Enabling
Technologies made a profit of about $150,000, and in 1987
approximately   $122,000.  Asked about the drop in 1987, Brown
cited the TSI profit for that year as $24,000 on four times
Enabling Technologies' volume of business.  He doubts whether
VTEK made any money at all in 1987, even though he says its 1986
profit neared half a million dollars. Brown's conclusion is that,
at the moment, Enabling Technologies is the healthiest kid on the
block.  
As if to give substance to Brown's speculations, TSI announced on
December 20, 1988, that (as of January 27, 1989) it was taking
over VTEK. James Bliss (TSI's long-time controversial chief
executive) will serve as President of the merged organization,
and Larry Israel (VTEK's equally controversial long-time leader)
is apparently out despite the fact that he will sit on the TSI
board of directors as a minority stockholder. William Schwarz,
TSI Vice President for Finance, will become, in addition, the
manager of VTEK which will continue to operate, at least for the
present, as a separate entity.  The merger comes after years of
fierce competition between the two companies. In the beginning,
TSI concentrated on serving those who required technological
alternatives to reading print visually, e.g.  the Optacon and the
VersaBraille. During the same period, VTEK focused on the
closed-circuit television market. Then, in the early eighties,
TSI bought Apollo Laser (thus challenging VTEK in the
closed-circuit t.v. market), and VTEK responded by getting into
the Braille end of the market with the Braille Display Processor
(the BDP) and its own Braille embosser (the 'Mboss). Until the
time of the merger it often seemed that each of the two was
intent on destroying the other. According to Larry Israel, the
two companies were almost evenly matched at the time of the
merger exactly the same age and approximately the same assets.
Now that the merger has taken place, the truly interesting
question is: How was the deal financed? If Brown's $24,000
estimate of TSI's profit for 1987 is at all accurate, it is hard
to believe that TSI had the resources to swing the deal. Bliss
refused to comment on the accuracy of these figures. One of the
members of the TSI Board is a venture capitalist, and he might
conceivably have been interested in investing the necessary
money. There is some speculation that TSI may be planning to go
public in a year or two, if the fused company can be made to show
a profit. In this scenario, Larry Israel, erstwhile leader of
VTEK, would almost certainly have to wait at least a year for a
substantial part of his payment. Those who know Israel doubt that
he would be willing to do that no matter how eager he says he is
to leave active, day-to-day management. Jim Bliss says that the
merger was financed with TSI funds exclusively. Israel maintains
stoutly that TSI's commercial bank advanced the money for the
deal and that VTEK's would have done so if asked.
The name of Xerox, however, continues to be whispered as a
possible source of the capital. Israel denies this suggestion,
and Bliss agrees, saying that he would be delighted if Xerox were
interested. Lee Brown says that he knows enough about Xerox's way
of operating to be confident that if Xerox were a part of the
deal, someone from the corporation would now be sitting on the
TSI Board. So far as we can tell, no one is. And yet TSI and VTEK
employees continue to wonder and whisper.

Apparently they also continue to look for jobs elsewhere. Before
Christmas, 1988, Brown says that Enabling Technologies was
receiving telephone calls of inquiry almost every hour from
people who were nervous about their jobs or about TSI's soundness
or both.
One of the most troubling aspects of this merger is the fate of
the closed circuit television market, now that the two most
serious competitors are joining forces. An ongoing price war
between the two has recently benefited consumers. Presumably
there will now be a single retail price with a few state and
educational discounts, and that will be that. Monopoly in this
field looms on the horizon not just in the closed-circuit
television market but elsewhere. Bliss denies this, pointing to
Coburn and Obelec as closed-circuit television producers still in
the American market. But their share is small, and neither has
the marketing capacity to step into the vacuum created by the
merger. Enabling Technologies has a competing product on the
drawing board, but Brown says he now has so many other irons in
the fire that he is not sure he can commit the funds necessary to
prevent the monopoly.  Israel joines Bliss in pooh-poohing the
dangers of monopoly, pointing to the world market as the true
field in which all these technology companies are necessarily
competing. The TSI-VTEK share of the international market is far
from monopolistic, say Bliss and Israel, so American fears are
groundless, even absurd. The concern, however, is real.  Already,
says Brown, customers have called him expressing their worries.

Before any possible monopoly can materialize, however, TSI will
have to iron out some very real problems of its own. The
consensus is that roughly fifty percent of the closed-circuit
t.v. sales are made by a half dozen or so representatives of the
two companies. In regions like Washington, D.C., where two of
these have been pitted against each other, there may well no
longer be sufficient sales volume to satisfy two hotshot salesmen
despite the inevitably higher prices which lack of competition
will allow.

Meanwhile, Back at the Ranch

In order to understand the next chapter in the Enabling
Technologies saga, we must go back to June of 1984 when Lee Brown
was still only a member of the Board of Triformation Systems. At
that time the company found it financially necessary to sell its
Braille production division, Triformation Braille Service (TBS).
The buyer was Arthur Kleinpell, a member of a wealthy Florida
family with substantial real estate holdings. Kleinpell had been
a large stockholder and member of the Triformation Systems Board,
and Guy Carbonneau (then President of Triformation Systems) was
less than fond of Kleinpell and company.  (See the Carbonneau
correspondence reprinted in the April-May, 1985,  Braille Monitor
).
Kleinpell seemed confident that he could make TBS a profitable
operation, but it wasn't long before he found himself tripping
over the following provision in Public Law 89-522:
 In the purchase of books in either raised characters or in sound
reproduction recordings, the Librarian of Congress, without
reference to the provisions of Section 3709 of the revised
statutes of the United States (41 USC 5), shall give preference
to nonprofit-making institutions or agencies whose activities are
primarily concerned with the blind and other physically
handicapped persons in all cases where the prices or bids
submitted by such institutions or agencies are by said Librarian,
under all circumstances and needs involved, determined to be fair
and reasonable. 
What this means when we cut through the verbiage is simply this:
If a nonprofit organization does not bid more than ten percent
higher than a profit-making competitor, the contract goes to the
nonprofit organization. One would think it would be the other way
around since the nonprofit organization does not have to pay
taxes and is usually the recipient of charitable gifts and
bequests. However, the government has never held itself out as a
proponent of logic.
But be that as it may, TBS (though usually the lowest bidder)
lost book-production contracts from NLS and money for its
stockholders.  In the summer of 1987 Kleinpell (in what can only
be called a novel maneuver) converted TBS from a profit to a
nonprofit organization.  The state of Florida recognized it as
such, and, after some reflection, so did NLS.
Unlike the other Braille publishing houses, TBS did not bother to
file for tax exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) of the federal
Internal Revenue Code. Public Law 89-522 (the NLS statute) did
not specifically require it, using instead the general term 
nonprofit,  and NLS's General Counsel determined that Congress
had intended that state certification was sufficient to establish
nonprofit status.  Each state's laws establish the provisions
which its corporations must meet in order to qualify as
nonprofit. Whether or not a corporation has also applied for and
received tax exempt status is, according to the NLS General
Counsel, apparently immaterial.
TBS's new status did not have the results for which Kleinpell had
hoped. True, NLS contracted to have TBS produce in Braille 200
books and six magazines in 1988. But it was clear to competitors
that Kleinpell was subsidizing his production costs. A spokesman
at the American Printing House for the Blind reported that, in
one instance, the Printing House could not even have purchased
the paper to do the job for the amount of Kleinpell's bid. More
than one person suspected that TBS was trying to drive everyone
else out of the market.
Kleinpell denies the charge, and Lee Brown agrees. His theory is
that Kleinpell wanted to become the best Braille producer in the
field.  For a while he did so and, by losing money in the
process, he created a convenient tax loophole for himself and the
profits from some of his other ventures. Brown believes that
Kleinpell soon got bored and decided to get out. Whatever his
motives may originally have been, he soon decided to cut his
losses. In August of 1988 Lee Brown and two partners announced
that they had purchased Triformation Braille Service. Many have
wondered how one goes about buying a non-profit organization.
What do you purchase? Without the possibility of making a profit,
why would you bother?
Brown insists that Enabling Technologies is not involved with
this maneuver, that it is an individual action by him and his
partners but it is hard to separate the man from his endeavors.
The other Braille printing houses (National Braille Press and the
American Printing House for the Blind, at least) say that they
are not troubled by Brown's acquisition. They say that since he
has less working capital than Kleinpell, they think that bidding
on NLS contracts will probably be fairer than with Kleinpell.
Brown clearly has his hands full. The 1989 NLS contracts have now
been announced, and TBS lost fifty books and has been awarded a
demonstration contract to produce only one magazine,  Psychology
Today.  This slap on the wrist is due, Brown says, to the state
of chaos into which the previous management allowed TBS to sink. 
Monitor  readers who receive the Braille edition know firsthand
how far behind during the last days of the Kleinpell regime the
production of magazines had fallen. Mailing lists also seem to
have been scrambled, and no one was happy with the results. Brown
reports that these problems were readily corrected as soon as he
took over. He says that almost all of the same supervisory and
production staff who were working at TBS when the problems were
so acute are still there. The personnel could always do the job,
he says. It was management that was faulty.

When the question,  Why did you acquire Triformation Braille
Service?  was put to him directly, Brown admitted that he wants
to be able to influence the amount and type of Braille produced
in the United States.  As a Braille user himself, he says that he
feels strongly that there is not enough Braille in circulation
today. He is particularly interested in seeing that more
information about business, law, and computers becomes available
to Braille readers. He can do this both by the decisions he makes
at TBS and by working to find grants to fund pet production
projects. All this is laudable of Brown. Unquestionably we need
more Braille, and we must encourage people to use it. Two very
effective ways to accomplish these goals would be for Brown to
keep his prices low and to increase the variety of Braille
material available. He says he will do both.
The follow-through on this commitment will not only test Brown's
sincerity but also the quality of his business acumen. Moreover,
it will clarify the picture in the whole field of technology for
the blind. Both danger and opportunity lie ahead for the blind of
the nation in this thrust and counterthrust in the snarled jungle
of technology. Not all of the producers on the scene today will
survive, nor should they. If we are lucky, new producers will
also enter the picture. The rough and tumble of the free
enterprise system has always provided an efficient mechanism for
determining who is strong enough to thrive and the consumer has
profited as a result.
Of course, the contest is frequently unfair, and innocent
bystanders (in this case, blind consumers of technology) can be
hurt. This is a very real danger. If the shakedown results either
in monopoly (with its soaring prices) or cutthroat competition
(with its chaos), the blind will lose. The corner of the
technology market that meets our specialized needs is too small
for market forces alone to protect our interests in the long run.
The blind of the nation must be vigilant and informed. We must be
strong enough (this is one of the reasons why we have the
National Federation of the Blind) to insist that technology
producers listen to us and work with us to develop the products
and systems we need to assist us on our way toward freedom. Our
strength must be sufficient to convince them that it is in their
best interest to pay attention to our opinions.
We must always remember and make producers understand that
equipment is meant to serve, not to save. Purveyors who suggest
that salvation for blind people resides in their boxes or on
their diskettes are actually offering us bondage. If we believe
them, we are doomed.  Like fire, technology can bring warmth and
comfort, or it can destroy us. We are the ones who must choose,
for we must live with the consequences.

                    NFB MEMBERSHIP POLICIES: 
CORRESPONDENCE WITH LARRY ISRAEL
                                         Santa Monica, California
                                                    April 6, 1988

Dear Dr. Jernigan:
Quite some time ago VTEK instituted a program of offering each of
our customers a free membership (that is, we would pay the first
year's membership cost) in their choice of one of the various
national membership organizations for blind and/or low vision
people. As a result, after we receive the  choice cards  from our
customers, we periodically remit their names, addresses, and our
check for first-year dues to the appropriate organization which
they have selected. In each case we thought we had cleared this
procedure with the respective organization.  Recently one of our
staff people, Ms. Toni Tanner, said that you had implied that the
money we forwarded to you for those people choosing NFB
membership ($10 per person) was being treated by NFB as a
donation, rather than as first-year membership dues for those
people (or, perhaps, she inferred that without any implication by
you).
Is this information correct? If so, it appears that we may have
had a misunderstanding since the beginning of this program, and
we have inadvertently been communciating misinformation to our
customers.  If that's the case, we'd like to quickly learn what
the NFB annual membership dues are for new members and whether we
can (with your permission) continue our program along the line we
had believed was the case (i.e., where we send you the annual
dues and the name/address for a new member).
Thank you for your prompt response to this letter.

                                                Very truly yours,
                                           Larry Israel, Chairman
                                                             VTEK
____________________
                                              Baltimore, Maryland
                                                   April 14, 1988

Mr. Larry Israel, Chairman
VTEK
Santa Monica, California

Dear Mr. Israel:
This will reply to and thank you for your letter of April 6,
1988, regarding our membership policy. We suggest that blind
persons who wish to be members of the National Federation of the
Blind join through a division or a local or state affiliate, not
directly as members at large through the National Office. Sighted
persons who wish to be members at large may do so for $1 per
year. For that matter, there is no rule which would prevent a
blind person's joining in this manner, but it is hard to see why
any blind person would want to.  Members at large are asked to
become Associates for $10 or more. This allows them to contribute
much in the way that other members of the organization do by
making contributions through the PAC (Pre-Authorized Check) Plan,
but the $10 contribution has nothing to do with dues or being a
member. In this connection I herewith enclose an Associate form.
As you will see, it clearly states the cost of dues for members
at large. These forms are available (as I am sure you know) in
great abundance at NFB conventions and otherwise.
Since membership in our organization means more than just money
and since dues are deliberately kept to a nominal amount, it
seems inappropriate for an organization to purchase memberships
for blind persons. In a way it is a contradiction of what
membership in the NFB is all about.  VTEK is, of course, free to
make cash contributions to us if it chooses but not as a means of
purchasing memberships for blind persons. It is our feeling that
blind persons who want to join us should handle payment of their
own dues.
I hope this clarifies our policy and gives you the information
you want. Thank you again for writing me and for any past
contributions which you or VTEK may have made.
@HALFLINE =
                                                       Sincerely,
                                                 Kenneth Jernigan
                                               Executive Director
                                 National Federation of the Blind
____________________
                                         Santa Monica, California
                                                     May 16, 1988
@HALFLINE =
Dear Dr. Jernigan:
Thank you for your thoughtful letter of April 14.
I respect and accept NFB's position regarding its own membership
policies.  Since this is at odds with the program we had
established, it seems most appropriate for us to immediately
change our program so that we do not mislead any of our
customers. We expect to continue to offer to our customers the
opportunity to join various other organizations, with the
first-year membership paid by VTEK, but will promptly remove NFB
from the list.
In the past we have been sending to your office the names and
addresses of people who thought they were going to become members
of NFB, along with our  contribution  (which we thought was a
first-year membership fee). In fairness to those people we need
to correct this misunderstanding. Before we write to them, could
you please advise me if NFB has had any communication with those
people, or has utilized those names in any way or added them to
NFB's data base? That information would be important so that we
can communicate clearly and unequivocally with those people.
Thank you for your attention to this request.
@HALFLINE =
                                                       Sincerely,
                                           Larry Israel, Chairman
                                                             VTEK
@HALFLINE =
P. S. Should the NFB change its views on this topic, we would be
delighted to include NFB within the program again.
____________________
                                              Baltimore, Maryland
                                                     May 31, 1988
@HALFLINE =
Mr. Larry Israel, Chairman
VTEK
Santa Monica, California
@HALFLINE =
Dear Mr. Israel:
This will reply to and thank you for your letter of May 16, 1988. 
If you will send me a list of the names and addresses you have
forwarded through the years, I shall be happy to try to determine
whether the people involved are members at large of the National
Federation of the Blind. Of course, some of the people whose
names you sent may in the meantime have become members at large
by paying dues, or they may have become members of the
organization by joining local chapters, state affiliates, or
divisions. In any case our policy is that membership in the
National Federation of the Blind is meant to be individual and
significant. I appreciate the tone and spirit of your letter and
your wish to cooperate with us.
@HALFLINE =
                                                       Sincerely,
                                                 Kenneth Jernigan
                                               Executive Director
                                 National Federation of the Blind
____________________
                                         Santa Monica, California
                                                     June 8, 1988

Dear Dr. Jernigan:
Regarding your letter of May 31, I appreciate your offer of
trying to determine whether the people whose names we have
previously sent to you are currently members of the NFB. I do not
want to put you to that kind of effort, and I can see my question
was misunderstood.  My question was not directed at asking you to
undertake the effort of reviewing the current status of each of
those names individually but rather at determining what you had
done in general with those lists we sent you each month. It seems
from prior correspondence that you clearly did not automatically
make them members at large without further action by them. What I
was inquiring about was whether you used those names in any other
way, such as by adding them to your data base of interested
persons, or soliciting them for membership or the like.
If that information is available, we'd appreciate knowing. As
noted above, no individual review of the names by the NFB is
necessary.  Thanks again for your attention to this.
@HALFLINE =
                                                Very truly yours,
                                           Larry Israel, Chairman
                                                             VTEK
____________________
                                              Baltimore, Maryland
                                                    June 14, 1988

Mr. Larry Israel, Chairman
VTEK
Santa Monica, California

Dear Mr. Israel:
This will reply to your letter of June 8, 1988. We do not add the
name of any person to our membership list unless that individual
has indicated a wish to be a member, and (unlike some groups) we
do not claim members beyond the time they have indicated they
wish to be members. As you may know, it has been alleged that
once your name gets on the list of some organizations, you can't
get it off. We do not follow that practice.
Let me be sure that I am making myself absolutely clear. If an
individual registers at our convention, that name is retained for
future reference, but it is not added to our membership list. If
an individual's name is added to the list to receive the  Braille
Monitor , that is all that happens. That person is not counted as
a member unless he or she has indicated a wish to be a member. We
may have people (and we certainly do) who read our magazine and
are not in agreement with our policies. Likewise, individuals may
attend our convention and may not at all favor what we are doing.
They may be there to observe, to get information so that they can
oppose what we are trying to accomplish, to demonstrate and sell
aids and appliances, or to satisfy their curiosity.  If they
come, we ask them to register. This seems only fair. After all,
our special hotel rates are available to them, and it does not
seem right to  sneak  into a group and not let people know you
are there.
But all of this has nothing to do with membership. It does not
seem honest to claim that people are members simply because they
read your publication or come to one of your meetings. According
to this reasoning every time I visit a Catholic church or a
Jewish synagogue I can expect to be listed as a member; and every
time I sign up to read a left-wing or right-wing newspaper, it
will be announced that I am one of the party faithful. It is just
as bad, it seems to me, to blur your procedures so much that
(even though you may not do it technically) you give the
impression that everybody who has contact with you is a member. 
Except when we think it is not in our best interest, we accept
gifts from anybody who wants to give them, but we do not then
claim that those donors are  members not, that is, unless they
know they are signing up and indicate that they want to do it.
You, as an example, might (assuming you wanted to) make a gift to
the NFB, but this would not necessarily mean that we agree with
your policies or what you do or that you agree with us.
As you know, we felt that it was unwise for us to accept a
scholarship from you and VTEK. This did not necessarily imply
criticism. It simply meant that we thought the wrong signal would
be sent to the blind community if we did it. There was also the
matter that our smallest scholarship is $1,800.00 and that the
one you were offering was considerably smaller than that. Again,
we thought the wrong signal would be sent if we began
administering and giving scholarships of that size. 
Nevertheless, you will remember that at the same convention that
we declined the scholarship we invited you to speak on the
program and treated you with courtesy. We thought blind people
should know about your products and in your own words. Since that
time (as you also know) we have carried announcements about your
products in the  Monitor , which is the largest circulation
magazine in the blindness field.  I have not meant to belabor
this issue, but I think our practice needs to be spelled out in
unmistakable terms. There is a difference between ethics and
expediency, between struggling for a short-term advantage and
having the judgment to take the long view, and between membership
dues and contributions. We believe we understand the differences,
and we try to practice what we preach.

                                                       Sincerely,
                                                 Kenneth Jernigan
                                               Executive Director
                                 National Federation of the Blind
@RIGHT =
P. S. As I review our correspondence concerning the matter of
memberships, it seems appropriate to make one further comment. If
the past names you have sent us are those of people who have told
you or your representatives that they wanted to be NFB members,
it would be perfectly proper to enroll them as members. However,
we take the matter a step further since we believe that
membership should be serious and meaningful.  We do not enroll
people as members on a blanket basis, nor do we do it through
third parties. That, perhaps, is one more reason why the
Federation is the strongest and most respected organization in
the blindness field today.
               BOSTON INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY: 
THE WORLD OF MOHYMEN SADDEEK
                       by Kenneth Jernigan
Recently I was introduced to the Talkman VI, and it caused me to
write this article. Let me say at the outset that I think this
combination tape player/tape recorder/radio is one of the most
serviceable devices I have encountered. It is produced by Boston
Information and Technology, a name more and more blind people are
coming to recognize.  And when we think of Boston Information and
Technology (BIT), we think of Mohymen Saddeek, its owner and
principal spokesman. Saddeek is a quiet man, unobtrusive and
soft-spoken. I first met him two or three years ago and found
that he had been coming to NFB conventions for several years.
Born in Egypt and widely traveled, he makes his home in
Massachusetts, and he produces some of the most useful and
innovative technology now available to the blind.
His Talkman VI, for instance, is 5-1/2 by 3-1/2 by 1-1/2 inches
and weighs only eight ounces. In this miniature package (which
comes with belt clip) are housed an AM/FM radio and a tape
recorder/tape player.  There is a built-in speaker and also a
headphone jack. The unit operates on either AC (there is an
adapter that plugs into the wall) or on two double  A  batteries.
The tape player will handle Library of Congress books (four
tracks) and will also play stereo cassettes. It has a very
effective variable speed function and a tone control to help
minimize distortion. It will record only on two tracks, but it
will do it at either slow or fast speed. Of course, it will also
play at either slow or fast speed, and on four tracks.
The price of the Talkman VI (including AC adapter) is $205.
Without adapter it costs $190. Admittedly this is a good deal of
money, but the performance is excellent. Headphones and
instructional cassette come as part of the package.
There are also a Talkman V and a Talkman IV. Neither of these
units has a radio. Both will play on four tracks at either slow
or fast speed, and both have variable speed regulators. The
Talkman IV costs $175 with adapter and $160 without.
Saddeek was present at the World Blind Union meeting in Spain
last September. I saw him in Montreal last summer at the AER
meeting, and as I have already said, he is a regular exhibitor at
the NFB conventions.  I always visit his display if I can find
the time because I know I will find interesting products, a
friendly welcome, and a lack of exaggerated claims.
He is developing what he calls a  talking wallet,  which is about
the size of one of the small Sharp calculators and will verbally
identify the different denominations of bills. He says that the
talking wallet should be on the market no later than this summer.
The first 2,000 will be marketed through the American Foundation
for the Blind, after which they will presumably be generally
available. The cost is scheduled to be something over $400 per
unit, but hopefully this will go down as sales continue.
Saddeek also sells an electronic distance measurer, which can be
pointed at a wall or a ceiling and will give you the distance. He
sells a bread-making machine and a variety of other items. For
information or to make orders, call toll-free (800) 333-2481 or
write: Boston Information and Technology, 52 Roland Street,
Boston, Massachusetts 02129. The Talkman VI can also be ordered
through our aids and appliances department here at the National
Center for the Blind. These are exciting days in the development
of technology for the blind.
                REFLECTIONS ON THE LIFE AND WORK 
OF JACOBUS tenBROEK
 As  Monitor  readers know, Dr. Jacobus tenBroek (founder of the
National Federation of the Blind) died on March 27, 1968. A whole
generation of blind people has grown to adulthood during the
years since his death, and thousands of Americans (members of the
National Federation of the Blind) have come to terms with
blindness and society's attitudes about blindness in these
twenty-one years.  All of us owe Dr. tenBroek a profound debt of
gratitude, for it was his wisdom and vision that first gave blind
people the courage to dream of freedom and the strength to build
our own future.   At the spring, 1988, convention of the National
Federation of the Blind of California, Federationists celebrated
Dr. tenBroek's life and work.  The guest speaker for this
anniversary Memorial was Michael Tigar, who during the 1960's was
Professor tenBroek's student at the University of California in
Berkeley.  In her introduction
of Mr. Tigar, Sharon Gold, President of the NFB of California,
said: 

 Michael Tigar currently holds the Joseph D. Jamail Chair in Law
at the University of Texas School of Law.  He has been a tenured
member of the University of Texas faculty since 1983, and also
participates in litigation on a regular basis.  Before joining
the University of Texas faculty, he was a partner in the
Washington, D.C., law firms
of Williams and Connolly, and Tigar and Buffone.  He was
Vice-Chairman of the Section on Litigation of the American Bar
Association (1987-88), and is Chair of the Litigation Section of
the American Association of Law Schools (1988).
 Mr. Tigar received his law degree from the University of
California at Berkeley.  He was first in his class, served as
Editor-in-Chief of the  Law Review ,  and was elected to the
Order of the Coif.
He has taught and lectured at Yale, Harvard, the University of
Michigan, the State University of New York at Buffalo, Georgetown
University, UCLA, and on national, state, local and judicial
conference programs.   Mr. Tigar is the author of several books
(most recently  Federal Appeals: Jurisdiction and Practice 
published by Sheppard's/McGraw-Hill) as well as scores of
articles and essays in law reviews and other publications.  Mr.
Tigar is a frequent speaker at continuing legal education
programs.
 We are delighted and honored to have Mr. Tigar with us today.  I
ask you to welcome Michael Tigar, distinguished attorney and
scholar and, like us, Dr. tenBroek's student and friend. 

When I learned that Jacobus tenBroek had died, I wept.  So did
all of you who knew him.  Why did we weep?  Not for him.  He was
beyond the power of our tears.  If there is a hereafter, he would
there be judged to use an expression that he favored a worthy
citizen.  We wept for ourselves, for what had gone out of our
lives. Now, twenty years have passed, and perhaps our sense of
loss is more muted, not quite so insistent and urgent.  And yet,
in that perspective, I see and know more of what Chick tenBroek
contributed to me, to you, to generations of teachers and
learners, and to the struggle for justice.  Jacobus tenBroek, the
teacher.  I came to Berkeley in September 1958 as a freshman
undergraduate. I wanted to be a lawyer.  As a freshman, you had
to take either English 1A-1B or Speech 1A-1B. I liked the sound
of  Speech.  When I went to register, I was told that
there was a prelaw section of this course, and I chose that one. 
Circumstance had brought me in touch with tenBroek.
It turned out, of course, that the speech department had become
what
someone called a liberal arts college in microcosm.  Besides the
performance-oriented speech courses of a traditional sort, you
could learn rhetoric and study Aristotle and Cicero.  You would
learn  freedom of speech  from those such as tenBroek and Coleman
Blease and Al Bendich who took seriously the theories of
Alexander Meiklejohn.
tenBroek's  prelegal  class differed from other freshman speech
courses partly in the nature of the material considered questions
of man and authority, of equal protection, of freedom of
expression.  It differed because he taught by the Socratic
method.  Today, of course, most law professors claim to use the
Socratic method, but they do not.  They are afraid of what
happened to Socrates.  They are afraid really to be like
Socrates, and to ask questions that expose prejudice, hypocrisy,
and sloppy reasoning. But Professor tenBroek was Socratic in more
than technique.  He really compelled us to confront fundamental
issues.  In the University community, too, he was a fierce and
formidable defender of academic freedom for students and
teachers.  If Socrates had had such a defender, Athens's hemlock
supply would not have been depleted.
I can summon up easily the image of his class.  Promptly at ten
minutes after eight o'clock three mornings each week, he strode
in, placed his cane in the chalk tray, took roll from Braille
cards, and began with a challenge to one or more of us:  Can you
reconcile the seeming antinomy of Plato's  Apology  and  Crito ?  
What did de Tocqueville mean in saying that a society which seeks
equality will find liberty to be endangered?   Out of the Supreme
Court's words justifying the World War II restrictions on the
Japanese, what were the central assumptions which had to be made
to reconcile such an interference with the constitutional
guarantees
of freedom of movement, freedom from arbitrary arrest, and equal
protection of the laws?  As students, we wrestled with these
questions, and also with those posed by Milton's  Aeropagitica 
and Mill's  On Liberty , by the Smith Act cases, and by Alexander
Meiklejohn's theory of free speech.
The rewards for our persistence were more questions, and
unceasing pressure for deeper levels of insight. Are you sure of
that reading?  Haven't you overlooked the language two pages
farther on? And we students were persistent, although perhaps (in
reflection) not nearly so wise as we thought. Woven through the
memory of our labor, however, is
the voice and tone of Jacobus tenBroek questioning, arguing,
challenging, nettling.
So he lives on in the work of those of us who studied with him.
I had not been long his student when I learned that he had
written on constitutional subjects.  Thinking to gain some
advantage in his class, I went to the library to find his work. 
This was, for me, a great part of the liberating influence of my
education.  This was the sort of stuff I had come to the
university in hopes of finding.  I had, after all, grown up in
Glendale, where my Texas-born grandmother and New Orleans-born
great-grandmother shepherded me to the Lake Street Baptist Church
every Sunday.  There in the library was tenBroek's co-authored
article titled simply  The Equal Protection of the Laws.   Today,
forty years after it appeared, it remains one of the most cited
of all law review articles in the opinions of American appellate
judges.  This is a statement one can make with confidence in
these days of computer legal research.
I discovered also his books,  The Anti-Slavery Origins of the
Fourteenth Amendment  and  Prejudice, War and the Constitution 
still recognized as the authoritative study on the Japanese
relocation of
World War II.  Then, later when I was Editor-in-Chief of the 
California Law Review , I was able to work with him in
preparation of a volume of essays on the law of the poor.  He
assembled a group of the most eminent legal scholars in America,
contributed two lengthy essays of his own and worked with us on
the  Law Review  to turn the entire symposium into a treatise on
human rights.  He had published pioneer work on the system of
welfare law, forcing it to confront its discreditable origin as
Elizabethan contempt for the destitute and vagabond, and
inveighing against its implacable tendency to ravage the privacy
and dignity of those subject to it.
Now, many people here knew Jacobus tenBroek because of his work
with
this organization and for the rights of those termed 
handicapped.   I want to say that this work was of greater and
more enduring worth because it was a part of his grand and
consistent image of constitutional rights, an image that he
shared, I must add, with Hazel, who was his partner every step of
the way.
tenBroek grasped, as no other scholar or lawyer of his
generation, the essential meaning of equality in the
constitutional sense.  His was not the abstract and arid
speculation grown so fashionable of
late.  His theory was rooted in the history of the Civil War
constitutional amendments, adherence to which was exacted from
the former slave states as a condition of re-entry into the life
of the federal union. His theory recognized what Abraham Lincoln
had known, that unless some commitment to equality came out of
this great Civil War, the nation had no right to exist:  It would
have squandered the blood of its
sons and daughters and traduced the promises made to the former
slaves.   The equal protection of the laws  means that some
differences are irrelevant for constitutional purposes. We must
for almost every public purpose afford equal treatment without
discrimination based upon race, or gender, or religion, or
alienage, or physical handicaps. It was tenBroek's genius to see
that the prohibition against invidious discrimination was
offended as much by forbidding a blind person, on account of
blindness, to sit on an airplane as it was by forbidding a black
person on account of blackness.
But tenBroek also saw that if the analysis stopped there, the
right that he so cogently termed  the right to live in the world 
would be hollow and incomplete.  People are different, in ways of
which the law may take notice.  Indeed, in order that all may
live in the world in as much a semblance of equality as we can
devise,
these differences may and often must be taken into account.  For
black Americans, the right to live in the world means that
government must redress the results of past discrimination.  For
women denied access for generations to large parts of the job
market, the right means affirmative action programs that may
include gender preferences.  And for a blind person, that same
right means that government is obliged to pass and enforce laws
that ensure, for example, equal access to places of public
accommodation, and through such things as white cane laws and
laws about insurance and business ownership to the streets and
byways and professions where other citizens travel and live and
work.
Recognizing and honoring these differences is the essence of 
equal
protection of the laws.   Equal protection  is not  uniformity. 
It is not false equality. It is not charity.
Last night I met two members of the Federation who will be
attending Boalt Hall, tenBroek's law school, and I rejoiced.  For
today when reactionary voices seek to have us forget the lessons
he helped to teach, their presence is welcome and needed in this
profession of ours.
The reason that Jacobus tenBroek's work is so often cited is that
it tells us this truth. It tells us based upon more than
theorizing.  It tells us based upon deep and compassionate study
of the struggle for equality.
Because this study and struggle is the source of tenBroek's
insight, its power is yet felt.  And for this reason again, the
memory of him fills up in some small measure our profound and
enduring sense of loss and keeps us faithful to the causes for
which he fought.         THINK ABOUT IT
 The following article was originally published in a 1987 issue
of  The Michigan Focus,  the newsletter of the National
Federation of the Blind of Michigan. It was reprinted in the
January issue of  Insight,  the newsletter of the National
Federation of the Blind of South Dakota. It provides the parents
of blind children with solid, no-nonsense advice. Braille readers
are leaders, and kids with canes
are kids with confidence. It would be well for everyone with
responsibility and concern for blind children to reflect upon
what is said here. 

If one were unable to travel freely or retrieve and store
information, it would be difficult to participate in society to
any meaningful degree. Further, the more easily one is able to
travel and communicate, the more opportunities for success one
will find. Consider the people we generally think of as
influential, successful, and admirable the President, senior
corporate executives, celebrities, scientists, clergy, educators,
and so on. All these successful people have two things in common:
They have well-developed communication skills, which they use
effectively, and they travel widely in order to do their work.

Now consider what your blind child is learning or not learning in
school: cane travel, Braille (with slate and stylus as well as
with a Braille writer), typewriting, abacus, and handwriting.
If your sighted child were not learning to read or write in the
earliest grades, you would be asking some tough questions of the
teachers and the school system. Your blind child is entitled to
an equal opportunity for an adequate education.  This means (at
the very least and from the very beginning) reading, writing, and
math.
For the blind child there are several essential skills:
@BULLET = Braille We all need a functional communication medium
in order to learn to read, write, and spell.  For the blind
child, there is no substitute for Braille.
@BULLET = Cane Travel Without the freedom of independent travel,
both inside and outside the school, the blind student will not
attain the self-confidence needed to be successful in a
competitive world.  In society there is no substitute for
self-confidence; for the blind student, there is no substitute
for good travel skills.
@BULLET = Typewriting For correspondence and efficient and neat
completion of assignments, there is no substitute for keyboard
skills.  Where should your child go to school? We in the National
Federation
of the Blind believe that every blind child deserves a good
education.  This must be the guiding principle in choosing among
educational programs for your child, rather than geography or
convenience. This decision calls for careful, informed
consideration and thought.  The members of the National
Federation of the Blind are knowledgeable about the relative
merits of various educational options and would be happy
to provide you with the information you need in order to make an
informed decision.

                     What Your Child Needs: 
A Checklist

My child is receiving or has received:
___ Braille  Including instruction with the slate and stylus,
beginning in pre-school with introduction to children's Braille
texts such as  Twin Vision Books. 
___ Travel Instruction  beginning in pre-school.  ___ Keyboard
Skills  Beginning in second grade.  ___ Abacus  Beginning
concurrently with two-column addition.  ___ Penmanship  Beginning
letter identification as early as pre-school or kindergarten.
___ Home Economics  With other students, doing the same
assignments.  ___ Shop/Industrial Arts  With other students,
doing the same assignments.
___ Physical Education/Sports  With other students.PAUL GABIAS AND MARY ELLEN REIHING MARRY
On Saturday, January 7, 1989, Paul Gabias and Mary Ellen Reihing
were married at All Saints Catholic Church in Baltimore. Dr.
Gabias, who received his Ph.D. in psychology from New York
University, organized a chapter of the National Federation of the
blind of Nevada in the
Reno area in 1987 and served as its president until he moved to
Colorado in the summer of 1988. During the 1987-88 school year
Dr. Gabias taught psychology at the University of Northern
Nevada, and he is currently
an assistant professor at the University of Southern Colorado in
Pueblo.  Mary Ellen Reihing, the Assistant Director of Job
Opportunities for
the Blind and one of the most loved and respected members of the
Federation throughout the country, needs no introduction to 
Monitor  readers.  Before coming to Baltimore she was employed as
an assistant to the speaker of the Illinois House of
Representatives; and before that, she worked at Nebraska Services
for the Blind. Still earlier, she was one of the leaders of the
movement in Ohio.
As the weekend of January 7 approached, members of the Gabias and
Reihing families arrived from various parts of the country, as
did a number of leaders of the Federation. Since Miss Reihing has
worked so closely with the deaf-blind, she was particularly
pleased by the fact that two deaf-blind people (Margaret Warren
of Iowa and Gus Gisser of New York) were able to be present.
After the wedding ceremony, which occurred at one o'clock in the
afternoon, Dr. and Mrs. Gabias and the rest of the party
(approximately 160 of them) came to the National Center for the
Blind for the wedding dinner.  It was a beautifully joyous
occasion.
On the following day the Gabiases left Baltimore for a week of
honeymooning at an undisclosed location. Dr. Gabias will finish
the academic year in Pueblo, and Mrs. Gabias will (for the time
being) continue to work at the National Center for the Blind.
                     THE MEAT OF THE BUFFET
                        by Joyce Scanlan
 As  Monitor  readers know, Joyce Scanlan is the President of the
National Federation of the Blind of Minnesota, Secretary of the
National Federation of the Blind, and Executive Director of
BLIND, Inc. (Blindness: Learning In New Dimensions). This article
is reprinted from the Spring/Summer, 1988, issue of the 
Minnesota Bulletin,  the newsletter of the NFB of Minnesota. 

When you have occasion to dine out, what do you look for in a
restaurant?  Would you choose one close by or on a good bus line? 
Are you interested in a reasonable price? Would you rather eat in
a hurry and be on your way, or would you prefer to have a
leisurely dinner with smartly-uniformed waiters who will serve
you in fine fashion?  Depending on your personal preference, you
have a wide variety of options from which to choose from
self-service cafeteria to sit- down dining room, where your every
wish is the command of the attentive staff.
A blind person recently called the Minnesota office of the
National Federation of the Blind to report a problem he had
encountered with two chain buffet restaurants in the area.  He
said that he had been told by the managers that he was not to
return to their establishments unless he brought someone to help
him. His experience stimulated a
seminar discussion at BLIND, Inc., our rehabilitation center in
Minneapolis, of just what help is reasonable for a person to
expect when eating at a buffet restaurant.
The bill of fare offered by this self-service, all-you-can-eat
for $5.75 restaurant chain consists of a salad bar, potatoes,
selection of vegetables, breads, several choices of meats,
dessert bar, and beverages.  The food is generally excellent. 
When you arrive, you stand in line (if there is one) before
paying. Then (picking up your tray, napkin, and silverware) you
proceed through your choice of two food lines.
The first question students asked was what help is available to
customers in general at these buffets? There are people making
sure the serving dishes are adequately filled; others are bussing
trays and dishes
from the tables; one is slicing and serving meat as people pass
through the line; still others are assisting elderly people and
children in carrying their trays from the line to their tables. 
Thus, there are several employees available to provide customer
service.
Students speculated on all the possible areas in which a person
who is blind might ask for help: guidance from the front door,
through
the line any number of times, to the restroom, to the table;
assistance in buttering bread, cutting meat, carrying the tray,
identifying or serving the food. It is conceivable that one
person could request help in all of these areas. If that were the
case, a restaurant would have difficulty maintaining adequate
staff to provide the needed service while holding costs at a
reasonable level.  The advantages of a buffet restaurant are the
price, the speed, and the quantity of food available.  The
trade-off is having fewer employees to provide service.
The question arises of what problems blindness might present to a
person wishing to enjoy the benefits of a buffet restaurant.
Students decided that information was the central issue.  Where
does the food line begin? What does a specific serving dish
contain? It is sometimes difficult to recognize the contents by
touching them with a spoon or fork.  Where are the vacant tables?
We discussed techniques for carrying the tray while using a white
cane and for recognizing various food textures.
The consensus among the students was that, given certain basic
information, which anyone could request, a blind person should be
fully capable of handling all that is required at a buffet. Of
course, the way in
which the request is made is also an important factor.  Making
unreasonable demands is just as bad as rudely and obnoxiously
requiring help or information.
A few days after this discussion, three blind people went to a
buffet belonging to the same chain as the two restaurants from
which the original caller had been excluded.  They brought no
one, blind or sighted, to help. They entered the restaurant,
stood in line with many others, paid, picked up trays and other
utensils, went through the line to get their food, and served
themselves. Occasionally another customer would supply
information or answer questions.  From time to time, they were
offered help by restaurant personnel.  Did they wish assistance
in getting desserts or beverages?  (These were in separate lines
from the main food area.)  Would they like to have someone carry
their trays to the table? All three made more than one trip to
the dessert or beverage line; some visited the main line for
seconds.  Information was the only assistance they needed or
accepted.  When the three were about to leave, the manager, who
had offered help several times, asked them if this was their
first visit to his restaurant.  They said that it was and that
they had enjoyed it. They added that they would come again and
would bring their friends.  The restaurant employee replied that
he hoped they would.
Yes, the buffet is an appropriate choice for a blind person who
wishes to dine out. Each of us sets an example by which all of us
are measured.  The impression we create will inevitably affect us
all. We must take responsibility for our behavior if we expect to
enjoy the same rights as others.  There is no reason why both
blind and sighted patrons cannot enjoy buffet restaurants.
                    OF REGRET AND RESOLUTION
                         by Karen Mayry
 As  Monitor  readers know, Karen Mayry is the energetic
President of both the Diabetics Division of the National
Federation of the Blind and the NFB of South Dakota. This article
is reprinted from the January, 1989, issue of  Insight,  the
newsletter of the NFB of South Dakota. 

Recently, the relative of a man who has been blind for more than
forty years called me. So what, you may say. To those of us who
believe
in the philosophy of the National Federation of the Blind, his
condition is no particular problem. With proper training and
alternative techniques, it can be reduced to a mere physical
nuisance. But this is the crux of the tragic story I'm about to
relate. This man grew up in a small farming community in South
Dakota. As a child, he attended public school but was never able
to read the blackboard and had to hold printed material within
five inches of his face in order to see it. While he remained at
home with his parents, his brothers and sisters grew up, went to
college, found jobs, married, and lived perfectly ordinary lives.
Some time after he finished school, he learned Braille; but when
his mother died, he was relegated to a nursing home. My caller
explained that since no one was able to take care of him, there
was nothing else to be done. At the time, he was in his early
forties; he is now in his mid-seventies.
What happened at the Minneapolis Society for the Blind, where
this
man enrolled for rehabilitation? Did he receive training in
independent living skills? No. Where were the rehabilitation
services of South Dakota? Did they provide this man with
independent living skills?  No. Was he one of the few who falls
through the cracks, one of the handful not helped by state
services? As we know all too well, there
are more than a few individuals who never receive rehabilitation
services despite the millions of tax dollars allocated by the
state and federal government.
Even today some blind South Dakotans are trying to learn skills
through the Prairie Freedom Center a program to teach the
handicapped independent living techniques. Why? Where is the
South Dakota rehabilitation agency? Shouldn't blind people be
learning their skills through the very agency established to
teach them? If we are finding individuals who have never mastered
the alternative techniques of blindness (and we are), the
question becomes, why?
It is a sad commentary on the whole rehabilitation system that
South Dakota is not alone in its failure. Many state agencies
around the country are not providing proper training for blind
people. Often this failure stems from the fact that staff members
do not really believe in the capacity of blind people, despite
the presence of a few blind employees in the agency. But for the
first time, we, the consumers of these services, have a choice.
Three independent rehabilitation centers exist where people can
get excellent training as well as confidence, self-reliance, and
positive attitudes about blindness. The centers are: The
Louisiana Center for the Blind, in Ruston, Louisiana; BLIND, Inc.
(Blindness: Learning in New Dimensions) in Minneapolis,
Minnesota; and The Colorado Center for the Blind in Denver,
Colorado. There is also the excellent program at the New Mexico
Commission for the Blind Orientation Center. These centers are
staffed by sighted people who have learned correct attitudes
about blindness and by successful blind people who believe that
it is respectable to be blind. They have proven it to themselves
and to the world around them through the wide variety of their
personal and professional activities. Perhaps if these centers
had existed thirty years ago, the man of whom I write and
thousands of others like him would not have led such wasted
lives.
With the onset of a new year, we in the National Federation of
the Blind must strive to ensure that such catastrophes no longer
occur.  Every time we prevent one such tragedy, we provide yet
another answer to the question,  Why the National Federation of
the Blind?         MANAGING READING ON THE JOB
                      by Mary Ellen Gabias
 As  Monitor  readers know, Mary Ellen Gabias (formerly Mary
Ellen Reihing) is Assistant Director of the Job Opportunities for
the Blind (JOB) program. She is especially knowledgeable about
what it takes for blind persons really to be competitive in the
job market.  Here is what she had to say in the Spring/Summer,
1988,  Future Reflections,  the magazine of the Parents of Blind
Children Division of the National Federation of the Blind. 

Literacy, broadly defined, is the ability to deal effectively
with
the written word.  Sometimes this means creating well-organized,
properly spelled and punctuated text.  At other times, it means
the ability
to read and interpret the work done by others. For sighted
individuals, literacy involves mastery of print communication
whether it is done by pen, pencil, typewriter, or computer.  For
the blind, literacy involves mastery of a number of distinctly
different systems.  Braille is clearly the most analogous to
print. It is the only system of literacy for blind people which
permits the user to read, write, and review material rapidly and
efficiently.
The major drawback to Braille is that there simply is not enough
of it.  It is estimated that far less than one percent of the
information printed each year is made available in Braille. 
Therefore, blind people must integrate their use of Braille into
a system of functioning which enables them to use print
information.
If the required information is available in machine readable
(computer) form, speech synthesis or conversion into Braille is
possible and quite efficient. If not, the use of a human reader
is still the most flexible and dependable technique for accessing
print information.
To understand the proper role of the reader, we must begin by
distinguishing between appearance and reality.  Is the use of a
reader an admission of dependency, or is it a viable method for
increasing efficiency?  The answer will depend on individual
circumstances.  Here are some general guidelines to consider.
What is the nature of the job to be done?  The amount of print
reading, in and of itself, is less important than its purpose. 
For example, both a blind executive and a blind file clerk may
require a great deal of reader time.  Even so, it may be wise for
the executive to get a reader and foolish for the file clerk to
do so.  The executive is hired to synthesize information and make
decisions.  The file clerk is hired primarily for the ability to
read and sort print. By the time a file clerk trained a reader to
do the necessary reading, that reader could do the entire file
clerk job.  A reader trained to work for an executive would not
have the necessary background or experience to make executive
decisions.
Can the necessary reading be done in definable blocks of time, or
must it be spread intermittently throughout the work day?  If a
blind worker knows that a reader will be needed every Tuesday
from eight in the morning until noon, planning is easy.  If the
worker needs readers for three minutes at a time, but those three
minutes occur randomly, planning is more difficult.  This does
not mean that blind people cannot cope with flexible work
assignments.  A little ingenuity can turn a potential problem
into an opportunity for increased efficiency for the whole
organization.
Blind people preparing for jobs in the year 2000 cannot afford to
ignore the issue of sighted readers.  The computer will not
remove the need.  Neither will increased Braille literacy, though
both will help blind people use the readers they have more
efficiently.  Blind workers must know where to find readers, how
to work with them, and how to integrate their use into the job
setting.  The first day on a new job is not the time to learn
these lessons.
Training programs which prepare the sighted for jobs are not
designed to help blind people wrestle with these questions. 
Unfortunately,
the rehabilitation programs for the blind often do not deal
effectively with them, either.
Blind people learn about readers primarily through trial and
error and by talking with more experienced blind colleagues.  As
is true
with most blindness issues, the best solutions come from a
philosophically consistent understanding of blindness and not
from rigid rules.  Here are a few examples of situations where
the use of a reader has been an asset to everyone concerned.
Mr. Jones was a high school English teacher.  He had fifty or
more
papers to grade each night.  He also had in-class assignments to
supervise.  His reading demands were quite heavy, but he found a
way to use his need as a teaching tool.  He carefully disguised
the authorship of papers and used them to teach his students
about grammar, punctuation, and style.  The students gained a
depth of understanding they would not have had if Mr. Jones had
simply corrected their papers in red ink.
Mr. Jones worked with a local college to find readers.  He hired
education students who wanted to know what teaching was really
like.  The students earned spending money and course credits
while gaining experience.  Mr.  Jones got his papers graded.
Mr. Charles worked as a maintenance mechanic in a large hospital. 
His job required that he read a log book.  He was also expected
to write in the daily log to keep coworkers informed of
maintenance projects in progress.  Since Mr. Charles could not
see to read or write in the log book, other maintenance mechanics
would read it to him at the beginning of the shift.  When his
shift ended, Mr. Charles would dictate his entries to the
mechanic who relieved him.
Miss Winchester worked in an office where she was expected to
analyze proposed legislation and report on its potential impact. 
She also answered telephones when the receptionist needed to be
away from the desk.  She hired a reader for major assignments,
but occasionally she asked the receptionist to read short
documents.
There was no dictaphone equipment in the office, so most staff
members drafted their documents in longhand for the receptionist
to type.  Miss Winchester typed hers from Braille notes.
Often her documents needed only minor corrections.  Miss
Winchester's methods saved work for the receptionist.  Even so,
she sometimes had trouble getting the receptionist to do reading. 
The receptionist seemed to believe that asking sighted coworkers
to decipher their handwriting was part of the job, but reading
aloud to a blind colleague was  doing her a favor.   Miss
Winchester's efficiency suffered because of this artificial
distinction.  So did the overall efficiency of the office.  The
receptionist was astonished when Miss Winchester pointed this out
to her.  Once the receptionist began thinking in broader terms,
Miss Winchester had no trouble getting reading done.

Mr. Jones, Mr. Charles, and Miss Winchester needed readers for
different tasks.  Mr. Charles needed minimal reading help.  Mr.
Jones needed a great deal.  Miss Winchester needed readers
frequently, but for brief periods.  Each of them understood the
necessity for keeping control and taking responsibility.  Each
thought carefully about how and when to use readers.
Cost was not an issue in any of these cases.  Mr. Jones hired his
own readers and used volunteers when he could.  Reading was such
an incidental, although important, part of Mr. Charles' job that
the few minutes it took to complete the log had no economic
impact at all.  Miss Winchester's alternative techniques saved
the receptionist more time than Miss Winchester needed for
reading.
Blind workers and their employers have found innovative ways to
handle reading costs.  The most effective approaches permit the
blind person to retain control of the use of readers.
Mr. Craig is an accountant for a large savings and loan.  He
hired, supervised, and paid accounting students from a local
community college to read for him.  In the interest of
efficiency, his readers did certain clerical tasks which other
accountants used the typing pool to do.  His employer recognized
that Mr. Craig's techniques were saving the company money.
Therefore, they reimbursed him for part of his expenses.
Mr. Curtis began work as a computer programmer before Braille or
speech access to computers was practical.  He hired people to
read print-outs and computer manuals.  Although the employer was
willing to pay for readers, Mr. Curtis insisted on bearing the
entire cost himself.  The readers always knew that Mr. Curtis,
not the company supervisor, was the boss.
Later the company bought a speech terminal for Mr. Curtis.  They
also promoted him to management, which entitled him to some
secretarial support.  Mr. Curtis did not hesitate to ask his
secretary to read to him.  However, he still hired readers from
time to time when his reading workload was heavy.
Each of these individuals devised a strategy for using readers
based on personal preference and the characteristics of the job. 
All of
them began by understanding the use of readers as one more job
skill.  They resisted the temptation to think of their methods as
inferior substitutes for sight.  As a result, their overall
performance was an asset to their employers.
                     WHEN BLIND MEN STUMBLE
Riverplace is an upscale shopping mall in Minneapolis, which has
apparently been having difficulty getting and keeping well-heeled
tenants. One of those tenants (or, more precisely, former
tenants) was Rizzoli's International Bookstore, Inc.,
headquartered in New York. As reported in the October, 1988, 
Corporate Report Minnesota , Rizzoli's was not making any money
and decided to duck out on its lease with Riverplace, first
unobtrusively shipping most of its merchandise back to New York.
Naturally, Riverplace wanted the money for the rest of the lease,
so a lawsuit is now in progress.
What, one may wonder, does all of this have to do with blindness
and the Braille Monitor? The first part of the article in the
October, 1988, Corporate Report Minnesota says:
 NEW YORK-BASED Rizzoli International Bookstore, Inc. and
Riverplace of Minneapolis could have been compared to two blind
men stumbling around in a closed room. Sooner or later, they were
bound to bump into each other. When they did, both came away
bruised. 
Even a decade ago this sort of beginning for a magazine or
newspaper article would have been rather commonplace, but our
continuing effort to change public attitudes is showing definite
results. Today such statements are less frequently made, and when
they do occur, one or another  Federationist around the country
usually takes action. Such was the case in the present instance.
Judy Sanders is the director of Congressman Gerry Sikorski's
district office in Minneapolis. She is also President of the
Metro Chapter of the NFB of Minnesota. She takes both positions
seriously. Under date of November 15, 1988, she wrote as follows:

                                           Minneapolis, Minnesota
                                                November 15, 1988

 Corporate Report Minnesota 
Minneapolis, Minnesota

Dear Editor:
In your October issue Bruce Rubenstein wrote an article about
Rizzoli's leaving Riverplace. He made an analogy comparing
businesses to two blind men stumbling around in a room who will
inevitably run into each other.
I am a blind person who takes exception to that analogy. The
National Federation of the Blind spends a great deal of time
trying to educate the public about the fact that blindness does
not mean clumsiness
or incompetence. This article, written without regard to the
thousands of blind people who are trying to live normal lives in
this country, made a comparison that makes our job more
difficult.
Your readers have a right to know that blind people are no longer
stumbling around, and we are no longer going to sit by while
people write cute stories at our expense.

                                                       Sincerely,
                                          Judy Sanders, President
                                                    Metro Chapter
                                National Federation of the Blind 
of Minnesota
                        LITERATURE REVIEW
 This item appeared in the Fall, 1988,  Future Reflections,  the
magazine of the Parents of Blind Children Division of the
National Federation of the Blind. 

                  Just Enough to Know Better: 
A Braille Primer
    Written by Eileen P. Curran, M.Ed. Published by National
Braille Press, 1988 
A Review by: Doris Willoughby

Parents of blind children realize that if they themselves learn
Braille, they can be much more helpful and involved with their
children's education.  Too often, however, they are bogged down
and intimidated by the regular manual for Braille transcribers. 
Lessons are long and detailed, with rather technical
descriptions.  Precise rules for arrangement on the page
unimportant to the Braille code itself are emphasized.
A thoroughly enjoyable new book from the National Braille Press
changes all this. Short lessons are clearly presented in an
easy-to-read style.  Whimsical illustrations and clever wording
add humor and a cheerful approach.
Practice passages of Braille text consist of articles which
themselves promote positive attitudes:  Braille, the Key to
Literacy,  from a speech by Bernadette Kobierecki, and  A Report
Card for the Teacher  by Mary Ellen Reihing. (The latter is
reprinted with permission from  Future Reflections, 
Spring/Summer 1987.) Each passage is given in double-spaced
Braille, with the intent that the learner will figure it out and
pencil in the words above the corresponding Braille,
workbook-style. When the page is turned, the same passage is then
found in inkprint for verification.
All of the signs of Grade II Braille are presented, with the
common punctuation marks and the numerals. Major rules of Braille
usage are given, though not all exceptions and ramifications are
explained.
 Most of the Braille copy is in the form of actual raised dots
rather than dotted inkprint representations. In a few places the
Braille dots are a bit weak and uneven, but generally the quality
of the dots is satisfactory.
 Positive attitudes are emphasized. The Introductory page begins, 
Great Expectations Your child can learn to read and write, like
you do... maybe better. 
Those learners who do want to study all the technicalities of
Braille transcribing can go on, fortified by this excellent
primer, to the study of the regular transcriber's manual.
Just Enough To Know Better is available at the reasonable price
of $12.50 from:

National Braille Press, Inc. 
88 St. Stephen Street 
Boston, MA 02115
                            CHERRANNE
                      by Charlotte Verduin
 Editor's Note: Charlotte Verduin delivered the following address
July 2, 1988, during the Parents of Blind Children Seminar at the
1988 national convention at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Chicago.
Mrs.  Verduin is an active NFB member and serves on the board of
directors of the Parents of Blind Children Division of the
National Federation of the Blind. 

My daughter, Cherranne, is eight years old. She enjoys listening
to Alf on t.v., reading, and roller skating. She reads, and she
does three-column addition and subtraction. She goes to school at
our neighborhood public school. Cherranne has been blind since
birth due to Retinopathy of Prematurity. That's Retrolental
Fibroplasia in the old language.  I lived through her infancy,
babyhood, and preschool years, so that makes me an expert. How
expert may be judged by the product. I hope my ideas that follow
will help you in shaping your own best products.  First, you need
to think positive! I decided to have a  can do  baby even before
I took her home. This was a mental outlook, a philosophy that
became an approach; and even a baby picks up on confidence. 
There are two tips to increase confidence and decrease anxiety.
First, learn about child development. It's a natural topic of
conversation among family and friends. There are good books to
help you: one called  The First Twelve Months  and another
entitled  Infants and Mothers . Both books include easy-to-read
charts and show the sequence of your major developmental
milestones. I found  Parents' Magazine  easy to read and very
helpful, and it covers age ranges up to the teen-age years.
Second, recognize that each child's timetable will be right.
There is no  normal  child.  Each child will progress through the
many tasks of learning at an individual pace.  The same child
will learn some things fast and some things more slowly.  In the
mythical
 normal  child, this is referred to as  ranges of accomplishment. 
 Such children are referred to as  precocious,   on task, 
or  late bloomers.   Because our children are blind,  precocious 
and  on task  are usually overlooked.  We don't have late
bloomers; our children are  delayed.  Don't buy into this
negative outlook.
The National Federation of the Blind emphasizes ability through
alternative techniques.  I have found that in parenting there are
alternative techniques too.
There is a popular statistic out there that states that 70 to 80
per cent of learning is visual.  If that has any value, to me it
only shows the need to augment or replace visual methods with an
alternative multi-sensory approach. How to do that?  In infancy,
Cherranne had an  exciting crib.   I paid attention to the
texture of her toys.  For example, she had two turtles... one was
solidly stuffed
terry cloth, bumpy and rough; the other was loosely stuffed and
crocheted,
soft and clutchable, good for sinking little fingers into and
shaking!  Cherranne's crib had bells, squeaky toys, a chime ball,
a  happy apple, 
and a music box. The chime ball and happy apple are both round
and make noise.  But one has a stem and leaves and a deep bell,
and the other is smooth and round and has a tinkly chime.
I filled her world with smells and odors... the stink of a new
plastic toy hammer, a doll stuffed with potpourri. Bath time,
meal time, and
changing time are all full of smells, some pleasing, some not so
pleasing.  Sensory awareness on the parent's part shows the child
how rich the world
is.  It leads the baby to interact with his or her surroundings. 
You can improve nursery rhymes, songs and games with actions. 
Baby doesn't have to see you reaching your arms up  so big ; you
stretch baby's arms out  so big.   It's the same game, but it's
much more useful.
Talk about daily activities...  Here comes the t-shirt over your
head; first put in your left arm, now put in your right arm. 
These thoughts help to organize the baby's thoughts.  The baby
starts
to look forward to things happening and the order in which they
happen.  The key in infancy, I thought, was interaction, not
reaction.  Bring your baby's attention to the world and spark
that natural curiosity that babies have.
For toddlers, encourage exploration. You can utilize the child's
trusting nature at this time to attempt new physical activities. 
Be brave, and teach your child to be brave.
Toddlers love to help and imitate. Explain how to do things and
get
them involved.  Toddlers can pick up toys and bring them to you. 
Toddlers can read along and turn pages with you.  Every toddler
under creation discovers the favorite toys pots, pans, and lids! 
Mixing bowls are really fine too. While they are having a
thrilling time  doing it myself,  they learn all kinds of things
about in and out, up and down, big and little, and so on.
Continue talking about daily activities.  More and more is being
understood.  Cherranne learned to do many things as we talked
over the dishes. High up on
a stool, wearing an apron that got soaked anyway, reaching into
the soapy water, rinsing in the clear water, and stacking in the
drainer, we noticed the differences between cups and plates and
saucers, forks and spoons. She started counting, she even started
adding before she was three years old. She took one fork in one
hand and one fork in the other hand; how many forks did she have?
She had two.
At this age the child recognizes order, sequence, and
relationships.  The key now is interaction with more purpose
towards independence in daily living skills, social skills and
mobility.
At preschool age, it is time for programs.  Now is the time for
involvement with other children.  Infants and toddlers learn a
lot from their parents and their family environment.  But
preschoolers begin to learn more and more from their playmates.
Preschoolers are very proud to enlarge their world. It may begin
about age two and never ends.  It gets very intense at preschool
ages.  Answer your child's questions, and even sometimes before
they ask questions. Also, turn the question around on the child,
encouraging the child to use language to express his/her thoughts
about the world.
Preschool is the time to begin Braille... learning to move from
left
to right on a page, going from the top to the bottom of a page,
learning to turn pages in a book, recognizing simple shapes. Many
preschoolers can learn to Braille their names at the same time as
their sighted peers learn to write.
This brings me to a point of advice to parents.  You may not want
to hear it, but I think it is extremely important for you to
learn Braille. I don't know how anyone can teach his or her child
Braille, to help them go through school in any subject if a
parent doesn't know Braille to catch the children's errors and
help them out. Sighted parents can quickly learn Braille by
sight. I took lessons for six weeks to learn Braille.  The
Library of Congress has a self-help Braille instruction book you
can borrow from your regional talking book library.  Cherranne is
now in third grade, and as she learns a new sign in school, I
learn it right along with her. I have enough basic understanding
of Braille to keep up with her.
Preschool blind and legally blind children should absolutely
begin to use a long white cane.  There are two essential rules
for cane travel.  The first is the child's rule...  The tip stays
on the ground.  If the handle is in the child's hand, and the tip
is on the ground, you are never going to go wrong.  The parent's
rule
is,  The cane goes everywhere and the child uses the cane
everywhere he or she goes.  As Barbara Walker says, it's a whole
lot easier to say it than to live it!
The key again at this age is interaction, but at this age, more
often child-initiated.
We can produce independent, competent blind children.  For
society to recognize their value, we have to sell our product. 
We have to
brag on our children and believe in your child's ability to be
independent and give him or her every opportunity to advertise.
               THE BIRTH OF TWO STUDENT DIVISIONS
                          by Tami Dodd
 Tami Dodd is Vice President of the Student Division of the
National Federation of the Blind. She is currently teaching and
working toward her doctorate in English at Michigan State
University at East Lansing.  Here is her account of recent
activities in the Student Division. 

During the past few months the National Federation of the Blind
Student Division has experienced significant growth. Two new
states have joined the ranks of NFB affiliates sporting statewide
student divisions.  This is a development of which we can all be
proud and one in which I am pleased to have played a small part.
Here's how it came about.  Last July at the NFB convention in
Chicago Michael Baillif (our Division President) and I met with
Marilyn Womble, President of the National Federation of the Blind
of Florida, and a group of blind Floridians who were interested
in forming a statewide student division. They wanted information
about how this might be done, the advantages of
such an organization, and the problems or obstacles they might
encounter in the process.
Michael and I answered their questions to the best of our
abilities, while stressing the value of a recognized student
organization and collective action when pushing for crucial
student goals, such as obtaining adequate levels of reader
service funding and securing state agency sponsorship for
students attending private colleges and universities.  They left
the meeting with some useful information and a determined
commitment to carrying this project through.
Melody Lindsey of Stetson University (a former NFB scholarship
winner) spearheaded Florida's organizing efforts. With the
support and assistance of Marilyn and other NFB-F members, she
drafted and sent out a letter to blind students throughout
Florida, discussing the need to form a state student division and
inviting them to an organizing meeting to be held in conjunction
with the NFB-F annual convention in Tampa.  Along with other
Florida students, she contacted, by phone, as many potential
members as she could and encouraged them to participate.  Then,
in order to help get the fledgling division on its financial
feet, she set up and coordinated a 50-50 raffle at the state
convention, selling many of the tickets herself.
As First Vice President of the NFB Student Division, I had the
honor of attending the Florida convention and witnessing the
birth of this new student chapter. Armed with a proposed
constitution (which I had developed in concert with Melody and
Marilyn) I flew to Tampa, met with the students who were there,
and on Saturday, September 17, 1988, at the Holiday Inn Busch
Gardens I conducted the meeting that established the Florida
Association of Blind Students, an affiliate of the National
Federation of the Blind of Florida. The new constitution was
ratified, elections were held, and Melody Lindsey became the
organization's first president. Later that evening Marilyn
presented the new affiliate with its official charter.
The National Federation of the Blind of Missouri Student Division
came about in a rather different way. Both Michael Baillif and I
had been contacted during the past few months by various members
of the
NFB of Missouri who were interested in getting a student chapter
started in their state. Some wanted to be officially recognized
on their college campuses, and others desired a means of
networking with other blind students in order to exchange
information and alternative techniques.  All were committed to
the philosophy and goals of the National Federation of the Blind
and hoped to improve the situation of blind students within their
state. We agreed that establishing a statewide student chapter
would be an excellent way to start. All that remained was to wait
for a suitable opportunity.
Fortunately for our hopes, an opportunity materialized in the
form
of  Focus on Success,  an array of seminars for blind children
and adults, sponsored by the National Federation of the Blind of
Illinois, the National Federation of the Blind of Missouri, and
Alternatives for the Blind in Living and Employment. This annual
event, held in conjunction with the Missouri Bureau for the
Blind, features a seminar for blind students and attracts
participants throughout Missouri and even from other states.
Michael and I were contacted about this event, and as Michael's
proxy, I was asked to participate and work to establish a student
chapter in Missouri.
So on Friday, November 11, I flew to St. Louis and caught a
shuttle to the Downtown Clarion Hotel. I was joined there by our
NFB Student Division Treasurer, Patti Gregory, and other members
of the NFB of Illinois Student Division, who were also attending
the conference.  Throughout that first evening and Saturday we
met and talked with students from various parts of Missouri and
found their enthusiasm for organizing a student division almost
universal. Other members of the state affiliate also provided
support and encouragement.  Then, on Sunday morning, following a
breakfast hosted by the NFB of Missouri Columbia Chapter, NFB of
Missouri President Gary Wunder and I initiated the first steps in
establishing a new student affiliate.  After a brief discussion
of the benefits of organizing led by NFB of Illinois Student
Chapter President Carla McQuellan and me, Gary and I presented a
proposed constitution to the group and oversaw the subsequent
elections. Frank Wozniak from Springfield was elected President
of the newly formed National Federation of the Blind of Missouri
Student Division, and my task was virtually complete.
I have the greatest confidence and pride in both the student
affiliates I played some part in founding, and I know we will be
hearing from them in subsequent issues of the  Student Slate . In
the meantime we extend a warm welcome to the newest affiliate
members of the NFB Student Division.
@TITLE =

                       HAWAIIAN CASSEROLE
                         by LeRoy Sabin

 LeRoy Sabin is an active member of the Pocatello Chapter of the
National Federation of the Blind of Idaho. His wife Betty
testifies to the excellence of this dish. 

 Ingredients: 
1 pound stewing beef
2 packages frozen Hawaiian vegetables
2 8-ounce packages frozen
wild & brown long grain rice
1 8-ounce can pineapple chunks
1/4 teaspoon lemon peel
1/4 teaspoon orange peel

Reserve juice from pineapple. Slice beef thinly, and trim off
excess fat. (This is very important since, because of the short
cooking time, the pineapple juice must be able to reach all of
the meat in order to tenderize it.) Bake meat in pineapple juice
in oven for 15 minutes at 350 degrees. Add rice and vegetables in
layers and sprinkle orange and lemon peel over the casserole.
Return to oven for 25 minutes at 350 degrees.

@BREAK =
 Frances Townsend is an energetic member of the National
Federation of the Blind of South Carolina. As is apparent from
the following two recipes, she is also health conscious: 

                   RAISIN GRANOLA MINI BITES 
(No Sugar)
                        Frances Townsend

 Ingredients: 
1 cup raisins
1 6-ounce can frozen apple juice concentrate
1/2 cup oleo (1 stick)
1 egg
1-1/4 cups flour
1 teaspoon baking soda
1/2 teaspoon cinnamon
1/2 teaspoon dried orange peel
1/2 teaspoon vanilla
2 cups granola or rolled oats

Heat raisins, juice, and oleo until oleo melts. Cool. Beat in
egg.  Mix flour, soda, and cinnamon together. Stir into raisin
mixture.  Add orange peel and granola. Let dough stand one to two
minutes or until the cereal absorbs some of the liquid. Drop by
round teaspoons two inches apart onto ungreased cookie sheet.
Mash down to flatten.  These will not spread as they bake. Bake
at 350 degrees about ten minutes or until light brown on the
bottom. -  1 gram protein, 8 grams carbohydrates. 

                        SUGARLESS SQUARES
                       by Frances Townsend

 Ingredients: 
1 cup dates (cut up)
3/4 cup unsweetened pineapple juice
1 stick oleo
1/4 cup peanut butter
1 egg
1-1/4 cups flour
1 teaspoon baking soda
1/2 teaspoon cinnamon
1/2 teaspoon orange peel
1/2 teaspoon vanilla
2 cups granola or oatmeal

Heat dates, juice, and oleo until oleo melts. Cool. Beat in egg.
Mix dry ingredients and stir into date mixture. Add orange peel
and granola.  Let dough stand until the cereal absorbs some of
the liquid. Spread in 10-1/2 by 15-1/2 inch jelly roll pan, and
bake at 325 degrees for 20 minutes or until lightly browned.

 The following three recipes were submitted by Peggy Hignell, a
leader in the Mid-Hudson Chapter of the National Federation of
the Blind of New York: 

                           PASS  AGAIN
                      BUTTERSCOTCH COOKIES
                        by Peggy Hignell

 Ingredients: 
1/2 cup shortening
1 cup brown sugar
1/2 cup white sugar
2 eggs
1 cup sweetened condensed milk
1/2 teaspoon baking soda
1 teaspoon baking powder
1 teaspoon vanilla
2-1/4 cups flour

 Method:  Mix all ingredients well. Drop by teaspoonfuls onto
ungreased cookie sheet. Bake at 350 degrees for fifteen minutes.
If desired, you may add one-half cup of any of the following:
nuts, raisins, dates, cherries, or chocolate chips.
@BREAK =
                       MOCHA CHIP COOKIES
                        by Peggy Hignell

 Ingredients: 
1 cup butter
1-1/4 cups sugar
1/2 cup coffee
2 tablespoons vanilla
2 egg yolks
2 tablespoons water
2-1/3 cups flour
1 12-ounce bag (2 cups) chocolate chips

 Method : Preheat oven to 375 degrees. Combine and beat well
butter and sugar. Mixture should be creamy. In a separate bowl
combine and mix well cooled coffee, vanilla, egg yolks, and
water. Add the liquid to the butter mixture and beat well. Add
flour, beating well.  Stir in chocolate chips. Drop by
tablespoons onto ungreased cookie sheet and bake for ten minutes.
Makes two dozen.

                       POTATO CHIP COOKIES
                        by Peggy Hignell

Cream together 1 pound margarine and 1 cup sugar. Add 2 teaspoons
vanilla and work in 3-1/2 cups flour before opening and crushing
a snack-size bag of potato chips. Add the crushed chips to the
butter mixture, and stir well. Drop by teaspoonfuls onto
ungreased cookie sheet. Bake at 350 degrees for 15 minutes. Makes
four dozen cookies.  @TITLE =
**Elected:
The Lakes Region Chapter of the National Federation of the Blind
of New Hampshire held elections on November 19, 1988. The
following people were elected: President, Alain Poulin; First
Vice President, Roger Lumbra; Second Vice President, John Parker;
Secretary, Mildred Dickey; and Treasurer, Claire Parker.

**Father William:
It appears in the January, 1989,  Insight , (the publication
of the National Federation of the Blind of South Dakota) and,
unfortunately, is often thought to be true of the blind as well:
We have good news
for you. The first 80 years are the hardest. The second 80 are a
succession of birthday parties! Everybody wants to carry your
luggage and to help you up the stairs. If you forget your name or
anybody's name, forget to keep an appointment, promise to be two
or three places at the same time or spell words wrong...you need
only explain that you are 80! If you spill soup, if your shoes
don't match, or if you carry
a letter around for a week before mailing it...that's all right,
because you're 80! At 80 you can relax with no misgivings. You
have a perfect alibi for everything. Nobody expects much of you.
If you act silly...it's your second childhood. Everybody is
looking for symptoms of softening of the brain! It is a great
deal better than being 65 or 70!  At that time they expect you to
retire to a little house in Florida and become a discontented,
grumbling, limping has-been, but....
If you survive until 80, they are surprised that you can walk and
surprised that you reveal lucid moments!
At 70 people are mad at you for everything!
At 80...they forgive you for anything!
If you ask us...LIFE BEGINS AT 80!
**The Raveled Sleeve of Care:
The following notice appeared in the January issue of  Insight ,
the newsletter of the National Federation of the Blind of South
Dakota:  Crocheting and knitting patterns that have been
published by  Good Housekeeping Magazine  are now available in
Braille at fifteen cents a Brailled page. Requests must include
the originals, photocopies,
or cassette copies of the patterns (to insure a quick return) or
mention of the issues and page numbers in which the patterns were
published.  Crocheting and knitting patterns that have appeared
in other sources can also be Brailled; however, originals or
copies of those patterns must be accompanied by permission from
the publisher to reproduce their material in alternative formats.
For more information, or for information on the low-cost
Brailling of other material, contact TFB Publications, 238 75th
Street, North Bergen, New Jersey 07047, (201) 662-0956.
Correspond by Braille, cassette, or print, but please include
your full return address in the correspondence.

**For Sale:
We have been asked to carry the following announcement: 
Newly-repaired Perkins Brailler, excellent working condition,
$150. Contact in Braille only: Elizabeth R. Saunders, Post Office
Box 667, Macomb, Illinois 61455. 

**Elected:
Mary Donahue writes: On Saturday, January 14, 1989, the Austin
Chapter of the National Federation of the Blind of Texas held its
annual election of officers and board members, with the following
results: President, Jeff Pearcy; First Vice President, Tommy
Craig; Second Vice President, James Bradley; Secretary, Mary
Donahue; Treasurer, Margaret  Cokie  Craig; and board members
Norma Baker and Zena Pearcy.

**Down To Earth Braille:
An event of more or less universal importance was recently
reported in London, England, by the Associated Press and
published throughout the world. Certainly we should not ignore
it. Here it is:
Blind to  Read  Sidewalks Through Their Feet - Scientists are
developing a system of Braille through the feet that will allow
blind people to avoid obstructions on the road, a laboratory said
Tuesday. The blind will  read  by treading blister-type surfaces
that will indicate lamp posts, road signs, trash cans, platform
edges at train stations, as well as where to cross roads,
according to the Transport and Road Research Laboratory in
Crowthorne. The laboratory is testing patterns that can be
distinguished without confusing or inconveniencing others,
especially those with walking difficulties or in wheelchairs,
said Press Association, the British news agency.  Braille, a
system of lettering using embossed dots that can be felt through
the finger tips, was invented by Frenchman Louis Braille in 1829.
He was blinded when he was three.

**Honored:
The following item appears in the October, 1988,  Observer ,
the newsletter of the Montana affiliate of the NFB: Our
congratulations to Jeff Haworth, who was chosen Volunteer of the
Year 1988 at the Montana State Health Care convention. He was
presented with a plaque and a book of Montana at the banquet in
Great Falls September 14, 1988. He has volunteered 10,000 hours
in his five years at the Western Manor Nursing Home in Billings.
Jeff is the newly elected President of the Yellowstone Chapter.

**Beat the Heat; Swim and Eat:
Have you made your hotel reservations for the 1989 National
Federation of the Blind convention, only a few short months away?
Four hotels have been selected to house the delegates close
together and just
off Denver's 16th Street Mall. The Radisson will be convention
headquarters.  It has three excellent restaurants, a health club,
and an outdoor
heated swimming pool. Winnows, the main restaurant, is open for
breakfast, lunch, and dinner. LuluBelle's is open for lunch and
Happy Hour, and TQuila's (Mexican flavor) is open for lunch and
dinner and becomes a disco for dancing until 11:30 p.m. A short
distance on the other side of the Mall is the Hyatt, which has
two fine restaurants and an outdoor swimming pool. We are also
using the Comfort Inn, close to the Radisson and part of the
historic Brown Palace Hotel lots of shops and a very fancy
restaurant, The Palace Arms. Finally, we are using the Holiday
Inn good food and another outdoor swimming pool.
So, pack your bathing suit, and come to three pools a mile high!

**Elected:
Philip Copeland, President of the National Federation of the
Blind of Lorain County, Ohio, writes:  On Sunday, January 8,
1989, the NFB of Lorain County elected the following officers for
a two-year term: President, Philip Copeland; Vice President,
James Somplack; Secretary, Robert Smith; and Treasurer, Lois
Copeland. 

**Braille Greeting Cards:
We have been asked to carry the following:  My daughter and I
make and sell greeting cards Christmas, birthday, get well, or
anything you want. The designs are cut from different colors of
heavy paper and then glued to the front of the card. We have a
lot of verses for all occasions, so the cards are not alike. It
is done by hand except the print inside. Cards with just Braille
are six for $1.00.  Cards with Braille and print are four for
$1.00. Money should be sent with order to: Ruth DiMarzio, 246
Dale Avenue, Mansfield, Ohio 44903. 

**Watchdog:
Dr. Charles Hallenbeck, one of the leaders of the NFB of Kansas,
writes as follows: This announcement from KANSYS, Inc., 1016
Ohio, Lawrence, Kansas 66044: Shareware for your IBM compatible
computer. Remember  TWEEDLE-DUMP  by Tim Cranmer? Try our
software simulation of that device, the  WATCHDOG.  The WATCHDOG
can be asked
to monitor data flow virtually anywhere within your computer and 
growl  in your PC speaker when it happens. Monitor data sent to
your screen, to or from your disk, or any other hardware or
software interrupt.  Get your copy of the WATCHDOG soon. Share it
with a friend. Send us $10.00 if you like it.
@HALFLINE =
**Report from Nevada:
                             Joan Abraham-Tait writes as follows:
                                                Las Vegas, Nevada
                                                November 26, 1988
@HALFLINE =
Dear Dr. Jernigan:
After many years of holding our own here in Las Vegas, the NFB of
Nevada is pleased to say that we held our state convention this
year in Reno. Attendance was excellent. Our chapter in Reno is
vigorous and enthusiastic, and judging from the excellent work
which was done in putting on the convention, extremely competent
as well.
We met this year on October 22 at the Downtown Holiday Inn in
Reno.  Twenty-two of us came up from Las Vegas. It was a good
feeling to get acquainted with our brothers and sisters in Reno.
We hold elections each year, and this year we have an exceptional
group to lead the Federation here in Nevada. Because of his
outstanding performance this past year, we elected Doug Elliott,
the President of our Reno Chapter, President of our state
affiliate. The rest of the officers and board members will have a
very successful year under his leadership. They are: John Tait,
First Vice President; Mary Guy, Second Vice President; Marguerite
Baldwin, Secretary; and James Waggoner, Treasurer. Our four board
members are: Joan Abraham-Tait, Ella Council, Jerice West, and
Terry Glaczinski.
Things are looking up out here. We have a very strong letter from
our Attorney General on file at our major airports. The
Federation has much to do, but because we have hung on when
things were tough, we will work doubly hard now that we see some
further progress being made. New officers take over in January,
1989.
@HALFLINE =
**Sell:
We have been asked to carry the following announcement: 
Smalltalk Laptop computer for sale for $800. Includes three micro
cassettes, `smart' battery charger and cable for hooking up to
IBM and compatible personal computers. Very good condition. If
interested, contact: Eric Caron, 55 Pleasantview Avenue, Albany,
New York 12203.  @HALFLINE =
**Blind Masons:
Fred Flowers is an active member of the National Federation of
the Blind of Maryland. He is interested in forming a Square Club
of blind Masons within the NFB. Must be a Mason in good standing.
You can contact Fred Flowers at: 3525 Woodstock Avenue,
Baltimore, Maryland 21213.  Telephone (301) 325-4825.

**Elected:
 Recently the Tucson Chapter of the National Federation of the
Blind
of Arizona held elections. Those elected were: Robert Tullis,
President; Lee Kerr, Vice President; Roberta Jensen, Secretary;
Joyce Laun, Treasurer; and Ruben Salcido, Board Member.
